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

[Wesquire]

16 minutes ago, CHA-LEE said:

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.

 

So your argument is essentially that when you consciously decide to change sight picture between targets, you are wasting time. I don't see how this isn't contradictory to your previous statement that all targets need unique sight picture. I agree that varying sight picture is one of the most difficult aspects of USPSA, but isn't the goal to make it subconscious?

Edited August 9, 2017 by Wesquire

[CHA-LEE]

The ultimate goal is to practice different sight pictures to the point of subconscious execution. The key is to burn in a "Sight Picture" for any given target that gives your brain enough information to accurately call the shot as well as produce a reliable on target hit. Can you burn in using only your "Fist in the middle of the target" as a subconscious sight picture? Absolutely. But it will eventually bite you in the ass due to random crappy hits because that sight picture isn't refined enough for your brain to call shots "Bad" or "Marginal".

 

You opened this thread with the title of "Do you get a sight picture on the second shot of close targets?". There have been many answers to this question so far in this thread. Take all of that information along with your own testing on the range and come to your own conclusion.

 

My simple answer to your initial question is "YES". How I came to that conclusion really doesn't matter as that is simply my opinion.

[Wesquire]

9 minutes ago, CHA-LEE said:

The ultimate goal is to practice different sight pictures to the point of subconscious execution. The key is to burn in a "Sight Picture" for any given target that gives your brain enough information to accurately call the shot as well as produce a reliable on target hit. Can you burn in using only your "Fist in the middle of the target" as a subconscious sight picture? Absolutely. But it will eventually bite you in the ass due to random crappy hits because that sight picture isn't refined enough for your brain to call shots "Bad" or "Marginal".

 

You opened this thread with the title of "Do you get a sight picture on the second shot of close targets?". There have been many answers to this question so far in this thread. Take all of that information along with your own testing on the range and come to your own conclusion.

 

My simple answer to your initial question is "YES". How I came to that conclusion really doesn't matter as that is simply my opinion.

 

I have come to the conclusion that I agree with getting the sight picture to need for every shot, no "double taps". However, I still don't see a need to see the sights themselves on very close targets. Quite a lot of my dry fire practice is using different sight pictures within the same array. The timer does not indicate that it is slowing me down. It is much faster than using the sight picture needed for the hardest target of the array on all the targets, and it is more accurate (at the same speed) than using a mid point sight picture.

Edited August 9, 2017 by Wesquire

[Jake Di Vita]

16 minutes ago, CHA-LEE said:

If you want to subconsciously blast at open targets without looking at the sights

 

This isn't what is happening. After all this talk, if you still think this is what I'm doing and what we're talking about, we're just going to have to agree to disagree. 

 

2 minutes ago, Racinready300ex said:

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

 

Looking back I didn't really specify one beyond the basic parameters, so I'll detail one I've done in the past.

3 targets each spaced 1.5 yards apart from each other. Target on the right is 3 yards away, middle target is 1 yard, left target is 5 yards. Start facing targets gun loaded in holster hands at sides. On beep 2 on each. Alternate between aligning the front sight in the rear notch for all targets and going off index or some less detailed picture of the gun. I did a relatively small sample size of 100 runs, 50 of each. My average with aligning my sights for every shot was 1.65 while my average of going off index was 1.42. Draw average for sights only was .82 while the average for index was .79). This was done with an iron sighted gun.

 

Points for this drill are irrelevant. The goal is to see if you have a speed difference between using your sights vs. a coarser sight picture/index.

 

When I noted the clear time difference I decided to work on figuring out how to call my shots using the faster method. It took a year and a half or so before I was consistent enough calling my shots to use it in a match.

 

[CHA-LEE]

2 minutes ago, Wesquire said:

 

I have come to the conclusion that I agree with getting the sight picture to need for every shot, no "double taps". However, I still don't see a need to see the sights themselves on very close targets. Quite a lot of my dry fire practice is using different sight pictures within the same array. The timer does not indicate that it is slowing me down. It is much faster than using the sight picture needed for the hardest target of the array on all the targets, and it is more accurate (at the same speed) than using a mid point sight picture.

 

It sounds like you are on the correct path. The only warning I can make is that if you are getting random B/C/D/M hits on the close targets that are a "surprise" when you see the hits or lack there of, it may be time to reassess not using a sight picture on the close targets.

