Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttps://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rpan20

International Journal of Performance Analysis in Sport

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rpan20

Key technical components for air pistol shootingperformance

Erik Olsson & Marko S. Laaksonen

To cite this article: Erik Olsson & Marko S. Laaksonen (2021): Key technical components forair pistol shooting performance, International Journal of Performance Analysis in Sport, DOI:10.1080/24748668.2021.1891820

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/24748668.2021.1891820

© 2021 The Author(s). Published by InformaUK Limited, trading as Taylor & FrancisGroup.

Published online: 01 Mar 2021.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 111

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Key technical components for air pistol shooting performanceErik Olsson and Marko S. Laaksonen

Department of Health Sciences, Swedish Winter Sports Research Centre, Department of Health Science, Mid Sweden University, Östersund, Sweden

ABSTRACTAir pistol shooting is a complex sport discipline with high demands on fine motor control and postural stability. Earlier studies have reported questionable results regarding the most important tech-nical components for air pistol shooting. Therefore, the aims of the present study were to investigate the key technical components for air pistol shooting and also to investigate how well the key techni-cal components explain the performance in air pistol shooting. Eighteen national-level air pistol shooters completed a simulated qualifying round consisting of 60 shots. During each shot, shooting score and 17 aiming point trajectory variables were measured with an optoelectronic training device. Principal component analysis revealed five key technical components: aiming time, stability of hold, aiming accuracy, cleanness of triggering and timing of trig-gering. Four of the five components (not aiming time) correlated significantly (r = .48 – .74; p < 0.05) with shooting score. Two stepwise multiple regression analyses identified aiming accuracy followed by timing of triggering and stability of hold as the most important components, accounting for 75–78% of the variance in shooting score. Accordingly, these components should be in focus by coaches and athletes when conducting tests and training.

ARTICLE HISTORY Received 26 November 2020 Accepted 15 February 2021

KEYWORDS Aiming accuracy; biomechanics; optoelectronic training; principal component analysis; shooting technique; stability of hold

1. Introduction

Air pistol shooting is an Olympic event in which the athletes are trying to hit the centre of the target 60 times in a row. The target is ringed from 1.0 to 10.9 and the 10-ring have a diameter of 11 mm (International Shooting Sport Federation, Rules and Regulations, 2017). Men and women compete divided into separate events, but since 2017 both men and women fire 60 competition shots in a match and the eight shooters with the highest accumulated results qualify for the final. The qualifying round is shot without counting the decimals and the finals with. During the world cup season 2019, the average score for qualification for final was 581.4 ± 1.3 and 576.8 ± 1.8 points for men and women, respectively (International Shooting Sport Federation, Results, 2019). This means that more than every second shot must be inside of the 10-ring for 60 consecutive shots.

Air pistol shooting together with other shooting disciplines is a complex activity with high demands on fine motor control (Mason et al., 1990; Zatsiorsky & Aktov, 1990) and postural stability (Aalto et al., 1990; Era et al., 1996). A common tool for improving

CONTACT Marko S. Laaksonen marko.laaksonen@miun.se Swedish Winter Sports Research Centre, Department of Health Sciences, Mid Sweden University, Östersund 831 25, Sweden

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS IN SPORT https://doi.org/10.1080/24748668.2021.1891820

© 2021 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any med-ium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way.

shooting technique are optoelectronic training systems (Zanevskyy et al., 2012; Zatsiorsky & Aktov, 1990) that record and measures barrel movements throughout the aiming time. The recorded aiming point trajectory could then be used by the shooter for improvements of shooting technical variables. Several studies across different shooting disciplines have investigated which components in the shooting technique that should be prioritised by the athletes (Hawkins, 2011; Hawkins & Bertrand, 2015; Ihalainen et al., 2016a, 2016b).

Stability of hold have been a key interest in multiple studies for various shooting disciplines (Mason et al., 1990; Su et al., 2000; Zanevskyy et al., 2012). Several studies have investigated how postural stability affects shooting performance (Ball et al., 2003a, 2003b; Mononen et al., 2007) and it has been shown that elite shooters in air rifle have better stability than novice shooters (Ihalainen et al., 2016a), and the same pattern have been found in one study in air pistol shooting (Mon et al., 2014). Ihalainen et al. showed (Ihalainen et al., 2016a) that postural stability has a relationship with stability of hold (R = 0.55, P < 0.001). In the same study, they also reported that stability of hold is a more accurate measure than stability of posture. In air rifle shooting the stability of hold alone explains as much as 54% of the variance in shooting score (Ihalainen et al., 2016a). The same measure in air pistol revealed that stability of hold explains 33% of variance in shooting score (Hawkins, 2011; Hawkins & Bertrand, 2015). Similar results have been reported for running target (Mononen et al., 2003).

