Shooting well vs being a good shooter

[GJM]

I have intermittently been thinking about this topic for a while, but in the last day I have listened to part of a PTSG podcast and read a post on Enos that brought this front and center. The question being are you trying to shoot well or learn to be a good shooter.

On PSTG, Stoeger said with a heavy gun like a CZ Shadow 2, you can get a crappy grip and still shoot alphas. With a Glock, that same grip results in a C or D.

Someone on Enos posted the following:



I am all about picking the tool that allows you to better in games, but I don't think you should give up your fundamentals and ability to shoot an "unforgiving" gun like a Glock.

[CCT125US]

So there are several local guys who are pretty solid shooters, using A01LDs, MPA, Staccatos, etc. I am an unranked amateur, using a subcompact, DAO, iron sighted gun, who typically will place ahead of these guys about 50% of the time. The skill is shooting fast, nothing more. I have watched them use a stock Glock and completely smoke me on raw time, but you add up the penalties and it isn't even close. The old saying of more dollars than sense comes to mind. Basically buying points, instead of developing skill. At a certain point, equipment matters, but in my experience, too many shooters spend money on the hardware, and don't invest time in the software.

off to yell at clouds.

[ECK]

Hmm… interesting question. I think it comes down to what metrics you’re going to use to measure shooting well vs being a good shooter. Metric 1: Winning at matches is a good measure for “shooting well” on that particular day and against those that showed up. Metric 2: Dominating at matches on a regular basis against a deep field, that to me suggests a person has achieved the goal of being a “good shooter”.

Either way tho, it’s going to come down to several things: training, practice, and yes even equipment.

Like a lot of you I have a nice collection of pistols. But there are a few that stand out that I shoot much better than others. Case in point, I’m still coming to terms with being able to shoot my Beretta LTT as well as I do my CZ Shadow 2s. I also have a few striker fired guns that I can shoot decently, but find myself being able to get better splits with a DA/SA or SAO gun. Weight-wise, I transition way faster with a 26 oz gun than I do a 44 oz gun, but my shot cadence is much faster with the heavier gun (tho that could be the difference of striker vs DA/SA trigger).

I don’t agree with the sentiment that we’ve abandoned “power” in our game. USPSA recognizes major and minor, and just because the most popular division (CO) is minor-only doesn’t mean that we’ve abandoned power. Open is still alive and well and major PF is still the preference in that division. Plus we still use poppers that require a decent hit to go over. Edge hits or low in the knees from even a major PF round is usually going to result in the popper not going down, and is not going to go well for the shooter when they challenge the popper calibration. Saying that our sport has become a video-game… maybe to some extent, or maybe its the other way around and video games have evolved to more resemble our sport. I grew up in the Space Invaders and Pac-man era, which isn’t very similar, but I can see how the hand-eye coordination and 3D movement that modern video games promotes can be a good “trainer” for contemporary USPSA.

[YVK]

I am all about picking the tool that allows you to better in games, but I don't think you should give up your fundamentals and ability to shoot an "unforgiving" gun like a Glock.

You can extend this subject into different directions. I remember reading a conclusion by a guy who made a GM with a Glock 26 that his grip was only good for a minor pf. Which is understandable since major pf is still hotter than a spiced up 9 mm while classic .45 ACP ball (230 x 830 /1000 = 190) is a different ball game than anything 9.

[PNWTO]

In the context of competition I see nothing wrong with his reasoning; with the obvious caveat it does take a high level to squeak out every bit of performance from the equipment.

Does the advancement of equipment lower that skill requirement? IMO, it may but how deep in the weeds do we get before it's so personalized that any larger correlation is moot.

Competitive drive and masochism may overlap but there's usually a divergence for success of the effort.

In the context of daily use, EDC, CCW, or whatever the flavor of the month is... I honestly don't know. Off the cuff I would say that a simple competency is probably better/easier than a complex competency. But I also don't think being a high level shooter is a hindrance in any way. There's a lot more to that but this isn't the Mindset subforum.

[Darth_Uno]

So there are several local guys who are pretty solid shooters, using A01LDs, MPA, Staccatos, etc. I am an unranked amateur, using a subcompact, DAO, iron sighted gun, who typically will place ahead of these guys about 50% of the time. The skill is shooting fast, nothing more. I have watched them use a stock Glock and completely smoke me on raw time, but you add up the penalties and it isn't even close. The old saying of more dollars than sense comes to mind. Basically buying points, instead of developing skill. At a certain point, equipment matters, but in my experience, too many shooters spend money on the hardware, and don't invest time in the software.

off to yell at clouds.

