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

[motosapiens]

16 minutes ago, Wesquire said:

 

You are conflating what you see in fast transitions with what you are able to see once you have a view of the sights, then start pulling the trigger as fast as possible.

 

it doesn't bother me if you believe that. In fact, I would encourage other shooters to look for shortcuts, and to go faster by not seeing their sights. I need the points donations.

[Wesquire]

12 minutes ago, motosapiens said:

it doesn't bother me if you believe that. In fact, I would encourage other shooters to look for shortcuts, and to go faster by not seeing their sights. I need the points donations.

 

The whole point is that you don't need to see your sights to hit As at close range. You wanted to appeal to authority, and Ben Stoeger himself says that he doesn't see his sights at close range.

[motosapiens]

1 minute ago, Wesquire said:

 

The whole point is that you don't need to see your sights to hit As at close range. You wanted to appeal to authority, and Ben Stoeger himself says that he doesn't see his sights at close range.

I believe you, and I urge you to do more of that.

while it's true you often don't *need* to see the sights to hit A's at close range, I find it takes no longer to see enough to confidently call the shots at close range. 

[Wesquire]

Just now, motosapiens said:

I believe you, and I urge you to do more of that.

while it's true you often don't *need* to see the sights to hit A's at close range, I find it takes no longer to see enough to confidently call the shots at close range. 

 

And I urge you to donate time.

[motosapiens]

34 minutes ago, Wesquire said:

 

And I urge you to donate time.

and I urge you to believe that is what is happening. lulz. Not seeing my sights on close targets is about the *last* place I need to worry about shaving time.

Edited August 8, 2017 by motosapiens

[benos]

You can see what you need to see to know that your gun is pointed at the A box at 3 yards in the same time you cannot know that.

[sfinney]

When someone is quoted as saying  "I don't use my sights at close range" its not literally the same thing as not being visually aware AT ALL of the pistol and its orientation to the target, as the shot breaks. You are seeing enough.... even if its not a traditional "sight picture", it is an aiming reference of some type.  

 

But.... you be you.  Unless you can be Brian Enos.... then always be Brian Enos. 

[Wesquire]

49 minutes ago, benos said:

You can see what you need to see to know that your gun is pointed at the A box at 3 yards in the same time you cannot know that.

 

Right, but that doesn't necessarily include seeing the sights.

[Wesquire]

6 minutes ago, sfinney said:

When someone is quoted as saying  "I don't use my sights at close range" its not literally the same thing as not being visually aware AT ALL of the pistol and its orientation to the target, as the shot breaks. You are seeing enough.... even if its not a traditional "sight picture", it is an aiming reference of some type.  

 

But.... you be you.  Unless you can be Brian Enos.... then always be Brian Enos. 

 

That is correct, but moto is arguing that you should always see your SIGHTS.

[sfinney]

In total honesty I don't always "see" my sights. I do strive to always see the sights... somewhere in my peripheral vison at least... and note their alignment (or lack of it). I sometimes forget to do it. I sometimes also shoot "over the sights" (bad habit). Depending on the difficulty or distance of the target I actually do try to line them up, sight down them, and use them to call shots. But if I am having a good day, I pretty much always see them (observe them?), even if I'm not sighting down them.

 

So, I do agree that I don't get a real post in notch sight picture for close shots, and/or use them in that sense.  As said above, I try to see what I need to see. 

I don't think I need to see a real sight picture every shot. 

I do know people that do try to observe a real sight picture for every shot...  and they are admittedly probably better than me. It does not really take more time to do so.... but it does take more attention?

[CHA-LEE]

Wesquire> Maybe I can "Sell" seeing the sights to you using a different example. Lets define two different arrays of targets, both of which are set at the same "hoser" distance. The first array consists of 4 fully open targets set at about the same distance apart from one another. The second array of targets is set at the same distance apart from one another but every other target is a partial that only shows the upper half of the target and about 4 inches of the lower A-zone is visible. Something like a left to right array of Open, No shoot Partial, Open, Hard Cover Partial.

