Area Aiming.

The article in question is to be found at the Encyclopedia of Bullseye Shooting:

http://bullseyepistol.com/salyer2.htm

and most of you are no doubt familiar with it.

I read it when I first got started in BE and I confess that at the time it didn't offer much to me as at that time I lacked the basic experience on to which to apply the teaching. Time has passed and now I do understand and relate to what the author recommends.

How do you interpret the guidance given there? Is it to be accepted as the authoritative and final word on the subject or are there alternatives that can yield better results?

Thanks.

Dave sent me two typewriter copies of things he wrote; they are both here now:

https://www.bullseyeforum.net/t8516-area-aiming-by-dave-salyer?highlight=salyer

https://www.bullseyeforum.net/t8732-more-words-of-wisdom-from-dave-salyer?highlight=salyer

also: https://www.bullseyeforum.net/t5304-dave-salyer?highlight=salyer

I'll leave it for more experienced people here to answer your questions, but I found them invaluable, once I *really* understood what he meant.

It's a pretty damn good explanation of "minimum arc of movement", "wobble area", "accepting your hold", or however else one chooses to phrase it. It's a fundamental concept of one-handed pistol shooting for accuracy.

I also can say that it's one of the more challenging things to communicate to newer, less experienced, and/or less skilled shooters. Talking about pistol shooting is like dancing about architecture, to paraphrase a common saying.

So if Dave's particular sequence of words in that article don't resonate with you, seek out alternative explanations. And when you find a verbal articulation that does work for you, please share it with the rest of us. It could help someone else.

mikemyers wrote:Dave sent me two typewriter copies of things he wrote .....
I'll leave it for more experienced people here to answer your questions, but I found them invaluable, once I *really* understood what he meant.

Thanks for posting these Mike. They're great and what's more I can now understand this advice. I'll print them and read them often as a continuation to the original piece.

john bickar wrote:So if Dave's particular sequence of words in that article don't resonate with you, seek out alternative explanations. And when you find a verbal articulation that does work for you, please share it with the rest of us. It could help someone else.

Actually they resonate so well that I feel a sense of accomplishment for just being able to understand them. 
It gives me a good reason to get a SCATT and start studying the lines of my area aiming, this way I'll be able to get good value out of it.

Amati wrote:

mikemyers wrote:Dave sent me two typewriter copies of things he wrote .....
I'll leave it for more experienced people here to answer your questions, but I found them invaluable, once I *really* understood what he meant.

Thanks for posting these Mike. They're great and what's more I can now understand this advice. I'll print them and read them often as a continuation to the original piece.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vGdUCTxjHgE


Somewhere around 1:35 you’ll see a nice shot ....well a lot of the shots are good

Chris Miceli wrote:


https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vGdUCTxjHgE


Somewhere around 1:35 you’ll see a nice shot ....well a lot of the shots are good

Exactly. Just how I hope that I could now benefit from an electronic trainer in helping identify and improve my area aiming.

Any article that creates inspiration to go out and try what is being described is a good article.  I've read a whole book there the thesis was to align the sights and squeeze the trigger.  It's true.  The trick is getting out and practicing aligning the sights and squeezing the trigger (probably 1000's of times).  Then do that while shooting on the line with others with the score being recorded and a timer going.  That makes a difference.  Dave writes good articles which ring true, but to get the most out of them takes some dedication towards applying those techniques.  In my opinion, of course.

Bullseye_Stan wrote:....  Dave writes good articles which ring true, but to get the most out of them takes some dedication towards applying those techniques.  In my opinion, of course.

Very true Stan, which is where I hope that the immediacy of a home electronic trainer will be helpfull. Alternating reading and dry-firing on and on.

