Do you get a sight picture on the second shot of close targets?

[Ssanders224]

8 minutes ago, Wesquire said:

 

Nope. You think you need to see the sights at 5 yards. Waste of time.

 

Meh, over simplified. 

I usually see my sights on 5 yd targets.  My stage times don't suffer from it. 

[Jake Di Vita]

21 minutes ago, MemphisMechanic said:

 

You think you're contradicting me, the rest of us see you validating.

 

I don't see that. I think Wesquire has been pretty accurate in his statements. The whole idea of "it takes no longer to aim than not to aim" sounds great, but in my experience that just doesn't hold true. Any amount of refinement of your "sight" picture takes more time than no refinement. Any amount of changing focal distance takes more time than not changing focal distance. The amount of aiming needed on any given target depends entirely on that target and the shooter's ability. For anything 5 yards and in, fists in front of brown is all I usually need to see to hit alphas. And yes, there is a measurable and repeatable difference in speed for me if I need more refinement than fists in front of brown. It may not be a big difference, but as with anything in this sport, it adds up over the course of a match.

 

The ONLY thing that matters is you know exactly where the gun is pointed when the bullet leaves the barrel. If you need a rock hard front sight focus at 5 yards in order to do that, that's fine because that is the amount of information you need. Other shooters, especially those with a well developed index, do not need that much information to execute properly.

 

If you can process less information about your sight picture and still achieve the same accuracy results as the people that need to process more information about their sight picture, you're probably going beat the people that generally need more information to hit the target.

[MemphisMechanic]

6 minutes ago, Ssanders224 said:

 

Meh, over simplified. 

I usually see my sights on 5 yd targets.  My stage times don't suffer from it. 

 

He's going to misread that as you taking a sight picture and tell you it's slow.

 

Looking through the blurry sights as they lift into view is no different from looking at the outline of the gun. We're simply looking at the top portion of the outline.

 

"See what you need to see" is a common mantra for a reason. This is the only thread I've run into on BEnos where one questionably-skilled inidividual is telling a GM what he should be seeing.

[MemphisMechanic]

3 minutes ago, Jake Di Vita said:

For anything 5 yards and in, fists in front of brown is all I usually need to see to hit alphas. And yes, there is a measurable and repeatable difference in speed for me if I need more refinement than fists in front of brown.

 

What is on top of fists in front of brown?

 

Blurry sights. Very, very blurry sights.

 

I see those above the outline of the gun and the fists. But I'm not looking for any more reference (doing any more aiming) than you are, because we are all in agreement here. Our visual cue that the gun came out of the holster in a proper grip and is indexed on the gimme target... is just a different point on the gun.

 

I'm not looking for a sight picture, I'm not even looking for the blurry green fiber when I say the sights are there at 3 yds.

 

They're part of the outline of the gun, too.

[Wesquire]

16 minutes ago, MemphisMechanic said:

 

He's going to misread that as you taking a sight picture and tell you it's slow.

 

Looking through the blurry sights as they lift into view is no different from looking at the outline of the gun. We're simply looking at the top portion of the outline.

 

"See what you need to see" is a common mantra for a reason. This is the only thread I've run into on BEnos where one questionably-skilled inidividual is telling a GM what he should be seeing.

 

It is a sight picture. That isn't misreading anything. 

[Wesquire]

12 minutes ago, MemphisMechanic said:

 

What is on top of fists in front of brown?

 

Blurry sights. Very, very blurry sights.

 

I see those above the outline of the gun and the fists. But I'm not looking for any more reference (doing any more aiming) than you are, because we are all in agreement here. Our visual cue that the gun came out of the holster in a proper grip and is indexed on the gimme target... is just a different point on the gun.

 

I'm not looking for a sight picture, I'm not even looking for the blurry green fiber when I say the sights are there at 3 yds.

 

They're part of the outline of the gun, too.

 

You keep asserting that everyone is in agreement other than me, but that is obviously incorrect.

 

Seeing the outline is more coarse than seeing the sights. Your argument makes zero sense. Everything is part of the outline, that doesn't mean you see everything when you see the outline. You aren't seeing a refined outline.

[Ssanders224]

I used to throw fists in front of paper a lot more often than I do now. 

Maybe I've regressed... or... maybe not. 

 

But anyway.  

Again, you guys are going back and forth over something that has no one true answer.  It's been fun. 