 

On the first array of "Open" targets you can use a fairly unrefined sighting of the gun by simply pointing your fist in the middle of the target and hammering away. You are primarily relying on your shooting index and recoil management skills to generate solid hits on the target. You could also observe the sights as all of this is going on and it would likely produce a very similar stage time and hit quality. In this shooting scenario it can trick shooters into thinking that its "acceptable" to not look at the sights because they can achieve nearly identical results regardless of them looking at the sights or not.

 

On the second array of alternating "Open" and "Partial" targets you usually cant get away with using only your "Fist in the middle of the target" sighting system simply because you will give away too many points on the partial targets. Sure, you can rail away at the targets at an aggressive pace, but blasting at brown on the partial targets usually drops too many points. One of two things usually happens in this scenario. The first is trying to switch back and forth between seeing the sights on the partials, and seeing your fist on the Open targets, which donates time because you are consciously deciding how to aim for each target. The Second is defaulting to the same "Partial Target" sighting solution for all of the targets which slows down your shooting on the Open targets and donates time as well.

 

These two scenarios are basically pointing out inefficiencies caused by needing to make conscious aiming decisions as you are shooting the array. You can totally eliminate these time wasting conscious decisions by simply deploying the same level of "Sight Picture Observation" any time the gun is in between your face and the target. Doing so will enable you to engage varied shot difficulty targets within the same array much more effectively and aggressively while capturing the most amount of points.  

 

If you don't believe what I am talking about here, setup these two exact target scenarios the next time you go out to practice. Try each type of aiming solution on these two arrays and come to your own conclusion. Then back up 2 - 3 yards and do it all over again. Once you are done look at your data and honestly ask yourself which aiming solution produces the most consistent good results. Also factor in things that you know you may suck at, such as maintaining a sight picture observation while railing away at targets aggressively. Realistically this is the only way any of us can justify one methodology over another. 

 

 

[motosapiens]

1 hour ago, Wesquire said:

 

That is correct, but moto is arguing that you should always see your SIGHTS.

no, I'm arguing that you (and any one else that might compete with me) should *avoid* seeing your sights in order to hopefully get some speed gain.

 

I'm also saying that for me, it doesn't slow me down to see my sights. I can be aware enough of them to call the shot shooting as fast as I can pull the trigger. Admittedly, that's not as fast as many open GM's, but it's fast enough to call all alphas on a hoser classifier like 'can you count' and get 90% scores. Probably just means I'm slow.

[motosapiens]

2 minutes ago, CHA-LEE said:

These two scenarios are basically pointing out inefficiencies caused by needing to make conscious aiming decisions as you are shooting the array.

 

That is profound imho.

 

I think perhaps many people underestimate just how fast our vision can actually work. the visual speed needed to be aware of your sights as you shoot and transition as fast as you can possibly move is *nothing close* to the speed you need to track a hockey puck as it is passed from wing to center to wing, and also nothing close to what is needed to process enduro test sections while railing through the woods in 3rd gear on a dirt bike. The sights are right there, in front of the target that you have to at least be visually aware of if you want to get the gun pointed at it. I claim it costs nothing extra to be aware of the sights. My visual speed is MUCH faster than the speed of my hands to get the gun to the target and start firing.

[GunBugBit]

I'll cite a USPSA stage I shot in the not-too-recent past.  I was proud that I "got 'em all."  All steel down, all As on paper.  And I thought I was pretty fast (for me).

 

As I was opening up the match scores online, I thought I'd see I'd done pretty well on that stage, due to maxing out the points and being fairly expeditious in my draw, shooting, reloading and moving.  I was underwhelmed with my overall placement, even though it was pretty good relative to where I usually place overall on stages.

 

So I thought, heck, was I too biased toward accuracy?  My answer to myself was, yes, on a couple of the target clusters at 5 or 7 yards, I probably was getting too refined of a sight picture.  I would have likely scored higher if I'd kept the gun pointed toward the targets and pressed the trigger faster.  But I thought, wait, I tend to press the trigger just about as fast as I can and still feel in control.  And I pretty much concluded that I'd shoot that same stage with the same approach, and would only go faster if I knew my skill level had progressed enough for faster shooting to make sense for me.

