TheDarkOne

This type of focus is what Brian refers to as Type #2 focus in his book, and has its application when targets are close and/or low difficulty. Basically, you have target focus and just look through your sights which should be fuzzy. For longer shots, however, you will be much better served to drop back to your front sight; faster and more accurate. The way I see it, each target has it's own 'best' focus, and it is up to you to determine what that is for you. Just be aware that there are other types of focus you can experiment with that may net better results in different situations.

Right on. The looseness I have seen is in the frame to slide fit, and only near the front of the gun at that. So despite this loosening, it still seems to shoot as good as ever, and I still highly recommend as a possibility for your first 1911.

Funny you say that. My TRP seems a little looser than I remember when I bought it, but I have around 1500 rounds though it at this point. Does this loosening automatically affect the guns accuracy, or does it depend on what is loose? If the guns start out tight, what keep some staying tight while others loosen? If there has been an accuracy loss in my gun, it is has not been enough to notice.

On the STI recommendation, it just depends on how picky he is. I for one do not like how they feel in my hand. It may look like a 1911, but to me, it does feel like one.

GentlemanJim, I was wondering if you could give me a little input/verification. A few weeks ago, while at a competition, we had some time in between stages so we decided to mess around a bit. We were taking aim at some metal target stands at what we thought to be at 100 yards. I estimate the stands to be 18" wide and 3' tall, but again that is just a guess. I was aiming at the top of the stand and was ringing it pretty constantly; 5 in a row if memory serves. I was shooting 230 grain .45 ACP Blazer Aluminum. Since I am sighted in at 25 yards, it surprised me that I was able to hold on the target and still get hits. Does this seem correct? My estimates may be off since I did not have a range finder, and did not measure the targets. I have a video of the stage we were shooting, so you can see the targets in the background. At :18 of this video, I think I actually hit the far target on accident, which may help judge distance a bit better. http://www.youtube.com/user/tdo79#p/u/10/aTvoRvo1JVk

Not sure if you have made up your mind on what you wanted to get, but thought I would chime in just in case. +1 Springfield TRP ~$1400 (got mine for $1070, that is it in the picture to the left) While there are more accurate guns out there, this gun possesses more than enough accuracy for any situation you will find yourself in. This being said, other than bragging rights, I can't see any reason to spend any more $ on a top end custom gun. I don't consider myself to be a great shot by any means, but I have been able to consistently hit 4" steel plates out to 50 yds, and human sized targets out to 100 yds. This was done slow-fire off-hand with 230 grain Blazer Aluminum, so you can't credit the ammo either.

Yeah, I try to shoot everything 2 eyes open all the time, but sometimes I have to cheat a bit. When I get mixed up during a stage, seeing double images and not knowing which is the correct one, I will do quick blink of the non aiming eye to verify my aim. This reorients me so I can go back to 2 eyes open shooting.

From my skimming of this thread, I would say that the Pact Mark IV is the most popular, but Flexmoney's comment kind of threw me for a loop. Since this thread is years old, has CED surpassed Pact in popularity, or is the Mark IV still the consensus? I also noticed that Brian is no longer carrying timers, and was wondering if that had anything to do this debate? Basically, I was just wanting to get an update from the big boys as what they would recommend today. Thanks a bunch.

You don't have to give up on front sight focus just because you see two images. Like you, everyone here starts with target focus. The difference is that before they break off the shot, they drop back to the front sight to refine their sight picture. The only complexity, as someone who see double, is that when you drop back to focus on your front sight, you will notice another target appear. This not a big deal, because you will already be aiming at the 'real' one; simply ignore the one that suddenly appeared. After you break that shot off and call it a hit, you will focus on the next target and start the whole process over again. This is something that needs to be practiced of course, but it is very attainable and will result in better shot placement.

Interesting. I think my desire to shoot either hand, either eye has led to this non-dominance. I have been doing a lot of dry fire practice, aiming at objects left handed with my left eye so I can get used to it. I bet you if I only practiced right handed and right eyed, the double image would be much less noticeable or non-existent. I am sure taping my glasses would work, but I don't want to rely on a 'trick'. It is just something I need to get used to.

Wow, wouldn't that be nice! I always see this, no matter what. It gets pretty confusing as to which target is the 'right' one, especially when they all look the same and start to overlap each other. I figure it is something I just have to get used to.

I did not mean to apply that it was not applicable when talking about theory. Maybe cerebral would have been a better word. K, so I have been doing a little research into the USPSA world and have some questions on which division I would/should be competing in. First of all, some of these division seem to have a RWSD flavor to them, which surprises me since that is so taboo. I am currently competing with a full size single stack 1911. I have a mix of 8 and 10 round magazines, and no optics. Competing with the gun I would actually be using in the RW appeals to me, and doubt if I would ever get into the Open type divisions. With that said, is there room for me in USPSA competition, if so which division(s) would be best suited and why?