[Jake Di Vita]

27 minutes ago, MemphisMechanic said:

 

What is on top of fists in front of brown?

 

Blurry sights. Very, very blurry sights.

 

I see those above the outline of the gun and the fists. But I'm not looking for any more reference (doing any more aiming) than you are, because we are all in agreement here. Our visual cue that the gun came out of the holster in a proper grip and is indexed on the gimme target... is just a different point on the gun.

 

I'm not looking for a sight picture, I'm not even looking for the blurry green fiber when I say the sights are there at 3 yds.

 

They're part of the outline of the gun, too.

 

That's fine if that's what you're doing. For me however, blurry sights is more information than I need the vast majority of the time at that range. Blurry sights is about the level of refinement I use on 5 yard half no-shoot targets. I get that you aren't looking for a blurry green fiber, but I think even noticing blurry sights is a more refined sight picture than fist in front of brown.

 

We're talking about differences of a couple hundredths of a second, which is a small enough difference to make it incredibly hard to recognize for the majority of shooters.

Edited July 29, 2017 by Jake Di Vita

[Ssanders224]

4 minutes ago, Jake Di Vita said:

 but I think even noticing blurry sights is a more refined sight picture than fist in front of brown.

 

We're talking about differences of a couple hundredths of a second, which is small enough difference to make it incredibly hard to recognize for the majority of shooters.

 

Could it be possible that in the time it takes you to see fists in front of brown, someone else can visually grab a decent sight picture? 

 

ETA, since there seems to be some miscommunication between others in the thread;

By decent sight picture, I mean a visual grab of the relationship of front and rear sights. 

Edited July 29, 2017 by Ssanders224

[Jake Di Vita]

2 minutes ago, Ssanders224 said:

 

Could it be possible that in the time it takes you to see fists in front of brown, someone else can visually grab a decent sight picture? 

 

ETA, since there seems to be some miscommunication between others in the thread;

By decent sight picture, I mean a visual grab of the relationship of front and rear sights. 

 

Well I'm not going to say it is impossible, but I think it is extremely unlikely that anyone on this Earth can visually grab their sights before I can visually grab my fist in front of brown.

 

 

[Wesquire]

1 minute ago, Jake Di Vita said:

 

Well I'm not going to say it is impossible, but I think it is extremely unlikely that anyone on this Earth can visually grab their sights before I can visually grab my fist in front of brown.

 

 

 

Which is exactly my point.

[Ssanders224]

10-4.

sounnds like y'all have it figured out.

?

 

[motosapiens]

On 7/29/2017 at 9:23 AM, Jake Di Vita said:

 

Well I'm not going to say it is impossible, but I think it is extremely unlikely that anyone on this Earth can visually grab their sights before I can visually grab my fist in front of brown.

 

 

you may be right, but i'm not so sure that holds for everyone. You may be able to pull the trigger faster than you can actually see, but can everyone? I think it may boil down to what you can pay attention to, and what you can *learn* to pay attention to. 

 

I probably have slow splits since i'm old, but i can pretty much see the sights if I pay attention to them even when pulling the trigger as fast as i can (.15-.18 splits with a singlestack gun). My blake drills are the same time as my bill drills at a little under 2 secs when i work on them. I don't know if that's normal or not. 

 

I think probably the answer is different for different people and for different levels of shooter, but I suspect most non-GM shooters probably could see more than they currently do and be more aware of their sight picture without slowing down.

[Racinready300ex]

On 7/29/2017 at 11:23 AM, Jake Di Vita said:

 

Well I'm not going to say it is impossible, but I think it is extremely unlikely that anyone on this Earth can visually grab their sights before I can visually grab my fist in front of brown.

 

 

 

You're a open shooter right? Are you saying that your Dot slows you down on close targets?

[sfinney]

Lots of back and forth about what is basically a disagreement over the term sight picture imho. Fists on brown, pointy thing in my hand pointed roughly toward target, blurry sights, sharp sight picture.... all varying degrees of a "sight picture".   Any visual cue that the gun is pointed the right direction for hitting the target is a sight picture in my mind, just different levels of attention to which cues are important to make each shot. But I defer to real GM's in the thread, my best shooting days are behind me. Most sight pictures are blurry sight pictures for me these days  

Edited July 31, 2017 by sfinney

[Jake Di Vita]

5 hours ago, motosapiens said:

you may be right, but i'm not so sure that holds for everyone.

