Go back to plastic?

[motosapiens]

29 minutes ago, SGT_Schultz said:

 

No.  But it is faster in most and is never slower if you know what you're doing.

 

thanks for sharing your thoughts. one of the reasons I'm curious is I worked the 2016 A1 match, where the top 2 shooters both shot limited, with a number of GM open shooters behind them. I heard at least 1 good open shooter say the targets weren't hard enough to give open a sufficient advantage.

 

But one could also make the case that no really good open shooters were there, whereas at least 2 pretty decent limited shooters showed up.

[lstange]

On 10/27/2021 at 4:16 PM, motosapiens said:

is it a proven fact that it's easier to shoot higher hit factors on every target with a co gun?

Yes, on average. Same time, better points, for all skill levels.

[motosapiens]

14 hours ago, lstange said:

Yes, on average. Same time, better points, for all skill levels.

thats not how math works. “on average” is not the same as “on every target”.

[lstange]

11 minutes ago, motosapiens said:

thats not how math works. “on average” is not the same as “on every target”.

 

I'm showing the results for *all* classifiers. Some classifiers have distant partials, while others are easy. You can see from the charts that statistically speaking, people tend to shoot similar time, but same or better points in CO than Production on all of them. Sample size is big enough for it not to be a fluke. For classifiers where HHF is the same between CO and Production (everything before CM19-01) it means that it's objectively easier to get a given classification in CO, although not by much.

 

There is no data on individual targets, but I find it hard to believe that on some kind of targets Production would give an advantage, yet you could not see it in the classifier level data. There are classifiers like "Can You Count" where red dot does not give any advantage, but classification is determined from *average* of six classifier results, so it's the *average* that counts.

[motosapiens]

i understand what you are showing. your data answers a different question, but its still interesting.

[RileyBowman]

On 10/30/2021 at 6:38 PM, lstange said:

Yes, on average. Same time, better points, for all skill levels.

 

Where did this data come from? Very fascinating...

[Racinready300ex]

On 10/28/2021 at 12:10 PM, motosapiens said:

So it sounds like it's your belief that a dot is faster to aim at all times and under all conditions? I appreciate your opinion on this topic.

 

No, not what I was trying to say. Aiming is probably to broad of a term for what we do.

 

On 10/29/2021 at 8:00 PM, motosapiens said:

I heard at least 1 good open shooter say the targets weren't hard enough to give open a sufficient advantage.

 

 

In fact this statement kind of goes to my point. On some stages the limiting factor isn't your sight. 

 

There are targets that require little to no input from the sight to get hits. In these situations the limiting factor for you will be how fast you can get the gun pointed at the target and rip the shots off. As the targets progressively get harder you'll require more input from your sight to make the shot. The more information you need from the sight the more of a advantage the optic will have. The limiting factor is shifting from how fast you can index and pull the trigger to how how fast you can return and aim the gun with the refinement needed to make the shot. 

[Boomstick303]

To add to this now.  

 

I am curious for those shooters who have mastered target focus shooting with irons, for say targets 7 yards and in, of the difference between CO and Irons still exists in regards to time?

 

Of course anything beyond 7 yards, I would think Iron shooters are more front sight focused, so you would again start to see a time delineation there.  Also this would be very dependent on the shooter and the distances he/she are comfortable shooting target focused with Irons.

 

I do not think we are discussing what sighting system is faster, rather than the time required to use either sighting system to make an acceptable shot for a given shooter at a given skill level are we not?  I am not sure a blanket statement is correct in this instance.  

 

For targets past 7 yards, I would imagine even for accomplished iron shooters they have to focus on the target, then transition focus to the iron sights where this is not required when using a dot.  

[RileyBowman]

1 minute ago, Boomstick303 said:

To add to this now.  

 

I am curious for those shooters who have mastered target focus shooting with irons, for say targets 7 yards and in, of the difference between CO and Irons still exists in regards to time?

 

Of course anything beyond 7 yards, I would think Iron shooters are more front sight focused, so you would again start to see a time delineation there.  Also this would be very dependent on the shooter and the distances he/she are comfortable shooting target focused with Irons.

 

I do not think we are discussing what sighting system is faster, rather than the time required to use either sighting system to make an acceptable shot for a given shooter at a given skill level are we not?  I am not sure a blanket statement is correct in this instance.  

