Today, in addition to using natural point of aim for my stance, I pointed my pistol down at the ground to line up my grip. I found this pointing my pistol to the ground to find my "natural point of grip aim" quite helpful. I just raised my arm, I am not fighting against my stance, I am not fighting against my grip. Everything is naturally centered. I shot 558 today after lingering in the 530-540 for awhile. Quite happy since I started shooting June this year.
I found this lining up of my grip, pointing my pistol at the floor, produced a grip that is pointing the pistol much more laterally than I was using previously.
Just wondering if the forum can comment on this.
How to find "natural point of aim" for your grip?
Moderators: pilkguns, m1963, David Levene, Spencer, Richard H
Forum rules
If you wish to make a donation to this forum's operation , it would be greatly appreciated.
https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/targettalk?yours=true
If you wish to make a donation to this forum's operation , it would be greatly appreciated.
https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/targettalk?yours=true
-
gordonfriesen
- Posts: 97
- Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 4:31 pm
First of all, let me say that 550 after only sis months is quite phenomenal. Congratulations. What discipline are you shooting?
Now as for the matter at hand: There is a position known as the international ready position, which is used as the starting point for rapid fire. This is with the pistol pointed at 45 degrees to the ground. When you do this, you should have the gun lined up from side to side, but not with the post level in the notch, because as you raise the gun, the post is going to drop. Therefore, just line up the barrel straight ahead of the back sight with the post sticking up a bit. This can indeed be a fine start for your raise.
However, what matters is your position when fully locked on target. IMHO the ready should be derived by working backwords from the final position, not the final position by working forward from a comfortable ready.
But your insight is real. Having a stable start position to your raise is very beneficial.
Best Regards,
Gordon
Now as for the matter at hand: There is a position known as the international ready position, which is used as the starting point for rapid fire. This is with the pistol pointed at 45 degrees to the ground. When you do this, you should have the gun lined up from side to side, but not with the post level in the notch, because as you raise the gun, the post is going to drop. Therefore, just line up the barrel straight ahead of the back sight with the post sticking up a bit. This can indeed be a fine start for your raise.
However, what matters is your position when fully locked on target. IMHO the ready should be derived by working backwords from the final position, not the final position by working forward from a comfortable ready.
But your insight is real. Having a stable start position to your raise is very beneficial.
Best Regards,
Gordon
-
David Levene
- Posts: 5617
- Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 12:49 pm
- Location: Ruislip, UK
You've got that the wrong way round I'm afraid Gordon.gordonfriesen wrote:..... because as you raise the gun, the post is going to drop. Therefore, just line up the barrel straight ahead of the back sight with the post sticking up a bit.
Because the pivot point of the arm is below the eye, provided that the wrist is locked the front sight will appear to rise more than the rear sight as you raise your arm. At the 45 degree ready position it is unlikely that you will be able to see the front sight in the rear sight notch, but it will come into view as you raise your arm. If you raise the gun above the target before settling back into your aiming area then the front sight will appear high while the gun is above the target.
How to find "natural point of aim" for your grip
Dear David,
Usually I agree with most of your statements but I find that with the wrist remaining immobile the front sight will, apparantly, disappear downwards on lifting the firearm.
Lowering the front sight will appear to raise - unless my geometry is totally incorrect.
Hoping that you will revisit thougts as expressed.
With best regards,
macca
Usually I agree with most of your statements but I find that with the wrist remaining immobile the front sight will, apparantly, disappear downwards on lifting the firearm.
Lowering the front sight will appear to raise - unless my geometry is totally incorrect.
Hoping that you will revisit thougts as expressed.
With best regards,
macca
-
superstring
- Posts: 155
- Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2004 4:16 pm
- Location: Victoria, BC Canada
-
David Levene
- Posts: 5617
- Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 12:49 pm
- Location: Ruislip, UK
I'm sorry both macca and superstring, there can only be 2 explanations for what you are seeing:-
1) You are moving your wrist.
2) You are moving your head.
Try drawing the shoulder (pivot point of the arm), arm, rear sight, front sight and eye on a piece of paper. What you say you are seeing, under the conditions you are describing, is impossible I'm afraid.
1) You are moving your wrist.
2) You are moving your head.
Try drawing the shoulder (pivot point of the arm), arm, rear sight, front sight and eye on a piece of paper. What you say you are seeing, under the conditions you are describing, is impossible I'm afraid.
-
gordonfriesen
- Posts: 97
- Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 4:31 pm
Guys,
The back of my envelope says the situation is a little more complicated than either I or David first thought. At first I wanted to respond "Hell no! I'm not going crazy. The post is going down." But then I did the drawings, and found the truth to to be quite different.
This is a little hard without an actual diagram, but here goes:
1) The eye is higher than the shoulder. therefore the lines from eye to hand and shoulder to hand form a triangle.