[Wesquire]

1 minute ago, CHA-LEE said:

 

It sounds like you are on the correct path. The only warning I can make is that if you are getting random B/C/D/M hits on the close targets that are a "surprise" when you see the hits or lack there of, it may be time to reassess not using a sight picture on the close targets.

 

Inside 7 yards I very rarely drop any points. At matches I see so many people put up tight doubles in the center of the A zone on countless close targets. I think most people over aim on them.

Edited August 9, 2017 by Wesquire

[CHA-LEE]

1 minute ago, Wesquire said:

 

Inside 7 yards I very rarely drop any points.

 

Then I challenge you to shoot faster using the same process to see if you have enough visual feedback to call the non A-zone hits.

[Wesquire]

4 minutes ago, CHA-LEE said:

 

Then I challenge you to shoot faster using the same process to see if you have enough visual feedback to call the non A-zone hits.

 

I'm not sure I can shoot any faster on them. I've become fairly fast. I can hit all of the dry fire goal times in Ben's books (aside from reloads). Right now the 2 biggest things holding back my shooting are: (1) I have a very hard time tracking my sights without closing my non-dominant eye (going to start using tape), and (2) I suck at reloads. In dry fire I can keep both eyes open just fine, but I've found that it just doesn't work for me in live fire.

Edited August 9, 2017 by Wesquire

[CHA-LEE]

Try partially closing your non-dominant eye so you can still see out of it peripherally but can't focus on anything with it. This worked out great for me verses fully closing the non-dominant eye, using tape, or whatever else. When people have very close dominance between both eyes it makes shooting with both eyes fully open very difficult due to the double target/sight issues as your eyes fight for dominance. That and I also want to point out that there are several top shooters that fully close their non-dominant eye while shooting and still manage to whip some serious ass. So I don't really think that not being able to shoot with both eyes fully open is a serious road block to producing maximum performance. 

[Wesquire]

4 minutes ago, CHA-LEE said:

Try partially closing your non-dominant eye so you can still see out of it peripherally but can't focus on anything with it. This worked out great for me verses fully closing the non-dominant eye, using tape, or whatever else. When people have very close dominance between both eyes it makes shooting with both eyes fully open very difficult due to the double target/sight issues as your eyes fight for dominance. That and I also want to point out that there are several top shooters that fully close their non-dominant eye while shooting and still manage to whip some serious ass. So I don't really think that not being able to shoot with both eyes fully open is a serious road block to producing maximum performance. 

 

I've experimented with all methods I can think of. Closing or partially closing my left eye slows down my wide transitions. It also tends to shift my vision towards a more front sight focus than I want. Putting a small bit of tape that just blocks the vision of the gun and sights from my left eye works the best. No straining, and I get the peripheral vision.

Edited August 9, 2017 by Wesquire

[benos]

On 8/8/2017 at 2:03 PM, Wesquire said:

 

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

 

It's up to you to learn, for every target at any distance, "what you need to see."

 

Many things can be implied by "seeing your sights." A book could be written on just that topic.

 

For me, I can only think of one scenario - or 4 targets specifically - that seeing the front sight clearly was not the goal, or not necessary. The Steel Challenge's Smoke and Hope. For the first 4 targets, all I needed to see, or know - was that the slide was pointed near the center of each target.

 

 

[Wesquire]

3 minutes ago, benos said:

 

It's up to you to learn, for every target at any distance, "what you need to see."

 

Many things can be implied by "seeing your sights." A book could be written on just that topic.

 

For me, I can only think of one scenario - or 4 targets specifically - that seeing the front sight clearly was not the goal, or not necessary. The Steel Challenge's Smoke and Hope. For the first 4 targets, all I needed to see, or know - was that the slide was pointed near the center of each target.

 

 

 

The 9y targets in Smoke & Hope are roughly equivalent to the A zone at 4 yards. So wouldn't the same sight picture apply?

[motosapiens]

19 hours ago, Wesquire said:

 

Inside 7 yards I very rarely drop any points.

sounds like you are shooting too slow and over-aiming.

 

[Wesquire]

49 minutes ago, motosapiens said:

sounds like you are shooting too slow and over-aiming.

 

 

At a certain point, your trigger finger is going to be the bottle neck, not your target acquisition. 

[motosapiens]

52 minutes ago, Wesquire said:

 

At a certain point, your trigger finger is going to be the bottle neck, not your target acquisition. 

 

oddly enough, that is exactly the point i have been making. my eyes can find the sights faster than i can pull the trigger or get the gun to the target already. it's just a matter of choosing to do it. Doesn't take any extra time at all. An attentive person can notice all sorts of other stuff at the same time too.

