# Salad plate shooter



## JimmySays (Jun 8, 2007)

How many folks here are a salad plate shooter? I am, if a salad plate was 4 inches in diameter. I always aim for center mass , sternum, spine, and maybe a lung or heart if I'm lucky, giving myself a 4 inch safety zone.
That is probably the best you can hope for in a high stress situation, I try for the center of the target and sacrifice accuracy(X in 10 ring) for volume, still trying to stay on target.
What is your shooting philosophy? Dead on X in the 10 ring all the time? 10 ring is good enough? Salad plate? Paper?
I have a good friend that can outshoot me but he doesn't know it. Always a 10/A, but I am on my second mag by the time he squeezes off his first shot.
Like we used to say on the .50 cal, or any other machine gun,accuracy by volume.
Disclaimer: Target recognition, target acquisition, clear background, sight alignment, sight picture, breath, relax, aim, stop, squeeze. Repeat as necessary.:smt023


----------



## Baldy (Jun 21, 2006)

I figure if I can hit a 4" circle at 10 or 12yds that's good for me.


----------



## Mike Barham (Mar 30, 2006)

I only really shoot handguns in defensive mode, so my standards may be different. If I can cover my group with my hand, I am getting about the right balance of speed and accuracy (for COM shots). Bigger than that and I am shooting too fast; smaller and I need to speed up.

I seldom shoot for pure accuracy. Rather, I strive to combine speed with acceptable hits.


----------



## DJ Niner (Oct 3, 2006)

Aim small, miss small. 

It's far easier to teach an accurate shooter how to speed-up (and accept a slightly lower level of accuracy), than it is to get a fast, sloppy shooter to improve their accuracy.

Someone wrote a magazine article about this, years ago. He claimed the theory was validated in looking at a list of The Masters handgun shooting competition winners; many more bullseye (accuracy) shooters on there than any other category (the match has/had three areas - bullseye, action pistol, and silhouette). It jives with my observations of the handgun shooting world in general (there will always be exceptions).


----------



## Mike Barham (Mar 30, 2006)

DJ Niner said:


> It's far easier to teach an accurate shooter how to speed-up (and accept a slightly lower level of accuracy), than it is to get a fast, sloppy shooter to improve their accuracy.


That actually hasn't been true of the recent-ish crop of top practical shooters. Most of them shot fast first and learned accuracy second. Which isn't to say that's the way everyone should do it, but it has caused me to reconsider my previous thinking, which was similar to what you describe.


----------



## JimmySays (Jun 8, 2007)

I started shooting young, and accuracy was always stressed, then reinforced in the Marines. 
Accuracy is very important, but you can't hit it if you don't shoot. I have become comfortable with all my shots getting downrange with a mix of accuracy and speed. It is an adjustment to not try and get the X every time.
In my opinion speed is not as easily taught as accuracy, I agree everyone should strive for accuracy at the start, but I have seen many people who could not force fast follow up shots. And if you throw movement into the equation, IDPA or IPSC, forget about it, especially shooting on the move.
I learned as a door gunner on CH-53E's with a Browning XM-218 which had no sights and a forward airspeed of 140 knots. Now shooting while duckwalking suddenly seems so much easier.:smt082


----------



## DJ Niner (Oct 3, 2006)

Mike Barham said:


> That actually hasn't been true of the recent-ish crop of top practical shooters. Most of them shot fast first and learned accuracy second. Which isn't to say that's the way everyone should do it, but it has caused me to reconsider my previous thinking, which was similar to what you describe.


Hmmm. I haven't heard about this subject, but if it made an impression on you (a person I agree with, more often than not), then I'd like to hear more. Any links or other references you could provide would be appreciated.

Perhaps there is a "right way" to do this, vs. all the "wrong ways" I've seen the results of, over the years.


----------



## tony pasley (May 6, 2006)

2 fast with in 4" then 1 slower X.


----------



## TOF (Sep 7, 2006)

Fast 2, 3, 4, or 5 to the body and slightly slower 1 or 2 to the head. Mix it up a bit at practice so if you do get in a gun fight you don't automaticaly stop after 2 with the BG still standing and looking down his barrel at you.

:smt1099


----------



## Mike Barham (Mar 30, 2006)

DJ Niner said:


> Hmmm. I haven't heard about this subject, but if it made an impression on you (a person I agree with, more often than not), then I'd like to hear more. Any links or other references you could provide would be appreciated.
> 
> Perhaps there is a "right way" to do this, vs. all the "wrong ways" I've seen the results of, over the years.


Yeah, I try to keep an open mind on this stuff, too. I don't have links to specific threads, but if you poke around over on www.brianenos.com, you should be able to find a lot of info on it. That's where I first discovered it. Just bring your hip waders to get through all the Eastern-Zen mumbo jumbo over there.


----------



## hberttmank (May 5, 2006)

I try for the most accuracy depending on the gun and range that I'm shooting at. For example, if I'm shooting my S&W 945 at 25yds, I'll take my time and try to get each shot as close to point of aim as possible. On the other hand if I'm shooting a Glock 19 at 10yds, I'll shoot as fast as I can to keep all the shots in the A zone of a silhouette target.


----------