I have every expectation that a home electronic trainer will help.  At least until the 'new' wears off and it is no longer used.  My opinion on improving fundamentals is not too hard to understand, it's all about doing.  As Nike tennis shoes once advertised: "Just do it".  But everyone needs to find out what works for them, keeps them motivated, and doesn't bore them to tears.  The good thing about an electronic home trainer is that many other shooters are interested in them, so there is a resell market (a kind of financial safety net).

john bickar wrote:........I also can say that it's one of the more challenging things to communicate to newer, less experienced, and/or less skilled shooters..........So if Dave's particular sequence of words in that article don't resonate with you, seek out alternative explanations. And when you find a verbal articulation that does work for you, please share it with the rest of us. It could help someone else.

When Dave sent me the scans of what he originally wrote, I read the articles, then re-read them.  The way I saw it, they didn't make sense.  My brain was telling me at it was pretty silly that you could hit something without aiming at that something.  I started typing anyway, and by the time I finished typing, I figured it out.

I sent Dave an email about the things that helped me actually understand what he meant.  For me, once I "understood", the rest was trivial - the explanation then became obvious.  (I still have those emails on my laptop - I can find them and copy them here later.)

Before reading Dave's articles, I would come home from the range, and if my shots were in a three or four inch grouping, the majority of shots were all "around" the bullseye, which remained untouched.  Dave is saying that if you aim for the Bullseye, you are aiming for something that is historical - by the time you actually shoot, the gun will have moved, as human beings can't hold perfectly still.  So, Dave's idea was to consider statistics.  If you mapped out all your shots mathematically, you should get a "bell curve", meaning the most holes should be near some central area (which may or may not be over the bullseye), with fewer and fewer holes as you looked outside of that central area.

I wrote back to Dave, feeling a little silly about it, describing this to Dave and asking if it was really what he meant - he wrote back that it was exactly what he meant.



To use what Dave is saying, you don't need to buy a SCATT machine - you don't need to buy anything.  All you need to do is follow what he meant (which was far easier to write about than to do, as I had too many bad habits), and there will be more and more holes in the center of your grouping.  (When you get your sights set correctly, this grouping should be more or less over the bullseye, but that's another discussion.)


If you're a fairly good shooter, with a good gun, and after taking 100 shots you look around you, you'll find your ejected shell cases scattered all over an area.  They won't be scattered evenly - there will be more in one general area, and as you move away from that area, there will be fewer, and fewer, and maybe well away from that spot there might be only one.  That's a "bell curve".

Applying what Dave wrote, if you are using a red dot sight, there will be a red dot dancing all over the target, which is your "WOBBLE AREA".  Dave is writing to keep the WOBBLE AREA over the bull.  That WOBBLE AREA represents your ability to shoot; better shooters have the same thing going on, but they have a smaller WOBBLE AREA.  So, if you accept that you can't shoot better than your ability to shoot, any random time while the wobble area is over the target would be as good as any other time to fire.  According to the bell curve analogy, you'll get a group of shots clustered over some place on the target, hopefully the bullseye.

More, or at least equally importantly, if you disturb this process, trying to shoot at any specific time when the dot maybe happens to be directly over the bull, chances are that by the time the gun fires, your gun will have moved, getting targets like the ones I was making, with holes mostly some distance away from the bull, but rarely on the bull itself.  



For those of you lucky enough to own a copy of The Pistol Shooter's Treasury, read the article written by Paul Weston back in the early 1970's.  This article explains the same things, but without mentioning the statistical analogy.  I'm not sure if I can legally type the whole thing in here, or scan it and post it, but just one paragraph should be good for now:

When a shooter is fully aware that any shot fired when the sights are lined up anywhere within his aiming area will be a good shot, then he has removed the cause of most of his troubles.  He will focus his eyes on the sights - the temptation to focus on the target is no longer preset as he is not concerned with trying to aim at a certain point.  He will steadily increase the pressure on the trigger so that his let-off should be perfect.  His temptation to make the gun go off by putting sudden pressure on the trigger is removed because he is not anxious to make it go off at any certain point on the target.  And he will then be a good shot.

