USPSA Production trigger options for Glocks

[wtturn]

Why can’t it be both? Equipment improvements can improve results for even the best of shooters. Even though that improvement could be minuscule comparatively, nationals have been won / lost by less than .1%.

Also, Glock triggers can be down right uncomfortable over long shooting sessions. Making the gun more comfortable to shoot makes practice more conducive.

Using "the best" shooters as an example is a bad way to make your point.

The top shooters in the vast majority find equipment that works for them and then they leave it alone.

When it comes down to the last few tenths and hundredths to decide a major match, it has nothing to do with equipment and everything to do with skill and preparation and no small amount of luck.

It's very common for newer and lower level shooters to overemphasize the role of gear. The sooner one is able to get past that idea, the sooner one is able to really understand this game.

Anyway, that's my bit of free advice. You can listen or not. But at the risk of being labeled a dick (not my intention), the plain fact is that no one who is not a rank novice or physically disabled belongs in D class. My conclusion is that there is something wrong with either the training methodology, volume, and/or mindset here.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk

[Norville]

Using "the best" shooters as an example is a bad way to make your point.

The top shooters in the vast majority find equipment that works for them and then they leave it alone.

When it comes down to the last few tenths and hundredths to decide a major match, it has nothing to do with equipment and everything to do with skill and preparation and no small amount of luck.

It's very common for newer and lower level shooters to overemphasize the role of gear. The sooner one is able to get past that idea, the sooner one is able to really understand this game.

Anyway, that's my bit of free advice. You can listen or not. But at the risk of being labeled a dick (not my intention), the plain fact is that no one who is not a rank novice or physically disabled belongs in D class. My conclusion is that there is something wrong with either the training methodology, volume, and/or mindset here.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk

I think a better trigger, or sights, or whatever improvement makes a larger difference for a novice percentage wise.

Give a newbie Vogel ‘s Production gun and they will shoot a little better. Give Vogel their gun and he will shoot the same as always , although he is used to his 3 pound trigger. Time behind the gun and mastering the fundamentals, along with the ability to apply them under all circumstances is what makes a good shooter.

At my local club, the chronic D shooters never practice and show up to socialize once a month.

[Bucky]

Using "the best" shooters as an example is a bad way to make your point.

The top shooters in the vast majority find equipment that works for them and then they leave it alone.

When it comes down to the last few tenths and hundredths to decide a major match, it has nothing to do with equipment and everything to do with skill and preparation and no small amount of luck.

It's very common for newer and lower level shooters to overemphasize the role of gear. The sooner one is able to get past that idea, the sooner one is able to really understand this game.

Anyway, that's my bit of free advice. You can listen or not. But at the risk of being labeled a dick (not my intention), the plain fact is that no one who is not a rank novice or physically disabled belongs in D class. My conclusion is that there is something wrong with either the training methodology, volume, and/or mindset here.

Actually, I think an example of a novice shooters ability to optimize advantageous equipment may be an even further delta than a pro. I've seen steel challenge matches with dual entries where the top shooters have a very close overall time in limited division as open. Go down to the middle of the pack, and the gap between same shooter open versus limited gets to be a much wider gap.

"When it comes down to the last few tenths and hundredths to decide a major match, it has nothing to do with equipment".

That's because they ARE typically using the top equipment in their division. Sometimes they may not. I'm of the opinion that every time Dave Sevigny or Bob Vogel won Limited or Limited 10 with a Glock, they had to shoot even better (percentage wise) than what the actual percentage spread they had over the next guy with an STI.

Look, no one is saying that skill isn't the most important aspect, but to make it sound like equipment doesn't matter at all is disingenuous.

And again, practice is one of the key aspect of developing skill. And if that Glock trigger gives you discomfort, then replacing it will make you more likely to practice more.

[Alpha Sierra]

Actually, I think an example of a novice shooters ability to optimize advantageous equipment may be an even further delta than a pro.

How can that be so? To "optimize advantageous equipment" one must actually know how to use it to its fullest advantage. That requires skill and time behind the gun: the two things that novices typically are lacking in.

[wtturn]

That's because they ARE typically using the top equipment in their division. Sometimes they may not. I'm of the opinion that every time Dave Sevigny or Bob Vogel won Limited or Limited 10 with a Glock, they had to shoot even better (percentage wise) than what the actual percentage spread they had over the next guy with an STI.

Look, no one is saying that skill isn't the most important aspect, but to make it sound like equipment doesn't matter at all is disingenuous.

And again, practice is one of the key aspect of developing skill. And if that Glock trigger gives you discomfort, then replacing it will make you more likely to practice more.

They're shooting whatever gun and setup is most advantageous for them. At the top, these guys who are fighting for tenths and hundredths are fighting like hell for the tiniest, most incremental advantages possible, and yet I think it's instructive that top guys are not the guys talking about gear. It's the low and middle pack with the gear obsession.

There is no One True Gun across entire divisions.