2) The angle between those two lines, that is the point of the triangle at the wrist, will be smallest with the arm down at 45 degrees.
3) As the arm is raised that angle gets bigger and bigger until it hits the verticle point exactly halfway between the shoulder and the eye.
4) Finally, beyond that point, menaing from the mid point up to a straight line between the eye and the target, this angle is becoming smaller again.
6) The angle between the hand and the arm required to line up the sights with the eye, is complementary to the angle in the point of the triangle described. Together they must make 180 degrees. As one gets bigger the other must get smaller.
7) The higher we hold the post, the larger this second angle must be. That is as we raise the post we get closer to a straight wrist of 180 degrees
Therefore, As we raise the gun from 45 degrees, the angle between the lines eye-hand and shoulder-hand becomes bigger, and the angle under the wrist becomes smaller, meaining more bent, and that means the post must come down as we raise to maintain alignment.
Score one for David.
However, once we reach the point midway up between the shoulder and eye, the situation reverses. To maintain alignment in this last few inches, the post must come UP.
I submit that because it is in this last few inches that I am concentrating the most, this is the only zone in which I correctly identified what was going on. I just hated aligning the sights just under the zone, and then seeing the post drop in the last movement. And drop it does. So as described, I began starting out with the post up and then ease it into the notch on the way up.
There is another good reason for doing this, that if the post is hidden it might be off laterally, and you don't know how far it is off verticle. Remember, I learned to do this for rapid fire. Basically, by having the post out a little bit, I see it is OK side to side, and I know just how much it has to drop. No guessing.
Obviously, if you have a perfect raise coming on to a perfect alignment, without even looking at the post, all of this is irrelevent. But that is not my case.
Best Regards,
Gordon
The back of my envelope says the situation is a little more complicated than either I or David first thought. At first I wanted to respond "Hell no! I'm not going crazy. The post is going down." But then I did the drawings, and found the truth to to be quite different.
This is a little hard without an actual diagram, but here goes:
1) The eye is higher than the shoulder. therefore the lines from eye to hand and shoulder to hand form a triangle.
2) The angle between those two lines, that is the point of the triangle at the wrist, will be smallest with the arm down at 45 degrees.
3) As the arm is raised that angle gets bigger and bigger until it hits the verticle point exactly halfway between the shoulder and the eye.
4) Finally, beyond that point, menaing from the mid point up to a straight line between the eye and the target, this angle is becoming smaller again.
6) The angle between the hand and the arm required to line up the sights with the eye, is complementary to the angle in the point of the triangle described. Together they must make 180 degrees. As one gets bigger the other must get smaller.
7) The higher we hold the post, the larger this second angle must be. That is as we raise the post we get closer to a straight wrist of 180 degrees
Therefore, As we raise the gun from 45 degrees, the angle between the lines eye-hand and shoulder-hand becomes bigger, and the angle under the wrist becomes smaller, meaining more bent, and that means the post must come down as we raise to maintain alignment.
Score one for David.
However, once we reach the point midway up between the shoulder and eye, the situation reverses. To maintain alignment in this last few inches, the post must come UP.
I submit that because it is in this last few inches that I am concentrating the most, this is the only zone in which I correctly identified what was going on. I just hated aligning the sights just under the zone, and then seeing the post drop in the last movement. And drop it does. So as described, I began starting out with the post up and then ease it into the notch on the way up.
There is another good reason for doing this, that if the post is hidden it might be off laterally, and you don't know how far it is off verticle. Remember, I learned to do this for rapid fire. Basically, by having the post out a little bit, I see it is OK side to side, and I know just how much it has to drop. No guessing.
Obviously, if you have a perfect raise coming on to a perfect alignment, without even looking at the post, all of this is irrelevent. But that is not my case.
Best Regards,
Gordon
-
David Levene
- Posts: 5617
- Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 12:49 pm
- Location: Ruislip, UK
I hope the attachment, which shows the relative position of the key elements, will demonstrate that if the wrist is locked and the sights are aligned when on aim, the front sight must drop when the arm is lowered.
Conversely the front sight must rise when the arm is lifted.
If anything else is happening then you are changing your wrist angle or your head position.
Conversely the front sight must rise when the arm is lifted.
If anything else is happening then you are changing your wrist angle or your head position.
-
gordonfriesen
- Posts: 97
- Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 4:31 pm
David,
I stand corrected as concerns the dynamics in the angles up to the horizontal as you show.
On the other hand, if you keep moving your line 2 -3 in an upward arc, line 1-3 will again diverge from line 1-4. Right up until eye level, the post will rise, but beyond that point it will begin to fall again.
Therefore, whether or not the post is moving up or down in the notch depends on the height of the shooter.
The center of the target is 1.4 meters. Most adult people have their eye level higher than that, and so your observation would be correct, generally speaking.