Measures of aiming accuracy is made possible through optoelectronic training systems (Zatsiorsky & Aktov, 1990). Air rifle, air pistol and running target are regulated to be equipped with different types of sights; air rifle with dioptre, running target with scope and air pistol with open sights (ISSF, 2017). Despite the different types of sights, it has been reported similar results for aiming accuracy in the different shooting disciplines. In air rifle, it has been reported that aiming accuracy accounts for 16% of the variance in shooting score (Ihalainen et al., 2016a) and in air pistol it accounts for 15% of variance in shooting score (Hawkins, 2011; Hawkins & Bertrand, 2015).

When it comes to cleanness of triggering and timing of triggering, studies on air rifle, running target and air pistol shooting report differing results. In air rifle (Ihalainen et al., 2016a, 2018) and running target (Mononen et al., 2003) the cleanness of triggering seems to be an important technical component, but studies made on air pistol have failed to show the same result (Hawkins, 2011; Hawkins & Bertrand, 2015). This difference between the shooting disciplines is illogical. There are two major arguments for that the cleanness of triggering is at least as important for air pistol shooting as it is for running target and air rifle shooting. The first argument is the number of contact points between the shooter and the gun. With a rifle the shooter has four contact points with the gun: one hand on the pistol grip, one hand on the front stock, but pad against the shoulder and the cheek against the cheekpiece. In pistol shooting the shooter has only one contact point; one hand on the grip (ISSF, 2017). With fewer contact points in air pistol, it is more difficult to minimise the barrel movements from the triggering action compared to rifle disciplines. Greater barrel movements during the triggering could therefore lead to more variance in shooting performance (Ihalainen et al., 2016a; Mason et al., 1990; Mononen et al., 2003). The second argument is the trigger pull weight. In air rifle shooting the trigger pull weight is often as low as 50–100 g while in air pistol it must be at least 500 g regulated by the rules (ISSF, 2017). Higher trigger pull

2 E. OLSSON AND M. S. LAAKSONEN

weight means that greater force must be applied to the trigger before the shot is released. This higher force will therefore lead to greater risk of increased movements of the gun during the triggering. The differences in results regarding cleanness of triggering between the studies made on air rifle (Ihalainen et al., 2016a, 2018), running target (Mononen et al., 2003) and air pistol (Hawkins, 2011; Hawkins & Bertrand, 2015) could come from the omittance of the absolute triggering value in the studies made on air pistol shooting (Hawkins, 2011; Hawkins & Bertrand, 2015). The same studies omitted the only value for measuring the timing of triggering and so did the study made on running target (Mononen et al., 2003). However, studies made on air rifle shooting (Ihalainen et al., 2016a, 2018) have included it and reported it as a key technical component.

Taken all together, studies related to shooting performance, aiming and triggering in air pistol shooting(Hawkins, 2011; Hawkins & Bertrand, 2015) have excluded variables which have been found to be important for shooting performance in other disciplines. Therefore, it is of great importance to reinvestigate the key technical components for air pistol shooting incorporating both the absolute trigger value and the value for timing of triggering. Consequently, the aims of this study were 1) to reinvestigate what are the key technical components for air pistol shooting and, 2) to investigate how well the key technical components explain the performance in air pistol shooting. It was hypothesised that stability of hold, aiming accuracy, cleanness of triggering and timing of triggering would be key technical components for air pistol shooting.

2. Materials and methods

2.1. Participants

Eighteen national-level male (8) and female (10) air pistol shooters participated in the study. Their mean age was 38 ± 17 years, they had on average been competing in air pistol shooting for 13 ± 13 years and had an average personal best of 564.3 ± 13.1 points. The inclusion criteria for the study was that the participant had to be in the top 30 on the Swedish ranking list for Men´s, Women´s, Junior Men´s or Junior Women´s air pistol during the period 2019–09-01 – 2020-03-31. The ranking lists are based on the average from the participant´s four best results within the last year.

Participants received both written and oral information about the aims, data collection and data management of the project before they signed an informed consent, prior to testing. All data was processed confidentially and anonymously. As no personal information despite age and shooting data were collected, no ethical approval was applied. All procedures were performed in accordance with the Swedish law and the Declaration of Helsinki.