There is no universal inherent advantage in an STI over a Glock or a CZ Shadow over a Glock. There are clearly perceived advantages and in some cases individual advantages of one gun over the other but in general all this talk about relative advantages of particular guns is just easier than getting good.

Trust me, I've been down this road. I was assured that shooting a Glock was insane at my level and that to really be somebody I needed a Shadow 2, despite a stack of HOA trophies procured with a Glock. Fine, I got a pair of Shadow 2s. And all that happened was I shot the same as I did before. It's fool's gold.

I've heard the story about Gucci gear making you want to practice more a hundred times before and I don't buy it. At every USPSA match in this country, I promise you will find that the absolutely nicest and most expensive guns/triggers/belts/pouches/etc. will be in the hands of those who finish in the lower half of the results. It's a phenomenon. Gear will never solve a motivation issue.

I feel like I'm leading a dead horse to water and still surprised he won't drink.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk

[wtturn]

One more thing:

I think you boys on the other side of this debate have conceded that if there exists a quantifiable advantage of one kind of equipment over the other, it's in terms of tenths of percents.

For the sake of argument, I'm going to point your own logic back at you. If we have a guy who averages 40%, is his new finish at 40.1% gonna mean anything? Anything at all?

Now consider what kind of percentages would be gained by: reducing you raw field course times by 2-3 seconds with some movement training. Or shaving a tenth off your draw. Or working on your visualization so you don't fail to engage targets anymore. Or working on trigger control so you cut your miss and no shoot penalties in half.

Now we're talking real numbers, double digit percentage numbers.

All I'm saying is that if I woke up tomorrow wanting to be on the Olympic swimming team, I probably wouldn't start by shaving my legs.



Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk

[GJM]

These discussions are often presented as a choice between practicing more or buying equipment. If you had to choose, it should always be to practice more. However, many people do not have to choose, and they can practice and tinker with gear. For example, I don’t believe I have ever seen Max Leograndis shoot the same equipment, and he is constantly “refining” his PCC set-up. On the other end of the spectrum, there are folks who are constantly fiddling with gear, never practicing, and their results, as you would expect, are poor.

More developed shooters have deep enough skills that they can shoot most guns. However, less developed shooters often have deficiencies in certain areas where equipment might make up for a skill problem. Gun companies push this since saying “equipment doesn’t matter” is not great for selling hardware.

[Bucky]

How can that be so? To "optimize advantageous equipment" one must actually know how to use it to its fullest advantage. That requires skill and time behind the gun: the two things that novices typically are lacking in.

Because it’s easier to shoot a dot sight, so those less proficient can take more advantage over that than a really good shooter is proficient enough with iron sights, that when they use a dot Times don’t increase all that much.

[Bucky]

They're shooting whatever gun and setup is most advantageous for them. At the top, these guys who are fighting for tenths and hundredths are fighting like hell for the tiniest, most incremental advantages possible, and yet I think it's instructive that top guys are not the guys talking about gear. It's the low and middle pack with the gear obsession.

There is no One True Gun across entire divisions.

There is no universal inherent advantage in an STI over a Glock or a CZ Shadow over a Glock. There are clearly perceived advantages and in some cases individual advantages of one gun over the other but in general all this talk about relative advantages of particular guns is just easier than getting good.

Trust me, I've been down this road. I was assured that shooting a Glock was insane at my level and that to really be somebody I needed a Shadow 2, despite a stack of HOA trophies procured with a Glock. Fine, I got a pair of Shadow 2s. And all that happened was I shot the same as I did before. It's fool's gold.

I've heard the story about Gucci gear making you want to practice more a hundred times before and I don't buy it. At every USPSA match in this country, I promise you will find that the absolutely nicest and most expensive guns/triggers/belts/pouches/etc. will be in the hands of those who finish in the lower half of the results. It's a phenomenon. Gear will never solve a motivation issue.

I feel like I'm leading a dead horse to water and still surprised he won't drink.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk

Your horse to dead water wouldn’t be so, if you paid better attention. I REPEATEDLY said training and practice is paramount.

If equipment mattered not, then you should be as proficient with a Glock 26 as with a Shadow 2. No? So it matters somewhat.

“Gucci gear making you want to practice more”

I said nothing of Gucci gear. Something that makes the gun less discomforting to shoot.

ETA:
“I think it's instructive that top guys are not the guys talking about gear. It's the low and middle pack with the gear obsession.”

Guys at the top talk gear ALL the time. Many just don’t talk about it as publicly, as it’s not in their best interest.

ETA2:
I switched from Glocks to Shadow 2s, and in some cases I’ve seen better results. 4 or 5 years ago, it probably wouldn't have mattered. However, with many of our local matches going the very accuracy intensive route, the added inherent accuracy combined with the ease to shoot accurately, has paid off, at least for me.

On a personal note, I’ll add that after 27 years shooting USPSA, changing gear helps keep it interesting.

[Bucky]

These discussions are often presented as a choice between practicing more or buying equipment. If you had to choose, it should always be to practice more. However, many people do not have to choose, and they can practice and tinker with gear.

Very well said.