The Challenge of Distractions

The heat last night was oppressive at the weekly Nighthawks league at the Phoenix Rod and Gun Club. As I prepared for each shot, I couldn't tell if those things crawling down the back of my neck, chest and leg were beads of sweat or the swarming bugs. There was almost no air movement and clouds of smoke hung on the line. The floodlight on target 1 was missing its cover and the bugs that flew into it gave off a unique roasting aroma each time we walked past to score the targets.

Concentration on executing the steps of my shot plan seemed impossible. My best target of the evening was a 79-0 with a 588-4 (65%) aggregate for the 900, down from the 663-10 I scored two weeks ago. I can only chalk the evening up as an object lesson in the challenge the environment can deliver and, consequently, the value of repeating "the plan" until it needs little conscious effort.

Live and learn, live and learn.

Nighthawks, International Format

There were eight shooters at last night's Nighthawks league at the Phoenix Rod and Gun Club. There was one Tyro (me), one Expert, five Masters and one High Master. We shot the "International" (as in Olympics) style competition consisting of three Slow Fire and three Duelling Fire targets of ten rounds each. Mario was the winner with 570 (out of 600) points and took home a small cash prize.

I was also a winner -- with a mere 394 points -- and I took home several prizes. They include:

• Shooting 38 points higher than last time (in this format) -- that's a big improvement;
• Learning a reason why I could mistakenly shooting on an adjacent target, and how to avoid making that same mistake again in the future;
• Seeing that my newly-found technique for unconscious trigger release really works; and
• Confirming that not being able to see the sights of my 45 clearly is now my biggest problem to be solved.

In these prizes I see forward motion. That's good, real good.

Accuracy Tests: Preliminary Results

Ignoring the "first round flyers" (described in previous blog) which I think are an artifact of our test procedure, the group sizes and shapes I fired on the Ransom Rest this past Saturday in my factory-new (December 2004) Smith and Wesson Model 41 were:

Sample	Size	Shape	Ammunition	$/Rnd
#1	2.3"	diagonal oval	CCI Standard Velocity	$0.05
#2	1.5"	vertical oval	CCI Standard Velocity	$0.05
#3	1.5"	vertical oval	CCI Standard Velocity	$0.05
#4	2.5"	vertical oval	CCI Green Tag	$0.12
#5	1.1"	vertical oval	CCI Green Tag	$0.12
#6	1.5"	round	Remington 22 Target	$0.04
#7	2.5"	round	Remington 22 Target	$0.04
#8	1.1"	round	Federal Gold Match	$0.13
#9	1.5"	round	Federal Gold Match	$0.13
#10	1.3"	round	PMC Pistol Match	$0.10
#11	1.5"	round	PMC Pistol Match	$0.10
#12	2.3"	slim vert. oval	CCI Pistol Match	$0.12
#13	1.4"	vertical oval	CCI Pistol Match	$0.12
#14	2.1"	vertical oval	RWS Subsonic	$0.09
#15	1.1"	vertical oval	RWS Subsonic	$0.09

My "read" of the above shapes is that we had varying degrees of vertical stringing in more than half our test groups.

But Ed Masaki commented elsewhere that at least some of this may be due to variations in muzzle velocity and the consequent longer flight time and greater bullet drop. My rough calculation shows that a 1% change in muzzle velocity translates to a rise/drop of about 0.1" at 50 yards (using 850 ft/sec as the nominal velocity).

For inexpensive ammunition, I'm expecting poorer quality control by the manufacturer might show up as variations in muzzle velocity (as well as in other attributes). Realistically then, a velocity change of 5% (which seems credible) would account for a vertical spread of 0.5" all by itself. If I then factor out that 0.5" vertical distance from the "vertical oval" shapes, most of the above groups would be almost round.

That believable variation in muzzle velocity would, as Ed Masaki has suggested, explain the vertical elongation in many of the groups we recorded.

But how then do we explain the nicely rounded groups from the cheapest (Remington Target 22) to the most expensive (Federal Gold Match)?

Good question, and I don't have an answer.

