# Trigger Control is a myth.



## DA SWO (Jun 20, 2015)

I disagree, and think he is mixing apples and oranges here.  Maybe a lack of trigger control is why we see 40 plus rounds going out with 3-4 hits.

http://www.policeone.com/police-pro...articles/1635353-The-trigger-control-fallacy/


By Mike Rayburn
Adjunct Instructor, Smith & Wesson Academy 

Thousands of articles and reams of paper have been wasted on the fallacy of trigger control and how allegedly important it is to shooting skills. Numerous “shooting gurus” have gone on record as stating that trigger control is the number one problem when it comes to shooting a handgun.

That’s a bunch of hogwash! Trigger control may be important to target shooting skills, but not to the type of shooting we do as law enforcement officers. As police officers we are combat shooters, or at least we better be. If your department is still one, of unfortunately many, that still practices target shooting skills for combat on the street, then maybe trigger control is a concern of yours. But even then, it’s not the number one problem when it comes to shooting a handgun.

The leading problem is anticipating the recoil of the firearm, resulting in a pre-ignition push, or PIP. Just before the ignition of the powder in the bullet, you push the gun with your hand. The most common of these is to push the front of the gun downward. Your brain is saying, “OK, here it comes, get ready for that loud bang,” and you push the gun downward at the same time you pull the trigger rearward. 

A number of firearms instructors have misdiagnosed this problem as poor trigger control, stating that the shooter “is not properly controlling the even, smooth pull of the trigger”. So, what usually follows is command to, “Place the middle of the first pad of your index finger on the trigger and slowly squeeze the trigger rearward until the round goes off. When it does, it should be a surprise to you.”

First off, you are sending lethal projectiles down range. Your gun should never go off as a “surprise to you.” Each and every shot should be controlled and expected.

Secondly, do you really think that during an all-out fight for your life, you’re going to be concerned with how much finger, first pad or not, is going to be on that trigger? Of course not! You’re going to stick your finger in the trigger guard and pull that trigger as fast and as hard as you can to get some lead on this bad guy who’s trying to take your life. It’s as simple as that.

Another PIP problem that is often misdiagnosed as a trigger control issue is what is commonly called “heeling the firearm.” Instead of pushing the nose of the gun downward, you push it upward. Basically, you’re pushing with the heel of your hand and the front of the handgun gets pushed up. Once again, your brain is subconsciously saying; “OK get ready for that big bang”, and you heel the gun, anticipating recoil.

The last PIP problem is to push the gun to one side or the other. Most shooters will push the gun to their off side. This is because that’s where the least amount of energy is being exerted on the gun during the gripping process. Most right-handed shooters will push the gun to their left and most left-handed shooters will push the gun to their right.

So, if it’s not trigger control, and we’re not going to give stupid commands like “slowly squeeze your trigger until the round goes off and it’s a surprise to you,” how do we correct this PIP problem?

First, you have to recognize that the PIP problem is all in your head, nowhere else. You’ve subconsciously developed this “flinch” which results in the gun being pushed off target. You have to tell yourself, and be convinced, that you’re not going to do it. If you have to, just before you pull the trigger, tell yourself repeatedly that you’re not going to anticipate the recoil of the firearm: “I’m not going to do it, I’m not going to do it.” You have to believe that as long as you’re holding the gun properly and pointing it in the right direction, you’re not going to get hurt by the recoil, no matter how big of a bang the gun makes.

Convincing yourself mentally is one thing, but having it transferred to your hand is another. To reinforce what’s going on in your brain, you should perform what’s called the “ball & dummy drill.” Take three or four magazines and stagger live rounds with plastic dummy rounds. Mix them up, placing one live, one dummy, two live, one dummy, and so forth. Now mix the magazines up so you don’t know which ones are loaded which way.
Once you’ve done this, head out to the range and place a magazine in your gun. Begin firing one round at a time. When you get to the dummy round, if you have a PIP problem, you’ll see the gun dip, or heeled up, or pushed off to one side or the other. If this occurs, practice that mental rehearsal of telling yourself that you’re not going to anticipate the recoil. Continue the ball and dummy drill until you’ve conquered your PIP problem.