2.2. Apparatus

Shooting score (with decimals) and aiming point trajectory were measured with the optoe-lectronic training system Noptel ST 2000 NOS4 (Noptel Inc., Oulu, Finland). The training device consisted of an optical transmitter-receiver unit (weight 80 g) and a reflector tape that was attached around the target centre (on the line of the 5-ring). The Noptel training device was connected to a laptop HP Pavilion 14 (Hewlett-Packard Company, Palo Alto, USA) on which the shooting score were displayed for the participants. Shooting score and aiming

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS IN SPORT 3

point trajectory were recorded for every competition shot (60 per participant, a total of 1080 test shots) at 100 Hz sampling rate. According to the manufacturer, the Noptel training device have an accuracy of 0.1 mm. Only shooting score and hit placement was displayed for the participants during the test session, similarly to a real-life competition situation. The aiming trajectory data were shown to participants afterwards to avoid influencing their shooting technique during the test session.

2.3. Variables

In contrast to earlier studies made on air pistol (Hawkins, 2011; Hawkins & Bertrand, 2015) and running target shooting (Mononen et al., 2003) the present study included all 17 aiming point variables (Table 1) that have been included in the studies made on air rifle shooting (Ihalainen et al., 2016a, 2016b, 2018) (Table 1).

The overall shooting performance was measured as a shooting score (points). The stability of hold included standard deviation of horizontal (DEV X) and vertical (DEV Y) location of the aiming point, percentage of aiming time spent inside both the 10- (HIT F) and 9-ring (HIT R) drawn around the point as well as percentage of aiming time spent inside both the 10- (COG F) and 9-ring (COG R) drawn around the mean location of the aiming point during the last second prior to triggering. The aiming accuracy was defined as mean location of the aiming point (COG HIT) and as a percentage of aiming time spent inside the 10- (TARGET F) and 9-ring (TARGET R) during the last second prior to triggering. Cleanness of triggering included the movement of the aiming point (ATV) as well as ATV divided by the mean value of the movement of the aiming point (RTV) during the last 0.2 seconds before triggering. The measurement of time on target included total aiming time (TOTAL TIME), aiming time spent continuously on the target (TIME ON TARGET), aiming time spent inside the 7-ring (TARGET HT), aiming time spent inside the 7-ring drawn around the hit point (HIT HT) and aiming time spent inside the 7-ring drawn around the COGHIT point (COG HT). Finally, timing of triggering (TIRE) was defined as time period when the mean location of the aiming point was closest to the centre of target.

2.4. Test design

The data collection was designed as a simulated qualifying round (60 competition shots under 75 minutes) with 15 minutes of preparation time (only dry firing allowed) and 15 minutes of sighting time (free amount of sighting shots) prior to the start of the qualifying round. All testing took place at pre-existing indoor shooting ranges according to the rules and regulations for air pistol competitions (ISSF, 2017). Participants were instructed to perform all their normal routines before and during the test session. They were also instructed to try to achieve the highest score possible during the match. All participants used their own competition equipment (pistol, clothing, shoes etc.).

2.5. Procedure

Before the start of the preparation time, the Noptel device was attached to the air cylinder of the participant’s pistol. The device was attached as close to the pistol grip as possible to minimise the disturbance of the weight balance of the pistol. To minimise the risk of

4 E. OLSSON AND M. S. LAAKSONEN

Tabl

e 1.

Sho

otin

g va

riabl

es t

hat

will

be

mea

sure

d. C

hang

ed d

escr

iptio

n fr

om o

rigin

al (I

hala

inen

et

al. 2

016)

is m

arke

d w

ith (*

).Co

mpo

nent

Varia

ble

(uni

t)D

escr

iptio

n

Ove

rall

Perf

orm

ance

Shoo

ting

scor

e (p

ts)

Shot

sco

re a

s m

easu

red

in a

ir pi

stol

sho

otin

g: 0

–10.

9St

abili

ty o

f hol

dD

EV X

(rin

g)

DEV

Y (r

ing)

Hor

izon

tal (

Dev

X) a

nd v

ertic

al (D

evY)

sta

ndar

d de

viat

ions

of t

he lo

catio

n of

the

aim

ing

poin

t dur

ing

the

last

sec

ond,

inte

rval

bet

wee

n tw

o co

nsec

utiv

e rin

gs a

s m

easu

rem

ent

unit

(8 m

m/r

ing)

*H

IT F

(%)

Perc

enta

ge o

f aim

ing

time

spen

t in

side

the

10-

ring

draw

n ar

ound

the

poi

nt d

urin

g th

e la

st s

econ

d.H

IT R

(%)

Perc

enta

ge o

f aim

ing

time

spen

t in

side

the

9-r

ing

draw

n ar

ound

the

poi

nt d

urin

g th

e la

st s

econ

d.CO

G F

(%)

Perc

enta

ge o

f aim

ing

time

spen

t in

side

the

10-

ring

draw

n ar

ound

the

CO

Ghi

t po

int

durin

g th

e la

st s

econ

dCO

G R

(%)