My real "bottom line" is that I'm beginning to think I'm expecting too much from my Ransom Rest tests. Although my pursuit of "the whole answer" is interesting and fun to a degree, I'm also in danger of losing sight of my original purpose which was to see 1) if there's any significant difference in new S&W 41s, old ones, and one that has been hand-tuned (Clark barrel and other work), and 2) and most importantly to my shooting, which ammo shoots best in my (factory new) 41.

All of the above results are from my 41. (I don't have Joe's data yet from his Clark'd 41.) From the above data, I have to say that Federal Gold Match and PMC Pistol Match look better than what I've been using (CCI Standard Velocity), but not by a whole lot (20-30% maybe). Since the X-ring at 50 yards is about 1.7" in diameter, the above results *suggest* my scores *might* be more indicative of my abilities by using the Federal Gold Match or the PMC Pistol Match in competitions.

But I worded that last sentence very carefully since an errant round has almost equal probability of improving, or worsening, my score. An "accurate round" does not mean a better score. It only means it will more accurately record how I released it. Better ammo might well show me to be a poorer shooter.

As of this moment, I haven't seen Joe's data (he was running the other Ransom Rest in our tests). He was shooting CCI Standard Velocity only, and a whole bunch of 10 round groups in his Clark'd S&W 41. Our goal was to see how much variation we might expect from group to group. (Joe observed the first round flyers I was also seeing.) (And Joe did some other tests as well.)

If he sees groups ranging up to 2.5" and down to 1.5" (or less) with a single brand of ammo in a single gun, then it would seem we need to shoot a whole lot more rounds in each brand to ensure statistical significance.

As somewhat of a footnote to the day's testing, I put my low-end Springfield Armory Mil-Spec 45 that has received a nice trigger job and some other reliability tweaks (thank you Mike Kelly in Phoenix) but nothing else. The barrel, bushing and slide are all unmodified. I fired only two 10 round groups of some wad ammunition reloads (from Neil at NSK Sales) but please note that the gun did poorly (not the ammo) because, in earlier tests with Winchester white box from Walmart, the results were even worse.

Using the wad loads and shooting at 50 yards, I observed the "first round from the magazine" flyer (consistently high and slightly right across four magazines) as we were seeing from the 41s, one WTF flyer almost 12" (!) left and low of group center, and group sizes of the remaining rounds of 4" to 6" in diameter. That one "WTF" shot was shot #3 of 5 in the second magazine and have no explanation for it other than suspecting that the Mil-Spec burped rather badly on the lockup for that one shot. (Gee, does that mean those wild 5-ring shots are not my fault? I wish that were so but, no, I can see the jerk pulling the trigger just by watching the front sight. Those are my 5-ring shots, not the guns.)

Note that a 6" group with a perfect hold would place all the shots in the 8-ring or better. But with an 8-ring wobble added to a 6" group, we're looking at not much better than 6-ring shooting. (As before, it's important to remember that a "flyer" has almost equal probability of increasing or decreasing the score. Accuracy doesn't mean better scores: it means scores that accurately represent the shooter's ability.)

But the Ransom Rest testing of a 1911 is inherently less meaningful that what we were doing with the S&W 41s -- and it has everything to do with how the guns are constructed and how the Ransom Rest holds on.

In the 41s, the barrel is locked to frame and the frame is what the Ransom Rest holds on to. The sight you use when aiming is bolted to the barrel and so the whole assembly, from barrel to frame to Ransom Rest, in a single mechanical unit.

Not so with the 1911. With that gun, the Ransom Rest is *not* connected to the barrel. Instead, the Ransom Rest is clamped to hand grip which is connected to the slide (via the slots in the slide and frame) and, thence, to the barrel which is "locked in" to the slide when in firing position.

The Ransom Rest will, if used correctly, return the 1911's grip to the exact same position for shot after shot, but that doesn't guarantee where the barrel is aimed for each shot. Where the barrel is aimed depends on 1) the barrel to slide lockup, and then 2) the slide to frame fit. The repeatability of where your eyeball will send the shot, on the other hand, relies solely on #1, the barrel to slide lockup.

Bottom line: Some shooters can produce better results with hand-held (and most significantly "eye-aimed") shots than the Ransom Rest with the 1911 pistol. Ransom Rest testing of a poor 1911 may suggest it to be more inaccurate than it actually is or, in other words, it'll make a bad 1911 look worse.

