Sight Picture

[Chuck D]

Several years ago, I took an advanced IPSC shooting course from Mike Voigt. One of the things I found interesting is his technique for using (or not using) the sights on close targets. I remember him teaching me that from being right on top of the target to about 6-7 yards..." just place the muzzle in the center of the target, look through the sights and press the trigger. The shots will be there". I get the "outline" of the muzzle of the gun in my vision...center the muzzle in the target and BLAM....

What I'm wondering is if this really is the correct way to accomplish the task? How far out should I be using this technique or should I be using it at all? This isn't the technique Todd Jarret uses which is called "shooting out of the notch"...where he sees the sights but they're not in perfect allignment.

When using Voigt's technique...you need to transition to a traditional sight picture once the target becomes 10 or more yards away from you or the target is not a "full" target. It hasn't hurt me yet as I have not received a miss or tons of "D" hits using this technique.

Does anyone else use this technique?

[rhino]

I think a lot of people don't really use their sights up close ... I think that some who believe that they do are actually just seeing the sights (because they can), but they're not depending on them to get the hits at under seven yards or so.

I could be wrong.

I've been trying to use my sights on every shot, regardless of the distance and it's really been slowing me down on close stuff!

[Loves2Shoot]

I tried it, but realized after some experimentation that it caused me too much anxiety and I actually shoot faster if I see green (fiber optic color of my choice) in the notch rather than looking through the sights. It also keeps me from leaving the target early which I tend to do when I end up point (index) shooting. I've never trusted it at 7 yards, 3-4 max. I think it could work if you have a great index and practice a lot, but at those distances I can see faster than I can pull the trigger.

[Flexmoney]

Chuck,

I have shot matches without sights on my gun.

It is slower for me...at most any distance. Even the really close stuff.

But, you can shoot the close stuff by placing the slide in the center of the target...I sometimes like to see the front sight post in the center of the target...not really in the notch...kinda hovering just out of the notch (i sorta line the back sight's top with the lower part of the front sight/slide).

Rhino...seeing is faster. There is just no doubt about that in my mind whatsoever. (come over to our Steel Match and I'll prove it. 3rd Sat.)

[mcoliver]

I think a lot of people don't really use their sights up close ... I think that some who believe that they do are actually just seeing the sights (because they can), but they're not depending on them to get the hits at under seven yards or so.

I could be wrong.

Nope, you're right, at least in my case. How else can it be explained missing a full-sized popper at 10.

After toying with the dot for several days, I took it out last night and went with regular sights and did some dry fire. The first few runs I noticed I wasn't really pulling back my focus back to the FS. So I tried pulling back the focus and felt some slight pause as soon as I transitioned to a new target. I got curious so I set up a partime doing both techniques. Surprise, surprise...ended up with the same time. But I bet when it comes to live fire the shots from the pulled back focus would be better called.

I think it goes back to how well you know your technique and how well you trust yourself when executing them.

But now I gotta ask, do you dot shooters see your dot even with 3 yard targets?

[shred]

But now I gotta ask, do you dot shooters see your dot even with 3 yard targets? 

Todd says he sees the dot on each and every shot. BE will tell you seeing is no slower than not seeing. Poke on over to the 'Double Tap' thread...

You may see less dot, but you should see something. I learned that the hard way when shooting a weak-hand string-- the targets were so close and I didn't see the dot but I figured I could hit them anyway. Turns out that not seeing the dot means it's not pointed where you think it is.

I'm sure there are speedsters that go purely by index, but I'm not one of them.

[Chuck D]

I messed around with this about a half hour ago. I set up a target at 5 yards and I proceeded to shoot at it "at speed" using two different techniques.

1st. I would stare a hole in the "A" zone. The timer would go off and I would bring the gun into my vision...place the muzzle in the center of the target (where I was staring) and touch off two rounds.

2nd. I would "look" at the target. The timer would go off and I would get a half assed sight picture (shooting out of the notch) then touch off two rounds.

Times were close but the 1st technique was faster each and every time I used it. Not by much...the average spread was .08 to .12 overall. Hits were identical in reference to point value but obviously I used much more of the "A" zone when I used the 1st technique.

Then I brought out the home movies of some of my matches from this season. When reviewing them for something other than my "boyish good looks' I noticed that when on field courses that had LOTS of wide open targets close to me...I was lucky to be even looking in the vicinity of the sights on the gun. I seemed to be looking solely at targets while the gun was "barking its orders" from somewhere around the upper chest level.

