Loves2Shoot Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 "the fact that it takes the eyes of even a young fit shooter about three quarters of a second to shift focal lengths, as from the front sight to the target." This seems WRONG and was written by someone claiming to be an expert. I know I can do it in a fraction of that time and I'm not special in that way. Any comments about this "fact?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PJONES5 Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 "the fact that it takes the eyes of even a young fit shooter about three quarters of a second to shift focal lengths, as from the front sight to the target."This seems WRONG and was written by someone claiming to be an expert. I know I can do it in a fraction of that time and I'm not special in that way. Any comments about this "fact?" Well I am 63 and I can sure shift focus quicker than that. Heck even I can be a expert on the INTERNET pat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake Di Vita Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 By his logic, it would be physically impossible for someone to get an accurate shot off the draw in under 1.25.....figure at least .5 to get the gun to extension and then the .75 to get your eyes on the sight. Seems like a load of horse puckey to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 Link me up...I gotta read this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loves2Shoot Posted October 30, 2006 Author Share Posted October 30, 2006 http://www.xdtalk.com/forums/showthread.ph...7803#post317803 Here you go, let me know what you think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DougCarden Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 What a load.....I tried these at the Steel Challenge I think.....some match....They are so visually distracting that I cant think they would be effective beyond 10-15yds. If you are trying to line up the triangles at speed it would take at least .75 seconds to get them lined up and then shoot....due to your visual focus on your target being sucked back to the sights Subconscious shooting would be difficult with these sights. Please realize that I am only a cop and firearms instructor that does low light shooting training for a living. Even with my 4 year degree I have never been able to work in the word "gestalt" into a conversation about shooting or sighting..... My two cents......the latest greatest marketing ploy this week. DougC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shred Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 I think the term you're looking for is "accomodation". Lots of research around it, but I didn't find anything definative in a quick search. We've got a couple eye docs on here that should know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benos Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 Facts can be as confusing as reality. Regardless, it's good to keep your eyes moving! Or, more technically accurate - keep moving your focal realm. (But "keep your eyes moving" was the best mantra for me.) So by the time the sights get to the target - you're looking at right where they'll be. Never look anywhere for any longer than you need to. I'm sure experts wouldn't agree, but even for a one-shot draw - you can "look for" where your sights will appear, even though your "looking at space." Try that some time in practice. Set up an IPSC target at 10 - 15 yards. You're in your start position, and focused right on the outline of the A-box. Push the delayed start button, an in the couple seconds it takes for the timer to go off, "slide" or "pull" your focus back to right where your front sight will appear - "Beep!" - as soon as your pistol hits your Index, your front sight is in razor sharp foucs. Keep practicing until you're doubt free. be Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loves2Shoot Posted October 31, 2006 Author Share Posted October 31, 2006 Facts can be as confusing as reality. Regardless, it's good to keep your eyes moving! Or, more technically accurate - keep moving your focal realm. (But "keep your eyes moving" was the best mantra for me.) So by the time the sights get to the target - you're looking at right where they'll be. Never look anywhere for any longer than you need to. I'm sure experts wouldn't agree, but even for a one-shot draw - you can "look for" where your sights will appear, even though your "looking at space." Try that some time in practice. Set up an IPSC target at 10 - 15 yards. You're in your start position, and focused right on the outline of the A-box. Push the delayed start button, an in the couple seconds it takes for the timer to go off, "slide" or "pull" your focus back to right where your front sight will appear - "Beep!" - as soon as your pistol hits your Index, your front sight is in razor sharp foucs. Keep practicing until you're doubt free. be Well, you answered another question I had without asking it. I've had some problems lately with breaking shots with an unrefined sight picture (12-25) yards and it has been killing me. I've been striving for a "perfect" sight picture and when I keep this high level of focus I know exaclty where the bullets are going and the times are MUCH quicker. My brain tells me I am seeing a the front sight perfectly (serrations and all) and I am spotting the center of the area I am shooting before "pulling" my vision back to the FS. My transitions on USP poppers were .5 ish at 20 yards this am (3 meters apart) and the paper were .35ish (3 meters apart.) When I drop a point on the paper I know it before I score the target and when I break a shot not on the USP poppers I know it instantly (my follow-up shots are consistantly .3ish at 20 yards.) This just doesn't make any sense with what this "expert" is saying because what I'm experiencing is MUCH different. I have a student who has gone from C time to GM times in 6 months when he stay focused and he does the technique BE described. I seen lots of newer shooters go from to .75 transitions at 7 yards (1 meter apart) to .4 transitions in one session, so .75 seems way off to me. Thanks for the input guys! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 8-10y...transitioning from the body to the head, my visual focus can go from the front sight to the head, then back to the front sight in the time it takes to nudge the gun there. (well less than 0.20) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benos Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 8-10y...transitioning from the body to the head, my visual focus can go from the front sight to the head, then back to the front sight in the time it takes to nudge the gun there. (well less than 0.20) As my friend Rondy would have said - "Thare ye go." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