On the other hand, a "good 1911" (which I will define as one in which the barrel to slide lockup is 100% perfect and 100% the same for every shot) will still look worse in the Ransom Rest than it actually is. Slide-to-frame fit is important, but far more so to the Ransom Rest than to the shooter who relies on his eyes to aim the gun, not just his arm as does the Ransom Rest.

Fun, fun, fun...

Accuracy Tests: Initial Observations

We shot eight (8) brands of .22 ammunition at 50 yards yesterday before packing up around Noon when the temperature passed 105. Some recurrent problems were observed that will get followup attention but, nonetheless, the core of the results are reliable and what we were hoping to get.

First, the problems.

• In two different Ransom Rests with two different Smith and Wesson Model 41s, we saw several instances of "first round flyers." That is, after fouling the barrels with the ammunition to be tested (with 10 rounds), and shooting multiple 10 round groups, quite often the first round of the group would land as far outside of the group as the overall group diameter. For example, shooting CCI Green Tag, target #5 shows a vertical oval group with a maximum dimension of about 1.2" for rounds 2-10, but round 1 is off to the left by more than an inch. The first round flyers are seen in all four directions over the morning's groups and the distance from group center appears to be related to group size. When we first observed this, we started paying attention to that first round's location in the target so it could be marked. There will be two "group size" measurements, one with and one without that first round. [Speculation is that readying a magazine, and in particular the dropping of the slide, is moving the gun slightly in the Ransom Rest and that the first round leaves the test bench on a different track but also serves to re-settle the gun for subsequent rounds. One ammunition -- Federal Gold Match -- produced fliers on rounds #1 and #2 in both of its groups: round #1 went 3-4" right of group center, round #2 landed 2" up and left, and the remainder formed a 1.2" and 1.5" diameter round grouping.]
• Lining up iron sights in the Ransom Rest with an 8x8" target 50 yards away is amazingly difficult, much more so than when hand-holding the gun and shooting Slow Fire. We put up four targets intending to re-aim the rest for each group -- see next item in this list -- but getting our first shot after re-aiming the rest missed the intended piece of paper as often as it found it (often barely in the edge). [Speculation is this is the same effect as happens in competition at the long line in Slow Fire -- there's too much time for consideration and the conscious brain messes up the alignment by adding doubt, confusion and second guessing. The one gun we tested that had a red dot was a snap to put on target; shots landed where intended, but those with iron sights were repeatedly difficult to line up. For testing, the addition of a red dot or a magnifying scope to iron sighted guns would be a major help.]
• Moving the rest (using the windage base and height adjustment) between groups is no doubt the source of some error in the subsequent group. We hoped to use that technique to minimize stops and target replacement but, in hindsight, it just has too many opportunities for error. [The aforementioned "first round flyers" could be due to the re-aiming we did after each group but, notably, Remington T-22 did not exhibit that phenomenon in either of its 1.5" and 2.5" round groups.]
• It was clear we needed to pay more attention to "Quality Control" in procedural areas. For example, after firing a shot, the toe of the Ransom Rest is sometimes elevated and sometimes not. We pushed down on the toe before each shot but, when the toe actually went down, there was a slight impact at the bottom whereas if it hadn't risen, then there was no motion. Whether this is significant or not we don't know, but it was something that varied from shot to shot. Procedurally, and for the precision we were seeing in the groups, it might be best to raise and then re-lower the toe for each shot. [Speculation is the gun may be moving ever so slightly in the rest on that impact, or that positioning in the shaft about which the Rest rotates when the toe is raised and lowered may be contributing an error.]

Although not a "problem" per se, there was a gut feeling that the 1-2" groups being produced at 50 yards might be approaching the limits of what we could produce consistently no matter what our procedures and equipment might be. In other words, the guns and at least some of the ammunition brands are shooting better than the test equipment and methods. The errors and group sizes sometimes had significant "contributions" from our procedures and test environment that were not inherent in the guns or ammunition.

More results will be reported later and we plan more tests to iron out some of the above issues.

Accuracy Testing Tomorrow

Joe and I will be doing some accuracy tests tomorrow at the Phoenix Rod and Gun Club. We will have a total of three (3) Smith and Wesson Model 41s of various vintages -- mine is 99% "factory original" and less than one year old -- as well as several other guns.

