Follow Through - Myth or Fact

Status
Not open for further replies.
Its all in what you believe helps you. I use what I call follow through, it's to me just finishing my shot. It helps me. There are many things shooters use in there routine some hold there breath some shut one eye some put their off hand (for bullseye) in there pocket or belt. What ever makes you shoot better do it. After all this I don't think I will call it follow through when I teach my class I just call it finishing you shot.
 
Highpower matches last weekend..

488X18 and 489X11 Saturday shooting Highpower Rifle matches. Should have been better. I don't think I was concentrating enough on following through enough on every shot. Usually I hold until the target drops, but this was 200 reduced with no berms and no pit service, so the target didn't go anywhere.

Don't follow through if you don't want to. It absolutely can be argued (anywhere but on scorecards, that is) that it can't make any difference at all.
 
Your original post had nothing to do with the fundamentals" of shooting, but asked only about "follow thru".

I agree there are only two fundamentals (those which you have stated), however there are many teaching techniques used to help shooters accomplish those fundamentals on a consisitant basis. Folow thru is one of those.

Actually, as the brain can only think of one thing at a time one of those two "fundamentals" must become un/subconscious. Lots of discussion on which one that should be on "TargetTalk.com" in the pistol area.

For our program we try to concentrate on making the trigger release un/subconscious.
 
Good Point Pat. I did not refer to follow through as a fundamental per se but there are plenty of people teaching follow through as if it were. Here is an example where the NRA teaches follow through as a 'fundamental':

NRA Pistol Training Program

For me... dry fire a lot and training the subconscious to putt the trigger while the conscious mind focuses on the sight alignment.
 
Hi, this is my first post on this forum.

I wasn't a big believer in follow through in any sport until I took golf lessons last year. I was really struggling and my instructor told me it was because I wasn't following through the shot. In my mind, I couldn't understand how any actions I took after the club had hit the ball and sent it on its way could affect the shot.

However, my instructor was absolutely right. Eventhough the ball is half way to the hole, if you don't follow though the shot, it will not be as effective. I started applying this same principle to BE and my scores went up! I don't really know why, but they do. Personally, I don't think it has much, if anything, to do with the amount of time the bullet is in the barrel, but more to do with the mental side of shooting.

Of course, just my opinion and your mileage may vary.
 
What is your definition of 'follow through'?

A golf swing is a relatively strenuous and violent action compared to the steady hold and gentle squeeze of a trigger.
 
There is nothing particularly strenuous or violent about a good golf swing; in fact a good swing looks and feels effortless. In a golf shot follow through is comprised of a lot of acts, keeping head down, knees flexed, maintaining balance, club down the line, and on and on. The concept of follow through is not doing anything that will interfer with executing a good swing. Same with follow through in shooting, fly casting, or anyother physical action IMO.
 
I agree that a good golf swing is not strenuous bit it is a LOT more strenuous than aiming a gun and pulling the trigger hence my use of the word 'relatively' to describe the difference.
 
The same with billard.

I do not know about golf, but billard follow through is important too, although there is no barrel of any kind that might affect movement of the cue-ball if no follow through is applied. And striking a cue-ball with a cue is not a violent movement.

The question is if not following through than when to stop the striking move of the cue? On the strike itself? And who is able to tell when exactly it is, focusing on the hit placement on the other balls?

So following through is the safest way of being sure the hit is made every time more or less the same.
 
Follow thru is a continuation of the action you are effecting to assure the best result possible. At least that definition works for me and I believe that follow thru is important to making good repeatable shots.
 
I do a lot of action pistol an there is such a thing as follow though. Though I do not hold the gun on target after the shot breaks 3 or 4 seconds later there are things I do for a precision shot. The main thing I do is pin the trigger back after the shot as opposed to rolling though the shot when I'm hosing down several targets.

The second thing is how much I see after the shoit breaks. For average shots if I see the sights lift after the shot breaks I know it's there. If I were to shoot a precision shot I confirm. To me that is I let the sights lift, return, and I mentally can see it in replay.
 
Yar said:

...The main thing I do is pin the trigger back after the shot ...

Sounds like trigger control to me. Albeit an unnecessary step to ensure a good shot (IMHO).

There are only two things required to make a precision shot. Sight alignment and trigger control. You do those two things right, the shot will be good.

Consistent successful shooting requires repeating the above while also developing consistent shot process including stance, breath control and grip among others.

Follow through is a ghost from the muzzle-loading past.
 
Mr Dutton,

You seem to have your mind made up about this 'follow through' concept. Your thread has gotten a lot of mileage from folks who agree with you, and more who seem to dis-agree.

Its been a looong time since I read any training manuals from the folks down in Ft. Benning, but from what I remember of the TMs, 'follow through' was considered to be worthy of significant ink.

Maybe its a 'ghost', maybe it isn't. It seems that you want to define follow through much like barrel time. If that works for you, great.

We disagree only in semantics. Some folks see 'follow through' as an ongoing process..You seem to see it as an individual event.

Follow through is part and parcel of trigger control, sight alignment, recovery, and do it again....

To me, and maybe others, it isn't a single event that can be measured, but an ongoing process of delivering a series of rounds to the target.

I dunno, but maybe its kinda like a revolver shooter who thinks that trigger return is as important as important as indexing the cylinder and making the hammer drop. He (she) may see the whole process as kinda/sorta like a round trip ticket...getting back to the orign is as important as getting to a destination.

You see it as 'trigger control', others may well see it as 'follow through'.

Personally, I don't know which of the two it is..just depends on which way the convoluted gray matter between our ears can use it to our best advantage.

Kind like Dan Daly and Ethel Merman singing about 'po-ta-toes' or 'pah-tat-oes'.

However you pronounce 'em, they taste better pan fried, with a mess of grits, ham steak, and scratch biscuits.

YMMV, but I can't help it if you're wrong.:rolleyes:

Respectfully, and for the last time,

salty.
 
saltydog452,

I was reviewing a training program for DMRs from the Army Marksmanship Unit this morning, and they still believe in, and teach "follow-through".

Chuck
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top