 

Of course that's only about me. I don't know what is right for you. Perhaps you *can't* see the sights as fast as you can pull the trigger. If so, there are 3 possibilities: you shoot way faster than me, or your eyes are slower than mine, or you haven't trained this skill, or some combination of all 3.

Edited August 10, 2017 by motosapiens

[GunBugBit]

We always get "a" sight picture, don't we?  Unless we are intentionally keeping ourselves from seeing the sights.  As I shoot a hoser sequence, I  see cardboard, wood, steel, dirt, dust, my shadow, the berm, the mountain, the sky, my hands, the top of the slide, smoke, and oh, what are those?  Oh yes, the sights!  You could say I had some kind of sight picture throughout.  At least, I saw my sights.  The post might never have even lined up in the notch, but I elected to press the trigger repeatedly anyway. Because, you know, three yards and all.  I see what's going on and my mind is open to using that visual input constructively knowing full well I'm going to shoot at a pace very near my personal fastest.  I'll be roundly mocked if I don't hit anything, so I'm not going to ignore the input.

 

Those of you more advanced than I are able to put lead where you want at a pace that's closer to how fast you can mechanically press the trigger.  I'll wager you do sorta kinda use some visual input for that.

 

Maybe at some point the rate of trigger presses really does become the bottleneck.

Edited August 10, 2017 by GunBugBit

[motosapiens]

18 minutes ago, GunBugBit said:

Those of you more advanced than I are able to put lead where you want at a pace that's closer to how fast you can mechanically press the trigger.  I'll wager you do sorta kinda use some visual input for that.

 

someone else already described it, but at close distances I don't use visual input so much to decide when to pull the trigger, but to decide whether the shots were acceptable or not. I have a pretty good idea of how fast I can shoot and move the gun, so I'm going to be pulling the trigger before the gun gets to the target rather than waste time after it arrives deciding to make the shot.  Here you can see that i didn't have enough visual input for one of the targets on the first array, so I went back and made it up........ then dropped my magazine and lost like 40 points by being a retard, lol.  Obviously nowhere close to the splits that an open GM is capable of, and these targets are more like 4-5 yards away, so not ueber-hoser-close, but illustrates the point. they are easy shots to make without really noticing the sights, but noticing the sights allows me to better judge whether the shots were acceptable.

 

 

Edited August 10, 2017 by motosapiens

[benos]

On 8/9/2017 at 2:51 PM, Wesquire said:

 

The 9y targets in Smoke & Hope are roughly equivalent to the A zone at 4 yards. So wouldn't the same sight picture apply?

 

Not to my mind. On the steel targets, a "sight picture" was not involved. And, it was one shot per target, so a hard stop on the target was not necessary. On a paper target, you would usually be shooting 2 shots on each target. For that, I can stop the gun and see / know that the sights are in the A box as quickly as I can not do that.

[motosapiens]

55 minutes ago, benos said:

 

Not to my mind. On the steel targets, a "sight picture" was not involved. And, it was one shot per target, so a hard stop on the target was not necessary. On a paper target, you would usually be shooting 2 shots on each target. For that, I can stop the gun and see / know that the sights are in the A box as quickly as I can not do that.

 

 

plus you get a do-over in steel challenge, which i often think encourages people to shoot faster than they can, and can develop some bad habits for uspsa where you don't get to throw one away.

[Hammer002]

6 hours ago, motosapiens said:

 

 

plus you get a do-over in steel challenge, which i often think encourages people to shoot faster than they can, and can develop some bad habits for uspsa where you don't get to throw one away.

 

A few "bangs" without "dings" keeps that in line.  I think Steel Challenge absolutely encourages you to shoot fast and to push how fast you can shoot making you faster with practice.  Not sure what bad habits you would be referring to though.  As Mr Enos pointed out, its a completely different game.  And its not a do-over, its four clean, then lets get stupid!  With smoke and hope pertaining to the discussion at hand, its a good example of five completely different sight pictures than what would be needed for success with five USPSA targets.  As Mr Enos pointed out, its only one shot per steel and I would also argue even though they appear the same size at the differing distances, the plates are still bigger and still "ding" on the outer edge, meaning the sight picture may be relative, but the margin of error for perceived success is far different.

Edited August 11, 2017 by Hammer002

[blueorison]

No.

[CrashDodson]

20 hours ago, blueorison said:

No.