 

In practice matches where we occasionally have some very close targets, I go as fast as I can and the results are usually good.  Refined sight pictures?  Definitely not.

Edited August 8, 2017 by GunBugBit

[motosapiens]

13 minutes ago, GunBugBit said:

In practice matches where we occasionally have some very close targets, I go as fast as I can and the results are usually good.  Refined sight pictures?  Definitely not.

 

pretty sure no one is talking about 'refined' sight pictures.

[Jake Di Vita]

32 minutes ago, CHA-LEE said:

The first is trying to switch back and forth between seeing the sights on the partials, and seeing your fist on the Open targets, which donates time because you are consciously deciding how to aim for each target.

 

I agree with pretty much everything you said except this excerpt. I can switch between seeing the sights on partials and seeing my fist on open targets without any trouble whatsoever. I'm not consciously deciding anything in the same way that I don't have to consciously decide to use a more refined sight picture on a 20 yard partial than a 10 yard partial. I already know what I need to see to hit each target before I do it, with or without the sights.

 

Operating under the conditions you listed I can understand why you feel the way you do, but I did not have the same experience as you. My testing has led me to my methodology, as yours has.

[tattooo]

To put it in layman's terms and sum it up for everyone you just need a half a__ sight picture for up close shots.

[Wesquire]

21 hours ago, CHA-LEE said:

Wesquire> Maybe I can "Sell" seeing the sights to you using a different example. Lets define two different arrays of targets, both of which are set at the same "hoser" distance. The first array consists of 4 fully open targets set at about the same distance apart from one another. The second array of targets is set at the same distance apart from one another but every other target is a partial that only shows the upper half of the target and about 4 inches of the lower A-zone is visible. Something like a left to right array of Open, No shoot Partial, Open, Hard Cover Partial.

 

On the first array of "Open" targets you can use a fairly unrefined sighting of the gun by simply pointing your fist in the middle of the target and hammering away. You are primarily relying on your shooting index and recoil management skills to generate solid hits on the target. You could also observe the sights as all of this is going on and it would likely produce a very similar stage time and hit quality. In this shooting scenario it can trick shooters into thinking that its "acceptable" to not look at the sights because they can achieve nearly identical results regardless of them looking at the sights or not.

 

On the second array of alternating "Open" and "Partial" targets you usually cant get away with using only your "Fist in the middle of the target" sighting system simply because you will give away too many points on the partial targets. Sure, you can rail away at the targets at an aggressive pace, but blasting at brown on the partial targets usually drops too many points. One of two things usually happens in this scenario. The first is trying to switch back and forth between seeing the sights on the partials, and seeing your fist on the Open targets, which donates time because you are consciously deciding how to aim for each target. The Second is defaulting to the same "Partial Target" sighting solution for all of the targets which slows down your shooting on the Open targets and donates time as well.

 

These two scenarios are basically pointing out inefficiencies caused by needing to make conscious aiming decisions as you are shooting the array. You can totally eliminate these time wasting conscious decisions by simply deploying the same level of "Sight Picture Observation" any time the gun is in between your face and the target. Doing so will enable you to engage varied shot difficulty targets within the same array much more effectively and aggressively while capturing the most amount of points.  

 

If you don't believe what I am talking about here, setup these two exact target scenarios the next time you go out to practice. Try each type of aiming solution on these two arrays and come to your own conclusion. Then back up 2 - 3 yards and do it all over again. Once you are done look at your data and honestly ask yourself which aiming solution produces the most consistent good results. Also factor in things that you know you may suck at, such as maintaining a sight picture observation while railing away at targets aggressively. Realistically this is the only way any of us can justify one methodology over another. 

 

 

 

I disagree that it takes extra time to switch between sight pictures. You use the same sight picture for every target? 

[motosapiens]

7 minutes ago, Wesquire said:

 

I disagree that it takes extra time to switch between sight pictures. You use the same sight picture for every target? 

 

so you're saying that switching between aiming strategies takes no extra time...... but simply noticing or being aware of your sights  does take extra time?  Sounds contradictory to me. I need to see the science behind your claims before I can consider them anything except internet hearsay.

