Truth about muscle memory.

[Shawn Dodson]

But as speed is an important metric of SD "performance", a timer would help keep track of your efficiency over a course of fire with different weapons, or with the same weapon as practice accumulates.

Decision-making affects quickness. Observe, Orient, Decide, Act = time. A timer merely measures decisions already made.

I often have on me a gun, a second gun, a knife, a cell phone and a flashlight. Sometimes a kubotan or pepperspray. That means a lot of decisions to be made.

Yup. But your knife, kubaton, pepper spray, cell phone and flashlight are not guns.

 

[Loosedhorse]

But your knife, kubaton, pepper spray, cell phone and flashlight are not guns.

So what? As someone comes toward me aggressively, they still increase my options, and slow down decisions. OODA-loop nightmare! Here I am, trying to decide between my pepper-spray and my gun, and then my attacker produces a knife, cuts my head off and puts it on a stick!

I guess I could speed things if I made sure my only choice was "Shoot/don't shoot." But some of us like options, even if they make us less efficient. And some of us like the options that different guns give us, too.

A timer merely measures decisions already made.

Actually, it measures how quickly your muscles execute what you tell them to do. And that may have to do with how well you "know" the pistol you're using.

As in muscle-memory, the title of the thread. I've been called a muscle-head, but I'm still not sure that the "decide" of OODA is a "muscle-memory" issue.

 

[Shawn Dodson]

So what? As someone comes toward me aggressively, they still increase my options, and slow down decisions. OODA-loop nightmare! Here I am, trying to decide between my pepper-spray and my gun, and then my attacker produces a knife, cuts my head off and puts it on a stick!

I reckon it's time to review your ROE and immediate actions. lol

As in muscle-memory, the title of the thread. I've been called a muscle-head, but I'm still not sure that the "decide" of OODA is a "muscle-memory" issue.

"Muscle memory" is simply a conditioned reflex. When "muscle memory" feedback doesn't meet expectations it produces an OODA Loop reset. The shooter senses ("observes") that something isn't as he expected it (e.g., the trigger pull feels different, or the location of a manually operated control feature on the weapon is different, or the expected tactile feedback is different when manually operating a control feature) and shifts his attention from the external problem (reacting to the bad guy) to deal with his internal problem (reacting to the weapon). "Orienting" to the internal problem to make sense of the discrepancy between expectation and reality takes time. Once the shooter figures out the reason for the discrepancy he "decides" how to adapt to the new situation and then executes his decision (act). A muscle memory "fail" forces the shooter into a decision-making cycle.

When it comes to tactics one must ask "Is it necessary?" If it isn't necessary then it needlessly complicates things, adds no value, and creates inefficiencies. Is it necessary for me to have a bunch of different guns for concealed carry? Why?

"Beware of the man with one gun; he knows how to use it." Why? Muscle memory.

 

[JohnBT]

"Is it necessary for me to have a bunch of different guns for concealed carry? Why?"

Would a primary and a backup qualify as a bunch?

Would replacements/spares count?

How about a full sized one for most days and a smaller one for days when the big one just won't work for where you're going and what you're doing?

I do in fact carry the same one everyday, but I haven't sold my 442, 649, etc. I did finally sell the P-32 after 4 years of carrying a Rohrbaugh 9.

John

 

[Loosedhorse]

I reckon it's time to review your ROE and immediate actions. lol

I think I should interpret that laugh as your appreciation of the image I drew, rather than smug derision. Either way, the validity of my point stands: the more options, the slower your OODA "D" can be.

Private citizens have fewer ROE than LE, and more ROD (rules of disengagement), also making things more complex.

"Muscle memory" is simply a conditioned reflex.

Actually, it's not. A conditioned (or, accurately, conditional) reflex is a pre-existing reflex (like salivation) that has been reprogrammed to a new stimulus through classical conditioning.

You perhaps meant a conditional (or operant) behavior. I still think that's wrong, unless you have actually trained yourself to the stimulus of a person pulling a gun on you (or otherwise attacking you) to the point where you literally don't decide, you just act. That level of operant conditioning is very difficult to achieve, but is extremely useful for defeating gun-grabs, and for any aggressive physical contact from behind, because it shortens OODA to OA.

