Sporting activities are classified according to movement demands and can be categorized as either dynamic or static actions. Many events exist within the discipline of “shooting sports”, and dynamic and static demands vary drastically among those events. However, consideration for differences in movement demands is frequently disregarded in shooting sports; common practice protocol encourages shooters to utilize static shooting techniques for all shooting sport events. In particular, shooting techniques for shotgun shooting, a dynamic sporting event, regularly align with rifle shooting (static activity) methods. Innovative dynamic shotgun shooting techniques have recently been developed, however, no previous studies have examined the outcomes of employing these dynamic techniques. Therefore, the current research investigated the effects of innovative shotgun shooting methods on collegiate shotgun shooters (n=38). Pre and post trap and skeet scores were collected at a certified International Shooting Sport Federation and USA Shooting competition field. Upon completion of pre-test shooting, subjects participated in an Optimum Shooting Performance (OSP) intervention that outlined innovative dynamic shooting and practice techniques. Post-test shooting scores were collected after 2-weeks of OSP practice. A paired sample t test identified statistically significant improvements for trap shooting scores (t[32] = 2.82, p = .008, 95% CI [0.431, 2.660], d = .49), skeet shooting scores (t[32] = 2.59, p = .01, 95% CI [0.436, 3.625], d = .45), and total shooting (sum score of trap and skeet tests) scores (t[32] = 3.37, p = .002, 95% CI [1.417, 5.734], d = .59). These results suggest that learning and utilizing the OSP methods significantly increased the shooting performance of college shotgun shooters.


Shooting Sports, Shotgun Shooting, Optimum Shooting Performance,


  1. J. H. Mitchell, W. L. Haskell, P. B. Raven, Classification of sports, Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 24 (1994) 864-866.
  2. Texas Parks and Wildlife (2014), Today’s hunter in Texas. Dallas, TX: Kalkomey Enterprises, Inc.
  3. C. E. Granrud, A. Yonas, L. Pettersen, A comparison of monocular and binocular depth perception in 5-and 7-month-old infants, Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 38 (1984) 19-32.
  4. J. Causer, S. J. Bennett, P. S. Holmes, C. M. Janelle, A. M. Williams, Quiet eye duration and gun motion in elite shotgun shooting, Medicine and Science in Sports Exercise, 42 (2010) 1599-1608.
  5. G. Ash, V. Ash, & T. Adams, Sporting clays consistency: You Gotta Be out of your mind!, OSP Press, (2006).
  6. K. A. Ericsson, R. T. Krampe, C. Tesch-Römer, The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance, Psychological Review, 100 (1993) 363-406.
  7. F. Di Russo, S. Pitzalis, D. Spinelli, Fixation stability and saccadic latency in elite shooters, Vision Research, 43 (2003) 1837- 1845.
  8. G. Ariff, O. Donchin, T. Nanayakkara, & R. Shadmehr, A real-time state predictor in motor control: study of saccadic eye movements during unseen reaching movements, Journal of Neuroscience, 22 (2002) 7721-7729.
  9. K. Mononen, N. Konttinen, J. Viitasalo, P. Era, Relationships between postural balance, rifle stability and shooting accuracy among novice rifle shooters, Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 17 (2007) 180-185.
  10. L. A. Mrotek, M. Flanders, J. F. Soechting, Oculomotor responses to gradual changes in target direction, Experimental Brain Research, 172 (2006) 175-192.
  11. L. A. Mrotek, J. F. Soechting, Target interception: hand–eye coordination and strategies, Journal of Neuroscience, 27 (2007) 7297-7309.
  12. G. A. Reina, A. B. Schwartz, Eye–hand coupling during closed-loop drawing: Evidence of shared motor planning?, Human Movement Science, 22 (2003) 137-152.