 

For sure. He asked about me so that's how I answered.

 

5 hours ago, motosapiens said:

You may be able to pull the trigger faster than you can actually see, but can everyone? I think it may boil down to what you can pay attention to, and what you can *learn* to pay attention to. 

 

But I'm not pulling the trigger faster than I can see. I'm saying it's better to use as little information as possible while still calling and hitting the A zone.

 

5 hours ago, motosapiens said:

I probably have slow splits since i'm old, but i can pretty much see the sights if I pay attention to them even when pulling the trigger as fast as i can (.15-.18 splits with a singlestack gun). My blake drills are the same time as my bill drills at a little under 2 secs when i work on them. I don't know if that's normal or not. 

 

Your blake drill times being the same as bill drill times is likely a function of your splits being comparatively not very fast to your transitions being faster than average (I'm assuming you're transitions are .15-.18 since you said you're getting the same times). Probably not very common, but certainly not the first time I've seen it.

 

5 hours ago, motosapiens said:

I think probably the answer is different for different people and for different levels of shooter, but I suspect most non-GM shooters probably could see more than they currently do and be more aware of their sight picture without slowing down.

 

Yeah the answer is absolutely dependent on the person. There's room for every shooter to be more aware of their sight pictures including all GMs. That being said, I don't want to process more information than is required for me to execute the shot.

 

4 hours ago, Racinready300ex said:

 

You're a open shooter right? Are you saying that your Dot slows you down on close targets?

 

Yes I am an open shooter. No the dot does not slow me down on close targets. I think the dot is faster than irons on all targets with the only possible exception being when the sun is low and directly in your eyes. I've put in enough work on my index and NPA that I do not require information from the dot to execute on most targets 5 yards and in.

[CHA-LEE]

I think you guys are digging into the wrong justification for not seeing some semblance of sights on close targets while rage blasting. There is a lot of talk about where your focus is, how much of the sights, target, fist, or fuzzy bunnies you are seeing verses the rate of fire and quality of hits that are produced. The average B class and above shooter has index and recoil management skills to point at a close target and row their finger twice with their eyes closed and likely get "Decent" hits. Just because you can NOT look at anything and still produce decent hits doesn't make it the "Best" solution or proves that it can produce the most "Consistent" results when engaging multiple targets in a dynamic fashion. For example, I could probably run across a highway blindfolded and not get hit by a car. But I wouldn't say that would be the "Best" or most "Consistent" method for running across the highway. Just because you can get away with doing something incorrectly doesn't really justify the action.

 

Here is the reality of the situation. You have a choice in what you are going to focus on just before your gun is even on the target. If you choose to focus on the target instead of your sights then yes, it will be slower to transition your focus back to the sights before you start shooting. This scenario produces the feeling of "Seeing the sights" takes too long. If you chose to simply focus on your sights BEFORE your gun even settles on the target then there is zero delay between the gun being on the desired aiming spot and the break of the shot or any subsequent shots. 

 

The thing that I am yet to see even mentioned in this thread is what "Seeing the sights" enables you to do. Seeing the sights enables you to call your shots and calling your shots enables you to do the NEXT thing the instant the current shot is called Good/Marginal/Bad. When you can call the shot properly this allows you to KNOW the quality of the hit instantly and you can immediately start working on the next task. This could be processing the sight picture to break the next shot, driving the transition to the next target, exiting the shooting position, initiating a reload, or whatever else needs to be done next. If you are not calling your shots, then you are slinging lead in the general direction of the target and "Hoping" that you get its (inconsistent hit quality issues), or you get sucked into looking for holes to appear in the target as you are shooting at it which takes much longer to process visually before you can start doing the next thing. Both of these failure modes cost you Hit Factor in the form of donated Time or Points.

 

The way I see it you have two options. See the sights and call your shots or don't look at your sights and expect to donate points or time because its going to happen. This is a lesson that took me at least 3 years to learn, relearn, and learn again 9872893493749 times because I was convinced that "Not seeing my sights" had to be the best or fastest way to do it. After a crap ton of wasted time and ammo trying to do it the wrong way I have come to the realization that seeing the sights ALL THE TIME is what allows me to produce the most consistent performance while pushing my skill set to its limits.    

