Top U.S. Army Marksman Explains Why Gun Nuts Shoot Better

[basicblur]

This article will no doubt make a lot of folks whine, particularly a couple of my oft repeated (and against "conventional" wisdom) techniques, which he mentions in the article:
1. He lambasts the commonly repeated advice that shooters should “squeeze” the trigger in such a way that they feel surprised when the weapon goes off.
2. Another faulty notion is the idea that the shooter should keep their focus on their weapon’s sight as they aim.

At's right...sooner or later you'll all come around to basicblur's way of thinking (I'll wait)!

I've long advocated a "controlled slap" for the trigger, and I focus on the target, not the front sight (although I have seen an article discussing why as you age you may be more inclined to focus on the target).

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/top-army-marksman-explains-why-gun-nuts-shoot-better-469f8dfd917f

 

[rcmodel]

Well, I disagree.
But I shot with old Army AMU many years ago, so what do I know?

Slapping the trigger may make you fast at 7 yards in a combat match?

But it won't win you any top level NRA Bullseye pistol trophies at 50 yards.

Rc

 

[Deaf Smith]

Oh comeon gang, Bill Jordan was a top shotgun and rifle competitor. Charlie Askins was a top NRA bullseye shot, Jelly Bryce was a top competitor, Jim Cirillo was a top Police Match competitor.

And part of Cirillo's list of what makes a NYPD Stakeout squad member was being a shooting competitor, hunter, reloader, etc.

Sure being an excellent shot will help. Sure being under match pressure often will help. Sure having killed game under hunting conditions will help.

Won't guarantee you will still do well, but it will give you an edge.

Some people can keep their wits under pressure better than others and use their sights as well as their fine trigger control.

Some cannot, but those that can do have an edge.

Why is this found to be shocking information? Been known for quite a while.

Deaf

 

[readyeddy]

His problem with the surprise break is mostly semantics imo. The compressed surprise break allows you to select the moment you want to fire.

For example, when shooting off hand, the gun is constantly moving and the trigger has to break at the precise moment the sights are aligned with the target. This is often done with a surprise break, but it's just done on a compressed basis.

 

[Caliper_Mi]

Different techniques for different shooting. Shooting on the move at moving targets isn't done at extreme distances nor is it precision marksmanship. Try slapping the trigger while focusing on a 400yd target (especially when shooting irons).

Now, at short ranges, his techniques certainly would come into play and be quite successful.

 

[strambo]

Yes, semantics re: trigger squeeze. Squeezing the trigger so as not to disturb the sights and yet doing so deliberately so you know when the gun will fire does not equal slapping the trigger.

The slow squeeze and surprise break is a teaching technique for beginners who's biggest issue is trigger control. More advanced shooters know how to make the gun go off when they want it to w/o disturbing the sight picture in the process.

Good article though.

 

[Cee Zee]

Shooting precise at distance still means you have to pull the trigger while you're aimed at the point you need. The human body has a nasty habit of moving and it takes very little of that to make the difference between a direct hit on a 5" target at 500 yards and a miss by a foot shooting the same target at the same distance. I don't "slap" my trigger and I dang sure know when it's going to fire. If I didn't I wouldn't be as accurate. I time my trigger pulls to happen between heart beats. That means precise control over when the bullet goes bang. If it surprised me it wouldn't be between heart beats very often. IMO long range precision shooting requires a light trigger or somewhat more practice with a heavier trigger. I need to know when my gun is going to fire to make sure everything is right and timed perfectly. My breathing, my heart beat, my hold on the target and the way I pull the trigger all have to come together at just the right time. If I'm aiming off target when my heart is between beats I'm not going to hit my target perfectly. If my breathing isn't right I won't hit the target. If I pull the trigger badly I won't hit it either. All those things have to work together IMO. It takes some practice to get it all going right too. But I'm sorry, I don't want to be surprised by my trigger. Heck even my best rifle shooting from sandbags can be tweaked off target just a hair by bumping the stock with my shoulder just so. And I don't know about you but I can't completely control my muscles all the time. I don't think I need to. I just need to control them when the round goes pop. I usually think "shoot" more than anything. It has to be muscle memory IMO.

 

[denton]

If you don't feel the Zen, you won't understand the "surprise discharge" idea. I suppose that many shooters never have that experience.

When I am at my best, the whole world goes away. Nothing exists but the crosshairs and the bullseye. My grip slowly tightens, there is a loud bang....Oh...yeah... the rifle went off.

 

[200Apples]

.
Exactly.

Surprise break... compressed surprise break... controlled slap...

Call it whatever you'd like, but if you're expecting the rifle to fire you're prone to flinch. That's what Cooper meant. This guy? I lol that he takes the "surprise break" to mean an ND. Hahaha... that's being a borderline tool. Who cares if he's "Top U.S. Army Marksman". What's the "Top U.S. Marine Marksman" have to say about the topic?

Gimme a break. <--- see what I did, there

 

[rcmodel]

We were taught to slowly tighten the pull on the trigger each time the sights wobbled past the X-Ring.

Until the gun went off.
And it would normally go off while the sights were on the X-Ring.