Stay away from all the hype from these so-called “shooting gurus” and stick with the facts, which show that the number one problem with most shooters is anticipating the recoil of the firearm, not trigger control. Understand that during a gunfight, you’ll just stick your finger in the trigger guard and pull that trigger as fast and as hard as you can until you’ve eliminated the threat.

Stop worrying about the recoil of the firearm and you’ll be a great shooter.


----------



## AWP (Jun 20, 2015)

I stopped reading and went into skim mode at this point:



> That’s a bunch of hogwash! Trigger control may be important to target shooting skills, but not to the type of shooting we do as law enforcement officers. As police officers we are combat shooters, or at least we better be.



I guess Vickers, Lamb, Howe, and a metric ton of guys who have been in a "few" gunfights aren't as smart or experienced as Mr. Rayburn?

To quote the author, that's a bunch of hogwash.



> Stay away from all the hype from these so-called “shooting gurus” and stick with the facts


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jun 21, 2015)

I take these types of individuals as the same who push point shooting over using sights. You don't know what you don't know. 

My opinion: Trigger control and recoil management (read don't flinch push the gun or ride recoil) is paramount in accurately shooting a pistol. Grip, sights and form, all come second (well unless we discuss body mechanics and how to control recoil, etc). But WTF do I know, and I've never shot someone with a pistol...


----------



## busdriver (Jun 21, 2015)

Isn't it all really the same damn thing?  The gun is going bang when the sights aren't pointed at the target.  If he has a problem with officers learning how to shoot with the whole "be surprised" trick, fine I agree but if folks need that to qualify then there's bigger problems than terminology semantics.


----------



## Centermass (Jun 21, 2015)

"Pull" the trigger?? Whatever........

He may very well have a point with a new born rookie, who has never shot at anything, or with anything. After an adequate time with a service weapon, the FATS, stress fire drills, if the so called "PIP" is still a problem, it'll show up when they qual. And if it does, that person is probably so skiddish, they have no reason suited up in blue, let alone, wearing a shield.

Does it happen? Yeah, everything has an exception. But my take is it's a lot less than what the author claims it to be, as to the root problem.


----------



## busdriver (Jun 21, 2015)

To be fair, it's not a skittish thing it's human nature.  Try this trick some time, hold your fist out in front of you like you've got a gun.  Have a buddy smack it back repeatedly while you hold a conversation.  Randomly, after a minute or two, he should miss your hand.  You'll probably flinch forward.

In any event, it's really a matter of training.  I end up "PIPing" so to speak when I push the pace.  It's the same thing as "driving the gun" you're just doing it before the shot breaks.  That said, his dummy round technique does work pretty well for a new shooter with a flinch problem.  

Either way, you can't train to shoot at speed if you don't have a good foundation in marksmanship.


----------



## policemedic (Jun 21, 2015)

Rayburn is an egotistical ass with a predilection for instinctive point shooting (he's got a commercially available video on it, and that's what he teaches for Smith and Wesson).  I don't think he's ever seen the elephant, and that alone makes me question any advice someone might give on combat.

Trigger press is critical.  It makes up for a multitude of sins.  But when you advocate a position that says using the sights isn't necessary, then it naturally follows that you'll question other dogma.

Heeling and flinching are not trigger control problems, and I don't know any instructor who thinks they are.  They're also not something Rayburn is the first to notice.  Identifying these errors is well within the capabilities of a good firearms instructor.  Rayburn certainly didn't invent the ball and dummy drill.

