quote:

Originally posted by jljones:
So, the “quantifiable way” doesn’t include actual metrics that are in common usage in training.

That’s a hell of a good scam for this gimmick. To be able to claim improvement, but not have to prove it.

No, again, I didn't say that. YOU just said that.

I have nothing to do with this product, other than having purchased one as a Christmas present for a USMC son who has never been able to use it due to injuries and surgeries on his hands and wrists, and shoulders.

The "common" metrics may be common to some competitors, but few others. I don't know what a "triple nickle" is. No idea. Perhaps those who don't will never have any standard of improvement. I don't know what my "split times" are. No idea. Apparently I can never improve in any way without these.

The fact is that if one doesn't fire a shot, one can improve in an area, simply by dry fire. At one of your classes, the fastest guy in the class learned most of what he did from watching youtube and practicing at home. He owned exactly one pistol, and spend an inordinate amount of time honing his handling of that pistol, at home, with an unloaded firearm. When we did our drills at the beginning and end of the course, he cleaned the clock, got the award for the fastest. I thought he'd been shooting a lot, taken a lot of courses. Young guy. When I talked to him about it, he was attending his first course. He was that good, from watching videos online and rehearsing it. He improved, thanks to your tutelage. And you were able to measure it, with your drills.

He also improved, before he met you, with videos and dry fire at home. He didn't know his splits. Maybe he'd never fired a "triple nickle' or a "bill drill." Yet he improved. You just hadn't measured him.

I don't work for mantis. I don't own one. I do know that if I dry fire over a course of days or weeks, and do it correctly, I can expect to develop a smoother reload, or a more accurate press-our or presentation, or a more efficient grip and draw. I'll know by the way I present the pistol, what the front sight is doing. I may not have a measurement, or perhaps when the front sight is no longer 2" off the target, but on it, I've made some improvement. Someone might not be able to shoot due to illness, COVID, riots, money, or whatever...but they can still train at home...and improve, even if they can't go do a "triple nickle" (whatever that is).

Their improvement may be noted on something like the mantis. It's a simulator. A measuring device. It produces a graphic that shows movement. It records. Someone who sees a noticeable improvement in reduction in movement or the training-out of an error, has a metric to measure what they're doing. It may not be your metric, but it may also be that their goal isn't to satisfy you, but themself.

Can they be improved by other means? Yes. Can they be improved with your training? Yes. Can their progress be measured with your metrics? Yes. Can they determine improvement some other way? Yes. Can a person go their entire life and never do a "triple nickle?" Yes. Can someone shoot their entire life and never know their "split times?" You bet. Can they use split times or a triple nickle as a tool for improvement? Of course. Is that the only way? Absolutely not.

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:
Race car drivers have metrics such as speed and time. When someone says “oh this gadget will make you a better driver. Race car drivers then ask “How will does it effect my time in the xxxx?”

Not everyone is a race car driver. Not everyone wants to be. In fact, by far the vast majority of drivers will never run a race, and it may be that any training they receive is about safety. Or some other purpose than winning a race.

Pretty narrow market, if it's just for race car drivers.

So again, how does it make you better? What does it do that dry fire does not? You seem to keep telling me what you are not saying and speaking in generalities. If you are going to educate me, please actually tell me how this performance improvement is measured.

What, specifically, are the other ways that performance can be measured?

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:
You seem to keep telling me what you are not saying and speaking in generalities.

No, Jerry. I keep telling you that I didn't say the words you attempt to put in my mouth.

I've been specific enough.

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:
If you are going to educate me, please actually tell me how this performance improvement is measured.

Nobody is going to educate you, Jerry. You've made it clear in the past that you're the only person on the planet who can properly teach: you've said it here. Nobody is ever going to tell you anything. That's makes it fairly exclusive: you, and then the rest of the world.

Kind of like race car drivers, and the rest of the world that drives.

Not everyone is you. Not everyone is Rob Leatham. Not everyone is a race car driver.

Not everyone knows their splits. Or what a triple nickle is.

JL know you'll not be convinced, and that's not the goal, we all understand that live fire training with an instructor is of significant value.

The question is will electronic training devices assist trainers and shooters in the future. I think that they will tech is inevitable in all athletic, sports, competition for analysis of athletes. Metrics aside as they'll become detailed as tech develops, because the end result, live fire is the ultimate metric.

Having said that, presuming that instructor is sending people home to practice dry fire, and hopefully what to look for to improve. What metric(s) is used to determine if the dry fire that student does results in improvement.

IF the dry fire is done with a digital trainer, would not data obtained indicate what they were doing during dry fire and assist the instructor in reinforcing good habits or point out bad habits.

So where are the real metrics obtained. On the range? live fire? if this is so, then every training technique not used in presence of a trailer, timer, and live fire would have no metrics?

I'm betting things like Matrix become normal in educating new shooters as well as helping those with no training improve.