 

For targets past 7 yards, I would imagine even for accomplished iron shooters they have to focus on the target, then transition focus to the iron sights where this is not required when using a dot.  

 

For most shooters, yes. But there are shooters who are able to be target focused on all targets even out to 25+ yards while still able to see the sights.

I demonstrate this in classes I teach to make a point of shooting a group at 25y with irons while completely target focused. It always surprises my students. You have to train the brain to see and interpret the visual information of the front-to-rear sight relationship even though it's blurry.

Shooting a red dot for a while now has helped me with being able to do this better.

FWIW, Ben Stoeger and Tim Herron are two well-known competitors that shoot target-focused.

[Racinready300ex]

1 hour ago, RileyBowman said:

 

For most shooters, yes. But there are shooters who are able to be target focused on all targets even out to 25+ yards while still able to see the sights.

I demonstrate this in classes I teach to make a point of shooting a group at 25y with irons while completely target focused. It always surprises my students. You have to train the brain to see and interpret the visual information of the front-to-rear sight relationship even though it's blurry.

Shooting a red dot for a while now has helped me with being able to do this better.

FWIW, Ben Stoeger and Tim Herron are two well-known competitors that shoot target-focused.

 

Would you say that target focusing at 25 yards allows you to shoot irons just as fast as a dot then?

[lstange]

4 hours ago, RileyBowman said:

Where did this data come from?

From match results published on uspsa.org, just aggregated.

[RileyBowman]

3 hours ago, Racinready300ex said:

 

Would you say that target focusing at 25 yards allows you to shoot irons just as fast as a dot then?

 

For me? Not yet. Since I started target focusing with irons, I've still been predominantly shooting Carry Optics, so I haven't spent a ton of time working on it.

[RileyBowman]

1 hour ago, lstange said:

From match results published on uspsa.org, just aggregated.

 

Huh. Cool. I have no idea how to generate that data apparently. But I'm glad you do!

[RileyBowman]

5 hours ago, Boomstick303 said:

To add to this now.  

 

I am curious for those shooters who have mastered target focus shooting with irons, for say targets 7 yards and in, of the difference between CO and Irons still exists in regards to time?

 

Of course anything beyond 7 yards, I would think Iron shooters are more front sight focused, so you would again start to see a time delineation there.  Also this would be very dependent on the shooter and the distances he/she are comfortable shooting target focused with Irons.

 

I do not think we are discussing what sighting system is faster, rather than the time required to use either sighting system to make an acceptable shot for a given shooter at a given skill level are we not?  I am not sure a blanket statement is correct in this instance.  

 

For targets past 7 yards, I would imagine even for accomplished iron shooters they have to focus on the target, then transition focus to the iron sights where this is not required when using a dot.  

 

Just came across this today, and because it's relevant to this discussion, thought I'd drop it here as well: 

 

[motosapiens]

^^^ i think there is some smart in what tim is saying. Rob Leatham has said similar things. One of the reasons I wanted to shoot a dot is to get more comfortable with target focus and hopefully become more efficient at iron sight shooting.

 

The information is so obvious with a dot, and once you realize that information is there, you can start to see it with iron sights too, even if you are only picking them peripherally, and not focusing on the front sight. 

[Boomstick303]

16 hours ago, RileyBowman said:

Just came across this today, and because it's relevant to this discussion, thought I'd drop it here as well:

 

This is why brought this up due to the fact there has been a shift in how to use iron over the last couple of years. I do not think using irons as target focused is mainstream in dynamic shooting sports yet, and why you cannot use blanket statements. Is it really mainstream shooting out to 25 yds being target focused using irons?  It does not seem that way. 

 

There are are only a few shooters/trainers that are even discussing this now. It is always going to depend on the level of the shooter, more so than the aiming device, on how they use that particular aiming device and how efficient (the speed) the shooter is using it. 

 

I am am curious to how many are using it for time to time and do not that’s what they are even doing. Subconscious if you will. 

 

 

Edited November 2, 2021 by Boomstick303

[motosapiens]

1 hour ago, Boomstick303 said:

Is it really mainstream shooting out to 25 yds being target focused using irons?  It does not seem that way. 

