TargetTalk

could you pls explain me as an air pistol & free pistol shooter is it good to aim at the center of the black zone or aim at the 6 "o" clock.
advantages & disadvantages..?

Rgds
Sagara

Much discussion in many threads (some recently) on this. Pros/cons to each of the three most common options (center, 6 o'clock, sub 6 o'clock).

The main tradeoff involves your ability to keep the sights ALIGNED with each other (sub best, 6 second best, center worst) vs. your ability to maintain a SETTLE in the aiming area (6 best, center second best, sub worst).

The characterization of best, 2d, worst is more significant (more important) for some people than others. Some folks claim to be able to maintain "perfectly adequate" alignment with center hold, just as others claim to be able to maintain "perfectly adequate" settle with sub 6 hold.

The problem, of course, is with one's understanding of "perfectly adequate" in terms of either ALIGN or SETTLE.

One thing to consider is that the quality of being able to maintain ALIGN is so much more important than being able to maintain HOLD that many top shooters consider the ALIGN problem to be the dominant consideration- making the potential loss in fidelity of SETTLE with the sub-6 technique to be trivial (compared to the benefit in quality of ALIGN with the technique); making the sub-6 hold a somewhat obvious choice.

ESPECIALLY for beginners and intermediate level shooters (up to consistent 565+ in MAP), who might otherwise be distracted by the aiming bull and naturally allow their focus on alignment to slip as they try to juggle ALIGN and AIM simultaneously.

Stve Swartz

The colonel is being fairly aggressive in stating his personal opinioins. Let me mention that our current record holder in three gun had a.practice of responding to shooters that were dogmatic about either six o'clock or sub .six holds. he would ask after they finished describing their holds, "Have you shot 2680 yet? Hershel Anderson used center hold.Good Shooting BillHorton

Didn't know Herschel was shooting 2680 as a beginner/intermediate level shooter, Bill.

Live and learn I guess.

Steve

(also wasn't awrae that presenting the commonly accepted three different approaches with pros and cons was being " . . . dogmatic about either six o'clock or sub .six holds . . . " either.

I guess if all you have is a hammer, well then, everything sure looks like a nail!

And Steve, yours cannot be proven any more than mine can. I simply disregard positive statements that are the results of personal opinion.The problem I have with these very positive statements is that they may lead some less experienced shooter off into something he / she cannot work their way out of and thus terminate their efforts. Col Charles Askins also had a natural way of talking and writing that led one to believe that he was very sure of himself. [ which he was ] and you do also. Just don't expect to go unchallenged all the time. Any way you are fun to duel with. Good Shooting Bill Horton

My Jack Russell Terrier is dogmatic.

Steve has changed his name to Stve (pronunciation?).

And Stve is not dogmatic.

2650+ is always entertaining.

Happy Thanksgiving to all!!

Tillman in Florida

Lighting on the sight and target are very important. The main thing is to see a well defined foresight and be comfortable with the sight picture.

Bill:

Yes I make somewhat "positive" statements.

Which I then back up with logic, reason, facts; or at least a rationale (the "why"). You may agree or disagree, but at that point you have something substantive to address.

When someone (like me, or anyone for that matter) does this, it is possible for others to join the discussion, make their own statements, and provide their own logic, reason, facts, and rationale.

That's called a dialogue. Most folks (many? some?) enjoy this style of discussion and benefit from it.

Even new posters and/or new shooters. Maybe they (lurking) benefit from such a discussion *more than* the more experienced shooters actually engaged in the dialogue.

They can evaluate all of the issues presented by the folks discussing the topic, and be swayed (or not) by whichever side seems to be making the most convincing case of it.

Back to This Particular Thread

Perhaps (I admit shamefully) my initial response did not include as much logic, reason, facts, or rationale as might have otherwise been useful.

Mea Culpa.

Perhaps, (I admit shamefully) my initial response did not include a link to some of the other (recent or recurring) threads on the topic- I need to learn how to do this, as it is always a delight to see when other posters do so. This is very useful for helping the newbies get "spun up" on some much-discussed issues. Better yet, when they follow the link to the original threads, they will see a more balanced presentation of both sides, and I will nto appear to be trying to bias the discussion with my summary (which you appreantly may have thought I did, based on your somewhat forceful reaction to my summary).

Mea Maxima Culpa.

However, with respect to "Joe Sez" arguments (we have gone down this road before a couple of times since your recent entry into this forum)

I agree that "Joe Sez" arguments are appealing. Especially "Joe Sez" *BECAUSE* Yada Yada Yada arguments. That does provide benefit- as we not only have the important, meaningful stuff (the Yada Yada Yada) but we also have the added benefit of the "argument from authority;" ie

Joe Sez + Joe Shoots Good = It Must Be Universally True

which does have intrinsic value (more for some folks than others, it should be stated).

Anyhow

Enjoy the Holidays- keep on plugging away- and I hope to be able to buy you beer or three at a match some day!

Stve "Your Karma Ran Over My Dogma" Swartz

"Never let a sleeping dogma lie."
Bertrand Russell

I have always marveled at the possibilities in that quotation. My first ex-wife had an earned doctorate in Philosophy and she could not explain it to me... guess I missed out on something.

(Name change noted...)

Tilghman

I apoligise, I read your post and got to the keyboard way to quickly. Just a little more time to consider my response would have been very valuable and I hope more enlightening. I doubt if it really maters where you hold on the target just as long as the hold is consistant. { and very still} Thats called the bait. I only get to set the hook if you bite. I will say though that there is a substantial difference in how you shoot 2600 and the way one shoots 2650. This also applies to 570 with AP as it relates to 585 or 590. I still have no idea how that marine shoots so consistantly above 2670. Good shooting Colonel Bill Horton

2650 Plus wrote:I still have no idea how that marine shoots so consistantly above 2670.

Bill,

It's always a pleasure to read your posts. It's always interesting, if not always informative, to read descriptions by experts of how they perform very complex actions that require fine muscle control and the coordinaton of many simultaneous subconscious processes.