Then I reviewed the pictures and notes from the Voigt class...he does the same thing with a Limited gun !

Using conventional wisdom regarding sight pictures...It's a wonder I hit anything at all.

So much of this sport is performed by using "feel" and "sensation" that it makes it difficult to really know what the hell is going on when the gun fires.

It's great to read what others think though...helps me make sense of what I either don't understand or take for granted.

[rhino]

Seeing the dot or sights doesn't necessarily mean you're actually "using" them for that shot ...

There are a lot of people who really do use their sights on every shot.

I'm just saying there are also people who think they are, but it's a coincidence that they're seeing the sights and they are actually point shooting (sometimes really well too).

And there are some who point shoot and know it and do it on purpose and still get good hits. I've tried it both ways in matches and I always do better point shooting if it's really close. I have no doubt that for some it's no slower to use the sights, but apparently I can't do it that way (at least not yet). I'll continue to try to use my sights on every shot for a while and maybe something will improve.

[mcoliver]

Hits were identical in reference to point value but obviously I used much more of the "A" zone when I used the 1st technique.

There ya go!

Now add a little movement or just plain breath harder (from a run) and I bet those will open up even more.

Good thing about this is that we've all discovered the positive things about practice.

[Dead Buff]

What I normally do is see my front sight on the target (often even the A-zone ) and I only include the rear sight in my sight picture for targets that are out of hoser range, for me ±5-7 meters and beyond.....Works so far

I can not see any gain in time in just seeing the slide or including the front sight, but accuracy did seem to improve.

[DogmaDog]

Sounds like Mike Voight was describing what he needs to see when he shoots close targets.

The fundamental here is "see what you need to see to make each shot"

Sometimes all you need to be aware of is the back of the slide superimposed over the target, with either or niether in focus (if I actually saw the MUZZLE, I'd know I was way off target!). Other times, I need to see a sharply focused front sight in the exact center of the rear notch, with the very center of the top edge of the front sight in the center of the A zone of a blurry target.

There's a whole continuum of possibilities in between. Brian discusses 5 types of focus in his book. Any shooter may have different criteria for employing any one type of focus.

DogmaDog

[Loves2Shoot]

I messed around with this about a half hour ago. I set up a target at 5 yards and I proceeded to shoot at it "at speed" using two different techniques.

1st. I would stare a hole in the "A" zone. The timer would go off and I would bring the gun into my vision...place the muzzle in the center of the target (where I was staring) and touch off two rounds.

2nd. I would "look" at the target. The timer would go off and I would get a half assed sight picture (shooting out of the notch) then touch off two rounds.

Times were close but the 1st technique was faster each and every time I used it. Not by much...the average spread was .08 to .12 overall. Hits were identical in reference to point value but obviously I used much more of the "A" zone when I used the 1st technique.

Then I brought out the home movies of some of my matches from this season. When reviewing them for something other than my "boyish good looks'    I noticed that when on field courses that had LOTS of wide open targets close to me...I was lucky to be even looking in the vicinity of the sights on the gun. I seemed to be looking solely at targets while the gun was "barking its orders" from somewhere around the upper chest level.

Then I reviewed the pictures and notes from the Voigt class...he does the same thing with a Limited gun !

Using conventional wisdom regarding sight pictures...It's a wonder I hit anything at all.

So much of this sport is performed by using "feel" and "sensation" that it makes it difficult to really know what the hell is going on when the gun fires. 

It's great to read what others think though...helps me make sense of what I either don't understand or take for granted.

Did you try this with multiple targets and include movement? Standing and shooting a target that is right in front of you give me different results than when actually shooting something I would shoot in a match. I found it is pretty easy to get 2 good hits (even with my eyes closed) very fast if the target is right in front of me. Add the other stuff and it changes the results a lot for me.

[Chuck D]

During my "test" , no movement or multiple targets were utilized.

During my review of the tapes and photos...multiple targets and movement were the norm not the exception.

[benos]

Chuck,

Reading your first post... I felt the "problem" was more related to how you are thinking (in order to understand or conclude) rather than what you are or should be actually doing. Because only on some targets (probably mostly hard ones) can you know beforehand what you will need to see in order to know, as the shot fires, if you hit the target. For normal IPSC targets at 1 to 25 yards, I think it's a mistake to divide them into groups, like from 0-7 yards, 7-15 yards, and 15-25 yards, for example, and then decide what you need to see for each group. Instead, think about it "backwards." What if your only goal was to know you hit each target (A box, plate...) at the instant you pulled the trigger? How would you go about that? What would you need to know, by way of seeing, during every shot? It's actually much simpler because now you're always doing the same thing. Let the gun tell you when to pull the trigger.

be

[Chuck D]

So, am I safe to assume that if I feel that I only need to see the muzzle in the center of a target to register a solid "A" hit in one instance and I feel that I need a solid sight picture to register a solid "A" hit on a target at distance or a partial target I'm not using the same "seeing function" for either situation?

