I would classify myself as a shooter that takes pride in being well rounded due to my understanding of the method of marksmanship, allowing me to move from one platform to another without much of any need for an adjustment period. This is a result of me being able to read things like relative distance, size of target, time given, and develop a method of marksmanship with components that will help me achieve my objective. Therefore, we have methods of marksmanship. What about the fundamentals? There is no such thing in shooting. Let me explain… DEFINING METHOD A method is defined as “a particular form of procedure for accomplishing or approaching something, especially a systematic or established one.” Is this not a better way of describing how we are shooting? We are putting components and techniques together in combination in order to achieve a specific objective. We may add or omit components, depending on the situation, which we are responsible for correctly reading. DEFINING COMPONENT A component is defined as “a part or element of a larger whole.” This fits perfectly with what is commonly defined as the fundamentals. Not every component is needed, and marksmanship is relative to the objective and it is on the shooter to know what components they have to use. This also requires them to have the skill to integrate them without affecting the other components. For example, when you pull the trigger and deviate the the gun off the intended target, this is a clear failure of integrating the grip component in a way that will not disturb the alignment of the gun to the target. These components must be combined in a harmonious symphony, but they are all actively controlled by the shooter. Some ways of eliminating the complexity of the body needing to create this symphony is shown by hunters zeroing their scopes. In order to shoot accurately and gauge accuracy, many will use a sandbag on a bench rest and only pull the trigger with their finger. They of course are making sure their sights are aligned and have a good picture, but they are omitting every other component for the sake of minimizing the complexity of the firing sequence with the tools at their disposal, given their objective. They eliminate components of human involvement and use tools to do it, much like lightening a trigger to lower the need to apply true trigger control. Same as using cover as a brace, which lessens the need to add a grip component and lessens the consequences of a sloppy trigger control component. On the other hand, someone shooting from retention at a target 5 feet distant are probably only going to utilize their grip and trigger pull with stance being relative and fluid. In this scenario, you can achieve different levels of marksmanship through proprioception, which we are naturally gifted with. But where is the component of body alignment in the million fundamentals? DEFINING FUNDAMENTAL A fundamental is defined as “a central or primary rule or principle on which something is based.” This is quite rigid when you consider the words ‘rule’ and ‘principle’, which generally is accepted as meaning that it cannot be changed or altered without consequence. This makes little sense in today's understanding of the role we play in getting shots where we want them to go. This is a very extreme way of saying that without applying all these things the way we say to, you will fail. How about when you see an instructor “demonstrate” using the fundamentals to shoot a one inch square from 7 yards, on one foot, holding their breath, holding the gun upside down, and pulling the trigger with their pinky and one hand? They are proving my point that limited components of marksmanship need to be applied by the shooter, relative to the objective. Or how about when Aaron from Sage Dynamics shot a perfect score on the FBI qual with no sights on his pistol? Again, if sight picture/alignment were fundamental and a universally necessary component, this would be impossible per the definition of fundamental. The objective was to hit the target and it was done even with ignoring something we have been told is a non-negotiable principle of human involvement in marksmanship. I know some will seek to defend the fundamentals by saying they are being applied inherently even when using a sandbag rest and I disagree. Genetics are inherent, but your parents getting a medical degree does not mean you are automatically a doctor or even partly capable of medical practice. There is human involvement in making things happen and the fundamentals are taught in such a way that they emphasize that every single one of them has to be consciously and physically applied properly by you throughout the firing sequence. See the problem? MAKE THE CHANGE If you think about it, changing the words to more accurately articulate what we are trying to convey will conversely change the way other things are done as well. If we use words like method and component to describe how we are using techniques to control the weapon throughout the firing sequence, I think people will be much easier to teach. If words matter, we should be using words that reflect our intentions. Old words like fundamentals do not realistically have a place in todays world where the way of doing things will be dictated by the objective. Giving hardcore rules to be universally followed is asinine and has never been a good idea, so let’s change things.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
SUBJECTS
All
Archives
February 2025
|