Perc

enta

ge o

f aim

ing

time

spen

t in

side

the

9-r

ing

draw

n ar

ound

the

CO

Ghi

t po

int

durin

g th

e la

st s

econ

dAi

min

g ac

cura

cyCO

G H

IT (p

ts)

Mea

n lo

catio

n of

the

aim

ing

poin

t du

ring

last

sec

ond

TARG

ET F

(%)

Perc

enta

ge o

f aim

ing

time

spen

t in

side

the

10-

ring

durin

g th

e la

st s

econ

dTA

RGET

R (%

)Pe

rcen

tage

of a

imin

g tim

e sp

ent

insi

de t

he 9

-rin

g du

ring

the

last

sec

ond

Clea

nnes

s of

trig

gerin

gAT

V (r

ing)

Mov

emen

t of t

he a

imin

g po

int

durin

g th

e la

st 0

.2 s

, int

erva

l bet

wee

n tw

o co

nsec

utiv

e hi

t rin

gs a

s m

easu

rem

ent

unit

(8 m

m/r

ing)

*RT

V (in

dex)

ATV

divi

ded

by t

he m

ean

valu

e of

the

mov

emen

t of

the

aim

ing

poin

t in

0.2

s s

eque

nces

bet

wee

n 0.

6 an

d 2

s be

fore

trig

gerin

gTi

me

on t

arge

tTO

TAL

TIM

E (s

)To

tal a

imin

g tim

eTI

ME

ON

TAR

GET

(s)

Aim

ing

time

spen

t co

ntin

uous

ly o

n th

e ta

rget

TARG

ET H

T (s

)Ai

min

g tim

e sp

ent

insi

de t

he 7

-rin

gH

IT H

T (s

)Ai

min

g tim

e sp

ent

insi

de t

he 7

-rin

g dr

awn

arou

nd t

he h

it po

int

COG

HT

(s)

Aim

ing

time

spen

t in

side

the

7-r

ing

draw

n ar

ound

the

CO

Ghi

t po

int

Tim

ing

of t

rigge

ring

TIRE

(ind

ex)

Tim

e pe

riod

whe

n th

e m

ean

loca

tion

of t

he a

imin

g po

int

is c

lose

st t

o th

e ce

ntre

of t

arge

t: 0–

0.2

s be

fore

the

sho

t TIR

E =

3, 0

.2–0

.4

s be

fore

the

sho

t TI

RE =

2, 0

.4–0

.6 s

bef

ore

the

shot

TIR

E =

1

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS IN SPORT 5

aiming drift (Hawkins & Bertrand, 2015) the following measures where made: the wire from the transmitter/receiver unit was secured to the trigger guard with tape, the participants had to have their pistol case on the shooting table to rest their grip against between shots to avoid the device from touching the table and all participants were instructed to avoid slamming the pistol into the table.

During the preparation time, the participants were instructed to dry fire at least five times to enable calibration of the Noptel device. From the start of the sighting time, all participants were instructed to use sight adjustments just like during a regular shooting session. From the start of the qualification round the data collector acted like a regular range officer and no more interaction with the participants was made until the last shot was fired. During the 60 test shots, there were no dry firing allowed, since the Noptel training device cannot distinguish dry fire from a regular shot.

2.6. Statistical analysis

Earlier studies that have identified shooting technical components in running target (Mononen et al., 2003), air rifle (Ihalainen et al., 2016a) and air pistol (Hawkins, 2011) have used principal component analysis (PCA). Since the present study included more variables than earlier studies made on air pistol shooting, it was of importance to once again use PCA to identify key technical components. PCA with varimax rotation was used to form orthogonal linear combinations from aiming point variables. The number of components was determined by minimum eigenvalue of 0.9 and by a minimum of 5 % variance accounted for by the component.

Mean values for each participant were computed for shot score and aiming point trajectory data. To examine the relationship between shooting performance and the technical variables the Two-Tailed Pearson´s correlation coefficient analysis was used. Two stepwise multiple regression analyses were conducted to examine the amount of explained variance in shooting performance by the technical variables. In the first stepwise multiple regression analysis (MRA1) only variables loading on more than one component in PCA were excluded. In the second stepwise multiple regression analysis (MRA2) only the one variable, if loading on only one component in PCA, with the strongest correlation with mean shot score from each component found in PCA was included. The reason for conducting the second stepwise multiple regression analysis was to examine each component´s impact on shooting performance. Collinearity statistics were undertaken to examine the linear association between the predictive variables in the stepwise multiple regression analysis. The alpha level was set at 0.05 and all data is presented as mean ± standard deviation. Statistical analysis was conducted with IBM SPSS Statistics software (IBM Co., Armonk, New York, USA) (version 25).