 

At any rate, it sounds to me like charlie is saying that the time lost is in having to make *conscious* aiming decisions during shooting. If you can subconsciously switch between aiming strategies, then maybe his argument is not entirely valid.

Edited August 9, 2017 by motosapiens

[CHA-LEE]

I am not saying that you need to use the same sight picture for every target. I am trying to say that it takes more time and or produces a lower quality of hits when you are switching between not seeing a sight picture and seeing a sight picture when there is an array of targets with varying shot difficulty. Every target requires a unique level of sight picture to both call the shot and yield a certain quality of hit. You absolutely need to be able to understand what an acceptable sight picture is for any given target. You also need to be able to change what level of sight picture is needed within an array of varied difficulty targets. But I also want to point out that this is all done by observing the sights to process a sight picture. I am not advocating looking at the target for holes to appear while you only see a blurry set of hands or gun in between your face and the target. Seeing holes appear in the target isn't calling your shots. That is looking for the result of the shots. 

[Jake Di Vita]

7 minutes ago, motosapiens said:

I need to see the science behind your claims before I can consider them anything except internet hearsay.

 

Can you give me the science behind your position? I can give you my results, but that hardly qualifies as science. Try it yourself. I recommended a drill to you earlier, I'd be interested in your results.

[Wesquire]

14 minutes ago, motosapiens said:

 

so you're saying that switching between aiming strategies takes no extra time...... but simply noticing or being aware of your sights  does take extra time?  Sounds contradictory to me. I need to see the science behind your claims before I can consider them anything except internet hearsay.

 

At any rate, it sounds to me like charlie is saying that the time lost is in having to make *conscious* aiming decisions during shooting. If you can subconsciously switch between aiming strategies, then maybe his argument is not entirely valid.

 

We aren't talking about switching between aiming strategies on the same target. You make the choice (and it will be subconscious with practice) in transition.

[Wesquire]

10 minutes ago, CHA-LEE said:

I am not saying that you need to use the same sight picture for every target. I am trying to say that it takes more time and or produces a lower quality of hits when you are switching between not seeing a sight picture and seeing a sight picture when there is an array of targets with varying shot difficulty. Every target requires a unique level of sight picture to both call the shot and yield a certain quality of hit. You absolutely need to be able to understand what an acceptable sight picture is for any given target. You also need to be able to change what level of sight picture is needed within an array of varied difficulty targets. But I also want to point out that this is all done by observing the sights to process a sight picture. I am not advocating looking at the target for holes to appear while you only see a blurry set of hands or gun in between your face and the target. Seeing holes appear in the target isn't calling your shots. That is looking for the result of the shots. 

 

Doesn't this contradict what you said before? If every target requires a unique sight picture, then you are changing it on every target anyways. You'd always be "donating time".

Edited August 9, 2017 by Wesquire

[CHA-LEE]

The Donating Time aspect comes from NOT using the sights then DECIDING to USE the sights on different targets within the same array. If you are not using your sights to blast at an open target then DECIDE to look at the sights for a partial in the same array that will waste time because making conscious decisions takes additional time. If you want to subconsciously blast at open targets without looking at the sights then you will have inconsistent hit quality verses looking at your sights. As I said many posts ago, not observing the sights while blasting at targets will donate either Time or Points.

 

Our brains strive to resolve the scenario and confirm a valid hit. That can be done by looking for holes on the target (huge time waster), listening for the "Ding" from the steel (Huge time waster) or calling the shots by observing the sights (Most efficient method).

 

In the end, you guys can obviously do whatever you want. I was simply trying to keep you guys from making the same mistake that I did in thinking that "NOT seeing my sights" was the correct rout to go. That mistake derailed my performance improvement 2 years and I wasted at least 50,000 rounds by trying to justify not using my sights to call my shots. If you want to waste time and ammo figuring out the same lesson the hard way have at it.    

[Racinready300ex]

39 minutes ago, Jake Di Vita said:

 

Can you give me the science behind your position? I can give you my results, but that hardly qualifies as science. Try it yourself. I recommended a drill to you earlier, I'd be interested in your results.

 

Whats the drill? I missed it this thread is crazy. I might be interested to try it.