I would say that combat shooters are most definitely target shooters.  The only thing is that the target is moving and shooting back.  In police work, the failure to use proper fundamentals (trigger manipulation and sight picture) when firing in defense of self or others often results in rounds going where we don't want them to...perhaps into Grandma or the busload of nuns going down the street.  In the military, accountability for each round--a prime concern in law enforcement--may be eased a bit, but misses still give the bad guy more time to kill you.  Proper grip in the holster, present the gun to the target whilst acquiring the sights and removing a safety if necessary, verify sight picture, press trigger, control recoil--resetting trigger in the process--and track front sight, repeat as necessary until the threat is mitigated.  That's how it's done.

Trigger press, proper use of the sights, recoil control...these all contribute to winning gunfights, especially as distance increases with a pistol.  That's been my experience, and it jives with others who have had vastly more experience than I have.  Quoting Vickers, "Speed is fine; accuracy is final."


----------



## busdriver (Jun 21, 2015)

Sorry gents, guess I was more interested in B.S.ing with Centermass than talking about this dunce.


----------



## Centermass (Jun 21, 2015)

busdriver said:


> Sorry gents, guess I was more interested in B.S.ing with Centermass than talking about this dunce.



What do you wanna discuss now? My favorite color?


----------



## x SF med (Jun 21, 2015)

Centermass said:


> What do you wanna discuss now? My favorite color?




It's either Black or Gold...  or a combination of the 2...  maybe Black and Red like the Scroll...  Black is in there somewhere, since it is the color of your heart.

Jerk the trigger, jerk the round...  it's not that difficult, good front sight picture, solid grip, even trigger squeeze, round on target.


----------



## Board and Seize (Jun 22, 2015)

I remember the first time I learned about anticipation too.

Who the hell are all of the 'shooting gurus' this guy is talking about who don't know the difference between anticipation and poor trigger control?!


----------



## Grunt (Jun 22, 2015)

I must be too simple...I understand all of this, but........

I remember growing up in the woods and knew that doing X+Y=hit the target where I was aiming...

Maybe I have been doing it wrong all along......


----------



## Kettenhund (Jun 25, 2015)

Quite a few guys in the department, mostly newer officers, like to go to the range often to keep sharp.  Normally, I don't have to worry about these guys scoring less than a 95 at quals.  As a rule, I like to start off the qual session with a few rounds from the 10 yard line.  Working on fundamentals seems to help get into the groove before quals.  Last qualifications, I had a relatively new guy who normally practices quite a bit pulling his shots low at the 10 yard line.  He seemed to be perplexed and asked why.  I handed him a mag I had previously loaded up with both live and dummy rounds and told him his question would be answered in short order.  After the hammer fell on the first dummy, I asked him if he had any more questions.  We proceeded to go through that mag until it was expended and his "flinch" was gone.  Once he realized it was there, he was able to eliminate it.  Afterward he had told me he had not fired his weapon since the last quals.  Life had gotten in the way and he kept putting it off.  I gave him a few boxes of practice ammo and told him if it's important to him, he needed to make the time to practice.

I stress all the fundamentals of good marksmanship.  Sight picture, sight alignment, bre4athing, as well as trigger squeeze and trigger reset.  Yes, qualifying is different than shooting under stress but if the fundamentals are sound then I believe there is some carry over when stress is applied.  What sticks in my head the most is the story that was told to me by the instructor that taught me how to be a firearms instructor.  In a nut shell, a police firearms instructor woudl have his men keep the empty brass from their revolvers in their support hand so he would not have to spend time picking up brass afterward.  One of his men was killed during a shootout and the officer was found with a support hand hand full of empty brass.  What the officer was trained to do carried over during a stressful situation.  Why wouldn't positive training aspects also carry over??


----------



## pardus (Jun 25, 2015)

Kettenhund said:


> What sticks in my head the most is the story that was told to me by the instructor that taught me how to be a firearms instructor.  In a nut shell, a police firearms instructor woudl have his men keep the empty brass from their revolvers in their support hand so he would not have to spend time picking up brass afterward.  One of his men was killed during a shootout and the officer was found with a support hand hand full of empty brass.  What the officer was trained to do carried over during a stressful situation.  Why wouldn't positive training aspects also carry over??