3. Results

Group descriptive statistics with mean shot score and mean values from aiming point trajectory are presented in Table 2.

PCA revealed five factors from the aiming point trajectory data (n = 1080), which explained 80.4 % of the total variance (Table 3). The five factors were: factor 1, aiming time, the execution time for the shot; factor 2, stability of hold, the steadiness of the pistol

6 E. OLSSON AND M. S. LAAKSONEN

during aiming; factor 3, aiming accuracy, the preciseness of aiming, factor 4, cleanness of triggering, the steadiness of the pistol during the triggering phase; factor 5, timing of triggering, the timing of the triggering action.

A total of 8 aiming point trajectory variables were significantly correlated with mean shot score (Table 4). These variables described four different components, stability of hold, aiming accuracy, cleanness of triggering and timing of triggering.

Aiming point trajectory variables loading on more than one factor in PCA (HIT F & HIT R) were excluded from the stepwise multiple regression analyses. The results from

Table 2. Group descriptive statistics (mean ± SD) for shot score and aiming point trajectory vari-ables with all included participants (n = 18).

Measures (Units) Values

Shot Score (pts) 9.7 ± 0.2DEV X (ring) 0.70 ± 0.25DEV Y (ring) 0.70 ± 0.25HIT F (%) 37.3 ± 21.7HIT R (%) 77.3 ± 21.7COG F (%) 62.8 ± 19.2COG R (%) 94.7 ± 6.97COG HIT (pts) 9.9 ± 0.5TARGET F (%) 37.6 ± 21.1TARGET R (%) 83.0 ± 18.7ATV (ring) 0.59 ± 0.23RTV (index) 1.06 ± 0.43Total time (s) 7.69 ± 2.94Time on target (s) 7.29 ± 2.39TARGET HT (s) 5.29 ± 3.04HIT HT (s) 4.63 ± 2.97COG HT (s) 5.41 ± 2.81TIRE (index) 2.15 ± 0.83

Table 3. Principal component analysis (varimax rotation) rotated solution of the aiming point variables from all measured shots (n = 13795).

Factor 1 Aiming

time

Factor 2 Stability of

hold

Factor 3 Aiming

accuracy

Factor 4 Cleanness of

triggering

Factor 5 Timing of triggering

Eigen value 5.13 2.95 2.17 1.62 1.00Percentage of variance 30.23 17.33 12.79 9.53 5.92Time on target 0.91COG HT 0.89TARGET HT 0.87Total time 0.80HIT HT 0.76COG F 0.90COG R 0.83DEV Y −0.73DEV X −0.73HIT R 0.61 −0.41COG HIT 0.97TARGET F 0.86TARGET R 0.85RTV 0.92ATV 0.85HIT F 0.47 −0.52TIRE 0.88

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS IN SPORT 7

the MRA1 are presented in Table 5. Variables describing aiming accuracy and timing of triggering (COGHIT, TIRE and TARGET F) explained 55, 11 and 12% of the variation in shooting score, respectively. Results from MRA2 are presented in Table 6. Variables describing aiming accuracy, timing of triggering and stability of hold (COG HIT, TIRE and DEV X) explained 54, 12 and 9% of the variation in shooting score, respectively.

4. Discussion

The aims of this study were 1) to reinvestigate what the key technical components are for air pistol shooting and 2) to investigate how well the key technical components explain the performance in air pistol shooting. Five key technical components for air pistol shooting were identified, namely aiming time, stability of hold, aiming accuracy, clean-ness of triggering and timing of triggering. Most important of the five components were aiming accuracy, timing of triggering and stability of hold, together explaining 75–78% of the variation in shooting score.

The principal component analysis revealed five key technical components for air pistol shooting (stability of hold, aiming time, aiming accuracy cleanness of triggering and timing

Table 4. Two – tailed Pearson´s correlation coef-ficient r-values between shot score and shooting technical variables.

Measures (Units) r

DEV X (ring) −0.56 *DEV Y (ring) −0.05HIT F (%) 0.49 *HIT R (%) 0.60 **COG F (%) 0.36COG R (%) 0.30COG HIT (pts) 0.74 ***TARGET F (%) 0.69 **TARGET R (%) 0.65 **ATV (ring) −0.48 *RTV (index) −0.35Total time (s) 0.16Time on target (s) 0.20TARGET HT (s) 0.17HIT HT (s) 0.32COG HT (s) 0.19TIRE (index) 0.51 *

Significant correlation: *** p < 0.001; ** p < 0.01; * p < 0.05.

Table 5. Stepwise multiple regression analysis R2, R2 change, F change, and p-values with mean shot score as dependent variable (n = 18).