For me...sight and feel are co-dependant. I try to let the shooting "flow" from a place that exudes "sensation"...meaning if it feels right...it is right. I'm not saying that I don't look at the sights because I do...probably a bit TOO much in some situations but there are times that I don't steer the ship in open seas the same way I would if I were entering the dock.

I guess I'm really trying to find out if using the technique taught by MV is correct or not (or the cause of some bad habits).

[wide45]

I remember Jim Cirillo teaching us to shoot by seeing the profile of the gun on the target, years before the Voigt class.

I've shot two matches without sights on the gun. It's not slower on the easy targets.

If I see the gun in proper relation to the target, the shots will be there. Seeing is seeing.

I can't say the same about feeling.

[TDean]

I use the no-sight technique a lot. Sometimes (even out to 10 yards on open targets) I remember this sense of looking over the gun and watching the holes appear on the paper. Just after I watch the holes appear I say to myself "you lucky s.o.b."

I think it obvious that shooting without the need to visually align the sights is faster, but it's frought with inaccuracy at a certain distance especially when coupled with movement. Each of us has a different natural ability to point-shoot. You need to find your limits, then back it off a hair...

I agree that catagorizing targets based on yardage is a bad idea and that always using your sights is a sure way to shoot consistently. But I also think that point-shooting has it's place in the sport. It's a powerful tool that needs to be closely monitored and not over used.

I think it may be easier for a point-shooter to learn to use his sights than it is for a sight-guy to learn to point-shoot. I wouldn't "try" to do it unless you've recognized that your body is telling you to do it. Otherwise, you may be very disapointed with the outcome. "WHITE TAPE!!"

*Hey look, tomorrow will be 3 years on this fine forum.

Thanks again Brian for the best shooting forum on the planet.

Group: Classified

Posts: 1628

Member No.: 1993

Joined: 10-July 01

[wide45]

Point shooting is something else. I've done it at times, but that's often not a good thing.

I learned to use the profile of the gun as a crude sight, and call the shots. Accuracy is much reduced, but it can give you what you need.

[Steve Anderson]

Someone asked if dot shooters see the dot on close shots...

This one does.

At high speed, it's kinda like a bouncing ball sing along, giving me the words to a song I already know.

Flex and I talk about this a LOT, and he has helped me require less on certain targets, based on what I actually see, as opposed to deciding to see less based on a preconceived notion of what I should see.

You can draw to an acceptable sight picture in .6 or less, and see the sights in whatever level of detail you need. Really.

SA

[rhino]

Okay, but when you're going really fast, are you really seeing the dot BEFORE your brain sends the impulse to your finger to press, or during, or after? I think that for some shooters ... not Steve Anderson the GM, but the normal person ... they're seeing the dot, but they've already either pressed the trigger or committed to doing it. They may be using the dot/sights to confirm that they WERE on target when they pressed the trigger, but perhaps not using the dot to actually align the gun with the target.

[TDean]

I love stages that have multiple target arrays at 10yds or less because the open shooters have to find thier dot first. Us Limited shooters will whoop you on a stage like that. I'm getting excited just thinking about it!

(22hrs'till the next match)

Now plates at 10yds......

[benos]

Chuck,

Different types of seeing - from gun in the middle of the target to a stopped, perfect sight picture - all correspond to one activity - knowing.

When each shot breaks you either knew where it went or you didn't. How each of us comes to know and understand that is complex, and is the result of a combination of our individual experiences, Temperament, physical and mental capacities, dedication, determination, thoroughness, and so on.... Which is why the "how" (you do it) varies widely with each shooter, but the "what" (must be done) doesn't.

You must know where the bullet went at the instant the round fires. How you know that is up to you. And the subject of endless discussion.

If we seek to do something as effectively and efficiently as possible, it's not bad to "start from the beginning" on our journey. But sometimes the beginning is hard to find, obscured by the goal and all.

be

[Chuck D]

Brian:

Interestingly enough...I've experimented a bit this past weekend at a local club match. This match had lots of targets at distance...lots of partial targets and lots of 8 inch plates and U.S. Poppers.

