New Gunsight Improves Marksmanship With Intuitive Aim

[gunnery]

http://main.uab.edu/Sites/MediaRelation ... les/71589/

[Gwhite]

It's still not clear to me what the desired sight picture looks like. The video shows the sights wobbling around enough that it wasn't at all obvious. My first guess was that the point on the top of the front sight completes the top of the open triangle formed by the rear sight, but the video didn't really show that. The top of the front sight is blunted, so I don't think that's it.

From the text, it sounds like you are supposed to line up the triangle formed by the rear sight with the triangle of the front sight so they are concentric. This sounds just like a triangular version of a traditional round rifle aperture sight.

[Misny]

I can't see what difference there is between this sight and the Steyr M series pistol sight seen here: http://www.steyr-aug.com/m_series_pistols.htm

[Freepistol]

The way I see it, one is supposed to extend the lines of the triangles to meet above the front sight. It seems this will allow a center aiming point with a sub 6 hold.

I'd like to try it!

I'd also like to see the good Dr. spend a little time getting rid of that body sway when shooting center fire.

Ben

[paulo]

I can't see what difference there is

The small front sight is flat on top.
Our mental projection of the apex's to overlap the front and rear triangle shapes, is something our brain can do subconsciously, so we can focus on the front sights and guarantee effortless alignment.
The AW93 has square sights but at times the rear site appears to give the illusion of the base of a triangle, so I did a new rear site in a triangle shape and kept the front site rectangular shape on a IZH and the results have been great.

[Freepistol]

Our mental projection of the apex's to overlap the front and rear triangle shapes, is something our brain can do subconsciously, so we can focus on the front sights and guarantee effortless alignment.
The AW93 has square sights but at times the rear site appears to give the illusion of the base of a triangle, so I did a new rear site in a triangle shape and kept the front site rectangular shape on a IZH and the results have been great.

Paulo, do you have pictures to email or post?
I'm very intested in trying this.
Thanks!
Ben

[paulo]

Rear sights for the IZH 35M with a triangular shape, since the slant on the sights is hard to see I superimposed a yellow arrow to help give an idea of the angle I used. It is not much but it helped me, it might not work for others.

[FP 570]

Nothing new here. This was batted around back in the early 80's. Yes it's like the Steyr sight. they tried it on the Steyr FP with Boris Kokorev. Needless to say it was not accepted then. They did end up using it on the cop gun.

[superstring]

From what I can tell, the POI should coincide with the imaginary apexes of the 2 triangles, which would mean, by necessity, a six or (maybe) sub-six hold. Yet the brain would be imagining a centre hold.

Have I got that right? This is a most intriguing idea!

[Guest]

I've heard of that some years ago, guy I know who does equipment controls at ISSF comps told me that some of the Chinese turned up with sights like that. Don't know if they still use them. Anybody have the dimensions for those sights? I'd like to try it on my Steyr LP...

[Philadelphia]

From what I can tell, the POI should coincide with the imaginary apexes of the 2 triangles, which would mean, by necessity, a six or (maybe) sub-six hold. Yet the brain would be imagining a centre hold.

Have I got that right? This is a most intriguing idea!

That's what I got out of it too. Makes sense and while it seems "gimicky" at first it might be worth a try. Not for me though.

[paulo]

From what I can tell, the POI should coincide with the imaginary apexes of the 2 triangles, which would mean, by necessity, a six or (maybe) sub-six hold. Yet the brain would be imagining a centre hold.

Have I got that right? This is a most intriguing idea!

From my reading what you get is correct alignment without the effort, because your brain subconsciously aligns the top vertice of the two triangular shapes, the negative space of the rear sights (void) and the positive space of the front sights, cause your sights to align, and from his words it seems he uses the apex has the aiming point, I find that too subjective and personally use the horizontal sight alignment created by both sights, where you aim is a question of preference.
The brain according to his theory aligns shapes better and easier than planes and lines.