R2 R2 change F change p

Step 1 0.55 0.55 19.26 < 0.001COG HITStep 2 0.66 0.11 5.07 0.04COG HITTIREStep 3 0.78 0.12 7.53 0.017COG HITTIRETARGET F

8 E. OLSSON AND M. S. LAAKSONEN

of triggering). In an earlier study made on air pistol shooting (Hawkins, 2011) PCA revealed only three components (stability of hold, aiming time and aiming accuracy) and an earlier study made on running target shooting (Mononen et al., 2003) revealed four components (stability of hold, aiming accuracy, cleanness of triggering and aiming time). These differ-ences could be due to omittance of measures during the triggering phase. In both these studies the measuring of timing of triggering (TIRE) was omitted and in the air pistol study, the crucial triggering value ATV was left out. A study on air rifle shooting (Ihalainen et al., 2016a) revealed six components with PCA (aiming time, stability of hold, measurement time, cleanness of triggering, aiming accuracy and timing of triggering). The difference was within the time component. In air rifle, the time component was divided into measurement time and aiming time compared to the present study and earlier studies made on air pistol and running target shooting that reported only one-time component (aiming time). Differences in aiming time components between air pistol and air rifle could be due to differences in aiming patterns. Air pistol shooters compared to air rifle shooters seems to have shorter time were the gun are pointed at the target before the aiming starts (Ihalainen et al., 2016a, 2016b)

Four of the components revealed in the PCA, namely stability of hold (DEV X, HIT F and HIT R), aiming accuracy (COG HIT, TARGET F and TARGET R), cleanness of triggering (ATV) and timing of triggering (TIRE), correlated significantly with the mean shooting score. The correlations were from moderate to strong (r = 0.48–0.74). Several studies have shown significant correlations between shooting score and stability of hold in various shooting disciplines (Ball et al., 2003a, 2003b; Hawkins, 2011; Hawkins & Bertrand, 2015; Ihalainen et al., 2016a, 2018). Earlier studies made on air pistol (Hawkins, 2011) and air rifle shooting (Ihalainen et al., 2016a, 2018) have reported correlations between shooting score and the rest of the key technical components. The studies mentioned above have reported correlations between shooting score and aiming time, stability of hold, aiming accuracy, cleanness of triggering and timing of triggering. In the air pistol study (Hawkins, 2011), the correlation between aiming time and shooting score were weak (r-values <0.4) and were made on all values instead of mean values for each participant. If mean values had been used in the correlation the result could have differed. In the air rifle studies (Ihalainen et al., 2016a, 2018) the correlation between aiming time and shooting score were moderate (r-values = 0.4–0.7). The difference between air pistol and air rifle shooting in correlations between aiming time and shooting score could be due to the shooting stance and the number of contact points between the shooter and the

Table 6. Stepwise multiple regression analysis with independent variables chosen from the correlation analysis (DEV X, COG HIT, ATV and TIRE. R2, R2

change, F change, and p-values with mean shot score as dependent variable (n = 18).

R2 R2 change F change p

Step 1 0.54 0.54 19.27 < 0.001COG HITStep 2 0.66 0.12 5.07 0.04COG HITTIREStep 3 0.75 0.09 4.63 0.05COG HITTIREDEV X

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS IN SPORT 9

gun. The rifle could be held in shooting position for longer time before the barrel movements start to increase due to increased muscle tremors (Tang et al., 2008). Tremors could affect both stability of hold and aiming accuracy due to misalignment of the rear and front sight (Lindskog, 2008; Mason et al., 1990).

MRA1 revealed two predictors of shooting score: aiming accuracy (COG HIT and TARGET F) and timing of triggering (TIRE). The components explained 78% of the variance in shooting score. Aiming accuracy was considered to be the most important of the technical components, explaining 67% of the variance in shooting score. MRA2 revealed three pre-dictors of shooting score: aiming accuracy (COG HIT), timing of triggering (TIRE) and stability of hold (DEV X). The components explained 75% of the variance in shooting score. Aiming accuracy was still the most important component followed by timing of triggering and stability of hold, explaining 54, 12 and 9% of the variance in shooting score, respectively. Interestingly, the aiming accuracy was considered to be the most important component which differs against results reported in earlier studies made on various shooting disciplines. Most studies have focused on the importance of stability of hold for shooting performance (Mason et al., 1990; Zanevskyy et al., 2012) and several studies have shown that stability of hold was the most important technical component in air rifle (Ihalainen et al., 2016a, 2016b, 2018) and air pistol shooting (Hawkins, 2011; Hawkins & Bertrand, 2015). An earlier study on air rifle shooting (Ihalainen et al., 2016b) also reported that improvements of stability of hold would lead to increased shooting performance.