I recall a similar story of an Officer disarming a perp of his pistol and promptly handing the pistol back to the perp, just like they did during training  
IIRC the Officer realized what he did and disarmed him again without harm. I bet he had to change his pants after that too!


----------



## CDG (Jun 25, 2015)

I think both of the cases, and a couple other ones, were discussed in one of LTC Dave Grossman's books.  I want to say one involved officers picking up brass during a gunfight because they had been trained to always pick up the brass after a mag was expended.


----------



## Red-Dot (Jun 25, 2015)

With a JDAM, trigger pull is irrelevant.


----------



## DA SWO (Jun 25, 2015)

Red-Dot said:


> With a JDAM, trigger pull is irrelevant.


Maybe.


----------



## Loki (Sep 3, 2015)

_"the number one problem with most shooters is anticipating the recoil of the firearm, not trigger control." _

Hunnn, what? That's a gem!  So according to Michael the anticipation (_"feeling of excitement about something that is going to happen"_) of discharge is what affects the impact of the bullet, not the action of poorly manipulating the trigger as a result. And this is an "expert".  I guess everyone else in the world has it wrong including every well known “shooting guru” and professional institution. I completely disagree with the author. 

Here's his bio;
"_Michael T. Rayburn is a 29-year veteran of Law Enforcement and is currently an adjunct instructor at the Smith & Wesson Academy. He is the author of three books, Advanced Vehicle Stop Tactics, Advanced Patrol Tactics, and Basic Gunfighting 101. His video, "*Instinctive Point Shooting *with Mike Rayburn" is a top seller in the law enforcement and combat shooting communities. " 

_


----------



## busdriver (Sep 4, 2015)

This ass-hat aside, do you guys think the military could change it's basic weapons qualification training to be better given the constraints of money and time?  While I'd love for more frequent training to allow the building of core skills as well as more applicable scenario training, I think it's probably a bridge too far if I'm honest with myself.

I have some of my own ideas, but they're heavily biased by shooting competition.


----------



## DA SWO (Sep 4, 2015)

busdriver said:


> This ass-hat aside, do you guys think the military could change it's basic weapons qualification training to be better given the constraints of money and time?  While I'd love for more frequent training to allow the building of core skills as well as more applicable scenario training, I think it's probably a bridge too far if I'm honest with myself.
> 
> I have some of my own ideas, but they're heavily biased by shooting competition.



Changing weapons training wouldn't be that hard.  Commercial firms take people with no skills and have them shooting a consistent shot group in a few hours.  

The biggest impediment is our "cattle car" mentality where we throw people on a range, have them bang away, and are pleased with ourselves if we get a minimum passing score.


----------



## busdriver (Sep 4, 2015)

I agree.  Poorly worded question on my part.  If you were re-designing the training, what would it look like?  

The first problem is I don't think the military really knows what it wants the end product of training to look like.  The AF half ass trains accuracy, then tries to make it somewhat tactical by adding a really slow par time that doesn't really matter.  What's a reasonable standard of performance for a FOB dweller for self defense?  I seriously don't know what's reasonable for a new shooter after one day of training.

I haven't shot the full (academics and shooting with a full class, versus just shooting over lunch with a CATM dude watching) AF qual in probably 4 years, so it may have changed but I always thought it seemed like a cop qual.  I don't need to learn to shoot over the hood of a car or draw from the "interview position."  Most folks don't have the marksmanship fundamentals to be screwing around at 25 yards, or shooting snail's pace Mozambique drills.  I think most folks (at least in the AF) would be better served by standing and shooting at 2" dots at 7 yards.


----------



## Gunz (Sep 4, 2015)

A "reasonable standard of performance for an FOB dweller" in my opinion would be a familiarity with all organic defense weapons he/she might have to wield in an emergency, the ability to hit targets at 200 yards, change mags or belts and clear jams. I don't think the average fobbit has to necessarily be proficient in combat shooting, but they need to know how to operate the weapons around them and hit what they're aiming at.