38supPat Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 I find it amusing that 'fist fire' came up in the same thread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loves2Shoot Posted October 31, 2006 Author Share Posted October 31, 2006 Pat do not mock what you don't understand... Didn't you see the video? Just use the farce. I was hoping to get a mad scientist vision expert to chime in, because I HATE seing people getting ripped off. I know it has to be a made up fact that is irrellevant to how shooting really works. Thanks again! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
38supPat Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 Actually I've won a match with no sights on my gun, and the targets were farther than in the video....I just thought the video link was funny, showing someone mowing down targets with no sights..in a thread promoting...sights Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loves2Shoot Posted October 31, 2006 Author Share Posted October 31, 2006 LOL sort of ironic wasn't it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kruger Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 I really dislike the response about trained shooter and real life. Do something well (ala Loves2Shoot) and your opinion is now worth less since you have become "highly trained" and your skills and knowledge are no longer applicable "in real life". It seems like a bit of a cop-out to me... I wonder how much of an actual performance improvement the sights provide over the long term. How much of the performance improvement folks are seeing with the new sight is due to the "Trick of the Day" phenomenon? How much of it is due to the several hundred rounds expended getting used to the sight by folks that don't shoot much? Respectfully, Mark Kruger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loves2Shoot Posted November 1, 2006 Author Share Posted November 1, 2006 Leibster, This is by no means a comment on your sights in any way... ...but, the idea of 0.75 seconds to shift focus is waaaay off base in my experience. Flexmoney, Your experience seems to be at odds with both Guyton's Textbook of Medical Physiology--a common medical text--and Dr. Irving Biederman, a professor at the University of Southern California. He is the father of "Geon Theory", and largely considered the world's leading authority on visual shape and object recognition. If memory serves, I first read the .75 seconds figure in a text that quoted from Guyton's, then confirmed it verbally with Dr. Biederman. See my previous post for a plausible explanation as to why you may feel that you were able to "focus" more quickly than this. Hope that helps clear things up. --Leibster Maku Mozo! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
38supPat Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 They have text's, so they must be right Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benos Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 If you use your mind to study reality,you won't understand either your mind or reality. If you study reality without using your mind, you'll understand both. -Bodhidharma Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eric nielsen Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 (edited) L2S The concept of "accomodation" that eye docs and lens designers talk about is valid only in THEIR frame of reference. I've never met or heard about any of the top eyewear scientists in my prev. company [the biggest in the world] or other companies who's mentioned the least bit of experience doing something like shooting at speed. Or driving a race car. They're mostly concerned with things like reading the newspaper or driving to work. If you went to a big meeting of prescription eyewear designers & tried to explain the concept of Comstock to them - accuracy divided by elapsed time - they would look at you with blank stares. Then rudely go back to their own little conversations [they're French]. Edited November 1, 2006 by eric nielsen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kruger Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 I raised the topic on a mailing list for a firearms training school. One of other list members, Glenn Meyer, is a psychologist with some background in this topic. Here is his response: Months ago, I posted that we know that selective attention on a visual area increases contrast sensitivity in that area. That would make things looked sharper and enhance edges as you tune up the higher spatial frequencies that code detail. I think that gives us the reports that someone's sights were crystal clear.The 3/4 sec figure comes from the reaction time to change accommodation of the focal length of your lens. That is not practical in fast shooting. There is a misuse of focus here - one can think of the optical focus of the eye - but what we are really concerned with in target acquisition is changing the focus of attention. You have a small 'spotlight' of clear visual attention. IIRC, you can move this focus within your visual field at about 1 deg / 38 millisecond. Eye movements to a target or a saccade are clocked at 800 to 1000 degrees per sec. About filling in effects - they are complex and not just a filling of an empty area. They are used to interpolated what are perceived as interrupted edges and complete the impression of objects and surfaces through such interruptions. There is no need or purpose to fill in a chip in paint. If one refers to my 1987 edited book with my colleague Susan Petry, you can find a review of such effects. It was regarded as the 'bible' of the area at that time. Since then many review and articles have been published on the topic. Fill in effects are not just diffuse splatters of paint oozing across the visual field. They are pretty specific to completing edges. Glenn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now