Imagine the concern is will people expect this to be the panacea for poor gun handling, and never train, which would be a mistake.

Well JL, at least they had a nice online competition going on, which was way more fun than reading your arrogant rant.

quote:

Originally posted by HRK:
So where are the real metrics obtained. On the range? live fire? if this is so, then every training technique not used in presence of a trailer, timer, and live fire would have no metrics?

Since you are the only one who seems to want to try to take an honest stab at this, let's talk metrics.

Dry fire actually offers many metrics that cost zero. If you break down high speed shooting, or high speed gun handling, there are only a handful of metrics. Draw fire one, draw fire one-reload-fire one, splits, transitions, and movement.

Let's break down the draw fire one as an example. The draw fire one is getting a good master grip on the gun, having a clean presentation from the holster and on a rail to the specific point on the target that serves as the aiming point. If the three conditions have been obtained that makes the trigger fair game, the shooter will start to prep the trigger on the way to the target. The job is to prep the trigger once the gun starts toward the target, confirm the sights, and roll through the last bit before the gun comes to a stop. A good dry fire program, and a little intellectual honesty, can support a lot of metrics in common usage.

Metric one- The ability to drive the gun to a specific spot on the wall with 90 percent success. (9 times out of 10 you get it right).
Metric two- The ability to prep the trigger in various stages on the way to the target.
Metric three- The ability for the shooter to get the trigger prepped to a 90 percent status upon demand.
Metric four- The ability for the shooter to dry fire draw and fire one under a set par time.

NOTE- Everyone has a smart phone these days. Free shot timers with random starts are very common.

So, how do we measure a metric? Let's choose one. Draw and obtain the 90 percent prep. Once the shooter understands (through dry fire) how to properly present the gun, use of the (free) timer will show a metric. The shooter can set a metric that they think they can perform. Requirements- Free shot timer, an aiming point, an unloaded pistol and holster.

The shooter sets the timer for the par time that they think they can do clean. Example- 2.0 seconds, an easy par if you are clean on drawing the gun and getting it onto target. The shooter sets the random start on the free shot timer and the goal is to drive the gun to that quarter sized aiming point within the confides of their kitchen or garage within the two second par time. If the shooter easily makes the time, the shooter reduces the time by 1/10. And continues the process until they can no longer make the par time. Once this occurs, they start to work on the nuances of the draw to clean up the specific points of technique to clean the par time and lower it once again.

Total cost? Zero. The information is available on the internet from vetted sources. It gives you identifiable metrics to see improvements on the draw.

That is only one example of the many desires and disciplines of shooting. All can be cleaned up and worked on without spending a dime. You just have to put in the work.

Metrics are not hard to come by, they don't require an instructor, or even live fire training. Metrics are apparently damned hard to come by once you spend $150. For $150, the question of "how" this gimmick makes you a better shooter (metrics) should not be a hard answer. The fact that many have no idea of even where to start sorta reinforces my earlier posts in this thread. This seems to be shooting with no target, and claiming vast improvement.

I get what you are saying along the lines of high speed shooting, however outside of getting into a defensive situation.

I"m more interested in getting shots on target and fixing some of the flaws in my technique and how to measure that real time during practice off range.

Looking at the system there is data feedback, it does have a shot timer, and some other results. There is recorded feedback available, for both session and overall, of course knowing what to look for helps.

Investing a couple of hundred in a possible device to help improve things isn't that expensive, if it works.

Like Golf there are a lot of "self training" devices where folks have made millions off people looking for the magic pill, add dieting, skin care, and many others that had no real chance of fixing things, other than the wallets of the sellers. And this could be one of those gimmicks as well, there's no substitute for hitting balls at the practice range.

As I said before, practice is only good if you're practicing correctly. If not doing the dry fire correctly then the shooter is just reinforcing bad habits.

This is the break down in communication.

I picked ONE example. No matter your interest, there is a metric and a free dry fire drill for you. Had I have picked bullseye shooting, the metrics and dry fire available, there would have been teeth gnashing because it wasn’t “high speed” enough. If you want to be the best beer can shooter on the creek bank, you can accomplish everything with dry fire at no cost.

I think there is a breakdown, because I'm not singling out any one metric or method, this isn't about the availability of a free dry fire technique, we've both established the validity and an awareness of dry firing as a process.

The question is, no matter what the type of shooting one trains for, no matter what the metrics for that type of shooting, is there a place for electronic/digital analysis in educating shooters.

If there is, does this product, or any digital product out there offer any additional assistance to that dry fire procedure.

Does digitally recorded data and graphic/analysis feedback that both the user and instructor can see useful to improve performance.

Lets not get bogged down in Free vs paid methodology, that isn't the question, it's can we find additional methods to help, and acquire data to direct the user an instructor while training.

It would seem helpful in a way having a product that would encourages dry fire practice to help get people working on their technique.

JMO, digital shooting aids are going to continue to be developed, and what role in the firearms education process will they play.