Scatt trainer

Does anyone use a Scatt trainer?  And how often do you use it?

I bought the wireless version when I was shooting rifle to work on my hold.  I use it almost every time I dry fire my pistols.  It's a great tool but you need to put the time in to understand what it's telling you and it took me a while to figure it out.  I'd say a very high % of the people that buy them don't use it to it's potential. 

- Dave

Dave, I would actually say that a high percentage of people who use them misuse them. They start trying to shoot virtual matches and keeping scores rather than looking at the fundamentals of their hold and shot.

The first one I used was an early one set up on a Win 95 machine with a trigger pressure monitor and attached to a a Morini air pistol. There was useable info and the International shooter who allowed me to use it prefaced our session. With don't pay attention to the scores from this thing.

There is good data in the SCATT but the scores aren't it. A combination of Blank wall dry fire (no reinforcement) and other methods with the scatt will bring better results than just the SCATT. The thing s that helped my 22 scores most were dryfire and the exercises in the USMC workbook. The things that has helped my 45 the most are the same.

There has also been some very good conversations, classes, and coaching in there. My 22 scores have risen above expert and my 45 scores are moving into expert.

Cause and Effect!
You need to be able to discern cause and effect when training. If you only look at final results fron Scatt session really you're getting nothing from the session. Each and every practice shot whether from dry, scatt or live fire needs to be analyzed. You cannot go through the motions; That's why many shooters never grow/develop into better shooters. I believe you can get more out of a proper dry fire session than you can from scatt or live fire. To me dry firing teaches you the fundamentals. Live fire reinforces that you know the fundamentals. So regardless of path you take learn how to see why shot is good shot or bad shot. For example; loosen thumb pressure while training gripping. See where dot/sights go? Where is resulting shot on paper?
So always strive to learn, reinforce, change, grow in your training.
Jon

I bought a Scatt system at Camp Perry this year.  The best way I can describe it to another shooter is with the following phrase.  "It's next level stuff".  It took me several weeks to simply get it running.  Now I can have it up and running in a matter of minutes.  I agree that there is so much to it that I am definitely not using it to its fullest potential.  As a part of my training regimen it has increased my scores. 
I do shoot simulated matches with it.  The reason why is that if I am training for a particular match (air pistol right now) and I know what time I will be shooting the match, I can take a day and duplicate what I might do that day as far as diet and sleep schedule.  Not only am I dry firing but I am learning how to prepare and pace myself for a 60 shot match. 
I shot winter airgun at Colorado Springs a few weeks ago.  Three matches in three days.  Placed 9th, 7th, and 15th respectively.  Shot two personal best scores. 

What I personally love the most is that you can experiment with different holds for iron sights without adjusting the sights on your gun.  I generally shoot 6:00 hold but I can try sub six, deep sub six, center mass and see how the scores compare and still live fire later on without having my sights all out of wack.

It is only a part of my training regimen.  I am fortunate to be able to afford one and have the time to use it.

jmdavis wrote:Dave, I would actually say that a high percentage of people who use them misuse them. They start trying to shoot virtual matches and keeping scores rather than looking at the fundamentals of their hold and shot. ........

+1 on the above

The SCATT is a tool without a program for improvement it is worthless.
#1 piece of advice is to focus on what is working.

Trace size, trace speed, what happens at trigger release and finally group size is what you should be looking at when you review the data.  These are results of your process.  One big plus with the SCATT is you get pretty fast feedback on changes you make to your stance etc...  If you are doing everything right smaller group size is the result - DON'T worry if the group isn't centered perfectly.  About 75% of the time I don't use the aiming black with the SCATT I turn the target around and use the blank side.

Group size is the goal - never score, and be careful of focusing on only one thing. Example:  I was able to reduce my trace size by quite a bit with some adjustments in stance and arm position, but apparently it wasn't natural because my trigger control suffered for some reason and my groups opened up.

Watching your dot at trigger release gives you almost the same info. but like anything you have to learn what to watch for.

You can use the SCATT and follow the USMC training with some creativity.

- Dave

Very interesting thread.
I've been wondering how these systems are best used and how valid the "score" is from something that may be aligned with the barrel but has an offset.
I think part of my questioning was answered rather obliquely when I watched the setup videos for the TRACE system (http://www.traceshooting.com/product-page).
Some shot needs to be assumed as "perfect". And every shot after compared with that one.
This thread confirms to me that the importance isn't the score, but how the gun is held, how it moves, and the resulting groups. Once you can shoot nice consistent groups, the sights can move you towards the X.
I'm really starting to regret that I've been very lax in my record keeping so far. All the patched holes in targets show that I'm more and more in the black, and my scores say that I'm improving. But I know that if I'm to improve I need to get on the ball and start taking note of many different parameters.
The TRACE says it can be used with live fire. I'm seriously interested and wondering if my holiday budget can allow me to make the leap.

