Sight Picture

[DogmaDog]

Rhino:

Interesting question. I recall seeing something on TV about how batters must decide and start their swing while the pitch is in it's first 15' (or 20, or some smallish fraction of the 90' it ultimately travels to the plate) from the mound. Obviously "keep your eye on the ball all the way to the plate" isn't an accurate description of what you need to do in baseball.

Similarly, shooters may start their shot process from cues other than the front sight, knowing "from here, it takes X time for my sights to come into alignment, so begin trigger pull now". You just need some flexibility in case the sights take longer than "X" to get aligned. I sometimes feel like there's a "rhythm" I'm in, trying to goad me into taking a shot even if the sights aren't right, and it takes a lot of effort not to (visual patience?).

Chuck:

It sounds like you're using two different processes to engage two different types of targets. Conceptually, I think of a single shot process, where the gun is brought on to the target, and "sight picture" (which can include just seeing the back of the slide superimposed on the target) gets refined continually until it is good enough to make the shot. So there's no point at which I'm deciding whether I need to focus on the target or the sights, and no point at which I decide that I can just look at the muzzle instead of the sights.

Typically my eye focus will start on the target (locate the target), and I'll bring it back toward the sights. At some point I have enough visual input from the gun/sights to know (or believe, in my case) that the .sights are sufficiently well aligned, and I'll break the shot.

I'm not sure if my "sight refinement process" is different for close shots than for long shots. Conceptually, it's the same, except I shoot earlier on during the refinement process for close easy shots, and wait until the sights are better refined for the far, tight shots. It's possible that in actuality, I go through the process faster, AND shoot earlier in the process, when the targets are closer.

Does that make any sense?

DogmaDog

[DougCarden]

Here is something that I noticed yesterday in two brief trips to the range. In the morning I concentrated on Good sight picture, crisp front sight, and ran the plate racks. I got my visual acceptance quite high, and saw a crisp front sight on each plate. I used the timer to start, but didnt really pay attention to the time. I was more interested in doing everything correct. I knew that I wasnt going as fast as I could, but I wanted to work on my NPA, smooth draw, and index on the first plate.

Last night a bunch of us got together for man on man plates (ala Handgunner) with the criss-cross stop poppers. When shooting with those guys I turned up my vision, but accepted less front sight picture. I just basically relaxed and shot. All I remember seeing is the fiber dot on the plate and shooting the shot. All I had to do at speed was put the fiber on the plate and pull the trigger. It basically boiled down to knowing what I could get away with (sight picture acceptance). I hope this contributes to the discussion, and FWIW, on IPSC targets under 12 yds, I get a flash sight picture through or over my sights basically from my NPA. I know from repetition that on a target that size that close I can "glimpse" at my sights and get the hits, instead of taking more time to observe my sights as I would for a farther shot. It is something I just know(my confidence level) , or accept that I can do. Regards, DougC

[bountyhunter]

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.

Does anyone else use this technique? 

Is it correct? Depends on what you're trying to do. In a defensive situation out to a range of about 15 yards, I'd say his technique is usable for most people. Note that it is possible to see the sights (albeit fuzzy) with both eyes open and locked on target (sights aligned with dominant eye), so you can still aim the gun with the sights without giving up any loss of vision on the target and surroundings. I favor that method (looking through the sights with both eyes focused on the target) for any "close range" shooting... and I define "close range" as any range where you can hit within about 2" of POA every time using the technique. For me, that is easily ranges out to about 17 yards.

From what you wrote:

"just place the muzzle in the center of the target, look through the sights.."

It sounds like he is recommending exactly what I said: look through the sights, but focus on the target using both eyes. That is actually still using the sights, but with "indirect" sighting (peripheral vision). But you can still aim the gun very accurately this way. IMO, I can't understand why anybody would use any other technique for close range shooting.

[Chuck D]

Bounty Hunter...that's what he taught us to do.

Brian...Thanks again !

[benos]

It basically boiled down to knowing what I could get away with (sight picture acceptance). I hope this contributes to the discussion...

"Knowing what you can get away with" pretty much sums it up. Learn that in practice and then apply it in a match.

be

[Mikul]

I shoot by sights. Without them, my hits are terrible. This slowed me down for about a year and was very frustrating. The solution wasn't point shooting, or proper index, but a quicker reaction time between sight alignment and recognition of sight alignment. Last year, I knew exactly where the sights were before I pulled the trigger. This year, I have no idea where the sights are until 3-4 shots later and sometimes not until I've finished a stage. My trigger finger reacts to a properly aligned sight the way your arm does to a hot stove. It just moves.

