Rangemaster May ‘23 DOTM: “Fast, but accurate”

[JCN]

I’m training for IDPA matches as part of my pistol rehab after spending most of the past year making USPSA PCC GM.

My USPSA pistol skills have atrophied down to around an A class level.

Since the DOTM was very IDPA-like but using hit factor scoring, I thought I would run it at IDPA down zero vision pace versus USPSA close Charlies acceptable pace.









The way Hit Factor scoring works is that going 15% faster with close “misses” (that are still good hits) wins the day.

There’s some interesting discussion to be had here regarding visual patience and over slowing. And how one adjusts from one pace to the other based off what you’re requiring of your vision.

Happy to discuss.

Boring long form videos here:

[Clusterfrack]

...The way Hit Factor scoring works is that going 15% faster with close “misses” (that are still good hits) wins the day.

There’s some interesting discussion to be had here regarding visual patience and over slowing. And how one adjusts from one pace to the other based off what you’re requiring of your vision.

Happy to discuss.

Good shooting. And very interesting comparison. (It reminds me of the Mason Lane "Find 100" exercise.)

I'm curious how you approached the two levels of accuracy.

[JCN]

Good shooting. And very interesting comparison. (It reminds me of the Mason Lane "Find 100" exercise.)

I'm curious how you approached the two levels of accuracy.

So the DOTM is a test more than a drill and it's application of the things we learned and trained on SWYNTS.

https://pistol-forum.com/showthread....o-see-training

The point of SWYNTS is to learn and train (and improve!) where your component wobble spread is with regard to recoil management, trigger press and index.

I'll make the note that a 5" circle like on this DOTM isn't a typical target size for USPSA or IDPA but it doesn't matter if you shoot based off vision.

With RDS you can use the dot borders as your auto-ranging reticle.

For IDPA pace where I'm going for down zero, but a close miss isn't catastrophic I know that my trigger wobble lets me place the RDS just inside the border of the scoring area. So I basically trigger trying to keep the dot >3 MOA from the border knowing my trigger wobble can eat up some of that margin. If I had less faithful of a trigger press, I would need to hold the dot closer into the center.

For USPSA pace, I can trigger when the RDS rides the edge so I can push speed a little more because I'm allowing a slightly larger target area for recoil and trigger wobble.

IDPA paper pace is roughly USPSA steel pace and vision where you need to be able to see some target around the border of the RDS reticle.

EDIT: here is a link someone made to a 5” target and the drill instructions.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_Tc...ibextid=Zxz2cZ

[Clusterfrack]

...you shoot based off vision.

With RDS you can use the dot borders as your auto-ranging reticle.

For IDPA pace where I'm going for down zero, but a close miss isn't catastrophic I know that my trigger wobble lets me place the RDS just inside the border of the scoring area. So I basically trigger trying to keep the dot >3 MOA from the border knowing my trigger wobble can eat up some of that margin. If I had less faithful of a trigger press, I would need to hold the dot closer into the center.

For USPSA pace, I can trigger when the RDS rides the edge so I can push speed a little more because I'm allowing a slightly larger target area for recoil and trigger wobble.

IDPA paper pace is roughly USPSA steel pace and vision where you need to be able to see some target around the border of the RDS reticle.

Thanks for the clear and detailed answer. That's similar to how I would approach it. I want to introduce some more points for discussion. Here are the error sources as I see it:

There are errors in accuracy and precision (=wobble) from:
1) Trigger press
2) Index (draw, ready, and reload)
3) Return of the gun after recoil

Depending on people's strengths and weaknesses, the last 2 may be of a greater magnitude than the trigger.

We've discussed and debated the terms predictive and reactive shooting. Possibly "feedback" and "feedforward" are better terms, but you know what I mean.

If we are pushing speed to the mechanical maximum, it's all feedforward index-driven shooting and probably results in a hero-zero score. For a defense oriented drill, I think we can all agree that that is a bad idea (except when working on certain skills).

So, now we're back to "see what you need to see" to address deviations in accuracy and precision. It takes ~0.15 - 0.3 sec for every sensory feedback loop. If we demand a level of accuracy that requires multiple corrections, that's going to burn a lot of time per shot (~1s+ splits). Would you agree that the key is building a level of accuracy and precision that limit the corrections to 1 or 0 adjustments for a given target difficulty? It so, we can invert "see what you need to see" to "know your limits (and stay within them)", which I propose is the most important defensive shooting skill. This would yield a target size/distance that can be shot "quickly" but with confidence.

Thoughts?

[JCN]

Would you agree that the key is building a level of accuracy and precision that limit the corrections to 1 or 0 adjustments for a given target difficulty?

I think that is an elegant way of looking at it.

SWYNTS is to develop the component parts so that there is less correction needed for a given target.

SWYNTS 3y is for index and recoil management.
SWYNTS 7y is for index with 1 correction and more critical recoil management.
SWYNTS 15 yards is for trigger press and to capitalize on the gains from the 3 and 7 yard work.

It so, we can invert "see what you need to see" to "know your limits (and stay within them)", which I propose is the most important defensive shooting skill. This would yield a target size/distance that can be shot "quickly" but with confidence.

Thoughts?

Agree with knowing limits.

Esoterically SWYNTS is a framework for grossly having three “gears” of knowing limits that can be used to scale based off target size and distance.

The phase 1 SWYNTS is to get people to learn their limits and improve the three wobble components.

Phase 2-3 are metering the vision to allow people to choose visual cadence that’s appropriate for the target at hand.

The goal (IMO) of high level practitioners is to See What You Need to See, Nothing Less… Nothing More.

That’s a direct quote from Max Michel.

What it means is that you know your limits and can choose how far inside them you want to go.

Because theoretically too slow might be too slow.

So exploring and developing the limit so you can consciously choose at any given point how much margin you want to give.

I’ll make the side point we have talked about before and @Mr_White have alluded to regarding the better the index the less vision you need. Sometimes you don’t need to see anything to make the hit. You know it’s within your mechanical limit at XYZ distance.

[ViniVidivici]

I shot this today, results below (hell yeah I missed the whole target one time. HA! Was on the first 3 at 7 yards, got moving way too fast).

This is one that, a year ago, I might've approached it concerned mainly with good hits, and failed miserably due to time. But I knew this one was about that balance, and I moved a little faster than I'd be inclined to. I like this one, it went into my Drill Book today as well.