I am a person who see 2 images as well. I am not sure if most are this way, but I agree that double images are there, whether you notice them or not. I have been attempting to get comfortable shooting right handed/right eye, and left handed left eye, which really gets confusing since there everything is flipped. In honor of Z32MadMan I have put together an illustration, what I am calling the 'full sight picture'; what you need to put rounds on target, and the ghost images out to the sides. In both images, the focus is on the front sight.

Yeah, I am just barely getting into the scene, but have already met some of them. Of course, at this point, anyone I run into is very good.

I hear ya, it just seems like there is a lot of tension between the two worlds, which kind of took me by surprise, but I guess there is a lot of history which I was not aware of. To me, the two methodologies have more in common that not. I mean, everything I have read so far transfers over to the RWSD situation just fine. Target acquisition, proper focus, sight alignment, trigger control, calling your shot, transitioning to the next target, etc. It's all the same, except you guys seem to have it broken down into a theoretical art-form.

That is the last thing I want to do is create conflict, especially as this is your forum and and am just the new guy; that would just be bad behavior on my part. I am just trying to settle in here, learn the ropes, who you guys are, and how you think. I will be very careful as to what I say, and where I say it. Mostly for clarification, such conversations will be had in this thread or PM's. I am not here to clutter up your threads, as they are very civil indeed.

Jim, are you trying to goat me back into a tactical discussion? Let the records show that it was Jim's fault? I can only vouch for SLC SWAT, and the special operations community. You have me thinking though. Maybe that is just something for practice sessions on the range, not competition.

Utah shooters and Team Firebird, I'm starting to see a pattern here. I have a UDPL meeting and practice set up for the 6th, so I won't be able to make it this Saturday. I will be looking into this though, and hope to see you all around. As for the tactics thing, I will zip it, thanks for the clarification and reasurance.

Perfect Brian, thanks. That makes perfect sense, and what I had originaly thought.

Just to clarify what you mean by 'watch'. If I hold my finger out at arms length and move it up and down as fast as I can, I can watch it go up and down just fine, but my eyes muscles are not actually moving. Is that what you mean by watching it through its arc of motion, or are your eye muscles literally moving to follow it? If the later, I would say that is pretty remarkable, as my eyes don't seem to be able to move that fast.

Hmm, well I didn't mean to step on any toes. (maybe we can't be friends after all) For clarification, (as I am not sure why it is discouraged), I am not talking about engaging actual human threats tactically, just cardboard. Since competitive shooting was born out of self-defense, there is going to be plenty of overlap. One obvious example is the shape of the IPSC targets. I am not trying to be confrontational, just not really sure where the line is that I am not supposed to cross. That is an interesting point about exposure though. I will have to test it out. If that is true, there are plenty of deluded Military and LE officers out there. This makes me want to read that article of yours even more now.

Forgive me for resurrecting this thread, but this is the topic that has been consuming me lately, so I want to make sure I am completely squared away on it. I am new, and have been competing with pure front sight focus through the whole stage, which can make it difficult to find which blurry double image is the correct one. I now know that this approach is incorrect, and has led to slow transition times. Is the final and/or correct answer what Z32MadMan illustrated in his diagram? It seems to be the most popular, but there are other ideas suggested as well, which leads to a little confusion with those of us trying to figure this out. Last question, when you talked about tracking the front sight, are you literally tracking it recoil up and back down, or just waiting for it to get back to where it was. It seems like a fast object to literally track, so I assume the first. BTW,Z32MadMan, your diagram was very well done, and exactly what I was after. The only thing that could make it better would be to superimpose the double images of the objects not in pure focus. Maybe if I have one of those sleepless nights, I will build upon what you have already done, all credit to you of course.

Thanks. Yeah, that is exactly why I prefaced that statement 'Right now', you never know what the future holds. Either way, I think we have more in common than not, so we can still be friends. As a USPSA guy, or just as a shooter, have you experimented with shooting with the opposite hand and eye? Just wondering if you or others here could still give advice on it, even though they don't compete that way.

Very well put. I am beginning to understand, and lets just say this is not what I was doing. My current MO was to start with target focal plane, shifting to front sight focus as my gun came out of the holster and onto the target, but I would stay with strict front sight focus throughout the entire stage. Since I have 2 fuzzy images of every target out there, it became confusing as to which one I was supposed to be aiming at, especially when they look the same and start to overlap.