Picture is in quotes because I think it is a poor term for describing the visual feedback a shooter gets from his sights. Picture implies that this is somehow a still image, which I think is what has led to the idea of “1 shot, 2 sight pictures.” The idea that the second picture is necessary to “re-acquire” your sights means that you un-acquired your sights in the first place. This is unnecessary if you are tracking your sights through recoil. No re-acquiring necessary, just follow your front sight up and then drive it to the place you want the next bullet to go. The only quasi-image that exists in this sequence is the exact location of your front sight in reference to the target at the moment it begins to lift, but I still don’t think sight picture adequately describes this process.
Even worse than “1 shot, 2 sight pictures” is “2 shots, 1 sight picture,” or the “hammer.” Unless you suddenly become blind in between the first and second shot, why would you pull the trigger again without looking at your sights? The idea that it is faster is a bit strange. Most people can see much faster than they can control recoil or mover their index finger.
Sorry for posting with apparently no purpose, but I think precise terminology is very helpful for newer shooters. I remember being very confused about exactly what I was supposed to see when learning how to shoot.
Sight alignment combined with sight tracking is how I would describe shooting at speed at any given distance (except <5yards where I start “aiming” with my body and off the slide unless shooting at something small) to someone new. The reason I think the break a shot, reacquire is taught is because is takes a while to learn to “see” things happening that fast and track the front blade through it’s entire travel. It’s been a long time since I’ve started shooting, but that idea sounds reasonable. I’m really not sure how I’d go about teaching a new shooter in this and I would very much like to learn so.
If you break the shot with good alignment and see the sights rise up and fall back down and you managed recoil well enough that they fell back down on target then you can break the next shot nigh instantaneously as your brain tells you everything is lined up.
What’s really starting to irk me is when the sights look way off as I’m breaking the shot and it ends up being very near where I wanted it to go. Only thing I can figure is last moment correction happening. For instance, it looks like I’m going to drop a shot outside the head of the target, I start uttering “Shit” because I’ve already got the trigger going, the sights move a tiny bit, and the bullet is inside the head 4" to the right of where I initially saw the bullet going.
I decent shooter can do a hammer and still make two torso hits with a long gun usually to about 10-15yds these won’t be 1/2" groups but should be no more than a couple inches apart. Ideally each shot should get it’s own sight picture and you should not shoot faster than you can see your sights on the target. The sights should be your gas pedal. This is where grip and stance are going to play a major role it how stable you can keep the gun. With proper grip/stance the gun will move and come back to the same place it started between the 1st and 2nd shot.
A few months ago I was shooting a very small barreled 5.56mm rifle. I was shooting a Federal LE qual course and at the 50yd accidentally went to auto instead of from safe to fire twice in a row from a low-ready position. Even on full auto (this gun does 750rpm with M855) I hit the target twice on each string in the torso and once in the neck/head for the second shot. The gun ran slow enough on auto that it’s quite easy to do two shot bursts just by letting off the trigger in time.