I shot with a old MSG in AMU who drank like a fish all night, and wobbled and weaved on the line like a hung-over drunk.
Which he was.

But there was hardly anyone else in the military who could ever beat him in a pistol match.

I can assure you he wasn't slapping the trigger and shooting rat-hole 10 shot groups in the X-Ring with a .45 at 50 yards!

rc

 

[JohnKSa]

I've long advocated a "controlled slap" for the trigger...

This can work with some styles of triggers. I've never seen anyone who can effectively use the technique to shoot a DA revolver-or any gun with a trigger that relatively closely mimics a DA revolver pull. Unless, of course, the range is very, very short and the target is large

 

[Cee Zee]

If you don't feel the Zen

The Zen? Really? What does a hokey eastern religion have to do with shooting? The river is laughing at you. Laugh with it. Full Buddhahood is achievable. Nope. Nothing in there about shooting. There is some stuff about observing your breathing and controlling it. Your mind too. Nothing about turning off your brain except during meditation. I've read Alan Watts, some Jack Kerouac (couldn't hack his self congratulatory hedonism), etc.. Zen isn't about controlling your body to shoot better. There are westerners that have glomed onto Zen and tried to make it fit our modes of thinking. Watts called that "square zen" where what he called squares tried to make Zen fit their world view. He was a beatnik of course but he didn't like their version of Zen either. He called it "beat Zen". Then there was just plain Zen which is the real Zen. "Beat Zen, Square Zen, And Zen" was one of his more popular books actually. It's was more hippie than I care to remember now. But Zen does not apply to shooting or any other form of work. That's what the squares want from Zen. Zen is about nothing but achieving enlightenment. And BTW just realizing that it's about that is not achieving it. That's what the beatniks thought. Jack Kerouac was not so much a Dharma Bum as just a plain old bum who wanted to stay drunk and not work. That's beat Zen. File this under too much information if you want but I guess it kinda gets me that people throw the term Zen around so loosely. Zen doesn't teach you how to shoot.

Clearly learning to control your breathing and your thinking are important and tangentially related to Zen too but being aware of your trigger pulling is just as much a part of square Zen if you want to go that way.

 

[Tirod]

If you want to learn how to flinch even more, continue to be surprised every time the gun goes off. Being surprised is a fear reaction. If you are going to slap the trigger, take the guard off - you can get an even longer running start at hitting it by moving your hand more.

The problem with discussing these old chestnuts is the language we use - it doesn't accurately describe what is being done. I was taught the controlled squeeze, it's nice to do that to increase your accuracy on a square range. It has little place on a two way shooting environment where your targets are 18MOA and moving, tho.

Ask the shotgunners what method they use on clays. It's a preplanned pull as they lead the line of flight, not a wobbling yes/no/yes/no/yes. That works for moving targets on the ground, too. Stationary targets are actually the exception. How to shoot them is a fine art - but it's not necessarily going to work well in most real life situations outside the range gate.

This is where 3Gun, IDPA, and SASS are challenged - they use too many static targets. The majority of them should be moving targets, replicating what we see in real life situations. That is exponentially more difficult to set up and exercise, tho. So we accept a major limitation that introduces artificial restraints on the target.

It's a 2D exercise simulating a 3D world. Take what is suggested to be good on a 2D artificial range with a good dose of salt. It doesn't always help.

 

[ATLDave]

Thanks for posting that article. It's consistent with a lot of other information that I've read and seen.

The best technique is the one that works best. Different circumstances require different techniques. Combat may be the ultimate test, but there's so much uncertainty and mutli-variability and non-repeatability that it's hard to draw valid conclusions - and easy to draw wrong conclusions - about which techniques are most effective. Competitions provide a very easy way to move past dogma. Nobody cares how effectively you can rationalize the reason for your technique if the timer and targets say that it doesn't work as well as a different technique.

 

[taliv]

i totally agree with Satterlee. Btw, he's currently in 4th place in the PRS, and really one of the best shooters I know.
http://www.precisionrifleseries.com/shooters/standings/overall.html

I don't know where you guys are getting this stuff. It's not semantics. He's not advocating any type of 'surprised break'. And if you select the moment you want to fire, it's not a surprise, eh?

rcmodel, i don't know if you read the article, but he is in 1st group. they do combat. nobody gives a hoot about bullseye pistol matches. that's kind of the point of the article. bullseye shooting isn't practical and the army needs to move past it.

 

[basicblur]

I knew this article would stir the pot a bit!

Of course he's not talking about long range, precision shooting - when doing so, I also squeeze the trigger / preload it, etc., but I see way too many folks in here giving new (defensive pistol) shooters the squeeze the trigger advice.

I would probably also recommend a new shooter do so, but I'd quickly move them along to a controlled slap in their training.

When watching shooters such as Miculek, Latham, etc. I thought there is no way they are pre-staging a trigger, riding the sear, etc. I remember reading an article where they videoed one of the top shooters (Latham?) and found his finger comes completely off the trigger for each shot.