Bullseye_Stan wrote:I have every expectation that a home electronic trainer will help.  At least until the 'new' wears off and it is no longer used.  My opinion on improving fundamentals is not too hard to understand, it's all about doing.  As Nike tennis shoes once advertised: "Just do it".  But everyone needs to find out what works for them, keeps them motivated, and doesn't bore them to tears.  The good thing about an electronic home trainer is that many other shooters are interested in them, so there is a resell market (a kind of financial safety net).

Part of me agrees completely with what you wrote.  Based on how I used to think, this was obvious!  

I no longer think that way.  Without spending any money, you can try out "area aiming", and as you get more and more practice, and more and more dry-firing, your WOBBLE AREA will decrease gradually until you achieve the same objective.  Unless your gun is in a rest, it won't matter how well you get to position your dot or sights over the center of the bullseye, if that is the time when you fire, as your eyes and your brain are NOT showing you what "is" right now - they are a historical reading of what the eye saw slightly in the past.  

I think a lot of you are going to think I'm nuts, just as I thought how silly Dave's ideas sounded the first time I read them.  What shocked me, was once I decided to try his idea anyway, my targets improved!  I had expected them to get worse.  Understanding what Dave (and Paul) meant is more difficult than just reading what they wrote.  Once you figure out the meaning, everything else falls into place (although for me, it was really difficult getting rid of old habits, shooting the way I used to).  Try it.

if you want to try your area aiming out, shoot a 25yard target looking through the scope (dot) with the dot turned off.


edited* engrish is hard.

Chris Miceli wrote:if you want to try your area aiming out shoot a 25yard target looking through the dot without the dot turned out.

Had to read it three times and then I understood it.  Probably works better with a smaller diameter tube?

To put it visually, the picture shows a shot distribution.  A High Master will have a taller, narrower distribution, a novice much shallower and broader.  The clicks on the sights move this distribution on the target, your position, stance and grip consistency keep it centered, and trigger control discussed elsewhere keep it narrow.  

Wobbley wrote:To put it visually, the picture shows a shot distribution.  A High Master will have a taller, narrower distribution, a novice much shallower and broader.  The clicks on the sights move this distribution on the target, your position, stance and grip consistency keep it centered, and trigger control discussed elsewhere keep it narrow.  

What in the world....?

Tim:H11 wrote:

Wobbley wrote:To put it visually, the picture shows a shot distribution.  A High Master will have a taller, narrower distribution, a novice much shallower and broader.  The clicks on the sights move this distribution on the target, your position, stance and grip consistency keep it centered, and trigger control discussed elsewhere keep it narrow.  

What in the world....?

don't understand 3d graphs? his comment makes sense to me

Chris, should we try the dot off before or after the battery dies?

:-)

jmdavis wrote:Chris, should we try the dot off before or after the battery dies?

:-)

If you train with it off you can shoot it like that when it fails =]

I think you guys are trying to apply Dave's idea onto how you shoot now.  I can't comment for anyone who is already an expert at this, but for everyone else, try to do what Dave wrote, literally, even if you don't accept it.

I can exaggerate.  Let's say it takes one second for the image you are seeing with your eyes to reach your brain.  Let's say it takes another second for your brain to analyze this, and decide to shoot.  Let's say it then takes another second for your brain to get your finger to shoot.

This means that when you're actually firing, you are aiming at the spot the gun was aimed at three seconds ago!


Once that makes sense, while it doesn't take a full second for any of those three steps, it doesn't take zero seconds either.  Whatever the actual time is, you're trying to hit something where the gun used to be aimed, not where it is aimed.

Even if you were to shoot at exactly the right time, if your group size at the distance you're shooting at is three inches, your perfect shot will be ANY place within that three inches.  That's the best of your ability to shoot.  Maybe for Chris, the group size is an inch, but most of us can't do that.  Dave is saying that once your wobble zone is over the target, your result will be within your ability to shoot.  

I'm not saying this as well as Paul and Dave did - if you try to understand what THEY wrote, INSTEAD OF what you do now, try that out.  