I do know a few martial arts students who have (I think) achieved that. It has danger: if your stupid friend Bob grabs you from behind, you will "respond" to him without deciding to do so (hopefully your operant response does not include breaking bones). That's a conditional behavior.

What you probably mean is a complex motor skill: a series of individual actions that you initiate voluntarily (by decision), but once initiated, the actions require no further thought to complete. Tying your shoes is a classic example.

If any of you have experienced the problem of teaching kids to tie their shoes, it can be interesting: I discovered that I actually had no idea how I tied my shoes--I just "do" it. When I slowed down to observe how I tie my shoes (that is, teach myself what the conscious, individual steps were), I of course messed it up. It took me several attempts to figure out what I was doing, so I could explain it and teach it. (I've had examples of that at work, too, showing a trainee a new technique and being asked, "How did you do that?" and having to respond, "I'm not sure. But I'll pay more attention next time I do it, and I'll get back to you.")

Your thesis is that a habitual skill (like tying my shoes, or playing an instrument) is not transferrable should mean I would have trouble tying new shoes; and if I have shoes and sneakers and boots, I would not be able to tie each of them as efficiently as any other (well, unless I was bumblingly inefficent with all of them). Or (perhaps better analogy) that you should stick to either an automatic or clutch transmission, because even if you regularly drive both, in an emergency you won't be able to figure out how to hit the brakes.

That's simply not true. Skills transfer. Abiding by ROE means making decisions about when to act and how to act according to that specifc list of if/thens, rather than (except very rarely, I think) depending on conditional behaviors.

 

[Ankeny]

Right, but if you were at the very top of your game with one or the other -- say you'd been practicing heavily with the Glock for a month in preparation for a big match -- certainly there WOULD be a difference in your times between the two guns, correct?

Sure, if I had been ignoring the other guns. In 2003 I decided I wanted to be the first person to earn Master Class in all of the USPSA Divisions. I bounced back and forth between a Les Baer 1911 (Limited 10 Division), a CZ75B (Production Division), and a Smith and Wesson 610 (Revolver Division). My classifier percentages for the 1911 shook out to 87.67%, the Production percentage was 88.38%, and the revolver scores were 87.5%. This was across a 10 month period.

During that time I was possessed with shooting to the point that it wasn't even healthy. A couple of hours of dry fire a day, tens of thousands of rounds in live fire, and several matches a month. The money I poured into the sport amounted to piss poor financial stewardship considering my income.

I learned it is possible to be very adept (if deep into Master class is adept) across several platforms. I also know for a fact that if I had picked one gun and practiced I could have made it into Grandmaster in at least two divisions during that same time frame. It is very difficult to bounce between guns and build proficiency. It is not so hard to move between platforms and maintain about the same level of proficiency, especially if that level of proficiency decreases (from the top of your game) as your skills erode. Of course I am talking about USPSA classifier square range skills that concentrate for the most part on the draw, target acquisition, transitions, the reload, and to a lesser degree the split time.

In the real world, I don't move back and forth between carry guns unless my mode of dress dictates that I go with something different for deeper concealment. I also don't switch around between holsters with my primary carry gun. For self defense purposes I do heed the "pick one and practice", or "beware the man with one gun", etc. philosophy.

When it comes to tactics one must ask "Is it necessary?" If it isn't necessary then it needlessly complicates things, adds no value, and creates inefficiencies. Is it necessary for me to have a bunch of different guns for concealed carry? Why?

Looks like we have a winner in this post.

 

[fpgt72]

I play the guitar, and that is all muscle memory. Some guitars have different scale lengths...my Les Paul is different then the Gretsch is different from the Rickenbacker. When switching from one to the other it takes me a bit of time for my fingers to get the feel of the new guitar. Also there is the differences in the neck and such.

I would think that a moving from weapon to weapon would have the same type effect.

 

[coolluke01]

Now there is a good comparative example. Using examples such as driving, clutch vs. automatic, eating out, or picking your nose, just are not even close to the same as shooting a gun. I do see one comparison in the automotive world. I drive a diesel work vehicle, I have to turn the key one position until the glow plugs warm up and then turn it to the next position to start it. I find myself doing this in my personal vehicles.