I hope I've explained this clearly. Shooting has taught me a few things that I find difficult to explain and so they border on the mystical in my mind. Seems pretty funny when I think about it.

[benos]

Mikul,

That's a great add to this thread!

Thanks,

be

[Flexmoney]

What a great thread. I was looking for something else today and I came upon this thread.

This is the stuff that the forum is all about.

If you haven't read this thread in a while, go back and start at the beginning. Tear it apart. This is one of those threads that transforms a shooter from a big fish for the little pond...into a shark.

OK..maybe I better get on topic and add something to the discussion.

At the 2004 Nationals, I shot a stage where I had some steel to shoot at the end. This was a quick stage (6 seconds of so, with movement). I missed the last piece of steel. The RO checked the timer and told me my make-up shot was a 0.17 split.

A little while after that, I was shooting one of the 03 classifiers at a local match. It's the classifier with one paper to each side, then 6 poppers in the middle. I had a miss on the steel there too...and I also had a make-up shot with a split of 0.17 seconds.

Lets take that information and break it down some. Clearly, I'm not firing extra shots at steel just for the fun of it. And, in both cases, I was shooting within the moment. I wanted to do well. My mind wasn't wondering off *very* far.

So, how did I call a miss on steel and make it up within 0.17 seconds??? For that matter, how do we shoot our second (called) shots on paper with splits down in the teens?

I haven't done any of the pure reaction time drills in a while. (gun at berm, trigger prepped, timer on RANDOM) Just a reaction time of 0.17 would be good. But for a 0.17 make-up shot, there needs to be decision time plus the time it actually takes to completely the physical process of making the shot. That has to be added in. Then there is the belief that visual reaction time is even slower than auditory reaction time (so, the timer test should be faster than what we see visually).

With that in mind, it is apparent that I had *decided* to take a make-up shot BEFORE I had even completed the shot that missed.

When I am shooting 0.15 splits on Bill Drills, I am ahead of my reaction time there as well. But, I still can manage to only shoot alphas at that speed (and, perhaps, to slow to an 0.18 split if the Alpha isn't there).

All of this is governed by a decision making process (sub-consciously, in this regard)...it's just not blind shooting.

There is input coming into the system to base the decision making process on. Our senses are at work, collecting data.

I guess what I am getting at is that the data collection and processing is going on constantly...if we are open to it. And, with experience, our mind can interpret facts and make decision from the input that it is getting at all times...not just as the sight lifts.

Baseball was mentioned. I haven't played since little league. I was a pretty good fielder though. I didn't really have to wait for the batter to connect to the ball, then see it coming at me. I processed data from the delivery of the pitch, the ball in motion, the movements of the batter.

I also remember back in my Air Force days. We got an hour of PT, three times a week. We'd use that time with our lunch break an get some pretty good volleyball games going on. A couple of us reached a point where, during warm-ups, we could spike the ball straight at each other (the idea being to return the ball) from about 10y away. At that distance and speed, you need to gather info before the ball is hit. You need to be ahead of the curve.

[Sam]

Flex, that was a great post, just what I needed to read to get me back on track!!

The really cool thing is the way the gun responds to your will. Brian has written alot about intention. ( or at least what he has written about it speaks so clearly to me that it seems like he has written alot. ) Anyway, I still find myself marveling at the instances like you mentioned where you call a miss, re-direct the gun, fire another hit in .17 seconds. It has to be intent that does it. There is no time for thought, for consideration, or mental dialogue. We develop the skill to the point that the conciousness that arises from beyond our mind monitors countless sensory inputs and processes them at the speed of light to bring about an action.

I don't like the term sub-consious. It implies that all the, thought, consideration, and mental dialogue are my true consiousness. I really believe that it was intended to be the other way around. The higher conciousness clearly arises from somewhere beyond thought.

[Flexmoney]

Sam,

Glad you responded to this. This thread is feels more like the beginning of the forum...when we traded more ideas on shooting than we did on where to eat (not that there is anything wrong with the later).

For conscious and sub-conscious...I am pulling those terms from Lanny Bassham's book and using his definitions.

Briefly...,

The conscious mind is what you think about...what you can picture. It has room for one (and only one) thought at a time.

The sub-conscious is the giant network computer. Able to do virtually unlimited amounts of tasks at once.

Perhaps then consciousness that you are speaking of is something else entirely?

(Or, we just need terms that let us communicate the ideas.)

[JD45]

Great posts, Flex. And everyone else too.

This thread needs to be preserved for eternity.