Perhaps, practicing 6 hours a day for many years might have something to do with Zins' success. So, Hershel Anderson used a center hold. It may have worked well for him, but it may or may not be the optimal technique for those of us who have to do other things to earn a living (personally, I use a dot sight, since my old eyes can't see the target at all when I focus on the front sight).

In another thread, you mentioned 'that marine', Brian Zins, describing using his trigger finger motion to drive his sights. I read a description by him somewhere, where he described it as being like steering your car toward a tunnel. The steering wheel corresponds to your control of the sights. The gas pedal corresponds to to the movement of your finger on the trigger.

What he is doing is attempting to describe a complex gestalt, developed over many thousands of hours of practice, as he 'consciously' perceives it. The physical manifestation of this gestalt is his use of a long-roll trigger. It may very well work only for someone who practices as much as he does.

Those of us who are just starting out at a particular type of shooting need to try lots of different approaches in order to discover what works best for us, and be open to changing as we improve. Eventually, some of those descriptions that the experts provide may take on some personal meaning.

Regards,

Al B.

I have no doubt that you are absolutely corect. I have experienced so many shooters being led down a path of no return that I try to avoid telling anyone how to shoot. Instead I try as I'm sure Gunny Zins, does , to explain as accurately as I can my experiences in this both frustrating and rewarding game we try to excell at. Good Shooting Bill Horton

I have no doubt that you are absolutely corect. I have experienced so many shooters being led down a path of no return that I try to avoid telling anyone how to shoot. Instead I try as I'm sure Gunny Zins, does , to explain as accurately as I can my experiences in this both frustrating and rewarding game we try to excell at. Good Shooting Bill Horton

Well Sagara, I trust you found the above self-indulgent rambling more enlightening than I did. I will attempt to do you the courtesy of a reply to your question.

Assuming 'normal' illumination conditions, it seems easier to align the sights (front sight to back sight alignment) against the white background of a sub-six aiming point. As the top of the front sight is raised towards the black, it becomes increasingly difficult to align the front and rear sights in a vertical direction, and also judge a consistent alignment of the front sight with the black, because of diffraction over the top of the front sight. So most people favour the sub-six aim. All you have to do is remember how thick the space between the top of the front sight and the bottom of the black should be - easy!??

Diffraction effects are worse the brighter the target illumination. If you are a spectacle wearer, use proper shooting specs and use the iris and / or filters to mitigate (if you don't already).

Of course, what works best for you works best for you, so experiment. I think that just about sums up our strange pastime.

The other side of the sight issue is as follows. There is a trap in sub six o'clock hold in that the shooter may allow his point of focus to shift down range and not have sufficient signals to be aware of the shift. The shooter that uses center hold has several advantages. One is that the eye will naturally find the center of a round object, It makes no difference how big the round object is or how small. Ask your small bore shooter why he uses an apperture front and rear sight. He is shooting at a round bullseye and the optical relationships are far easier to perfect than any space of white below the bull. Next a clear focus on the front sight causes the target to appear grey and fuzzy. If the target turns black the shooter has a clear warning that his point of focus has wandered off the front sight and he should abort the attempt to fire. Finally, I am suspecious that the sub six hold and its advantages are simply the current fad and will probably fade away as the next super solution raises its ugly head to lead shooters down a new path. Good Shooting Bill Horton [ One of the few times I will post something that I do not use]

The general concensus is that a sub 6 hold is optimum for most shooters, and as a coach that is what I start with. If a shooter wants to try centre hold etc then fine, but do so in a methodical manner and take time to evaluate if it really is better.

Rob.

Yes by all means skip the self-indulgent ramblings and go back to the first answer on the thread.

Many folks trust the sub-6 hold (see my initial "Pros Cons" above) specifically because you run a much *lower* risk of having your physical focus shift downrage to the fuzzy bull.

Think about it: with a center hold, you are already (by definition) looking at the bullseye (downrange) which sets you up for the huge mistake of "looking at it." With the sub-6 hold, you aren't looking at the bull at all, which reduces the risk of shifting focus significantly.

The key thing to understand- and appreciate- is this: what you "AIM" at is a very minor triviality compared to how well you are "ALIGNING" the front and rear sights.*

herefore, knowing where you are "pointing" the aligned sights matters very little compared to the necessity of having them aligned in the first place [this can be demonstrated logically and mathmatically if you are interested].

It is my personal experience, and opinion after much observation of and discussion witrh "plateaued" shooters, that not understanding that one principle IS THE NUMBER ONE REASON WHY A SHOOTER NEVER "GETS IT!"

Steve Swartz

*(That "Prime Directive" is very subtle- and counter intuititive- and sounds like BS- and it simply cant't be true! That's why very few shooters ever progress past 560 MAP. It's the ONE SINGLE REASON why we have so many shooters below 560 and so few above. There, how's that for "Aggressive?" Perhaps we should start another thread on ALIGN vs. AIM so I can prattle off with all the logic, reasons, and rationale!)

Absolutely! And this is the justification for practice shooting at a blank card.[/quote]

Seve Swartz wrote: what you "AIM" at is a very minor triviality compared to how well you are "ALIGNING" the front and rear sights.*

herefore, knowing where you are "pointing" the aligned sights matters very little compared to the necessity of having them aligned in the first place

You said it much better than I could Steve; you are 100% correct (but you already knew that ;-) ).

I'm with your program Steve :) although I havent broken the magical 560 (or even 550) yet - 548 and counting !!