Edited July 31, 2017 by CHA-LEE

[Ssanders224]

17 minutes ago, CHA-LEE said:

I think you guys are digging into the wrong justification for not seeing some semblance of sights on close targets while rage blasting. There is a lot of talk about where your focus is, how much of the sights, target, fist, or fuzzy bunnies you are seeing verses the rate of fire and quality of hits that are produced. The average B class and above shooter has index and recoil management skills to point at a close target and row their finger twice with their eyes closed and likely get "Decent" hits. Just because you can NOT look at anything and still produce decent hits doesn't make it the "Best" solution or proves that it can produce the most "Consistent" results when engaging multiple targets in a dynamic fashion. For example, I could probably run across a highway blindfolded and not get hit by a car. But I wouldn't say that would be the "Best" or most "Consistent" method for running across the highway. Just because you can get away with doing something incorrectly doesn't really justify the action.

 

Here is the reality of the situation. You have a choice in what you are going to focus on just before your gun is even on the target. If you choose to focus on the target instead of your sights then yes, it will be slower to transition your focus back to the sights before you start shooting. This scenario produces the feeling of "Seeing the sights" takes too long. If you chose to simply focus on your sights BEFORE your gun even settles on the target then there is zero delay between the gun being on the desired aiming spot and the break of the shot or any subsequent shots. 

 

The thing that I am yet to see even mentioned in this thread is what "Seeing the sights" enables you to do. Seeing the sights enables you to call your shots and calling your shots enables you to do the NEXT thing the instant the current shot is called Good/Marginal/Bad. When you can call the shot properly this allows you to KNOW the quality of the hit instantly and you can immediately start working on the next task. This could be processing the sight picture to break the next shot, driving the transition to the next target, exiting the shooting position, initiating a reload, or whatever else needs to be done next. If you are not calling your shots, then you are slinging lead in the general direction of the target and "Hoping" that you get its (inconsistent hit quality issues), or you get sucked into looking for holes to appear in the target as you are shooting at it which takes much longer to process visually before you can start doing the next thing. Both of these failure modes cost you Hit Factor in the form of donated Time or Points.

 

The way I see it you have two options. See the sights and call your shots or don't look at your sights and expect to donate points or time because its going to happen. This is a lesson that took me at least 3 years to learn, relearn, and learn again 9872893493749 times because I was convinced that "Not seeing my sights" had to be the best or fastest way to do it. After a crap ton of wasted time and ammo trying to do it the wrong way I have come to the realization that seeing the sights ALL THE TIME is what allows me to produce the most consistent performance while pushing my skill set to its limits.    

 

^^^^ This.

He said it all better than I've had the patience to.   Strive to see the relationship of your sights ALL the time.  

[Jake Di Vita]

22 minutes ago, CHA-LEE said:

I think you guys are digging into the wrong justification for not seeing some semblance of sights on close targets while rage blasting.

 

Just because you need to see your sights at super close range to be consistently accurate and call your shots doesn't mean everyone does. 

 

24 minutes ago, CHA-LEE said:

There is a lot of talk about where your focus is, how much of the sights, target, fist, or fuzzy bunnies you are seeing verses the rate of fire and quality of hits that are produced. The average B class and above shooter has index and recoil management skills to point at a close target and row their finger twice with their eyes closed and likely get "Decent" hits. Just because you can NOT look at anything and still produce decent hits doesn't make it the "Best" solution or proves that it can produce the most "Consistent" results when engaging multiple targets in a dynamic fashion. For example, I could probably run across a highway blindfolded and not get hit by a car. But I wouldn't say that would be the "Best" or most "Consistent" method for running across the highway. Just because you can get away with doing something incorrectly doesn't really justify the action.

 

Nice strawman you set up there. I'm not seeing anyone advocate not looking at anything and just pulling the trigger or doing your equivalent of running across the highway blindfolded. What we are arguing is exactly how much information is required in order for you to call your shots and hit alphas at close range. I hardly use the sights on the gun for anything 5 yards and in, yet I've consistently shot close to 95% of the points throughout the course of the season many times. Do you really think that qualifies as doing something incorrectly and getting away with it? I don't.

 

28 minutes ago, CHA-LEE said:

Here is the reality of the situation. You have a choice in what you are going to focus on just before your gun is even on the target. If you choose to focus on the target instead of your sights then yes, it will be slower to transition your focus back to the sights before you start shooting. This scenario produces the feeling of "Seeing the sights" takes too long. If you chose to simply focus on your sights BEFORE your gun even settles on the target then there is zero delay between the gun being on the desired aiming spot and the break of the shot or any subsequent shots. 

