PET SUBJECT ALERT!

A reader triggers the editor on a subject dear to his heart. Stand by for the full rebuttal

I’ve stated so many times in these pages, during coaching sessions, and in conversations dedicated to shooting technique, my profound belief that the development of a consistent after-shot follow-through is one of the most important skills we can learn. I believe that simply maintaining perfect aim from the time we squeeze the trigger, to when the pellet strikes, will help significantly in making us better shooters. That belief has been challenged by a reader who has done his homework and presented his challenge in a most polite and thoughtful manner. He’s still wrong, though, and I’m about to explain why. First, let’s study the letter.

Dear Terry,

Last year I wrote to your colleague, Dave Barham, about the emphasis being made in various articles on the subject of ‘follow-through’ in airgun shooting. In short, I disagreed with that emphasis, but I have seen no rebuttal of my argument. Having just read your interesting article in the latest edition of Airgun World, I write now to you because you advocate the case for following through and I would like to hear your comments on my argument.

To restate my views, using some arbitrary data to keep it simple, let me assume a pellet fired from a sub-12 airgun travels 18ins (0.5 yd) from breech to muzzle before free flight to a target placed 25 yds away. Travelling at a speed of 750 ft/sec (250 yds/sec), it reaches the target in one tenth of a second, having spent one five hundredth of a second in the gun.

Provided I don’t blink when I pull the trigger, I see the strike as near instantaneously as makes no difference. The sounds of shot and pellet strike overlap. If following through has any practical application once I’ve pulled the trigger, I have only 1/500 second to work with.