I posted the proposed test procedure to the Bullseye-L group today and received a couple of refinements which I've now worked into it. For ammunition that "shows promise", we will need a total of 49 rounds to get four 10-round test groups. That's assuming the "settling" can be accomplished with only 5 rounds which may be too optimistic.

We're also bringing a couple of 1911s (in 45 ACP) and I want to test mine with the "wad" loads I have from Neil (of NSK Sales) and with the white box Winchester "hard ball" ammunition from Walmart.

I think Joe is bringing one or two other guns, too.

We probably have too many guns on the agenda. I will focus on testing the 41s since that's my primary interest for tomorrow. (I'm also very interested in how the 45 performs with Neil's ammunition but that could be done another day.) I'd really like to find out how my 41 does and be able to put the question of "that gun with which ammo" to rest.

Tomorrow should be the kind of fun that I, as an engineer, like.

It's Coming

Some months ago I asked for help on this list [Bullseye-L] in my struggles with the 45. I received many helpful and encouraging replies. As a result, I've kept at it and kept at it until enough things finally started to work that I've gotten past that early frustration. I'm still well down in Marksman-land for sure but, every now and then, there's a glimmer, a single target, that suggests what's ahead.

Last night I shot a 92-3 in Rapid Fire, by far a personal best, and well ahead of my usual performance with that gun. More important than that score, however, is that I *know* what made the difference on that target and I just need to practice and "do it" more and more often. (My aggregate for the 900 was 668-8 for the evening with a couple of targets in Slow Fire that [Ahem!] show what I think of as the "broad avenues open for improvement" that stretch out ahead. But now I know it will come. I can do this.)

For other beginners, I'll add that I've been working the 45 and little else for about five months, concentrating on trigger control and trying to lose the jerk. I have fired somewhere between 3,000 and 5,000 rounds downrange in that gun. There've been two breakthroughs, one when I "got" the grip and the second, very recent, when I started to figure out what to do to effect a surprise shot. (Saying and doing are oh so different.)

It's coming.

Thank you!

Brass Catcher D'ecolletage

My brass catcher consists of a three-legged folding, all metal music stand as the base and its telescoping tube for height adjustment (discarding the music holding top part), a wire frame made from VERY heavy gauge construction wire (from Lowes because Home Depot didn't have anything stiff enough) that is stuffed into the top of the telescoping tube, and a laundry bag with drawstring and two five pound barbell exercise weights from Walmart.

At the range I set the music stand as far forward and right as possible on the table top and then slide the two five pound barbell weights down over the music stand's central column for stability. I insert the telescoping tube with the wire frame and set the height so the bottom of the "mouth" will be even with the ejection port and finally attach the laundry bag. My gun case and spotting scope also have to be positioned carefully to my left so I can look through the scope without moving my feet.

The downside of this arrangement is that one of the music stand's three legs is pretty much in the middle of the table and I can't keep my elbow stiff when raising the gun to firing position. That will be a "show stopper" problem in International Duelling Fire. I'm not sure what I'll do for that but, for Bullseye, I just have to work around it (until I can afford one of them more pricey "real" brass catchers).

Even though the "throw" is not that consistent from my 45 [limp wrist?], the net catches (or deflects) close to 100%, but only because I can stand with my hand within 1" of the open mouth of the net with the net slightly angled so it leans over toward the gun. At first, I was annoyed at having to be sure I stood exactly the same way each time (so the brass catcher would work) but then I realized that was actually an advantage for consistent shooting.

This assemblage, if you'll permit my French, is much more convenient than having to scrounge around on the floor for brass, but not nearly as nice as that supplied, unintentionally, by the D'ecolletage of another shooter several months ago, but that's another story.

Closed Box Shooting

As a relatively new shooter who is reading and thinking about this a lot, I think of the perfect shot process as something in a closed box that can be started and monitored but, left to its own, will continue on automatic and run to completion.

Monitoring of that process is (ideally) also largely automatic and getting the "Abort!" signal to function correctly is like all other elements in that it is something that has to be practiced enough so that it becomes automatic.