 

It's not that seeing the sights takes too long (I wonder if you even read what I was saying at this point). It's that getting precise feedback from my sights is WAY more information than I need to execute the vast majority of shots on targets 5 yards and in. You say there is zero delay, but that simply isn't true. There is always going to be a non zero amount of time that is required in order for you to process what you're seeing. That time required goes higher based on what you are gathering the information from and how much information there is to process. What you're saying sounds good, but I think most of the time it doesn't play out that way in the real world.

 

35 minutes ago, CHA-LEE said:

The thing that I am yet to see even mentioned in this thread is what "Seeing the sights" enables you to do. Seeing the sights enables you to call your shots and calling your shots enables you to do the NEXT thing the instant the current shot is called Good/Marginal/Bad. When you can call the shot properly this allows you to KNOW the quality of the hit instantly and you can immediately start working on the next task. This could be processing the sight picture to break the next shot, driving the transition to the next target, exiting the shooting position, initiating a reload, or whatever else needs to be done next. If you are not calling your shots, then you are slinging lead in the general direction of the target and "Hoping" that you get its (inconsistent hit quality issues), or you get sucked into looking for holes to appear in the target as you are shooting at it which takes much longer to process visually before you can start doing the next thing. Both of these failure modes cost you Hit Factor in the form of donated Time or Points.

 

It sounds like you are taking the position that it's impossible to call shots on close targets without seeing your sights. As I said in my first post in this thread, the ONLY thing that matters is knowing where your gun is pointed the instant the bullet leaves the barrel. That is what calling shots means. When I go fist in front of brown mode, I'm not hoping anything. I know where my rounds are going. I wouldn't do it if I wasn't able to call my shots with that methodology. I don't need the same amount of information for a 5 yard open target as I do for a 10 yard partial no shoot. Gathering/processing the same amount of information for both targets is not very efficient.

 

39 minutes ago, CHA-LEE said:

The way I see it you have two options. See the sights and call your shots or don't look at your sights and expect to donate points or time because its going to happen.

 

Here's the option I use: Get the minimum information required by looking at anything that gives you the required information to call every shot. The more coarse the source of the information, the faster you are likely to process it.

 

42 minutes ago, CHA-LEE said:

This is a lesson that took me at least 3 years to learn, relearn, and learn again 9872893493749 times because I was convinced that "Not seeing my sights" had to be the best or fastest way to do it. After a crap ton of wasted time and ammo trying to do it the wrong way I have come to the realization that seeing the sights ALL THE TIME is what allows me to produce the most consistent performance while pushing my skill set to its limits.    

 

Seeing your sights ALL THE TIME might be how you have to do it. I am not beholden to the requirements that you have set for yourself to be able to call your shots.

 

I'll reiterate. The only thing that matters is you know precisely where the gun is pointed when the bullet leaves the barrel. There are many ways of gathering this information. The sights certainly give you the most accurate feedback. The most accurate feedback is not necessary for every target.

[CHA-LEE]

I see that your method has resulted in zero level 2 or above wins and some 80% - 90% overall results at Area or National level matches. Not to mention that you don't even shoot that often any more. I hate to point out these facts, but at some point the proof is in the pudding. Superior processes should produce superior results right? My method at least allows me to win Level 2 major matches and consistently finish in the top 90% at the vast majority of Level 3 and above matches I attend. 

 

Isn't the whole purpose of this effort to maximize our performance so we can win matches?

 

Who cares what method sounds cool or anyone thinks is "better" than the other. What matters is what method wins matches does it not?

[Jake Di Vita]

2 minutes ago, CHA-LEE said:

I see that your method has resulted in zero level 2 or above wins and some 80% - 90% overall results at Area or National level matches. Not to mention that you don't even shoot that often any more. I hate to point out these facts, but at some point the proof is in the pudding. Superior processes should produce superior results right? My method at least allows me to win Level 2 major matches and consistently finish in the top 90% at the vast majority of Level 3 and above matches I attend. 

 

Isn't the whole purpose of this effort to maximize our performance so we can win matches?

 

Who cares what method sounds cool or anyone thinks is "better" than the other. What matters is what method wins matches does it not?

 

Yeah I don't compete too much right now, I have other things going on in my life that are more important to me.

