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

[motosapiens]

On 7/17/2017 at 8:09 PM, Wesquire said:

By sight picture, I'm talking about seeing the actual sights.

 

stop doing that. sight picture doesn't have to mean the sights. at 3-5 yards I don't see the sights for any of the shots, but I do have a sight picture for just about every shot (unless I make a mistake). that 'sight' picture only consists of a blurry silhouhette of the gun, but that's plenty enough to get almost all A's.

[MemphisMechanic]

At 5 yards on a wide open target, I want to see the sights in some kind of blurry relationship centered in the A zone while gripping hard. Fire. As soon as the blurry bumps tell me the gun has come back down, fire again. Begin looking for next A-zone. Repeat.

[GunBugBit]

You can do it at the same speed, with or without seeing what's going on with your sights.  You pick.

[motosapiens]

2 hours ago, GunBugBit said:

You can do it at the same speed, with or without seeing what's going on with your sights.  You pick.

EXACTLY!!!!

 

It's not any faster to not see the 'sight picture', so why not see it so you at least know if something went horribly wrong (which it sometimes does for the 2nd shot when you are rushing and turning your head to look for the next target). Note that if your grip is solid, you often don't have to 'wait' before pulling the trigger on the 2nd shot, you can pull it as fast as you can pull the trigger and keep the sights in the A-zone, but it's much easier if you are actually observing the relationship of the gun/sights to the target.

 

I've seen former  champions get a mike at nationals at less than 10' because they disrespected the target and didn't see a sight picture for the 2nd shot.

Edited July 26, 2017 by motosapiens

[Hammer002]

4 hours ago, motosapiens said:

 

stop doing that. sight picture doesn't have to mean the sights. at 3-5 yards I don't see the sights for any of the shots, but I do have a sight picture for just about every shot (unless I make a mistake). that 'sight' picture only consists of a blurry silhouhette of the gun, but that's plenty enough to get almost all A's.

 

This.  Absolutely.  End of discussion.  Lol.

 

i actually think it comes down to either having the experience, practice, and skill to understand this or simply not having reached that level yet. I don't think anyone can start this way, but it is definitely the end result.

[Wesquire]

18 hours ago, GunBugBit said:

You can do it at the same speed, with or without seeing what's going on with your sights.  You pick.

 

I think this is unquestionably false. It is self-evident that a more refined sight picture takes more time.

[MemphisMechanic]

1 minute ago, Wesquire said:

 

I think this is unquestionably false. It is self-evident that a more refined sight picture takes more time.

 

You are incorrect. It's a matter of paying attention and seeing what is in front of your face, rather than shoving the gun out for a double slap.

 

Seeing doesn't take any more time than not seeing. We aren't talking about a more precise sight picture where you square the sights. We're talking about looking at the one which is present that you're currently ignoring.

 

Paradoxically, the more you see the less rushed things feel and the run feels slower. But feelings don't matter. Only the timer and the hits matter.

 

Come back after shooting for a couple of years and you'll be in our camp. Promise. I used to think this stuff sounded crazy too.

[Wesquire]

2 hours ago, MemphisMechanic said:

 

You are incorrect. It's a matter of paying attention and seeing what is in front of your face, rather than shoving the gun out for a double slap.

 

Seeing doesn't take any more time than not seeing. We aren't talking about a more precise sight picture where you square the sights. We're talking about looking at the one which is present that you're currently ignoring.

 

Paradoxically, the more you see the less rushed things feel and the run feels slower. But feelings don't matter. Only the timer and the hits matter.

 

Come back after shooting for a couple of years and you'll be in our camp. Promise. I used to think this stuff sounded crazy too.

 

And the level of what you need to pay attention to goes down with distance. There's no reason you should need to see your sights at 3 yards. It is also self-evident that using the outline of the gun, or simply a trust in your index is faster than finding the sights. If seeing the sights doesn't take any more time, then you'd want to see the sights for every shot. I've never heard a top level shooter take this stance. Ben Stoeger himself says that the outline of the gun is his sight picture for many shots. Why would he not see the sights if it was just as fast?

 

Ben Stoeger says that within 7 yards you should be breaking your shot the instant the outline of the gun comes into your vision, no sights.

 

And I have been shooting for several years. Not too bad at it either.