Assuming a shot has been fired and something (in the brain) indicates "that wasn't right," I then think of the conscious brain as analyzing the performance, trying to identify what wasn't ideal, and then opening the closed box and taking out that part of the process for correction. The conscious mind puts that part of the process on the tool bench and using various tools, attempts to reshape it so that it works correctly.

Next, the repaired part of the process is put back in the box, the lid closed, and the process started and allowed to run. Conscious analysis then tries to figure out if the fix was correct and, if not, it tries again to effect a repair.

In order for this to work, the conscious brain has to know roughly how the process should work. After all, it has to initially hammer out and connect the pieces inside the box. The more reading and study it can do -- and that's where these discussions come in -- the more likely it is that what the consciousness crafts will work well.

Secondly, I've been somewhat frustrated to be unable to find a "Here's how to shoot an X everytime" book but now I see that everyone's "box" is slightly different, that the raw materials each of us has to put in the box is different, and each person's ability to analyze, modify and refit those parts is also going to vary.

There is some similarity from one shooter to the next, however, so this isn't hopeless. We all hold similarly, NPA is a very useful component to put in your box early on and hearing from others what sorts of analysis are useful (self-monitoring, a coach, video tape, etc.) is great.

I have compared shooting to riding a bicycle in that much of what happens has to be automatic (but I said "subconscious" in a posting on that so maybe I need to rethink the use of that word).

The idea of the "process in the box" helps me understand what ties the rank beginner -- who is tinkering with the pieces, often at random, and trying to produce a good shot and, over time, assembles some sort of process "in the box" that works the same way each time -- to the expert -- who detects a deficiency and takes a single piece out of the process and gives it a few strokes with the polishing stone before replacing it and trying again.

For the beginner, many of the pieces in his box are only roughly shaped; much of what interests the experts is too fine an adjustment for the beginner. But it can benefit the beginner to listen to the experts in a couple of ways. First, it helps build an appreciation for what a finely polished process is at the end of all this work. Second, listening to the experts suggests the general shape of what the beginner must craft. And third, as simple as it sounds to "Line up the sights on the portion of the target that is your aiming area and release the shot without disturbing that alignment", we are all learning just how finely honed a process is required to do that over and over and over 270 times, and more.

Look Ma, No Hands!

Shooting, I'm beginning to suspect, is like riding a bicycle. Intellectually you know what you have to do but as long as you have to think about it, you're gonna crash.

I shot only my 22 at first but, a few months ago, decided to start working on the 45. I wanted to do the whole nine yards and shoot a full 2700 with the right guns and all the rules. Shooting just the 22, I felt like I was only putting my toes in the water. So I bought a 45 and jumped into the deep end.

I then focused solely on the 45 and shot nothing else. And my shooting was, to put it mildly, horrific. I kept moving the target closer and closer until, finally at 15 feet, I could put all ten rounds into the paper. Then, over time and a lot of rounds, I slowly started to get things under control. The target stayed at 15 feet for several weeks. This was a slow process for me. That, in itself, was an important "fact of life" for this beginner to learn.

Grip was the first "Eureka" I discovered. Before making what for me felt like a big breakthrough (which I'll describe in a moment), all my shots were landing 3" (or more) left of center at 15 feet. But when I "got it", the shots moved into the center -- the difference was profound and, by changing my grip in what I thought was a very small way, I could move the shots back and forth at will. That day at the range, I shot several targets and alternated my grip between them and, sure enough, I could move those holes left and right just by changing my grip. Wow!

It took me a couple of days to figure out that, up until that point, no matter how hard I tried to grip the gun, I just wasn't strong enough to maintain that grip through the shot. My grip was that of the proverbial 98 pound weakling and I simply couldn't muster enough force, even just short of the quivering and shaking point that is recommended, to hold the gun well enough, and to hold it that way through the shot.

But when my grip had strengthened to some magic level, then I could.

But even so, there still seems to be a "balance" to be found between grip intensity and enough "play" so my trigger finger can move without moving the rest of the hand muscles. When shooting, what I do now is to consciously grip as tight as I can and then relax it a couple of notches. My grip is still very tight but I can also move my trigger finger (more or less) independently.

Balance.