It's too late to learn when the bad guys are in the wire.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Sep 4, 2015)

The real problem with the way the military (Army) approaches marksmanship and weapons training, is that they have very few SME's to troop ratio. Simple shit like qualified expert, but is that troop really an expert? Or did they just meet a standard?

Running a 2-3 week marksmanship instructor course for say everyone who graduated PLDC/WLC before they can attend BNOC or whatever it is now. 

Shit can all the pop up ranges and go back to KD ranges.

Development of an actual standard that truly represents classification of the soldiers skill.

Nuke all the overboard risk management associated with taking a unit to the range.

I can go on for a few page's, but bottom line is that they need to kill the myths of current training by reeducation and revise the way we view "trained" vs "qualified". Fuck simply running btn level marksmanship matches on a quarterly bases would unfuck a massive amount of the current bullshit system.


----------



## Etype (Sep 7, 2015)

This article is a gross oversimplification of a complicated range of tasks.

If you're trying to shoot a sub 2.5 sec bill drill from the holster, you're going to be slapping the hell out of the trigger. All of the high speed video I've seen of people shooting that fast shows their finger coming off the trigger. But, you're also not worried about your breathing- I'd argue most people are holding their breath the whole time, but the fact is they have no clue.

Take it to the other end of the spectrum and shoot a bullseye drill from 25 or 35m, every good shooter and going to slow down and do proper everything.


In addition, if you guys aren't familiar with Brian Enos' training philosophies, you should do some reading. To paraphrase, most of your training should be done at the extremes. Train extreme speed and extreme accuracy, then spend a little bit of time in the middle- you'll find that you're now faster and more accurate.


----------



## busdriver (Sep 7, 2015)

And there's the crux of the training problem.  What do we want a military/police shooter to be capable of?  Should they be NRA bullseye shooters or USPSA, or IDPA shooters?

Ben Stoeger has some interesting training material as well.

ETA:  As I'm starting down the USPSA path, I'm realizing I have to fix a lot of crappy habits developed over years of shooting a different (slower) way.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Sep 27, 2015)

Bulls eye vs Practical shooting?

Both, you need to have the fundamental ability to make consistently accurate hits. You also need to be able to apply it with speed and practical use. A lot of USPSA GM's still shoot groups and bulls eye drills. Actually Brian Enos specifically recommends it in his book.


----------



## busdriver (Sep 27, 2015)

I agree in concept.  I apologize, I meant the comment as a bit of hyperbole.  Short of issuing pistols to take home and dry fire, training your average dude/dudette to an actual competitive standard isn't going to happen.

Fun accuracy/speed drill:  Frank Garcia's dot drill.  7yds from a draw, 6 shots into a 2 inch dot, 5 second time limit, 6 dots on the target to complete drill.  I think I've only cleaned one or two dots since I started trying this, but damned if my misses aren't a lot closer.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Sep 27, 2015)

Well in the context of Mil/LE, it doesn't change much. I look at bulls eye as the focus of the fundamentals of marksmanship (basic understanding/application). As the more practical training is more of a "learn how to apply it in practical use" as in now take those basics and learn to make them work in a real world (sorta kinda) application.

I guess the point being is, when learning and or checking the basics, bulls eye is  probably the more applicable method. As where practical shooting is more the learning and pushing the boundaries of practical applications. If that makes any sense.


----------



## busdriver (Sep 28, 2015)

A focus on fundamentals is probably most applicable given the relatively low level of pistol experience, but I also tend to think having basic qual folks shooting at 25 yards is a huge waste of time.  The "practical" aspect that I've seen at that level looks like some sort of slow motion gun kata martial arts stance practice with a slow fire group at the end.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Sep 28, 2015)

Using the same ideology, a lot of LEO's do not train on bullseye or group/25m quals. They will practice from the holster, at varying distances (mostly close 10y and in) and in some cases incorporating more advanced level techniques (barricade work, shooting on the move, etc). However, suffering the same lack of funding/training time, they tend to be horribly deficient in application. This is very prevalent when observed shooting next to a competitive shooter (be it a bullseye or practical competition).

The big issue, is not really the standards used as much as the preparation training, and more so having the knowledge instructors/trainers available to provide the training. This is obvious due to the amount of people from all walks of life seeking out training outside of their organizations. Example being SOF guys seeking training from individuals from the competitive areas and or teir one SOF veterans, etc. 

With regards to the Army, we need smarter people providing the training and subject expertise vs Sgt Joe Shmo, who knows just as much as Pvt snuffy, and only has become slightly better at meeting the standards.

Leadership plays a big role, need commanders and SRNCO's who embrace making things better, instead of sticking to the status quo of "we do it like the book says". 

I'm not necessarily in disagreement with you, but think you are evaluating a broad skill set through a narrow view.


----------



## Hillclimb (Sep 28, 2015)

busdriver said:


> I also tend to think having basic qual folks shooting at 25 yards is a huge waste of time.



25m slow fire is where your fundamentals and mistakes really show. The degree of your trigger control/heeling/anticipating/grip/etc is easier to identify/more pronounced at the 25m. I could point at the target at 7, 10 and (nobody quote me on this one) probably 15, and still hit black without looking at the sights.

Small angular deviation/sloppy fundamentals are easier to get away with at the closer yard lines. I don't think firing at the 25yd line needs to make up the majority of the qual, but it's definitely not a waste of time.


----------



## busdriver (Sep 30, 2015)

My view is probably narrower than you realize I'm in the Air Force after all, basic qual here can be downright scary.  The thing is, the folks I've seen sometimes can't hit black at 7 yards using the sights.  Even folks that don't have problems qualifying sometimes can't do better than an 8 inch group at 7 yards.  I shoot at 25 yards for all the reasons mentioned, but the folks I'm talking about are just flinging bullets down range and getting nothing out of it and all of their mistakes and flaws in the fundamentals are glaringly obvious at much closer ranges.

Better instructors would help, better student/instructor ratio would help just as much.  What would really help is letting the instructors tailor their instruction and course of fire to the students' skill level.  Let the qual course of fire be relatively short range and "easy" but challenge shooters during the practice portion?


----------



## Red-Dot (Sep 30, 2015)

busdriver said:


> My view is probably narrower than you realize I'm in the Air Force after all, basic qual here can be downright scary.  The thing is, the folks I've seen sometimes can't hit black at 7 yards using the sights.  Even folks that don't have problems qualifying sometimes can't do better than an 8 inch group at 7 yards.  I shoot at 25 yards for all the reasons mentioned, but the folks I'm talking about are just flinging bullets down range and getting nothing out of it and all of their mistakes and flaws in the fundamentals are glaringly obvious at much closer ranges.



This comes as a shock to you? Big Blue does NOT put much emphasis on basic marksmanship unless you are in a few selected career fields.


----------



## busdriver (Sep 30, 2015)

Ha, not shocked at all.  More lamentation I suppose.  If the qual courses are considered too easy or a joke, the Big Blue answer is to make the qual harder or "more tactical" but not afford more time or leeway for the CATM folks to actually instruct anything.  Unfortunately "just in time training" really means ball wash.


----------



## DA SWO (Sep 30, 2015)

busdriver said:


> Ha, not shocked at all.  More lamentation I suppose.  If the qual courses are considered too easy or a joke, the Big Blue answer is to make the qual harder or "more tactical" but not afford more time or leeway for the CATM folks to actually instruct anything.  Unfortunately "just in time training" really means ball wash.


AF qual course sucks because cops are in charge.
Making every day Airmen shoot a cop qual course fails the common sense test.


----------



## busdriver (Oct 1, 2015)

True fact right there.


----------