 

There are are only a few shooters/trainers that are even discussing this now.

not sure if it's mainstream, but it seems like robbie and ben both shoot that way. I'd be curious what the other two best shooters in history (nils and eric grauffel) do with iron sights.

[konkapot]

"It's always going to depend on the level of the shooter."

 

This. 

[PatJones]

Jerry Miculek talked vision on the 3 Gun Show a few years back.

 

https://3gunshow.com/2017/11/07/160-the-importance-of-vision-with-jerry-miculek-3gs-greatest-hits/

[Kema]

Sometimes evil manufacturers pay good shooters to shoot with crappy plastics to get us nobodies doubt our decisions. It's called marketing. 

 

They called me hero and I answered.

[Boomstick303]

11 hours ago, konkapot said:

"It's always going to depend on the level of the shooter."

 

This is exactly my point.  Arguing over what sighting system is faster has nothing to do with the system rather than the person who is using any system and the efficiency they are using that system.  There is no blanket statement of dots are faster than irons, or vice versa.  It is a moot point.

Edited November 2, 2021 by Boomstick303

[Balakay]

16 minutes ago, Boomstick303 said:

 

This is exactly my point.  Arguing over what sighting system is faster has nothing to do with the system rather than the person who is using any system and the efficiency they are using that system.  There is no blanket statement of dots are faster than irons, or vice versa.  It is a mute point.

Moot not mute.

 

I will make the blanket statement that I guarantee you and everyone else would have shot worse at nationals with Iron sights than you/they did with a dot. 

[Boomstick303]

8 hours ago, Balakay said:

I will make the blanket statement that I guarantee you and everyone else would have shot worse at nationals with Iron sights than you/they did with a dot. 

 

Not if they have never shot a dot before.  You think someone can just pick up a dot and shoot as fast as they did with Irons?

 

I also believe if they were accomplished and trained with irons being target focused and had shot both dots and irons their times would not be all that different.  If they had that skill they would have shot the same. How many people have made the effort to train and use target focus using irons?  

 

People who have shot with irons for years struggle being faster with a dot because they look at the dot and treat it as a front sight post, do not index the dot at crazy angles correctly, etc..  To the point where they give up on dots and just go back to irons, not understanding the could be quicker with Irons sights if they changed their methodology and expand how they use Irons.  

 

If you are talking about someone who has never shot a gun, I could agree someone that picks up a dot would become more efficient quicker than with irons.   Because, there is less nuance in using dots versus irons.  It is one of the reasons when I started shooting again I knew I would become more efficient quicker with a dot than with Irons.  Does that mean I can ever shoot at the level of the top shooters who have used irons for years and have adopted a target focused approach.  Not likely ever, regardless of how much I train.     

 

Again, it comes down to the ability of the shooter, how they trained, and the efficiency in which they use their particular aiming system.  

Edited November 2, 2021 by Boomstick303

[Racinready300ex]

12 minutes ago, Boomstick303 said:

 

Not if they have never shot a dot before.  You think someone can just pick up a dot and shoot as fact as they did with Irons?

 

 

I don't think anyone really thinks that. The problem with this question is it's impossible to prove. How can you prove that shooter A all trained up with irons is better than shoot A all trained up with a dot? You can't, not really. So you have to make generalized statements based on what you know and what you've observed. 

 

Something I've seen at local IDPA club is that a lot of shooters switched to CO and virtually immediately moved up in the overall standings. I wasn't the only one to notice this, everyone started taking notice and more and more guys started switching because they could no longer keep up with guys they used to compete with. This happened at all the skill levels. And now no one wins the match with irons anymore. If you don't IDPA the only difference between CO and ESP is irons vs dot nothing else. I've talked to guys in other area's who've seen similar results at their matches. 

 

There are a few guys who struggle and clearly are over aiming, and probably focusing on the dot. Really most shooters in IDPA over aim, probably because the accuracy requirement is much higher than it is in USPSA because of the scoring system. 

[Balakay]

39 minutes ago, Boomstick303 said:

 

Not if they have never shot a dot before.  You think someone can just pick up a dot and shoot as fact as they did with Irons?

 

 

that's just a stupid comment.  Put a dot gun and one with irons in the hands of someone who is competent with both and the Dot is faster over the course of a match.  Every.  Single.  Time.  Is this really even debatable?