Well, that's the question: which is better? If I shoot a so-so score, to beat me you can either be more accurate or burn down the targets.

Or, obviously, both.

But I suspect a lot of guys just want to be pretty accurate as fast as possible. Since, they'll argue, that may be more useful in reality (or their Mitty-esque daydreams) than vice versa. Which might not be completely wrong.

[Clusterfrack]

Well, that's the question: which is better? If I shoot a so-so score, to beat me you can either be more accurate or burn down the targets.

Or, obviously, both.

But I suspect a lot of guys just want to be pretty accurate as fast as possible. Since, they'll argue, that may be more useful in reality (or their Mitty-esque daydreams) than vice versa. Which might not be completely wrong.

We all know hosers who seem to rely on luck, and occasionally win. It’s annoying, right? But I’ve watched some of those hosers work really hard, and after a few years all of a sudden they are winning more and more because they’ve figured out how to go at hoser speed and still shoot alphas.

But, as you wrote a lot of hosers just keep hosing, never practice, and are happy pulling the trigger really fast.

[Noah]

@GJM Would it be fair to say that "shooting well" is a judgement of results, but being a "good shooter" is a judgement of process? IE, someone might get good results with a 53oz minor gun, without actually employing a good process which would yield good results from a 24 oz stock Glock?

I just finished shooting a match with a mostly stock G45 in Limited Minor from appendix, because that is what I carry. Most other people are shooting steel frame guns OWB, sure. It would be fair to say my main goal is improving the process of being a good shooter with my defensive gun who can use my brain (stage plan, rules, etc) while shooting. If I was -only- chasing good results ("shooting well") I guess it would make more sense to game the equipment as much as possible.

Obviously, tons of people are "good shooters", who happen to shoot a heavy metal gun. This would be a mindset issue and a continuum vs binary issue. But those same people can also shoot a plastic gun (Stoeger with a Glock) or anything else ( @JCN with a 365 or Taurus view or whatever weird project) very well.

[GJM]

@GJM Would it be fair to say that "shooting well" is a judgement of results, but being a "good shooter" is a judgement of process? IE, someone might get good results with a 53oz minor gun, without actually employing a good process which would yield good results from a 24 oz stock Glock?

Yes, that is what I am discussing, as was Stoeger. Nils basically said the same thing about the steel Rival vs the polymer one -- you can do everything with the polymer Rival you can with the steel one, but the polymer gun requires more perfect technique

My interest in this is not how one shooter compares to another. Shooting games are just that, games -- run whatever you think gives you the best chance of accomplishing whatever you are gaming for. However, to be the best you, I think it may be helpful to also shoot things that are harder to shoot to help refine your technique.

I would add that I am not suggesting that shooting a stock Glock 19 will help you master shooting an Open gun, or some of the CO guns that nearly are Open guns. Those guns require a high level of skill to max perform them. The hard to shoot guns, however, do expose defects in your technique that may be harder to spot with the easier to shoot, heavy gun with the light trigger.

[Bergeron]

Shooting local matches now, compared to what it was like 20 years ago, I would take the position that the combination of technology and divisions help newer and less experienced shooters have successful experiences and lowers the barrier to entry. I see fewer "total failures" of marksmanship now than then, and I think that's a positive trend.

While I need to get my own match attendance back up, a newer local shooter is probably shooting a P320 with a Holosun, or more broadly, a CO gun. I would agree that a shooter doesn't have to be that dialed in to make hits with a full-size dotted 9mm. At the same time, if a newer shooter approached anyone here and asked for guidance on full-sized pistol purchase, I'd be surprised if anything other than a dotted, double-stack 9 were recommended.

At the same time, advancements in ammunition have gotten us to the place where, for anything greater than 9mm+P, the juice isn't worth the squeeze. I've shot my local range's Pistol 1 class with both a Roland Glock and an iron-sighted 10mm 1911- the heavier recoil, iron sights, and lower capacity all make for more work, attention, and "shooter talent" needed from the older gun to achieve the desired standards.

It's my perception that match guns tend towards being heavy. I should have a PRS match rifle in hand before the month closes out, and it's a braked .308 that'll probably weight in at close to over 20 lbs. It'll be forgiving in ways that an original M40 or M24 wouldn't be, but just like our USPSA pistols, everyone who hopes to be competitive at the highest levels (I'm sure not) must have perfected, rock-solid, repeatable-on-demand fundamentals, at the highest efficiencies and speeds