(My first impression of all this is that it didn't make sense; eventually something "clicked", and I understood.)   

My own group size at 25 yards is 3 1/2 inches.  Instead of trying to hit the bullseye dead center, I should be working at reducing my group size.  I can't shoot as well as many of you, so I can't replicate what I think you guys are capable of, but if for no reason other than distributing most of my shots in the center of my wobble zone, my scores go up from that alone - fewer bad shots, as some of those are now distributed in the middle of my group, not the outside edges.  Statistics.

mikemyers wrote:I think you guys are trying to apply Dave's idea onto how you shoot now.  I can't comment for anyone who is already an expert at this, but for everyone else, try to do what Dave wrote, literally, even if you don't accept it  ....

I did just that today. Took the Feinwerkbau for the first time to the range and did just that ^^^^

I broke the long session down to Dave Salyer's points, paused and reviewed after each point and eventually I had an epiphany. I shot my best scores and what's more all the attention to the trigger pressure had the effect of reducing my aiming area - I guess I forgot to look for the wobble- and the groups tightened.

Chris Miceli wrote:if you want to try your area aiming out, shoot a 25yard target looking through the scope (dot) with the dot turned off.


edited* engrish is hard.

interesting, I will try that

basically turning that dot scope into a big aperture,,,



another source for basically the same thoughts and information is Jim Owens high power rifle books,

particularly

Sight Alignment, Trigger Control & The Big Lie


.I read it (it is a very short book) in my second year of competition,,  really opened my eyes, so to speak,  on NPA, wobble and accepting it,

Lyman1903. I used to hunt in Beach Va, off Bundle Road, Nash Road, Second Branch, etc. I also hunted and fishes Winterpock swamp, Lake Chesdin and the Appomattox.


If you don’t know there are Bullseye matches across the James at Cavalier Rifle and Pistol Club. Feel free to contact me if you are interested.

I've learned to trust my wobble area for slow fire, which I interpret to be area aiming. I discovered that I didn't have to have the red dot perfectly centered to shoot a 10, and about a third of the time, the center-area wobble shot is an X (when the called shot appears to be within the 9-ring).

I haven't shot a 100 yet (best is 97-6x with 45 and 94-7x with 22). But I have observed that when the shots fall out of the 10-ring, I've allowed random thoughts to enter my mind, in other words, loss of focus. I do best when feeling confident and either focusing on grip/trigger pull or having a blank mind (latter very hard for me to do). I've begun meditation at night to help with fucus. dipnet

Dipnet wrote:I've learned to trust my wobble area for slow fire, which I interpret to be area aiming. I discovered that I didn't have to have the red dot perfectly centered to shoot a 10, and about a third of the time, the center-area wobble shot is an X (when the called shot appears to be within the 9-ring).....

My interpretation of what you wrote is that at the split second the gun fired and you got a 10, the dot would have been over the 10, but at the different moment in time when you observed the dot, it could have been someplace else.  

To understand this in my mind, I think of taking action photos of radio control car racing, with an excellent camera but one with a digital viewfinder, not optical.  If I wanted to take a photo of a car at a specific point of the track, I had to do one of two things:

• if looking through the viewfinder, take the photo BEFORE the car reached that spot in the track, or 
  
• ignore the viewfinder and watch the track instead, taking the photo when the car was in just the right place.  Even then, I had to press the shutter button slightly early.
  

Eventually what Dave was saying "clicked", and it all made sense.  What you see is ancient history by the time the gun fires.  Once you do learn to trust your wobble zone, as you have, as long as the dot is within your wobble zone, you know it should be a good shot.  Once you trust that, your mind can relax even more.


(My problem, at least one of them, is that part of me keeps wanting to shoot when everything is perfect, and "anxiety" is messing up anything and everything else.  For me, it's effortless to do what I think is correct during dry-fire, but more difficult when there is a live round about to be fired.) 

It's easy for me to understand what Dave said to do, and how.  It's more difficult to actually do it.