Transitions - Looking for the edge of the A/-0 zone?

[daves_not_here]

I've been working on snapping my eyes on the next target for transitions and I've been trying two methods.

One method is to look for where you want the bullet to go - middle of the A or -0. Then try to break the shot when the sights arrive at the middle.

Another is to look for the edge of the A zone and drive the gun to that. Then try to break the shot as soon as the sights cross the edge.

The second method seems to work best. I think it's because it's easier to acquire and edge with the eyes rather than consciously finding the middle of a "zone".

It's my suspicion that all you GMs are doing this. Am I right?

Are there any other methods I could try?

I find it more precise and faster to look at a sharp edge rather than mentally tell myself "that is the center". There seems to be a parallel in bulls eye shooting where the edge of the front sight is put on the lower edge of the bull rather than in the center. It seems to be a one condition solution, edge touching edge rather than a two dimensional rectangle reaching the apparent middle of a rectangle.

Thanks,

DNH

[Chris_C]

I'm guessing the top shooters looking for the center, not the edge. I for one can't see the edge of the A zone past a certain distance, but I can always "see" the center of the A zone.

[38supPat]

Center

[carlosa]

Looking for an edge seems much slower than finding the center..

My money would be on center but I ain't no GM..

[56hawk]

I think what you want is a combination of your two methods. Look at the center of the target, and break the shot as the sights cross the line into the A zone.

[daves_not_here]

Okay, I tried this experiment.

Transitions on an array of six targets at 7 yds 3 feet apart.

See what kind of part times you can get on the heads by driving the gun to the edge of the heads compared to finding the centers.

It may be a method that is good for heads at 7 yards but it seems to work really well for me. I can roll through those targets very accurately.

DNH

[Not-So-Mad Matt]

It may be a method that is good for heads at 7 yards but it seems to work really well for me. I can roll through those targets very accurately.

I think there's a huge difference between seeing the sights cross from the background onto the plain brown cardboard target and seeing them cross over a subtle perforation.

Also, I don't think I'm consciously aware of when I've stopped taking up slack and started breaking the shot on a close array like that.

[carlosa]

Okay, I tried this experiment.

Transitions on an array of six targets at 7 yds 3 feet apart.

See what kind of part times you can get on the heads by driving the gun to the edge of the heads compared to finding the centers.

It may be a method that is good for heads at 7 yards but it seems to work really well for me. I can roll through those targets very accurately.

DNH

To really quantify the value of this technique you should very the distance between targets as well as well as the distances you are shooting them at..

At the end of the day rolling through targets is more prompt to not accurately enough calling a shot vs learning to stop the gun on command..

Edited March 29, 2013 by carlosa

[CHA-LEE]

I have found that there are two methods of front sight/target focus that are needed depending on the distance between targets. My general rule of thumb is to keep a front sight focus and drive the gun to the next target using my peripheral vision to locate the targets when the targets are within my normal cone of fire using a normal stance that I don't have to shift my feet around. If a target is beyond my normal cone of fire and it forces me to twist excessively to it or sift my feet to move my index to the target, I will move my eyes to the target, focusing on the target as I am transitioning to it. When the gun starts to come into my peripheral vision I will switch my focus back to the front sight and it should be clear by the time the gun in on target.

When people keep a hard front sight focus all the time it really kills their ability to perform long left/right transitions aggressively. They almost always transition slowly as they are trying to pick up the target in their peripheral vision, or they transition too far past the target and have to come back.

You can easily test this process by pointing your thumb up at full arms extension. Focus hard on your thumb nail then try to aggressively and accurately move your upper body (moving with your knees) to place your thumb over a target. Its really hard to do this can maintain aggressive movement and stop on the target without overshooting. Now repeat the process by starting your focus on the thumb nail but now move your eyes to the target at the same time you start the transition body movement, then bring the thumb nail back into focus right as it would be settling onto the target. You will find that you can physically transition to the target far more aggressively and accurately by doing it this way. Once again, this really applies to far transitions of targets that are outside of your normal cone of fire.

[benos]

For any target, I always looked for the middle of it.

[daves_not_here]

CHA-LEE using peripheral vision vs. snapping the eyes depending on whether the targets are in the cone of vision seems to be the dividing line with what I'm experimenting. If I have wide transitions driving the gun to the edge works because I'm picking up some speed and by the time I've slowed the gun down it's gone into the center. Eyes center to center works for closer spaced targets because recoil recovery plays more of a role in the transition than lateral movement.

I'm gonna stop thinking about this for a while and just transition. It's about time I get my conscious brain's involvement in trainsitioning.

DNH