Edited July 27, 2017 by Wesquire

[motosapiens]

28 minutes ago, Wesquire said:

 

And the level of what you need to pay attention to goes down with distance. There's no reason you should need to see your sights at 3 yards. It is also self-evident that using the outline of the gun, or simply a trust in your index is faster than finding the sights.

no one smart is saying you have to see the actual sights for each shot, or have a particular level of refinement of the sight picture, just that it's not slower to see whatever sight picture you need for *both* shots, rather than only seeing something for the first shot and just pulling the trigger for the second shot.

 

remember, 'sight picture' doesn't mean a refined view of the sights. it may mean simply the silhouette of the gun in front of the target.

Edited July 27, 2017 by motosapiens

[Wesquire]

41 minutes ago, motosapiens said:

no one smart is saying you have to see the actual sights for each shot, or have a particular level of refinement of the sight picture, just that it's not slower to see whatever sight picture you need for *both* shots, rather than only seeing something for the first shot and just pulling the trigger for the second shot.

 

remember, 'sight picture' doesn't mean a refined view of the sights. it may mean simply the silhouette of the gun in front of the target.

 

I think I agree with you. However, there are people in this thread saying that seeing the SIGHTS is not any slower. This is obviously false.

Edited July 27, 2017 by Wesquire

[Racinready300ex]

If I'm relying on index and point shooting, and I'm really good at it and can hit exactly where I'm looking. The bullet still goes where the sights are pointed, that's what they do. If my gun is pointed where I'm looking how speed effected by what I see?  So the gun is pointed where I'm looking, then the sights must be too I should be able to see my sights no matter the speed.

 

[Wesquire]

3 minutes ago, Racinready300ex said:

If I'm relying on index and point shooting, and I'm really good at it and can hit exactly where I'm looking. The bullet still goes where the sights are pointed, that's what they do. If my gun is pointed where I'm looking how speed effected by what I see?  So the gun is pointed where I'm looking, then the sights must be too I should be able to see my sights no matter the speed.

 

 

You can use the same logic to say that getting a perfect sight picture with equal height/light is no slower. The point of sights isn't just to SEE them, it is to use them as a reference to refine your aim. If you are refining your aim at 3 yards, you are wasting time. Seeing them is pointless if you aren't going to use them to refine your aim.

Edited July 27, 2017 by Wesquire

[motosapiens]

8 minutes ago, Wesquire said:

 

I think I agree with you. However, there are people in this thread saying that seeing the SIGHTS is not any slower. This is obviously false.

i don't think that's what they are saying, or at least I didn't take it that way. I think they are saying paying attention to what the gun is doing is not any slower than not paying attention.

[Wesquire]

Just now, motosapiens said:

i don't think that's what they are saying, or at least I didn't take it that way. I think they are saying paying attention to what the gun is doing is not any slower than not paying attention.

 

"You can do it at the same speed, with or without seeing what's going on with your sights.  You pick."

I do have a small quibble in that simply using tactile feel and index is still going to be faster than seeing even a very coarse sight picture.

[Racinready300ex]

Just now, Wesquire said:

 

You can use the same logic to say that getting a perfect sight picture with equal height/light is no slower.

Not really, your just watching the sight track up and down and knowing where the shots are going. You wont have time to make minute changes to the sight picture to get that perfect shot. But you if you see a bad shot you can say oh shit and send another one.

[Ssanders224]

I think you guys are overthinking this.

There is no hard rule on what you should or should not see.  Practice/Do what is necessary for you to get good hits, and call your shots.  It's not always the same for everyone. 

 

I can tell you though, if you want to be successful in this game, you won't be "point" shooting 7yd targets.  A readable sight picture is the way to go 90% of the time. 

[MemphisMechanic]

1 hour ago, Wesquire said:

 

"You can do it at the same speed, with or without seeing what's going on with your sights.  You pick."

 

 

You're putting too much thought into this. What myself and everyone else is saying:

 

1. Not using a sight picture = point shooting. Totally target focused and exclusively relying on index.

 

2. Sighted fire: Using the outline of the gun, the blurry sights, or any other visual indicator to aim the gun with your eyes, and know that it's on target. Brian's old adage: "seeing what you need to see." 

 

What you're saying is different. Not one single commenter in here has argued that a crisp, hard front sight picture - or any amount of refining - is what they use to engage at 3 yards. Or what they mean when they say "using the sights." You can stop arguing with a ghost now.

