TargetTalk

There may be a problem with trying unproven concepts. You may learn so well how to use a new concept That does not improve your performance that you cant stop using it. Bad habits are often forever. But you also dont want to overlook something that will add points . I use rules for improvement that have served me well. First, is the source reliable ? Second , Do I clearly understand how the concept/ device works. Third, Am I sure it will help me perform better. Fourth , Take it to the range for a couple of weeks or months. Fifth Did it provide the improvement I expected. And , Last Try it in competition. To me , its not worth all this effort unless there is a really strong expectation of improvement. Good Shooting Bill Horton

Well it is interesting to see all the commentary that my University's PR has generated for the opti-sight. The physical view or perception submitted by paulo above is correct. The significant difference from the Steyr sight is that the truncated front sight provides the customary three line segments to ensure accurate horizontal alignment as is accomplished with the traditional sight. The Steyr sight is pointed making it harder to align horizontally and creating a much larger aiming than the dual truncated (be-headed) triangles of my design.

Another post is also correct in their conclusion that this is appropriate for 6 o clock and sub-6 hold, but not center holds.

The "off the shelf" design uses 60 degree angles and thus projects an aiming area onto the target (the apexes of the incomplete triangles). I have customized the design for testing by three 580+ shooters and another contender. The only way to know if or how much this will help is to get shooters to try it. The optical principle of geometrically connecting the gun alignment to the aiming area is not different from a red dot, just here you have to "view" the subconscious projection of the triangle apexes within your area of hold. There is no substitute for practice - the idea here is that your brain should give you an alignment error signal sooner.

I have a glock with the new sights on it, so some law enforcement testing will hopefully be unfolding in the new year. For most of us hobby shooters it may or may not be a big deal, but if it can get someone on the US team 0.5% or help an older experienced officer stay stay qualified for an additional year or two, then I'll consider my time effort and money well invested.

I welcome your further questions or comments.

Image of new sight with target[/img]

Here is another sighting system that is supposed to be more intuitive: http://www.goshen-hexsite.com/index2.htm
It was created for the self defense market. Would this be legal for target pistols? For NRA Bullseye, yes, but I'm not sure about ISSF. Does anyone know the answer?

Thanks.

James Way wrote:.....but I'm not sure about ISSF. Does anyone know the answer?

Not allowed for ISSF as rule 8.4.1.3
"Only open sights are allowed. ....................No protective covering is permitted on front or rear open sights."

There is no lack of ideas out there http://www.suresight.com/

paulo wrote:Image of new sight with target

the designer seems to have missed the concept of area aim below the black

Spencer wrote:

paulo wrote:Image of new sight with target

the designer seems to have missed the concept of area aim below the black

Care to explain that statement in detail?

superstring wrote:

Spencer wrote:

paulo wrote:Image of new sight with target

the designer seems to have missed the concept of area aim below the black

Care to explain that statement in detail?

which bit: area aim, or aiming below the black?

Spencer wrote:

paulo wrote:Image of new sight with target

the designer seems to have missed the concept of area aim below the black

I just made a drawing because i thought it would make it easier to understand, I am not a designer, sorry.
I used a popular sight picture called 6 o'clock, the Porfessor that proposed the new sights also mentioned that they can be used for Sub 6 O'Clock which I believe is what you are alluding to.
I thought one drawing would illustrate the concept, sorry for my omission.

Spencer wrote:

superstring wrote:

Spencer wrote:

paulo wrote:Image of new sight with target

the designer seems to have missed the concept of area aim below the black

Care to explain that statement in detail?

which bit: area aim, or aiming below the black?

I'm just a little confused about what you're getting at. I guess, as paulo suggested above, you're alluding to a sub-6 hold. Is that right?

As I understand this concept, the sight picture is set by where the brain determines the 2 imaginary apexes converge (and that, presumably, is the centre of the black).

For the ones that like sub 6

Mr. Paul Ha kindly asked me to post these images, of sights he developed in the 80's.
An electronic trigger was also something he definitely enjoyed with his Walther.

I am much obliged to Paul Ha for sharing in this conversation.

Below his comments and his pictures regarding the triangular sights:

"My personal observation is that any system will eventually work to some degree with perseverance(training); even though most would initially show promises. Old timers, like myself, call this the 'new gun syndrome'. Two truncated dissimilar equilateral triangles would post some additional challenges though."


Paul Ha.

First of all, I would like to thank Mr. Paulo Andrade for his time and help in posting the pictures.

The additional challenges I allured to with Mr. Kraft's proposal of using truncated dissimilar equilateral triangles would be for the shooter to acquire equal daylight on both sides of the front sight relative to the rear sight. Truncated similar equilateral triangles do that quite readily, since they provide the longer geometric reference lines resultant of their similar shapes.

Mr. Kraft's reliance of the convergence point of the apexes of two dissimilar triangles would of necessity be replaced by a single apex formed by the extension of the single 'day-lighted' triangle, if one should insist on imaginery point aim. Depending on the width of the preferred daylights, the apex of this single 'day-lighted' triangle would also be less academically precise than that of Mr. Kraft's convergence point.

But perseverence(training) is part of the fun of shooting, and, it would not matter much to one whose total concentration is on one corner of the front sight relative to one on the rear anyway.

Have fun shooting and experimenting.......

The use of similar equilateral triangles (6o degree angles) results in two distinct apexes separated by 1.15 x the air gap seen between the front post and inner edge of the rear sight.

After measuring the optical angles subtended by the gaps, left and right of the front post for high level competitors, I have found them to be about 1.5 to 3.5 minutes of arc. Note the 10 ring is about 3.5 min arc for free pistol and just a bit more for AP. The 7-ring subtends 20.5' (AP) visual angle vs 13.7 minutes arc (Free pistol).

Depending on the amount of sub-6 "air gap" you like the difference between the front and rear triangle for EXACT superposition of the two apexes on the center of black will be on the order of 48 to 55 degrees (front sight triangle) compared with the 60 degree angle of the rear triangle. So only a 2 to 6 degree difference between the slope of the outer (rear sight) to inner (front sight) line segments. This is certainly enough for the human visual system to detect (my area of expertise), but our love of symmetry makes the visual task of alignment simple if you have done enough holding drills to be capable of doing the muscle task.

Enough thinking more plinking. . . .

In over 40 years of being a student of the shooting disciplines I seen every imaginable sighting geometry come and go. All promising to make every other obsolete. The fact that in the last one hundred years, very smart and skilled shooters, have always come back to the straight line, equal space geometry of Patridge ( conventional ) sight. I think the only system that can surpass the patridge sight is an optical sight, ( optics changes 3 planes to 2 planes ).Gort