The example of the .17 split on steel is a question that haunts me to this day. How can the mind do that? Isn't shooting just great.

[Sam]

JD45, that kind of stuff is what keeps me coming back to the range.

Flex, I have Lanny's book too and have found it to be a great help.

My Oxford Desk Dictionary dictionary defines subconscious as: "of or concerning the part of the mind which is not fully conscious but influences actions, ect". I don't like the term subconscious because, to me, it implies that what we call the subconscious is somehow "under" the mind state that controls what you can think about and picture.

I am certainly not an expert on matters of the mind or in grammar. I just find this term, like many things in life, misleading. I was never able to reliably access the mental state that we call "subconscious" until I stopped looking under my mind and and started looking above it. I guess I tend to see things from a different angle than most folks. I mean, I think we should call it the super-conscious, the extra-conscious, or whatever, because it is actually a higher, much higher, state of existence than what we call consciousness.

Words are such crude tools.......but you know the feeling.

In short, look higher, not lower....... You don't have to sneak up on it like a cat....it's right there where you left it.

Edited to include:

It does remind me of the early days of the forum.

I miss Rhino.

Edited January 18, 2006 by Sam

[Ron Ankeny]

A couple of weeks ago I attended a presentation on brain chemistry, memory development, and how the brain and body work together to process information and complete a physical task. I was supposed to be applying the information to teaching, but throughout the entire presentation I was constantly applying the information to shooting. The presenter is working with the military to develop new and innovative methods to help our troups learn how to complete difficult and complex tasks under the stress of combat. He was happy to answer my questions during the numerous breaks in the presentation. The information presented was nothing short of absolutely fascinating.

Without going into a whole lot of detail, this whole notion of conscious vs. sub-concious has been studied in great detail. The ability to perform actions on the sub-concious level (kind of a misnomer) is indeed something that can be developed by all of us by simply following the recipies for success laid out in this forum. FWIW, the observations and insights that guys like Flex, Brian, Steve, Sam and many others share on this forum are spot on with current brain theory, although the vocabulary is a little different.

Edited January 18, 2006 by Ron Ankeny

[Flexmoney]

To bump this back up...

I've been re-reading the Inner Game fo Tennis, which might sound like a book about tennis to some. That would be a mistake to think that. I've brought it up before, I think it is a fantastic read. It fills in some of the gaps that I had with the Bassham book.

I've have to review a bit, but it gives a definition of "Self 1 and Self 2" that might be a different slant that some would prefer.

Basically, Self 1 is the control freak and micro-manager. Self 2 is the actor/performer. When we learn to quiet Self 1, we can learn to trust Self 2.

Self 1 is all caught up in technique and judgement...which leads to tension. We get to trusting Self 2 by being aware and noticing what is really happening.

[benos]

Yes, that is a good book. One of the first I read on the mental game path.

be

[Duane Thomas]

I've always thought that as Gallwey defined them, Self 1 and Self 2 might as well be called the conscious and subconscious minds.

[Flexmoney]

I see distinctions...along with the similarities.

[bwit]

Great ideas and input by all. I too will be using some of these ideas and I am sure with practice they will help tremendously. On the original subject of point shooting, I find that I also can point shoot well up to about 10-12 yards. It is much faster for me than sighting each target and each shot. I seem to be doing it differently than anyone else I read, if I understood them properly. In learning to shoot this sport, we all have learned to draw and index the pistol to the target with the sights aligned properly or very close to it. This has become one of those muscle memory training things we strive for and I guess as we continue to do it more and more it gets better and better, i.e., we align the sights more perfectly with more practice. This is how I point shoot. I index the pistol to the target and shoot without ever looking at or seeing the sights. In fact, I actually look at and concentrate on the center of the target rather than how you normally concentrate on the sights, while seeing the target with your peripheral [if that is the right word to use when it is straight ahead, not to the side] vision.

[Flexmoney]

I don't think you are point shooting any differently. You may be using your sights a bit differently. It doesn't take me any more time to take advantage of my sights, than not.

If you've developed your index to be dead on at 10-12 yards...that is great. If it is on, it shouldn't take any extra time to see the sights. (Shooters waste time aligning the gun...and mistake that for wasting time on th sights.)

[bwit]

Flex, I am thinking I agree with you. The point shooting is something I 'developed' over the last year or so. I guess everyone is saying to keep working on your skills to use the sights under these conditions and I think occasionally I do that. It's funny how I came at this idea backwards, pointing first, looking at sights later. At least it is evolutionary and I am moving forward. Thanks for your comments.

[Duane Thomas]

I see distinctions...along with the similarities.

How so?