Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ... 4567 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 64

Thread: Reactive vs Predictive shooting

  1. #51
    Quote Originally Posted by JCS View Post
    Predictive vs reactive is confusing terminology for people I think.

    If .2 is the limit of reaction time then basically all of shooting is done predictively yet shooters are relying on vision even at speeds under .2, which is reactive.

    It seems very confusing.

    Makeup shots are reactive, but Christian Sailer does them sub .2. So is he reacting or predicting?

    Confusing to my simple mind.
    I agree that it's confusing and I think the key thing is to define what exactly you are predicting or reacting to - I think along the continuum of shooting pace you can be reacting to the lift of your dot + feel of your grip and predicting the return of your dot at the same time.

  2. #52
    Deadeye Dick Clusterfrack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Wokelandia
    Quote Originally Posted by JCS View Post
    Predictive vs reactive is confusing terminology for people I think.

    If .2 is the limit of reaction time then basically all of shooting is done predictively yet shooters are relying on vision even at speeds under .2, which is reactive.

    It seems very confusing.

    Makeup shots are reactive, but Christian Sailer does them sub .2. So is he reacting or predicting?

    Confusing to my simple mind.
    I’ve often queued up makeup shots before the first shot was fired. I know it’s going to be a miss but can’t or don’t want to stop the shot.

    This is based on sight trajectory, grip, etc.
    "You can never have too many knives." --Joe Ambercrombie
    Shabbat shalom, motherf***ers! --Mordechai Jefferson Carver

  3. #53
    I think it's also worth noting that it's easier to shoot a fast makeup shot when you missed the first shot on a target rather than the 2nd. For example if I'm transitioning to a USPSA cardboard target and I send the 1st shot a little early or I see a funny dot squiggle from bad grip or disturbance from my movement, I have extra time to process that while I fire the 2nd shot so the 3rd shot comes out at a similar split to shot #2.

  4. #54
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Location
    out of here
    Quote Originally Posted by Clusterfrack View Post
    I’ve often queued up makeup shots before the first shot was fired. I know it’s going to be a miss but can’t or don’t want to stop the shot.

    This is based on sight trajectory, grip, etc.
    Quote Originally Posted by Eyesquared View Post
    I think it's also worth noting that it's easier to shoot a fast makeup shot when you missed the first shot on a target rather than the 2nd. For example if I'm transitioning to a USPSA cardboard target and I send the 1st shot a little early or I see a funny dot squiggle from bad grip or disturbance from my movement, I have extra time to process that while I fire the 2nd shot so the 3rd shot comes out at a similar split to shot #2.
    I used to do that… but then I wound up automatically making up bad initial indexes with a third shot… on Virginia count classifiers…

    So now I try not to program that in and I just try to index better haha.

  5. #55
    Member JHC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    North Georgia
    Yesterday a few reps of shooting "hammers" from 7 yards with an EPS sighted G19 and yes, most of the time I could perceive the red streak in recoil so one might say there is continous sighting in the predictive mode. The RDS makes perceiving this easier for me than out of focus recoiling front and rear sights. What any of that is worth for me is questionable.
    “Remember, being healthy is basically just dying as slowly as possible,” Ricky Gervais

  6. #56
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Savannah, GA
    I consider reactive shooting any shot that I mentally confirm the location of the sights/dot prior to breaking the trigger. That doesn't meant the sights have stopped moving or the dot is steady, it simply means I'm confirming the location prior to breaking the shot.

    I've talked with and trained with JJ Racaza several times in the last year, and he refers to different targets as "control" (difficult) vs. "action" (easy) targets. For the control targets, the way he recommends shooting them is prep the trigger -> confirm the sights -> break the shot. I've been training this and doing this and it's made my hit percentage on distant small steel much more reliable, as well as my ability to squeeze in tight A zone hits on partials. For closer partials, the splits can still be sub .20, which means this is still happening subconsciously (more on that below), but there is a mental recognition that the sights are ready before pressing the trigger.

    For me, predictive shooting is not one sight picture/two or more trigger presses. I am still observing the sights individually for each shot, but I'm not necessarily waiting to confirm the sights like a control target, I am meeting the sights with a trigger press as it returns back into a target zone.

    In the first video I shared here, the only two "reactive" sight pictures in the stage are the very first one, which is a 25 yd mini popper behind a barrel, and the second to last target, which is a 20 yard partial. In the second video, the only reactive sight pictures are on the two partial targets in the array of 4 targets. As @GJM noted, you can hear the difference in cadence when I engage those targets vs. the open targets next to them. Mentally I am confirming that my dot is floating in the brown and not the black before breaking those shots: https://pistol-forum.com/showthread....=1#post1444157

    An important point to emphasize with all this: whether or not I am using a predictive or a reactive sight picture, I am shooting subconsciously. I.e. I'm not consciously thinking about executing any individual action of my shooting, I am just letting my subconscious execute based on the plan I've developed and visualized. I think that's why you can see "reactive" shooting still have sub .20 splits, because the subconscious can process what's going on faster than a conscious reaction.

  7. #57
    Deadeye Dick Clusterfrack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Wokelandia

    ssusa.org - Predictive And Reactive Shooting

    Good article in NRA Shooting Sports on predictive vs. reactive shooting

    https://www.ssusa.org/content/predic...tive-shooting/
    "You can never have too many knives." --Joe Ambercrombie
    Shabbat shalom, motherf***ers! --Mordechai Jefferson Carver

  8. #58
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Location
    out of here
    Quote Originally Posted by Clusterfrack View Post
    Good article in NRA Shooting Sports on predictive vs. reactive shooting

    https://www.ssusa.org/content/predic...tive-shooting/
    See, this is the issue again.

    By Joel’s definition I never shoot predictively because I ALWAYS have two sight pictures for two shots.

    Even at max splits.

    Name:  IMG_3227.jpg
Views: 299
Size:  55.9 KB

    If you use the modified definition of “predictive” where you’re only allowed minimal input, fine.

    But I still think the Stoeger / Park dichotomy of predictive and reactive is harmful. It’s a continuum not a dichotomy.

    Even down to 0.16 doubles I can still steer the second shot somewhat. Why not take that advantage to correct an off index.

  9. #59
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    May 2022
    Location
    Michigan

    Reactive, predictive article I just read

    I didn't really understand the difference in reactive vs predictive shooting despite having an explanation from Clusterfrack several months ago. I read an article in Shooting Illustrated a couple days ago that made the difference clear to me. The article credits Ben Stoeger with coming up with the phrase predictive shooting. It basically said what others here have said: reactive shooting involves reacting(firing) the next round when the shooter sees his front sight return to the target center. It defined predictive shooting as firing the next round a hair before seeing the front sight fall back onto the target. It essentially said with enough experience a shooter should be able to predict when his front sight will return on target based on the feel of the guns movement, his index points and experience. I don't know if the definition of predictive shooting is different than how firing double taps is described. As far as I read the difference, I would say it's best to first have a good handle on reactive shooting before attempting to advance to predictive shooting.

    Good topic!

  10. #60
    1) as Clusterfrack alluded to, there may be something that is closer to predictive than reactive, but still involves more seeing the dot than pure predictive shooting.

    2) math matters in a hit factor game like USPSA. Let's say you are .05 faster shooting predictively. With, for example, a 5 hit factor stage, a Charlie costs you .40. That means you need 8 Alphas predictively to offset a single Charlie due to shooting predictively. The higher the hit factor of the stage, the lower the "cost" of a Charlie.

    3) you also need to experiment how shooting predictively fits into your transitions to the next target.
    Likes pretty much everything in every caliber.

User Tag List

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •