I thought about violin, since I used to play it and I purposely left that one out. I believe it's one of the hardest instruments because the cost makes it a bit prohibitive both for the actual hardware and lessons. Also proper form is rather conducive to consistency, and improper form is easily noticeable. And finally, classical violin might be considered one of the "higher class" instruments as opposed to say a tin whistle, and the audience, conductor, and whoever is the gateway to your achievements would care about proper form or appearances. Jimi Hendrix however, held his guitar upside down.
How far can aimless practice go?
- Thread starter dyl
- Start date
I thought about violin, since I used to play it and I purposely left that one out. I believe it's one of the hardest instruments because the cost makes it a bit prohibitive both for the actual hardware and lessons. Also proper form is rather conducive to consistency, and improper form is easily noticeable. And finally, classical violin might be considered one of the "higher class" instruments as opposed to say a tin whistle, and the audience, conductor, and whoever is the gateway to your achievements would care about proper form or appearances. Jimi Hendrix however, held his guitar upside down.
I grew up on a farm, and as a hunter. Basic competency with a firearm was expected, but I really enjoyed shooting. We would have informal .22 "matches" on soda bottles at varying distances growing up. We also got to a point where just hitting the bottle wasn't fun anymore, even shooting off-hand and standing. Then we had to shoot the tops off the bottles out to about 30 or 40 yards standing. Our "matches" then went from most people only dropping one or two shots and several acing the course, to no one aced the course.
Of course I only got better later in life with formal training. I can make shots now that I would not be able to were it not for being introduced to the concept and practicing the concept, which comes with professional instruction. On the other hand, I also think I have progressed more because of my background in firearms going back to my youth.
In short, you can become a decent shot and quite proficient without formal training. Becoming a gunfighter or a competitor... that's another story.
Of course I only got better later in life with formal training. I can make shots now that I would not be able to were it not for being introduced to the concept and practicing the concept, which comes with professional instruction. On the other hand, I also think I have progressed more because of my background in firearms going back to my youth.
In short, you can become a decent shot and quite proficient without formal training. Becoming a gunfighter or a competitor... that's another story.
he was left handed...
No, I can't, nor can I name any self-taught people who WANTED to become the recognized masters of their art in the structured settings you have named.
People begin as self taught, because they have a desire to learn the skill. Those with the desire and the drive to seek the pinnacle of their art always seek some level of professional training along the way, and that removes them from the category of "self taught".
The biggest jump I ever saw in my pistol score wasn't from more or better practice, it was when I started taking blood pressure medication. I went from 500-1000 rounds a week to living in Japan where I only shot for annual qualification, the difference MAY have been that I had not shot in over a year and was absolutely focused on the fundamentals. But I'm pretty sure it was the blood pressure medication.
I'd rather have done better training than have high blood pressure and an elevated heart rate to thank for the increase in score.
I'd rather have done better training than have high blood pressure and an elevated heart rate to thank for the increase in score.
Doesn't that put the guitar upside down? Wrong side up? It ain't natural I tell ya.
Good replies, good stories and I like the point that only those who already have an interest would even engage in frequent practice - with or without a formal goal in mind. Even for pure enjoyment. I guess it would be less likely for those who enjoy shooting so much not have the tiniest desire to improve. And at the least, they would unintentionally build consistency in the thing that is repeated.
FireForged
New member
was Eddie Van Halen good enough? Eddie was reportedly self taught, didnt take lessons and never read music. He is considered to have been one of the top 10 greatest guitar players of ALL TIME.
Self taught (experts) in many fields are not all that uncommon. The fact is that the most efficient and often the most (safe) way to gain knowledge/skill is to be taught. It does not mean that a person who has not been formally taught cannot reach the same level of skill, its simply that it would likely take much longer and without the a traditionally structured foundation.
I am a strong proponent of training and training certainly helps in most instances. Lets just not pretend that this stuff is rocket science or that people cannot figure it out on their own. Much of what is often memorialized in training are methods and techniques constructed and developed by numerous individuals all on their own.
How far can aimless practice go? Far enough
A person should probably not be a stranger to point shooting. Its a little naïve to assume that the chaos of fighting and combat will always allow for the traditional sighted aiming of weapons.
Last edited:
Jim Watson
New member
Well, he was good enough to get popular and sell records and do concerts.
But I am not a musician and can't say whether he was a technically proficient player.
But I can score a target and read a timer, which makes evaluating shooting straightforward.
Practice: A friend went to an IDPA match today with only limited practice. I was comparing her scores to the stage descriptions. Sure enough, she did best on what she was able to practice and worse on what she was not able to practice. Not many places to work on your moving target shooting.
Mannlicher
New member
I spend my range time, and my money, with the intention of pleasing myself, satisfying myself, and pursuing my own goals. I do not spend a lot of time wondering about the motives and aspirations of others.
I once was quite evangelical about promoting participation in local USPSA and IDPA matches. Most people would say to me,
"I am not good enough."
We learn by doing. You do it more, and you will get better. I want to see everyone who owns a pistol get better.
You will get better as you do more, and as you become more interested in it you do it with more purpose.
"I am not good enough."
We learn by doing. You do it more, and you will get better. I want to see everyone who owns a pistol get better.
You will get better as you do more, and as you become more interested in it you do it with more purpose.
I am barely a Sharpshooter in NRA Bullseye. After 5 years of it, I just recently shot my first clean target, score of 100. High Master ranked shooters neither inspire or intimidate me. Reason being they are not human. Anyone that can shoot a pistol that well can not be from the planet earth.
joke....stinkeypete
New member
Congrats, Mike! I have never shot a clean target and my best shooting years have past.
For those who don’t know, that’s 10 shots in the 10 ring- 3.36 inches at 50 yards. Maybe it’s
10 shots inside 0.9 inches at 50 feet. That’s not luck.
As for Eddy Van Halen- he’s a marvelous entertainer and revolutionary popular rock guitarist. He would never make a city level symphony as a classical guitarist. He won’t have a modern symphony written that will live for hundreds of years. I am sure there are many a time he wished he could read music. Eventually, no matter what your talent, formal training and study improve your versatility. Frank Zappa was a trained composer. He was a percussionist.
You might say “yes, but he dropped out of college” but I will counter he studied with professionals in music theory with a professor and many others. He picked up guitar at the age of 23 and … fast forward.. was rated No.1 in guitar magazine for many years. Wrote symphonies, did sound tracks for movies… etc.
For those who don’t know, that’s 10 shots in the 10 ring- 3.36 inches at 50 yards. Maybe it’s
10 shots inside 0.9 inches at 50 feet. That’s not luck.
As for Eddy Van Halen- he’s a marvelous entertainer and revolutionary popular rock guitarist. He would never make a city level symphony as a classical guitarist. He won’t have a modern symphony written that will live for hundreds of years. I am sure there are many a time he wished he could read music. Eventually, no matter what your talent, formal training and study improve your versatility. Frank Zappa was a trained composer. He was a percussionist.
You might say “yes, but he dropped out of college” but I will counter he studied with professionals in music theory with a professor and many others. He picked up guitar at the age of 23 and … fast forward.. was rated No.1 in guitar magazine for many years. Wrote symphonies, did sound tracks for movies… etc.
Last edited:
Eddie Van Halen was a revolutionary, extraordinarily skilled guitarist. His playing caused a fundamental change in popular music that is easy to track; there are entire genres of music which wouldn't exist had he not lived.
Symphonies have lived on for hundreds of years because they were written down; most popular music of two or three hundreds years ago was not, and there were no recordings to preserve it. That's different now-if anyone doubts the Beatles, Van Halen or other musical giants of today will be remembered, I believe they're sorely mistaken.
Additionally, when we listen to a symphony today, we're hearing a 'cover' version; there are no recordings of Beethoven conducting. In the future, we'll enjoy 'Hot for Teacher' played by the composer himself.
Lary
Symphonies have lived on for hundreds of years because they were written down; most popular music of two or three hundreds years ago was not, and there were no recordings to preserve it. That's different now-if anyone doubts the Beatles, Van Halen or other musical giants of today will be remembered, I believe they're sorely mistaken.
Additionally, when we listen to a symphony today, we're hearing a 'cover' version; there are no recordings of Beethoven conducting. In the future, we'll enjoy 'Hot for Teacher' played by the composer himself.
Lary
Last edited:
Does anyone actually practice "aimlessly"?
I think if we mean informal or recreational target shooting then quite a ways with gun familiarity, safety and basic marksmanship, and I dont see why it would stop there even without formal training. Doesn't the military prefer new recruits that grew up with guns?
I think if we mean informal or recreational target shooting then quite a ways with gun familiarity, safety and basic marksmanship, and I dont see why it would stop there even without formal training. Doesn't the military prefer new recruits that grew up with guns?
I think that's a good point.
If it's practice, then it has a goal--it is about trying to get better at something.
If there's no goal then it's not really practice.
If it's truly aimless, then it won't take a person very far--but it's also not practice. If it's practice, then how far it takes a person depends on how effectively they practice and how dedicated they are.
Define "aimless"? I have seen selective fire weapons described as "a quick way to turn money into noise." If you just go to the range to burn ammo, that's pretty aimless. If you go and practice the good shooting habits then it doesn't matter if you're practicing for a match or just going to have fun.
Mannlicher
New member
there are almost daily reports of folks defending themselves with guns. Most seem to have had zero professional training.
Most people can pick up a hammer and drive a nail. That doesn’t meant they do it as well as a licensed carpenter.
In a lot of cases of people defending themselves with a firearm when you read into it the story is often that the defender produced a firearm in an effort to stop someone engaged in theft, and in many of those cases that thief was unarmed. The defense had less to do with skill with a firearm and more that one party wasn’t willing to risk their life in a situation where they were relying on intimidation to get what they want. Defensive uses of a firearm between individuals that are both armed with firearms and both discharge their firearms are generally quite rare, even for police officers whose exposure to such events is much more than a typical person.
I spent a number of years shooting at my local range before I took any kind of instruction. I got quite a bit better in that time in terms of my marksmanship and I was among the more skilled people at my range. I am an order of magnitude better after having taken a number of courses. It had less to do with my marksmanship than my weapons handling, tactics, and general situational awareness. The reality was I didn’t know what I didn’t know, and there was no way of me knowing until someone pointed it out (what some refer to as “unconscious incompetence”).
To be clear, can a person without professional training defend themselves? Yes and they have done so. But I think it’s important to avoid the confirmation bias in reading those stories and deciding that professional training couldn’t have made that instance of defense easier, or perhaps even unnecessary with the right training.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Mannlicher
New member
there is a difference between proficiency with shooting games, and with self defense. I never have said that training is not a good thing, but despite 'confirmation bias', the vast majority of self defense shootings are engaged in with zero professional training.