The COG HIT measure is what the shot score would have been if it were placed at the average aiming point and is independent of the stability of hold. If the barrel movements are evenly distributed around the target centre, the barrel movements can be far larger than the 10-ring and the COG HIT could still be inside the 10-ring. This means that the most important technical component is to keep the centrum of the barrel movements as close to the target centre as possible, independent of the ability to keep the pistol stable.

The difference between the present study and earlier air pistol studies (Hawkins, 2011; Hawkins & Bertrand, 2015) that reported regression predictions explaining 41–48% of variance in shooting score, could be due to methodological reasons. In the present study, MRA1 and MRA2 were conducted on mean values for each participant and the earlier pistol studies conducted their stepwise multiple regression analysis including each single shot. In that approach, the effect of extreme values for single shots and/or larger differences between participants can lead to a more or less significant outcome. However, in the present study, the study population had less heterogeneity in their barrel movement and they also had higher mean shot score than in the earlier air pistol studies (Hawkins, 2011; Hawkins & Bertrand, 2015). Thus, in the case of the present study where the study population consisted of participants at relatively high level, likely having more stable shooting performance, the mean values for each participant were used. However, it can be speculated that for pistol shooters with higher skill level the aiming accuracy is more important than the stability of hold.

The difference in results between the present study and studies on air rifle shooting (Ihalainen et al., 2016a, 2018) could be due to the differences in target size and shooting position. In air rifle, the 10-ring has a diameter of 0.5 mm and the shooters are allowed to hold the rifle with four contact points and to wear stabilising clothes compared to air pistol were the 10-ring has a diameter of 11 mm and the shooters can only have one contact point and no stabilising clothes (ISSF, 2017). The larger target and greater barrel

10 E. OLSSON AND M. S. LAAKSONEN

movements could therefore be the reason why the aiming accuracy is more important than stability of hold in air pistol in contrast to air rifle shooting.

Surprisingly, cleanness of triggering was not included into the regression prediction in either MRA1 or MRA2. Cleanness of triggering has been reported to be of importance in both air rifle (Ihalainen et al., 2016a, 2018) and running target shooting (Mononen et al., 2003). An earlier study (Ihalainen et al., 2016b) also reported that improved cleanness of triggering leads to improved shooting performance in air rifle shooting. Logically, cleanness of triggering should be more important for air pistol shooting than in rifle disciplines. Again, the difference in number of contact points between the shooter and the gun and the trigger pull weight should lead to bigger variation in shooting score in air pistol shooting than for rifle disciplines (ISSF, 2017).

Data collection was conducted as a simulated competition. An earlier study on air rifle shooting (Ihalainen et al., 2018) has reported decreased shooting performance during simulated competitions compared to training situations. However, the shooting perfor-mance in training and competition was related to the same technical components. Therefore, it was a strength that the present study used a simulated competition for data collection as competition shooting performance should be more relevant for shoo-ters and should be the focus in shooting studies.

One limitation to the present study was the restriction of dry firing under the qualifying round. Some shooters in the present study usually use dry firing in their competition routines and therefore had to make changes during the testing situation in the present study. This could have been avoided if dry fired shots had been noted and later been deleted from the data set.

A strength of the present study was the combination of statistical methods. The combi-nation of PCA, correlations and stepwise multiple regression analyses gave a broader view of the technical components related to air pistol shooting performance. Also, using both PCA and multiple regression analyses increases the validity of performance variables (O’Donoghue, 2010). The inclusion of two stepwise multiple regression analyses should also be seen as a strength of the study. However, it is notable that the stepwise multiple regression is dependent of the order of variables that are entered into the analysis.

5. Conclusion

Results from the present study revealed five different key technical components for air pistol shooting, namely aiming time, stability of hold, aiming accuracy, cleanness of triggering and timing of triggering. Four of the components, stability of hold, aiming accuracy, cleanness of triggering and timing of triggering, the two last one not reported earlier in air pistol shooting, were significantly correlated with shooting score. Two stepwise multiple regression analyses identified aiming accuracy as the most important component followed by timing of triggering and stability of hold, explaining together 75–78% of the variance in shooting score. These components should therefore be in focus by coaches and athletes when conducting tests and training. With the help of optoelectronic training system, coaches and athletes can test and measure these aiming point trajectory variables.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS IN SPORT 11

Authors’ contributions

EO: initiation and planning of the study, data collection, statistical analysis and writing the manuscript; MSL: statistical analysis and writing the paper. Both authors have reviewed the final version of the manuscript.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

References

Aalto, H., Pyykkö, I., Ilmarinen, R., Kähkönen, E., & Starck, J. (1990). Postural stability in shooters. Orl, 52(4), 232–238. https://doi.org/10.1159/000276141