For myself, on the other hand, shooting from a chair, 1.4 meters is above my head. As I raise my gun past eye level, the post begins to fall. And if I move above the target and come back down to it, the post is rising.
This I believe explains the difference between your observation and my own.
Best Regards,
Gordon
I stand corrected as concerns the dynamics in the angles up to the horizontal as you show.
On the other hand, if you keep moving your line 2 -3 in an upward arc, line 1-3 will again diverge from line 1-4. Right up until eye level, the post will rise, but beyond that point it will begin to fall again.
Therefore, whether or not the post is moving up or down in the notch depends on the height of the shooter.
The center of the target is 1.4 meters. Most adult people have their eye level higher than that, and so your observation would be correct, generally speaking.
For myself, on the other hand, shooting from a chair, 1.4 meters is above my head. As I raise my gun past eye level, the post begins to fall. And if I move above the target and come back down to it, the post is rising.
This I believe explains the difference between your observation and my own.
Best Regards,
Gordon
-
David Levene
- Posts: 5617
- Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 12:49 pm
- Location: Ruislip, UK
Edited post:-gordonfriesen wrote:I stand corrected as concerns the dynamics in the angles up to the horizontal as you show.
On the other hand, if you keep moving your line 2 -3 in an upward arc, line 1-3 will again diverge from line 1-4. Right up until eye level, the post will rise, but beyond that point it will begin to fall again.
Therefore, whether or not the post is moving up or down in the notch depends on the height of the shooter.
The center of the target is 1.4 meters. Most adult people have their eye level higher than that, and so your observation would be correct, generally speaking.
For myself, on the other hand, shooting from a chair, 1.4 meters is above my head. As I raise my gun past eye level, the post begins to fall. And if I move above the target and come back down to it, the post is rising.
I originally posted that I thought you were wrong. Basic logic still tells me that you should be (when I lift my gun above the aiming area the front sight is higher than the rear sight) but I am having second thoughts. With a seated shooter, with the different angles, things might be different as you say.
-
gordonfriesen
- Posts: 97
- Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 4:31 pm
David,
At six oclock and 12 oclock the lines from the eye to the wrist and the shoulder to the wrist are the same. At eye level, they have their greatest divergeance. Raising from 6:00 to eye level the lines come progessively apart and the post rises in the notch. Above eyelevel, the two lines come closer together again and the post drops. If aiming at a 1.4 meter mark does not require you to pass the eye level, you will never realize that there is a second stage to this cycle. I was so fixated on the last couple of centimeters which in my case are above eyelevel that I never realized there was a first stage.
The main thing is that neither of us has lost his marbles. The observed effects are real.
Musing a little farther on this, it might explain why I don`t like lowering into the zone. I don`t get that front sight settling effect that you describe,
to get that I have to come in from below.
Best regards,
Gordon
At six oclock and 12 oclock the lines from the eye to the wrist and the shoulder to the wrist are the same. At eye level, they have their greatest divergeance. Raising from 6:00 to eye level the lines come progessively apart and the post rises in the notch. Above eyelevel, the two lines come closer together again and the post drops. If aiming at a 1.4 meter mark does not require you to pass the eye level, you will never realize that there is a second stage to this cycle. I was so fixated on the last couple of centimeters which in my case are above eyelevel that I never realized there was a first stage.
The main thing is that neither of us has lost his marbles. The observed effects are real.
Musing a little farther on this, it might explain why I don`t like lowering into the zone. I don`t get that front sight settling effect that you describe,
to get that I have to come in from below.
Best regards,
Gordon
-
David Levene
- Posts: 5617
- Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 12:49 pm
- Location: Ruislip, UK
It's not that simple Gordon. It all depends where the the wrist angle is set.gordonfriesen wrote:Raising from 6:00 to eye level the lines come progessively apart and the post rises in the notch. Above eyelevel, the two lines come closer together again and the post drops.
If it is set at (up to) eye level, which would normally be the case with a standing shooter, then as you go above eye level the front sight rises above the rear sight. Below eye level and the front sight drops.
If the wrist angle is set above eye level, as would normally be the case with a seated shooter, then you get the effect you described. A quick experiment indicates that the sights seem to be in line in two positions, on aim and at an equal angle below eye level. Between those positions the front sight seems high, anywhere else and it is low.
-
superstring
- Posts: 155
- Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2004 4:16 pm
- Location: Victoria, BC Canada
An interesting and thoughtful discussion. :-) David you are right; in my case I was moving my wrist.David Levene wrote:I'm sorry both macca and superstring, there can only be 2 explanations for what you are seeing:-
1) You are moving your wrist.
2) You are moving your head.
Try drawing the shoulder (pivot point of the arm), arm, rear sight, front sight and eye on a piece of paper. What you say you are seeing, under the conditions you are describing, is impossible I'm afraid.