I have used the scatt a lot on a rifle, and have had one for around 12 years now, and will share some of my knowledge and experience with it from that.

For me, it is an excellent tool. It is dry-firing with feedback. If you do not use the feedback, or are unable to, then it is just an expensive toy.

The sensor is offset, just like your sights or your dot. At the short 10m distance, if you move forward or backwards, your trace and designated impact will move on the computer overlay.  However, the trace will show all of the movements you made, when you broke the shot and where the hit will have been.

The traces are very accurate, and with a rifle, the shot placements appear very good. If I call and x at 3:00, chances are that is where it lands. If I call a shot at 10:00 oclock, moving in/or moving out, the trace and shot will show it. I am very good at calling shots with a rifle.

At startup, there is a quick/coarse adjustment and calibration of the sensor to the target.  A few shots with calls, and I drag and drop the shot on the computer to the part of the target where I believe it should have been.  Another shot and this pretty much verifies things.  For small deviations afterwards, I will click the sights just like I would in live fire to make things go on call. It appears very precise in doing all of this.

I have used the scatt to work on hold. I have used the scatt to work on timing. I have used the scatt to save money going to the range. I have used the scatt to analyze my follow through. With pistol, I am using it to work on minimizing the hold and trigger squeeze.

I consider it a valuable tool, but only if used and its use understood.

I have placed junior shooters on this and had others on their team watch the traces as he shot.  One shooter woudl shoot a great shot, followed by wild stuff.  The Scatt allowed me to see that he was not following through.  I told him "follow through." He shot some and it was obvious he was not following through. I then told him to hold the rifle air-rifle still after he shot and to count to 3 before he moved, trying to keep it centered. He did and then proceeded to shoot 10 straight 10's.  The other kids watching then also understood what "follow-through" is, and why it was important.

It helps me understand what I see through the sights, which is a shortcut to making things do what I want.

last but least, and as others mentioned, it keeps score. I believe it is very good here as well, but once again, it is not the score that is important, it is the basics needed to shoot them.

Your mileage may vary. :-)

-Ron

dronning wrote:About 75% of the time I don't use the aiming black with the SCATT I turn the target around and use the blank side.

...

- Dave

Me too. I think that it is good "blank wall" style training with feedback.

I have and use a Rika (similar to Scatt) for training and coaching.  There are lots of good suggestions and data in this thread, but I'd like to offer a little different perspective:

Personally, the greatest benefit I gained from the Rika, was when I stated to understand the true depth of being able to "SEE" with my own eyes, what was happening during a dry fire shot.  In a way, the Rika taught me how to observe my dry fire without it.  Once I really could watch the shot unfold via the sighting system, I could carry that observation to the range.  IOW, the Rika taught me how to observe much more accurately, what I was watching unfold before my eyes.

To accomplish this you need to do something you should be doing anyway, especially at the range: you need to watch the shot unfold and then mentally review what you saw. Only then, should you compare that imagery with the result or the trace from the trainer.  After a while you will be able to detect all the nuances by direct observation and merely verify them on screen.

A shortfall, as mentioned earlier, is that although you can observe trends, sometimes it's difficult to figure out how to modify a current trend for the better.  I still preach to look for ways to improve your process, rather than searching for errors to correct, but you really need to have a paper trail that you can review when needed, whether you use perfection seeking or error correction in your program.

Case in point:
I had a slump both at the range and on the trainer.  As described earlier, I could see it in my sights and it was verified by the results and through the trainer.  But, I went round in circles trying to "fix" it.  For a couple weeks, I frustratingly worked on it with no success, until I was reviewing my notebook and noticed that I had made a physical material addition to my grip at the same time my slump started.  So, in this case, the trainer was showing what I was doing, but offered no method for improvement.  What it did do for me at the time, was to verify that what I was observing was showing in the traces.

I have a page I set up for the Rika, which, if interested, can probably be accomplished with the Scatt, on what I call trigger training.  The basic idea is that the more pure the trigger operation, the more concentric the portions of the shot.  For anyone interested:

Trigger Training with the Rika

Ed,

Good post. 
Using the electronic trainer dry-firing pistol helped me understand what it was that I saw.

-Ron

Thanks guys for the replies.  I was thinking that I would be losing half of the feedback because I wasn't going to use it for live fire but I don't think that is the case now.
I try and dry fire daily and see what my dot is doing.  But maybe I am not.  Are all those  zig zags lines of the Scatt happening under my red dot?
I wanted the Scatt to help me see what my trigger is doing.  I can see you have to break down each part of your stance and shoot for groups.  Is this correct?

I use the SCATT for Service Rifle with an F Coefficient of 15.  Is there any consensus on the setting for M1911 Service Pistol?