Ball, K. A., Best, R. J., & Wrigley, T. V. (2003a). Body sway, aim point fluctuation and performance in rifle shooters: Inter-and intra-individual analysis. Journal of Sports Sciences, 21(7), 559–566. https://doi.org/10.1080/0264041031000101881

Ball, K. A., Best, R. J., & Wrigley, T. V. (2003b). Inter-and intra-individual analysis in elite sport: Pistol shooting. Journal of Applied Biomechanics, 19(1), 28–38. https://doi.org/10.1123/jab.19.1.28

Era, P., Konttinen, N., Mehto, P., Saarela, P., & Lyytinen, H. (1996). Postural stability and skilled performance—a study on top-level and naive rifle shooters. Journal of Biomechanics, 29(3), 301–306. https://doi.org/10.1016/0021-9290(95)00066-6

Hawkins, R. (2011). Identifying mechanic measures that best predict air-pistol shooting performance. International Journal of Performance Analysis in Sport, 11(3), 499–509. https:// doi.org/10.1080/24748668.2011.11868568

Hawkins, R., & Bertrand, P. (2015). Relationship between twelve mechanic measures and score for national-level pistol shooters. International Journal of Performance Analysis in Sport, 15(1), 332–342. https://doi.org/10.1080/24748668.2015.11868796

Ihalainen, S., Kuitunen, S., Mononen, K., & Linnamo, V. (2016a). Determinants of elite-level air rifle shooting performance. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 26(3), 266–274. https://doi.org/10.1111/sms.12440

Ihalainen, S., Linnamo, V., Mononen, K., & Kuitunen, S. (2016b). Relation of elite rifle shooters’ technique-test measures to competition performance. International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, 11(5), 671–677. https://doi.org/10.1123/ijspp.2015-0211

Ihalainen, S., Mononen, K., Linnamo, V., & Kuitunen, S. (2018). Which technical factors explain competition performance in air rifle shooting? International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, 13(1), 78–85. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747954117707481

International Shooting Sport Federation. (2017). Official statutes rules and regulations. http://www. ISSF,2017-sports.org/documents/rules/2017/ISSF,2017RuleBook2017-2ndPrintV1.1-ENG.pdf

International Shooting Sport Federation. (2019) ISSF competition results. https://www.issf-sports. org/competitions/results.ashx

Lindskog, M. (2008). Kravanalys – 2008 Pistol (50m Pistol (H), 10m Luftpistol (H o D), 25m Pistol (D), 25m Snabbpistol (H). Swedish Shooting Sport Federation.). Pharmacopsychiatry, 41(Suppl 1), S99-S104. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2008-1080903

Mason, B. R., Cowan, L. F., & Gonczol, T. (1990). Factors affecting accuracy in pistol shooting. Excel, 6(4), 2–6.

Mon, D., Zakynthinaki, M., Cordente, C., Barriopedro, M., & Sampedro, J. (2014). Body sway and performance at competition in male pistol and rifle Olympic shooters. Biomedical Human Kinetics, 6(1): 56-62. https://doi.org/10.2478/bhk-2014-0010

Mononen, K., Konttinen, N., Viitasalo, J., & Era, P. (2007). Relationships between postural balance, rifle stability and shooting accuracy among novice rifle shooters. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 17(2), 180–185. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0838. 2006.00549.x

12 E. OLSSON AND M. S. LAAKSONEN

Mononen, K., Viitasalo, J. T., Era, P., & Konttinen, N. (2003). Optoelectronic measures in the analysis of running target shooting. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 13(3), 200–207. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0838.2003.00130.x

O’Donoghue, P. (2010). Research methods for sports performance analysis. Routledge.Su, F. C., Wu, W. L., & Lee, W. D. (2000). Stance stability in shooters. Journal of Medical and

Biological Engineering, 20(4), 187–192.Tang, W. T., Zhang, W. Y., Huang, C. C., Young, M. S., & Hwang, I. S. (2008). Postural tremor and

control of the upper limb in air pistol shooters. Journal of Sports Sciences, 26(14), 1579–1587. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640410802287063

Zanevskyy, I., Korostylova, Y., & Mykhaylov, V. (2012). Aiming point trajectory as an assessment parameter of shooting performance. Human Movement, 13(3), 211–217. https://doi.org/10. 2478/v10038-012-0024-3

Zatsiorsky, V. M., & Aktov, A. V. (1990). Biomechanics of highly precise movements: The aiming process in air rifle shooting. Journal of Biomechanics, 23(1), 35–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/ 0021-9290(90)90039-6

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS IN SPORT 13