Curious that no one has mentioned the "focus on the target" part of the article.
I have long done so for a long time - when I mentioned it to a relative, he stated he also focused on the target and not the front sight.

I figured maybe it's genetic, but I have read one article that said the older you get, the better luck you may have with focusing on the target instead of trying to do so on the front sight (he went into a detailed discussion on how your eyes change with age, and how that could / would affect your focusing ability over differing distances / lengths).

I've always figured years of evolution have ingrained into our subconscience that we should focus on the threat, so I figure why fight evolution - just go with it.

BTW - over the years I've talked to a number of LEOs that have been involved in shootings, and I don't think any of them mentioned even seeing the front sight (for what that's worth).

 

[scaatylobo]

Front sight,during combat

IF your involved in a close range combat shooting,you will not see or NEED the front sights.

But ask any long range shooters and see what they tell you.

And the fact that some are just plain REALLY great shots has a great deal to do with it all.

Watch jerry Mikulek shoot and he DOES NOT MISS no matter how fast he shoots [ and he shoots VERY fast ].

No matter how much younger,or how much I practiced [ and I did a great deal ] I was and never would be that fast and accurate.

Some are just born that good,they just need to find out what their talent is.

 

[Deaf Smith]

Sorry but there are plenty of people who have said they saw their sights and hit what they shot at (Jim Cirillo just being one.)

Now I doubt anyone here can claim they are Jerry Mikulek in skill, but trainers such as Tom Givens has shown regular folk do see their sights and win.

And like I've posted tons of times, as Jeff Cooper said, "If you cannot see your sights, bring the gun up AS IF you could see your sights."

Deaf

 

[readyeddy]

The compressed surprise break is compressed into what ever time period you are able to compress the surprise break. It could be one millionth of a second and appear to be "right now" or at a particular moment. It seems to work for hunting and making snap shots.

And before we discount everyone's contribution here because we may not be current top ranked military shooters, the author of the article did say that civilian shooters also have useful skills.

 

[Walkalong]

When shooting fast I sometimes pull the sights onto the right place with what most would call a sloppy trigger pull, but it hits the target. Not that I am a great pistol shot, because my eyes aren't good enough any more.

When I am at my best, the whole world goes away.

For Benchrest shooting this was the way I was, I would never hear the other shots when I was 100% focused.

 

[taliv]

Quote:
When I am at my best, the whole world goes away.
For Benchrest shooting this was the way I was, I would never hear the other shots when I was 100% focused.

i hope you can appreciate how galactically bad that would be in combat

 

[Deaf Smith]

i hope you can appreciate how galactically bad that would be in combat

Well they say the best fighters turn into machines and concentrate on the problem at hand.

And with all that gunfire ringing in their ears, I bet they concentrate on just what is in front of them.

You need to read up on tunnel vision, auditory exclusion, tachypsychia, and other things that happen in combat.

http://www.killology.com/art_psych_combat.htm

Deaf

 

[taliv]

i don't know anyone who says that.

those things are precisely why they train to maintain situational awareness. focusing on your sites or just one target in some zen-like trance is not at all desired behavior

 

[basicblur]

Well they say the best fighters turn into machines and concentrate on the problem at hand.

And with all that gunfire ringing in their ears, I bet they concentrate on just what is in front of them.

You need to read up on tunnel vision, auditory exclusion, tachypsychia, and other things that happen in combat.

Which does not mean all the above is still a bad idea in a combat / SD situation.

And iff'n you concentrate only on "the problem at hand", don't be surprised if you get nailed by the tail gunner, as happened recently (I believe the CCer was nailed by the BG's girlfriend).

BG tactics are constantly evolving - we'd be well advised to stay ahead of their curve.

 

[gspn]

I read the article. It was good. While one small portion of the article mentions trigger control, the article is about WAY more than that. More broadly his article discusses making sure that training keeps up with the wars we are asked to fight. Are our war-fighters being trained early enough about the complexity of the worlds current battlefields. Are they being trained well enough on how to think, when to act, when not to act? Are they using the best tactics, or just the tactics that used-to-be the best tactics? Are todays leaders flexible enough to adapt in the face of new threats or will they cling to tactics they learned "back in the day"?

I thought it was a very good article, especially for anyone in charge of training others...in any line of work. His point about the problem of ego's becoming attached to "processes" rather than "outcomes" resonates across a wide range of scenarios. I've seen plenty of failures in the business world from the same problem.

With regard to his comments about trigger control, in fairness to him I'd say he's talking about a very specific type of shooting when he makes those comments...urban combat shooting...where both the shooter and the target may be moving at the same time.

He's not saying that people on controlled ranges shooting at stationary targets shouldn't use the "let it surprise you" method. He is discussing the things that work best in his line of work...which is shooting at people who are shooting back at you in a fast paced, urban environment. I use the "let it surprise you" method a lot...because most of my shooting is related to hunting situations where I am motionless and well supported, and my target is motionless or moving very slowly. It works beautifully in those situations. If however, I began hunting things that popped up suddenly 20 yards away and were firing or charging at me as I tried to move quickly to cover...I might change my technique.

Thanks for posting...it has given me some things to think about...firearms related and not.