In time, perhaps as my grip strength continues to increase, that balance range won't be as narrow. Right now, it's hard to get the right amount of grip versus relaxation so that everything "goes" as it should.

I feel like my abilities and strength finally reached the platform of a step on the learning curve where, suddenly, several things started working correctly.

With that "Eureka" successfully learned, I then turned my attention to trigger control and I have spent a couple of months (and a lot of brass) attempting to get rid of the jerk in all its front-sight twitching variants. In the past few days, literally, I think I've made a small breakthrough via a realization.

"Trigger Control" is a misnomer. You don't control the trigger. Instead, it's like riding a bicycle or driving a car with a stick shift and a clutch. Intellectually, you know exactly what you have to do, but there's no way the mind can do it. The brain can help the body learn, but it just doesn't work until the body "gets it" and can do it on its own. When my brain attempts to ride a bike, I crash, but when I let my body do it, I sail along just fine. In shooting, when that happens I -- excuse me, gentlemen -- giggle, "Wow, it's working." (And then "crash" my next shot cause I've start thinking about shooting again.)

When I shoot, the intellectual litany I repeat to myself now goes like this:

1. Prove the stance (make sure I'm lined up, etc.),
2. Two deep breaths, raise gun, exhale partially and hold,
3. Pre-check sight alignment and picture (put it close to correct),
4. Visualize rolling a cylinder with my trigger finger,
5. Focus on the front sight, front sight, front sight ...

And eventually the gun goes off -- and it's definately a surprise (when this works).

What I'm doing in step #4 will (hopefully) start the trigger finger on auto-pilot and then, in #5, I WILL NEVER THINK ABOUT THE TRIGGER AGAIN. That is, step #5 truly is a waiting game -- when I do it the way I intend, [OH!] the gun goes off and I'm truly surprised. I know when I've done it right -- I can feel it in my gut (and hear a giggle in my brain) and I *know* where the shot went on the target. I can call the shot -- well, I can call the "o'clock" portion more often than which ring, but that's real progress!

During step #5, if my mind wanders to the trigger or if I hear myself wondering when the gun is going to go off, I (try to) abort the shot and start over. Hearing that thought and then aborting the shot are, of course, a challenge. I need to work at enhancing my multiple personalities so someone can do the monitoring while someone else watches the sights and the body *does* the trigger.

So, I shot nothing but the 45 for several months.

One day, in great frustration with the 45, I decided I needed some "feel good" shooting and I took out the 22 pistol. It took me a couple of targets to settle back into it but what I discovered was that although my shots weren't particularly better, I found I could call very close to 100% of them. I *knew* where every shot was going. "Trigger Control" was happening. I was riding the bike!

And, for some reason, Timed Fire was suddenly much, MUCH better. Indeed, on the wall behind my desk at this very moment I have taped up a 98-2 TF target I shot June 28th in 22 cal. It was target #8 of the day. The two 9-ring holes are at 10 and 4 o'clocks and probably show some trigger finger position anomolies and just plain not lining up the sights. But the target is on my wall because I now know I will clean a target at some point. I can see that I can do it. On June 28th, I came within two points of doing exactly that. It will happen.

But my slow fire is only a little improved from before, and a lot of other shooters report a similar phenomenon, that their TF is much better than SF (or RF).

Something is going on, and my guess (theory) is that I'm not really holding the alignment when the shot goes. My conscious mind is attempting to hold it, to focus on the front sight, keep it centered in the rear sight with the tops of the sights in a straight line, and in the aiming area of the target, and ...

But I can see that, as with the trigger, I'm trying to do the sight alignment with my conscious mind. As it was with the trigger, so too (I'm beginning to think) must the sight alignment become automatic, and unconscious. The conscious brain has to keep the eye on the front sight so the unconsciou gets the right data, but you just can't ride a bicycle by thinking about it. It's got to be automatic.

In TF, there's just enough time for my wobbly "riding" to stay on the sidewalk, if you will, and my shots go to the right place. But in SF I think about how to align the sights rather than simply telling the unconscious to "align the sights", and by consciously trying to ride the bike, I crash.

Nope, I need to train the unconscious to do what I want, and then let it do it. And in RF, my conscious mind tries to control things to get all five shots away in time and, again, I crash the bicycle by trying to ride it with my brain not my body.