 

[Strykervet]

If you have to think about what you are doing, it isn't muscle memory. If you can draw a 1911 or a Glock indifferently or randomly and be just as efficient with either, not skipping a beat, then the answer is yes. But I bet that someone able to do that is very, very rare. I was taught, practiced, trained, and finally preached it myself, to practice with the M4 until it was an autopilot function. Mag changes, cleaning it, whatever.

So now, I am good with Glocks and AR's. I can operate them without thinking, I can plan a weekend and do mag change after mag change after mag change after... And not once thing about mag changes. That is muscle memory. To be able to do that with multiple rifles and pistols to the proficiency I am envisioning is just difficult for me to comprehend.

Some folks may have training and muscle memory confused. I'd argue that with true muscle memory, if I handed you an FAL instead of an AR under stress, you'd immediately attempt to automatically operate the AR without thinking if you had true muscle memory of the AR. Then you'd think about it and THEN operate the FAL.

Again, I can't stress the importance of the difference between muscle memory and good training. The training leads to the muscle memory, but until you experience it it is kind of difficult to explain. That is why I think a lot of folks have it confused.

 

[Loosedhorse]

just are not even close to the same as shooting a gun.

The only thing the same as shooting a gun is shooting a gun. When I switch guns, I notice no problem. YMMV.

The Seecamp came up; true, it has a more difficult manual of arms for anyone, so the fact that I manipulate it (i.e., mag changes) slower than other guns is inherent in the gun, not in the switching; and accuracy will never be its strong point.

But: I don't shoot the Seecamp any slower.

You say, playing a guitar is a good analogy. Why not tying your shoes? Some shoes have narrow laces, and some...

it takes me a bit of time for my fingers to get the feel of the new guitar.

And if you rotated which one you practiced with (each practice session, a different guitar; or all three each session), what then? Would it still feel "new", or more familiar?

I play piano. No problem switching to an completely unfamiliar piano, except with the dynamics (different keyboards have different resistences). If I practiced on different pianos a lot, I suspect the transition would be very smooth.

Of course, I'm not a virtuoso; maybe the subtle differences would affect me more if I were performing in a concert hall? Still, I've seen very few piano soloists carting their pianos from place to place!

 

[ny32182]

Since we are in the "off season" of pistol shooting, and my last big match was at the end of October, I thought now would be a good time to try out the M&P. On November 1st I switched from a G34 to an M&P pro. I've been doing more dry fire than normal, and fired about 2200 live rounds in practice so far since the switch, and just now am getting accuracy ratios in local matches to be about the same as they were with the Glock. And that is switching between two very similar platforms. So for now I'd have to put myself in the "one gun" camp. I picked up the Glock for about the first time in a month last night, and for the first time it felt "weird", so I'll take that to mean that my transition is progressing.

 

[Loosedhorse]

It's interesting to think what kind of experiment we'd have to design to answer this question.

Take into account different "baseline" shooting abilities, different dedications (how many training hours per year is one willing to spend); deciding how different to make the two platforms (Glock and M&P; Glock and 1911; Glock and J-frame, etc.); deciding which parameters to look at (time/score ratios; time for speed reload or tactical reload; time to reduce a no-feed "jam," or a double-feed jam, etc.).

Supposing we found difference, do we take the absolutist stance that "any difference will get you killed!", or should we wonder if I'm 0.3 second slower on a double-feed clearence--how much does that matter?

I mean, there is no question that if we give a champion 1911 shooter a revolver, he will be slower. But the questions are: how much of that is just intinsic to the revolver; does "slower" mean he couldnt' get through a gunfight; and...

How much of that all matters to those of us who will never be champion 1911 shooters?

 

[hso]

You can confuse muscle memory by having different guns in use that are similar but not enough alike. UP for safe handguns bedevil DOWN for safe gunowners. Different grip angles force an adjustment for quick sight acquisition.

Even switching between revolver and semi can result in serious hand bite or safety sweeps when there are none. Switching between shotguns with different position safeties can cause delays.

Sure you can stay close enough to basic manual of arms so that burbles in muscle memory don't cause delays, but you can still fall prey to them when you get far enough out of the rut.