I extended my "range" of sightless shooting to past 10 yards. from 15 and on, I took the time to obtain a traditional sight picture but from 12 yards on in , I used the muzzle as the reference point instead of the front sight. I'm a better than average shooter in the accuracy department but blinding speed still illudes me.

The 4 COF's had high disaster factors and the majority in my squad (A and M classified guys in Open Division) collected a large amount of mikes. I was fortunate enough to excape the mike trap but:

I shot a high amount of "D" hits (5 ON THE DAY)

I lost a fair amount of points (average points down on a stage =9)

I needed to engage an 8 inch plate at 12 yards 3 times before I hit it.

I "felt" sloppy all day.

I had a difficult time making the transition from sightless shooting to obtaining a good sight picture...I'm sure time was wasted here.

When the targets were at distance...I ate the "A" zone out of the target.

Lesson for me here is that I need to see a traditional sight picture 99.5% of the time. Unless the target is open and practically right on top of me...the sights must be used. It's clear that I'm not using the same "seeing function" in both circumstances. Maybe I misunderstood what MV was telling me...maybe not if the subject is as subjective as you have me believing it is.

Thanks Brian !

[mcoliver]

Okay, but when you're going really fast, are you really seeing the dot BEFORE your brain sends the impulse to your finger to press, or during, or after? I think that for some shooters ... not Steve Anderson the GM, but the normal person ... they're seeing the dot, but they've already either pressed the trigger or committed to doing it. They may be using the dot/sights to confirm that they WERE on target when they pressed the trigger, but perhaps not using the dot to actually align the gun with the target.

This, I feel, is a very good question. This also becomes increasingly important the moment one starts pushing for speed. I've learned that as I repeat a movement often enough (like a draw), the movement (action of pulling the trigger) gets ahead of my vision just to make par. Dry fire it often enough with little range confirmation and the dry & live fire results will become hard to reconcile. I've developed a feeling (in dry fire) that the gun is aligned and broke the shot and found out in live fire it isn't really enough info (the alignment) for an accurate shot.

This really bugged me for some time and I was at a loss for answers as to why my shots become really errant when "I knew" the alignment "looked right." When I slapped on the dot, it only took one draw to figure out the answer to my problem.

[benos]

Chuck,

I understand your experiment because I also feel the "breaking point" required for confirming sight alignment before pulling the trigger is approximately 12 yards. However, I still feel this is not the best approach toward resolving this "problem." Because, although for some it's not necessary, I'm absolutely convinced that anyone can learn to see and track the sights clearly, even on the closest, warp-speed targets. I proved it to myself time and time again, shooting Bill Drills or El Pres's... on my best runs I always saw the sights perfectly clear... actually that's all I'd remember, period. And it was convincing in that you knew, at the instant the run was over, that you tore it up. And then reflecting on that - the sense of certainty was there because there was no doubt whatsoever about where each bullet was going. At that point, what you are seeing is controlling the action to a level that "point shooting" never can.

But what about the question - Facing a string of close targetes... I can shoot all "those" targets full of A's without ever really seeing the sights, so why not just look at the targets all the time. Do you ever remember feeling that way and then ending up with sloppy shots or a miss? (About a million times for me.) So, if you can learn to see and know as fast or faster than you can't, why not train to do that all the time. Knowing is not a bad habit to get into.

But it's difficult to apply that understanding if you haven't convinced yourself of it. So not only is it good to experiment in practice, but you must experiment with it in matches as well. Only until you prove it to yourself in competition, will it be "yours" to freely continue expanding upon.

Great realizations during practice were always accompanied by some level of detachment from my usual concerns. I remember clearly, when I shot my first 1.48, all A's Bill Drill, I saw my front sight tracking like I'd never seen it before - in slow motion, rising 3-4 times higher out of the rear notch than I'd ever seen it - I had released all concern about hitting the A box and instead, was only "wondering" how fast I could pump six shots into the entire target. Looking back on it, not caring about hitting the A box opened up a new way of seeing, which was more effective than any way I'd previously discovered. Then later I had similar realizations shooting multiple targets, so I finally understood that principle applied pretty much most of the time.

After I'd "convinced" myself in practice, it was some time until I could let go enough in a match to allow that same way of seeing to happen.

During a string of fire, only the tiniest fraction of the time is needed to find the targets; experiment with "keeping track of the gun" the rest of the time.

be