 

Edited July 27, 2017 by MemphisMechanic

[Wesquire]

19 minutes ago, MemphisMechanic said:

 

 

You're putting too much thought into this. What myself and everyone else is saying:

 

1. Not using a sight picture = point shooting. Totally target focused and exclusively relying on index.

 

2. Sighted fire: Using the outline of the gun, the blurry sights, or any other visual indicator to aim the gun with your eyes, and know that it's on target. Brian's old adage: "seeing what you need to see." 

 

What you're saying is different. Not one single commenter in here has argued that a crisp, hard front sight picture - or any amount of refining - is what they use to engage at 3 yards. Or what they mean when they say "using the sights." You can stop arguing with a ghost now.

 

 

You are assuming that people don't really mean the words they use. Several people in this thread have said something along the lines of "you always need to see your SIGHTS". I think the closest you can get to a general rule is that you need to do whatever it takes for you to get all As and close Cs. That includes point shooting at some distances, and it includes hard sight focus on others.

[MemphisMechanic]

1 hour ago, Wesquire said:

 

You are assuming that people don't really mean the words they use. Several people in this thread have said something along the lines of "you always need to see your SIGHTS". I think the closest you can get to a general rule is that you need to do whatever it takes for you to get all As and close Cs. That includes point shooting at some distances, and it includes hard sight focus on others.

 

I see my sights when I shoot a 3 yard target.

 

They're those incredibly blurry bumps in front of the letter "A" that I have in a crisp, sharp focus. 

 

That's what most of us have been saying all along.  

[Wesquire]

4 hours ago, MemphisMechanic said:

 

I see my sights when I shoot a 3 yard target.

 

They're those incredibly blurry bumps in front of the letter "A" that I have in a crisp, sharp focus. 

 

That's what most of us have been saying all along.  

 

That is unquestionably a waste of time. There's no reason to see even blurry bumps at 3 yards.

[MemphisMechanic]

That's obviously very questionable, since we're on page two.

 

And if you run them on a timer instead of making blind assertions, I believe you'll find there's no appreciable difference between the two. I've tried it. Have you?

 

Another shocking example an honest timer session debunked: I cannot make myself traverse 10yds any faster with the gun in one hand, instead of in two. Even though I *feel* like it should be faster to pump my arms, the numbers disagree.

 

Edited July 28, 2017 by MemphisMechanic

[Wesquire]

2 minutes ago, MemphisMechanic said:

That's obviously very questionable, since we're on page two.

 

And if you run them on a timer instead of making blind assertions, I believe you'll find there's no appreciable difference between the two. I've tried it. Have you?

 

Another shocking example an honest timer session debunked: I cannot make myself traverse 10yds any faster with the gun in one hand, instead of in two. Even though I *feel* like it should be faster to pump my arms, the numbers disagree.

 

Patently nonsense. The more refined the sight picture, the slower it will be. Seeing the outline of the gun is more refining than you need at 3 yards, and it is more coarse than seeing blurry sights.

 

Go ahead and try to make your position compatible with Ben's advice to break the shot the instant you see the outline of the gun within 7 yards.

[MemphisMechanic]

So no - you haven't actually tried it on a timer because you "know" you're right. Thanks for confirming.

 

(Hint: we're talking about the same level of sight refinement using different words, you simply refuse to accept that.)

 

Edited July 28, 2017 by MemphisMechanic

[Wesquire]

1 hour ago, MemphisMechanic said:

So no - you haven't actually tried it on a timer because you "know" you're right. Thanks for confirming.

 

(Hint: we're talking about the same level of sight refinement using different words, you simply refuse to accept that.)

 

 

Yes, I have tried it with a timer.

 

No, we aren't talking about the same level of sight refinement.

[motosapiens]

18 hours ago, Wesquire said:

 

"You can do it at the same speed, with or without seeing what's going on with your sights.  You pick."

I do have a small quibble in that simply using tactile feel and index is still going to be faster than seeing even a very coarse sight picture.

 

I disagree with you, at least for my average level of shooting skill (A/M). It is no faster for me to ignore my sights, and often slower. Sure, it *feels* fast to fling the gun around aimlessly pulling the trigger fast, but my splits are at least as fast when I am paying attention to what the gun is doing. In my experienced, paying attention costs zero extra time.

 

OTOH, getting a better sight picture *does* definitely cost time, but that's a whole different discussion. I'm not talking about getting a better sight picture, I'm simply talking about paying attention to the one you have at the speed you are going.