General Categories > General Firearm Discussion
Comment from Caleb Giddings...
JTH:
Speaking of changing levels of "serious," this was pretty interesting:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/08/05/sports/olympics/the-100-meter-dash-one-race-every-medalist-ever.html?_r=0
I think the part that REALLY struck me was the commentary about the current speeds of 8-16 year olds in comparison to some of the Olympic times back in the 1980s and so on.
Better nutrition, better health, better training, better technology---means that a lot of things have changed, and a LOT of human capabilities have increased.
SemperFiGuy:
--- Quote ---"accuracy at speed"
--- End quote ---
[Underlining Added.]
NOW the Beagle has scented the Bunny.
sfg
Mudinyeri:
--- Quote from: Les on January 15, 2017, 02:23:16 PM ---Isn't "Serious" a relative term?
--- End quote ---
Yeah ... I'm pretty sure we need to define the phrase "serious about shooting" before we can debate it. I was pretty serious about shooting in the Army and most of our qualifications were timed but I didn't own a timer.
Edit: What it takes to be "really good" at handgun shooting still depends on context. I've seen some "really good" competition shooters completely fall apart with unfamiliar stressors were introduced into the equation. And, I've seen guys who've never shot in a competition be "really good" in battle.
In the context of competition, speed and accuracy rule. In the context of defending one's self, the ability to deal with the stress of being attacked, speed and accuracy matter.
Les:
--- Quote from: Mudinyeri on January 16, 2017, 07:56:06 AM ---Yeah ... I'm pretty sure we need to define the phrase "serious about shooting" before we can debate it. I was pretty serious about shooting in the Army and most of our qualifications were timed but I didn't own a timer.
Edit: What it takes to be "really good" at handgun shooting still depends on context. I've seen some "really good" competition shooters completely fall apart with unfamiliar stressors were introduced into the equation. And, I've seen guys who've never shot in a competition be "really good" in battle.
In the context of competition, speed and accuracy rule. In the context of defending one's self, the ability to deal with the stress of being attacked, speed and accuracy matter.
--- End quote ---
Accuracy is also a relative term. A hunter wants to hit the prairie dog, the benchrest shooter wants to hit a particular hair on his head. Agreed about stress in a self defense scenario. Controlling ones emotions, blood pressure etc. to me sounds more important than speed and accuracy, although a valuable part of the equation.
JTH:
--- Quote from: Mudinyeri on January 16, 2017, 07:56:06 AM ---Yeah ... I'm pretty sure we need to define the phrase "serious about shooting" before we can debate it. I was pretty serious about shooting in the Army and most of our qualifications were timed but I didn't own a timer.
--- End quote ---
Considering that unless you were in a very specific specops group or the AMU, the Army qualification/training for handgun is extremely basic and simple, I don't think that can be considered anything like "serious handgun skills." (Former military folks who ARE serious shooters certainly don't think so.)
--- Quote ---Edit: What it takes to be "really good" at handgun shooting still depends on context. I've seen some "really good" competition shooters completely fall apart with unfamiliar stressors were introduced into the equation.
--- End quote ---
Who, I wonder?
--- Quote ---In the context of competition, speed and accuracy rule. In the context of defending one's self, the ability to deal with the stress of being attacked, speed and accuracy matter.
--- End quote ---
I guess then it is good that I started out in the original post clearly stating the context:
Now, he's not talking about anything other than shooting skills with a handgun in this context (from the discussion he was in). So no, not about hunting, highpower, trap, skeet, or any long guns.
In addition, it wasn't about self-defense practice (which includes a lot of things in addition to handgun skills). He was talking straight-up about people who claim to be serious shooters, with serious handgun shooting skills.
--- Quote from: Les on January 16, 2017, 08:33:08 AM ---Accuracy is also a relative term. A hunter wants to hit the prairie dog, the benchrest shooter wants to hit a particular hair on his head. Agreed about stress in a self defense scenario. Controlling ones emotions, blood pressure etc. to me sounds more important than speed and accuracy, although a valuable part of the equation.
--- End quote ---
Again, from the original post:
Now, he's not talking about anything other than shooting skills with a handgun in this context (from the discussion he was in). So no, not about hunting, highpower, trap, skeet, or any long guns.
In addition, it wasn't about self-defense practice (which includes a lot of things in addition to handgun skills). He was talking straight-up about people who claim to be serious shooters, with serious handgun shooting skills.
I again say: One of the most interesting things, for example, is how people raise emotional defenses regarding any discussion of actual handgun skill. This isn't a courtroom, where we parse sentences for relative meanings or loopholes, nor a hearing in which we discuss what the meaning of "is" is.....we are flat-out talking about what it takes to be really good at shooting with a handgun, which includes being fast, being accurate, and having quick, precise gun-handling skills (such as draws, reloads, and remedial actions).
The initial post specifically said it was not talking about certain situations--which people are now using to carefully NOT talk about actually having serious handgun skills, and what it takes to get there.
Interestingly enough, no one has actually attempted to answer the original questions:
"Thoughts? Can you actually get to the point where you have serious handgun shooting skills without practicing (at least sometimes) with a timer? Do you know anyone who has?
If so, what do you consider "serious about shooting" and what level of skills do you consider serious?"
If someone is serious about actually attempting to reach high-level shooting skills, Caleb says they'll own a timer. And that if they don't, then they aren't actually serious about attempting to reach high-level shooting skills.
Is he right? If he isn't, who do you know that has reached high-level handgun shooting skills (was serious about their practice) and didn't use a time? What level of skills do you consider high-level ("serious")?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version