 

[Matthew Courtney]

Muscle memory only involves the development of muscles in a way which most efficiently performs a repetive act in a similar way. Conditioned response is more complex and better described as neuro-muscular programming. Most firearms training is neuro-muscular programming as there are feedback loop sequences involving more than muscular input which occur during the performance of a drill. When your hand is on the grip of your pistol before you are consciously aware of a threat, there is more than muscle memory involved, it is neuro-muscular programming.

 

[Wes Mantooth]

My old Little League baseball coach told me practice doesn't make perfect, practice makes permanent. I can still pick up a bat and hit a ball. Same with guns. I can pick up any gun...rifle, shotgun, pistol...and hit what I'm aiming at.

Ever get to work in the morning and not remember the drive because you were thinking about something else? You didn't have to remember every turn in the road, but you got there all the same.

 

[JohnKSa]

I think this may be an incorrect analogy. Shotguns have a point of contact with the head (actually, it's a contact area rather than a point), and a long sighting plane that "automatically" comes into play when the gun is mounted. It makes sense that with enough practice, you can get the gun to "turn with your head" as you shoot: same register each time. Then "fit" is what allows you to obtain this register natrually, each time you mount.

It's certainly not a perfect analogy for the reasons you list.

However, the fact remains that given a normal shooting grip, some pistols come up on target with the sights already aligned while others don't. The ones that don't require you to rotate the hand left or right a little or maybe cock the wrist up or down slightly from your "natural" hand position. You can train your hand/wrist/arm/shoulder system so that all of that happens automatically, but if you pick something that fits, that isn't really necessary.

When you find a handgun that fits you, you won't have to spend time learning just how much to rotate your hand or tilt the wrist and training yourself to do it automatically, when you take a normal grip on the gun and bring it up to eye level, the sights will already be lined up where you want them to be.

 

[2ifbyC]

Can you pick your nose and scratch your hind-end without having to plan ahead for each movement?

Yes, however at times I have reversed the order, so there is a distinct advantage with planning ahead.

 

[Loosedhorse]

Conditioned response is more complex and better described as neuro-muscular programming. Most firearms training is neuro-muscular programming as there are feedback loop sequences involving more than muscular input which occur during the performance of a drill.

If by "conditioned response" you me a conditional (operant) behavior, it has an established definition that is not what is usually involved in firearms training.

In contrast, "neuromuscular programming" appears to be a marketing phrase, first promoted by the SyberVision company to promote their videotapes, purporting to teach golf and tennis by having the "trainee" view videotapes of well known athletes.

Using known terms incorrectly, or using terms of questionable origin that have no accepted definition, is unlikely to clarify these issues.

 

[igousigloo]

when I was much younger, I was told and put into practice, to condition my mind that the barrel of the gun was my finger. To draw my revolver and point my finger at the target. I worked on this for a number of years and it worked for me. To this day if I draw a revolver and point and shoot it is on target. After the first cylinder, I have to sight because I have lost my concentration. With an Auto I have not practiced so all bets are off.

 

[Ankeny]

I mean, there is no question that if we give a champion 1911 shooter a revolver, he will be slower. But the questions are: how much of that is just intinsic to the revolver; does "slower" mean he couldnt' get through a gunfight; and...

I'll give you a good example. Jerry Miculek is a Grandmaster with a 1911. Look what happens when you give him a revolver.

 

[Shawn Dodson]

I think I should interpret that laugh as your appreciation of the image I drew, rather than smug derision.

You should simply interpret it as humor, which was the intent - hence the "lol".

Actually, it's not. A conditioned (or, accurately, conditional) reflex is a pre-existing reflex (like salivation) that has been reprogrammed to a new stimulus through classical conditioning.

The "conditioned reflex" is the intuitive muscle memory you've developed to, for examples, operate a frame mounted manual safety level or to operate the magazine release. When you make the decision to operate either one your thumb/finger moves just the right distance to touch it, applies just the right force and movement to operate it, and your brain recognizes the expected tactile feedback.

...unless you have actually trained yourself to the stimulus of a person pulling a gun on you (or otherwise attacking you) to the point where you literally don't decide, you just act. That level of operant conditioning is very difficult to achieve, but is extremely useful for defeating gun-grabs, and for any aggressive physical contact from behind, because it shortens OODA to OA.