Remember how you learned to ride a bike? It took help, patience and a lot of practice. I'm told that Marine shooters are instructed to go out to the line and "Shoot until you're knee deep in brass."

They're learning how to ride a bicycle.

They are doing it over and over and over and over ... until the body knows what to do and the mind go just quietly watch the show.

And I'm convinced that through each gun we learn more and more about shooting any gun, but that each gun forces us to focus on different areas. From the 45 I think I'm figuring out the badly named "Trigger Control" bugaboo. And from the 22 I can "see" my problem with "Sight Alignment" -- and that it's really the same kind of "control" issue.

Since I'm really in "learn" mode much more than "compete effectively" mode, I focus on solely shooting one gun during practice/training sessions and, at the moment (and for a couple of months to come, I'm sure), that will be the 45. It's a bear to shoot -- what an incredible challenge -- but I'm learning and slowly getting better, sometimes incrementally from practice to practice, but other times only after staying stuck, growing frustrated, and then suddenly experiencing a jump. "What did I just do," is the question to answer when that happens in practice/training.

And there is the inevitable back-sliding, too. That can be so very frustrating when you've seen something working but then lose it somehow.

Patience.

In competitions (such as the Tuesday night league here in Phoenix), I try to turn my brain off as much as possible and enjoy the shoot because, when the brain turns on (because I shot a pretty good target) the brain always tries to do it better, and when that happens, I crash my bike.

Don Plante said to me once, "Don't think. Just shoot."

Coach Pat, the ex-Marine pistol coach that calls our league competitions, sometimes walks behind the line before a string and reminds the shooters, "You know what DFT is, don't you? 'Don't ... Think!'"

And Brian Zins, seven times the US National Champion says, "I am not smart enough to shoot bad."

Shooting is body work, not brain work.

It's like riding a bicycle.

Well, almost like that but, fortunately for the other shooters on the line, there's never any temptation to suddenly shout, "Look Ma, no hands!"

Mother Nature Shoots Bullseye

The Nighthawks Tuesday evening league started well last night at the Phoenix Rod and Gun Club, but then it got interesting.

We were shooting Conventional Pistol (alternates with International every other week) and had completed the first two slow fire targets. Focusing hard on my 45 and determined to give a good showing, I scored 74-1 and 74-0 and was very pleased since my last outing with this group saw my scores peaking in the 60s. I was off to a good start.

And then the monsoon storm hit.

At this time of year, the prevailing winds into Phoenix shift and instead of coming across from California and over the mountains that rake out the moisture, they come up from the Gulf of California across flat land. The clouds arrive full and the blazing temperatures all day just serve to stoke up their energy.

They're mad!

As we were scoring the second slow fire targets, the wind and dust hit. Brass catchers, lightly loaded gun boxes and tripod mounted scopes flopped over taking out other items. Inadequately fastened target repair centers took flight as the shooters split into two groups, one racing to secure bench equipment and the other to deal with the targets.

In a few minutes the dust had passed and the wind moderated a bit so we tried to carry on. Through the lessened gusts, I fired a 60-0 in the slow fire of the NMC. Again, we scored, repaired, chased cardboard backing blown loose and called in the heavy duty stapler to try and continue the meet.

But now the second set of winds arrived, those that preceed the rain. Shooting the timed fire NMC target, I kept one hand on my gun box and struggled to keep the gun pointed at my target. When scored, there were ten holes in the scoring rings on my target and, given the expertise of the shooters on either side, there was a good chance those holes were all mine! I was truly astonished to score a 64-0 under those conditions.

We repaired and immediately fired the rapid fire NMC target but before anyone could leave the line to score them, the wind doubled and rain arrived, several targets ripped loose and flew away and "Meet cancelled, grab your stuff!" was quickly announced. With 45 caliber drops of water splatting all around, the equipment, target frames and even loose brass were quickly collected and safely put away. Everyone was wet, many were soaked, and there were lots of grins.

The next morning the newspaper reported that as much as 2" of rain fell in a three hour period with wind gusts of up to 60 MPH in some parts of the city.

One shooter, freshly back from Camp Perry grinned, "Good practice for the Nationals!"