 

That being said, I did shoot 96% of our current national champion at the Michigan state match about 6 months before he won nationals all while doing no live fire practice whatsoever. So the "facts" you're pointing out are not quite telling the whole story now are they?

 

Instead of resorting to ad hominem (the preferred choice for most people that can't argue logically), why don't you address what I said? Tell me why what I said was wrong. Unless of course you can't.

 

 

[motosapiens]

18 hours ago, Jake Di Vita said:

 

 

But I'm not pulling the trigger faster than I can see. I'm saying it's better to use as little information as possible while still calling and hitting the A zone.

 

 

 

as usual, much good information in your  post. The only thing I would comment on is this sentence. It seems to imply that using less information is self-evidently faster. I'm not sure that's true. If I can simply pay more attention, and have more information, while shooting the same speed and calling my shots, that doesn't seem like a bad thing. But we're probably saying similar things and just arguing about what the definition of is is. 

[CHA-LEE]

Jake> I already explained my position on this. Its up to each shooter to decide which method is best for them. I wanted to point out that one method is more prone to donating time or points to the competition and thus has an impact to where your potential finish will be in a match. If people want to willingly donate time or points to their competition because they "Think" not observing the sights is faster then more power to them. All I can say in that situation is "Thank you for your donation!!!".

[Racinready300ex]

16 hours ago, Jake Di Vita said:

It's not that seeing the sights takes too long

 

I think this sentence sums up the whole thread. You're making the point that seeing your sight is wasting time, but then this sentence you seem to imply that seeing your sight doesn't take to long. Maybe I'm reading it wrong and that's not what you mean.

 

I try to see my sight on every shot, some times on this close fast stuff it happen so fast by the time I've processed what I saw it's to late to do anything about it. But, sometime it's not and I can fix a mistake and only lose a couple tenths of a second. The processing takes time, I'm not waiting to process each shot before taking the next I'm trying to do it all on the fly.

[Jake Di Vita]

1 hour ago, motosapiens said:

If I can simply pay more attention, and have more information, while shooting the same speed and calling my shots, that doesn't seem like a bad thing.

 

Sure, I totally agree. Where I'm coming from is I think everything has a cost. If the issue is simply the ability to pay attention, that's a separate problem. Once you have that sorted out and you have a decently high level of technical ability, then I don't think processing more information while shooting the same speed is very realistic. That's why harder shots tend to take longer than easier shots right? Because harder shots require more visual input to execute properly.

 

1 hour ago, CHA-LEE said:

Jake> I already explained my position on this. Its up to each shooter to decide which method is best for them. I wanted to point out that one method is more prone to donating time or points to the competition and thus has an impact to where your potential finish will be in a match. If people want to willingly donate time or points to their competition because they "Think" not observing the sights is faster then more power to them. All I can say in that situation is "Thank you for your donation!!!".

 

You just tried to throw poop at me instead of addressing my response to your position. Attacking me instead of my words. Even now you're acting like what I'm saying is willingly donating time or points to my competition. Can you logically explain why my response to you is incorrect or not? Your lame attempt to come after me instead of what I'm saying is not going to go unchallenged. I at least gave you the common courtesy of breaking your points down and responding to them. 

 

33 minutes ago, Racinready300ex said:

I think this sentence sums up the whole thread. You're making the point that seeing your sight is wasting time, but then this sentence you seem to imply that seeing your sight doesn't take to long. Maybe I'm reading it wrong and that's not what you mean.

 

I try to see my sight on every shot, some times on this close fast stuff it happen so fast by the time I've processed what I saw it's to late to do anything about it. But, sometime it's not and I can fix a mistake and only lose a couple tenths of a second. The processing takes time, I'm not waiting to process each shot before taking the next I'm trying to do it all on the fly.

 

Yes, you're reading it wrong. I did not say seeing your sights is a waste of time. I said there are many targets where seeing my sights is more information than I need to execute and call alphas. I'm not going to shoot a 5 yard target the same way I would shoot a 15 yard target. I'm going to see what I need to see to make the shot. If you're seeing your sights on every single shot, then you simply require more information than I do.

 

When I talk about processing information I'm talking about what happens before the shot. I want to process only what I need to execute the shot I'm taking. If I know my round is going to impact 1 inch left of center in the A without reading it directly from the bumps on the top of the gun, why would I refine my sight picture any more before taking the shot?

 

 

Edited August 1, 2017 by Jake Di Vita