[Misny]

Anything that draws our attention to the front sight has got to be good. It might only temporarily work, but even so, it would be a good training aid.

[paulo]

The Steyr sights do not introduce the concept of matching shapes, you are still ligning angled lines, and that seems to be the biggest difference to my eyes, when you compare it to the new sight design.

[2650 Plus]

First, I would be interested in discusion with a master class shooter that has fired a competition against Mr Craft. Who Won? And the additional issue is the beliefe that one must be shifting visual attention between the sights and the target. Top shooters settle into their aiming area , Hold as still as they can, Start the finger moving against the trigger enough in advance of the best stillness to have the pistol fire very soon after best hold occurs. The rest of the time before firing is spent perfecting sight allignment. Remember that the target is the only thing in the act of firing that is still. You dont haveto look at it because it is not going anywhere.My eveluation of new and superior sighting systems is that until the national records are held by someone fairly new to the sport using it I adopt a wait and see posture. Good Shooting Bill Horton

[Guest]

And my view is that I try anything that looks interesting, because orienting myself on 580+ shooters is preposterous. If something new gets me from 550 to 560, even if that is only mental and because I believe in it, great. If not, then not, no loss. If everybody did only what the world class shooters do, we'd still use the 208 for S, there would be no RF amateurs, because the world class in RF is full of dedicated specialists, and nobody would use compressed air, because until last year the WC was 593 with a CO2.

[deadeyedick]

Guest






Posted: Thu Dec 24, 2009 8:10 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And my view is that I try anything that looks interesting, because orienting myself on 580+ shooters is preposterous. If something new gets me from 550 to 560, even if that is only mental and because I believe in it, great. If not, then not, no loss. If everybody did only what the world class shooters do, we'd still use the 208 for S, there would be no RF amateurs, because the world class in RF is full of dedicated specialists, and nobody would use compressed air, because until last year the WC was 593 with a CO2.

my view as well guest

[superstring]

And my view is that I try anything that looks interesting, because orienting myself on 580+ shooters is preposterous. If something new gets me from 550 to 560, even if that is only mental and because I believe in it, great. If not, then not, no loss. If everybody did only what the world class shooters do, we'd still use the 208 for S, there would be no RF amateurs, because the world class in RF is full of dedicated specialists, and nobody would use compressed air, because until last year the WC was 593 with a CO2.

Yep. I think the concept is fascinating and would love to give it a try!

[FredB]

You guys are missing Bill's point. He's not saying to never try anything new; he's talking about maximizing your limited resources. Everyone has limited time, effort and money available in the pursuit of shooting well. If you spend some (or a lot) of those limited resources chasing every new idea that comes along, you will spend that much less time, effort and money doing serious training towards your goal.

Bill is suggesting that we can use the well-qualified experience of top shooters to know what definitely works, and not waste our precious resources chasing rainbows. If a new idea happens to be a good one, it will be picked up by good shooters, and we can then use their experience to determine if we want to adopt it too, and we won't have wasted our resources investigating dead ends. Chasing these kind of rainbows comes perilously close to looking for secret tips or magic potions as shortcuts to success. Here's the real secret: there aren't any shortcuts.

I admit I am very interested in things like this new sight idea, because the technology/gunsmithing part of our sport fascinates me. However, I'm not under any illusion that such things will improve my shooting - only training will.

FredB

P.S. Bill, if I've misinterpreted you, please let us know.

[Guest]

Yeah, but I think it very well possible that something that falls under the radar of the ever-practicing "elite" could help us others - it's well known that with enough practice, things that would never work for somebody else can be made to work very well, so why should the argument not be valid in reverse? Somebody who shoots 580+ wiill rarely try something radical new, those I know go for mental aspects or just more training - so somebody else has to pick up the new stuff, and give it a try - and if it works for a medium class shooter, it might then get picked up by some top level people - perhaps.