Observe-Act is the very essence of observing and intuitively knowing what to do without having to think about it - you just do it (this is what is meant by "implicit guidance and control" on Boyd's OODA Loop sketch). Marine Corps Doctrinal Publication (MCDP) 1-3, TACTICS describes it as:

Once engaged, however, the commander finds time is short and the need for speed paramount. In some cases, speeding up the analytical decisionmaking process may be sufficient; however, in most cases intuitive decisionmaking is needed to generate and maintain tempo. Intuitive decisionmaking relies on a commander’s intuitive ability to recognize the key elements of a particular problem and arrive at the proper decision without having to compare multiple options. Intuition is not some mysterious quality. Rather, it is a developed skill, firmly grounded in experience, and one that can be further developed through education and practice. It is not without some risk, however, and leaders should use the decisionmaking style that works for them.

Leaders with strong situational awareness and broad experience can act quickly because they have an intuitive understanding of the situation, know what needs to be done, and know what can be done. This insight has often been called coup d’oeil (pronounced koo dwee), a French term meaning literally “stroke of the eye.” It has also been called “tactical sense.”

 

[Shawn Dodson]

Matthew Courtney writes:

Conditioned response is more complex and better described as neuro-muscular programming.

Thanks Matthew. Conditioned response is what I meant instead of conditioned reflex.

 

[Loosedhorse]

You should simply interpret it as humor

It is amazing how many things you think I "should" do; However, I'll mark it down as attempted humor; nothing forbids you from laughing at your own "jokes."

The "conditioned reflex" is the intuitive muscle memory you've developed

If this is your personal definition, thanks for clarifying. However, as I said, that phrase already has an established defintion dating from 1927--and yours ain't it.

I will feel free to conclude that just as you are making up definitions, you are making up physiological phenomena, to fit your theories.

Marine Corps Doctrinal Publication (MCDP) 1-3, TACTICS describes it as

...describes it as something other than "muscle memory." Which is what we're talking about in this thead, but "muscle memory" is not part of the quotation you cite. Your quotation also does not mention "conditioned" anything, which makes sense because they are not talking about conditional behaviors.

What they are talking about is a streamlined, "pruned-tree" decision-making process (not an OA process, where decision is removed). Which is what I was talking about when I mentioned giving yourself fewer options (e.g., no pepper-spray). As they said, the ability of a decision-maker to decide quickly what option to choose even if he has many options takes experience. There are many theories as to how this happens; none have to do with muscle memory.

You keep saying OODA has something to do with muscle-memory, but other than the relationship I've already described with (true) conditional behaviors (as opposed to volitional complex motor skills), you haven't shown anything. Instead, you apparently feel free to take a dime-store "understanding" of phenomena that are not yet explained, and claim it supports your opinions.

BTW, the pronunciation of "coup d'oeil" is closer to koodoy.

I'll give you a good example. Jerry Miculek is a Grandmaster with a 1911. Look what happens when you give him a revolver.

Great! So now you're in the two-gun camp, citing a guy who is proficient with both revolvers and 1911s! I appreciate your support, although I had thought you just said you were in one-gun camp. Thanks for clarifying.

 

[memphisjim]

does a top olympic wrestler or boxer have but one move?

 

[Shawn Dodson]

You keep saying OODA has something to do with muscle-memory, but other than the relationship I've already described with (true) conditional behaviors (as opposed to volitional complex motor skills), you haven't shown anything. Instead, you apparently feel free to take a dime-store "understanding" of phenomena that are not yet explained, and claim it supports your opinions.

I addressed OODA Loop as it relates to muscle memory in post 53. In your reply you felt it more important to comment about my misuse of the term conditioned "reflex".

...describes it as something other than "muscle memory." Which is what we're talking about in this thead, but "muscle memory" is not part of the quotation you cite. Your quotation also does not mention "conditioned" anything, which makes sense because they are not talking about conditioned behaviors.

It addresses intuitive decision-making, which enables the ability to "Observe-Act" as you described in your post I was replying to.

In the case of muscle memory and pistol manipulations "observe" means "sense". Tactile feedback is the "sense" that the controls are where you intuitively expect them to be and operate the way you intuitively expect them to (motion, resistance, etc.). When there is a mismatch between what you expect and what you sense then your OODA Loop resets and you must adapt to the new situation - which makes you less efficient.

BTW, the pronunciation of "coup d'oeil" is closer to koodoy.

That's petty.