Patched vs. two eyes

[seamaster]

Have been shooting with two eyes with good result.

I watched finals round of past five Olympic Games.
Interestingly, all five golds are won by two eyes open.

So did a self study, 10 shots patched, 10 shots two eyes open. Same gun, light, pellets, distraction, etc.

Did that for a few weeks now. My conclusion favors me in direction of two eyes open.

When front sight is absolutely crispy, both patched and two eyes are of equal quality. Probably a slight, slight edge to patched.

Now when front optical quality is not top quality, edge goes definitely to two eyes open.

One eye vs two eyes, fundamentally it is 2D vs 3D. On 2D, if everything is clear, everything is great. But when optical blur comes in, it is of no use. Wide shots galore!

Where as in two eyes 3D, even if optical quality is subpar, you still know where your alignment is. Shots may not be of high quality, but they are “there”. Not many wide shots.

I can understand why in the more precise 50m free pistol, when high precision is in play, most competitors, even those who won Olympic golds with two eyes open, patched one eye.

But at my 540 level, I would shoot with two eyes, knowing on bad days, it might not be precise, but it won’t be wild either.

I wonder if the Olympic golds, full of high tension, are won that way.

[huckleberg]

I am useless with two eyes in anything other than tactical shooting where I'm only quickly referencing the sights anyway. I wish I could shoot two eyes in AP but I get dual images and everything is blurred.

[Rover]

For optimum vision you MUST have both eyes open. BUT, you don't have to see out of both.

What I do is put a strip of matte cellophane tape on the INSIDE lens of my shooting glasses for my non-shooting eye. Or use a light colored plastic blinder when using the "fancy" glasses, such as Champion.

The point is to have equal light reaching both eyes even if you can't see out of one.

[huckleberg]

For optimum vision you MUST have both eyes open. BUT, you don't have to see out of both.

The point is to have equal light reaching both eyes even if you can't see out of one.

I will have to try and simulate this with my gear at home ...

[huckleberg]

Anybody ever used something like this on their regular glasses?

https://www.etsy.com/listing/743654823/ ... or-glasses

[dulcmr-man]

No, but why pay $12 for it when a short piece of Scotch Magic Transparent tape accomplishes the same result?

Dennis, aka Dulcmrman

[Gwhite]

Anybody ever used something like this on their regular glasses?

https://www.etsy.com/listing/743654823/ ... or-glasses

VERY bad idea. Your stability is aided by your peripheral vision. You want to use as small an occluder as possible, just big enough to block the double image of the target/sights.

I explain this to the students I coach, but some of them insist on "wallpapering" their non-aiming lens with tape. We had one student that was actually getting dizzy because they had lost so much peripheral vision. As soon as we convinced them to use a just small single piece of tape, they were fine.

One additional trick is to use a little extra tape, and folded over the last 6 mm or so. That way you have a convenient handle if you need to remove or re-locate the tape.

[dulcmr-man]

So here's a question from a left eye dominant right handed/eye shooter.

When I started trap shooting after retirement in 2011 I tried shooting with two eyes. It worked a little bit, but required intense concentration and even then, my dominant left eye would "take over" in pointing the gun resulting in a miss. I cannot shoot left handed because I have an implanted defibrillator on my left side and the recoil would probably break the leads on it.

I finally went to closing my left eye when I call for the bird and that seems to work pretty well for me. I don't like the tape because I like "full" vision when not shooting.

So the question is this. Does anyone know of a method by which one can train to change eye dominance? Or should I continue to wink at the birds when shooting?

Dennis, aka Dulcmrman

[Gwhite]

It's doable. My wife was on a college pistol team and spent a lot of time with an eye patch on her dominant eye to switch. A lot depends on just how dominant the eye is, and how good the vision is with the non-dominant eye.

[huckleberg]

One additional trick is to use a little extra tape, and folded over the last 6 mm or so. That way you have a convenient handle if you need to remove or re-locate the tape.

somebody needs to put all this in a book for blind clowns like me ...

[huckleberg]

Your stability is aided by your peripheral vision. You want to use as small an occluder as possible, just big enough to block the double image of the target/sights.

So I gave this a shot ... I made a ~1.5 cm wide strip by adhering a single ply of Kleenex tissue to the back of some tape, looped it over the top and bottom of my left eye lens across the center of vision.

Proceeded to shoot my tightest group ever with my FAS6004.

Gwhite is wise ...

Huck

[seamaster]

While you are on a hot streak, you might want to venture to two unobstructed eyes shooting.

Give it a bit more time, you might join the few, the proud, the two eye marines.

[huckleberg]

While you are on a hot streak, you might want to venture to two unobstructed eyes shooting.

Give it a bit more time, you might join the few, the proud, the two eye marines.

My stereoscopic vision failed about 20 years ago due to astigmatisms. If you don’t have equal acuity in both eyes it’s very difficult.

[seamaster]

you don't need perfect two eye visions for stereo 3D focus. Dominant eye, yes. The other eye, just coming for the ride. The dominant eye still need that +0.75 for front sight best clarity, the other eye could be anything, it is just "there", seeing but not seeing. It aids in 3-D perception, but not involved in front sight clarity, which is the job of your dominant eye.

If you look at the video of shooters in ISSF video, shooting with two eyes, with no opaque occlude patch, you will notice they blink a lot. Somehow, blinking, not staring, helps a lot in shooting using both eyes wide open.

I am interested in a bigger cohort study to see whether people can shoot as well, if not better, with two eyes vs two eyes+occluder. Every body gives it a good go. If it is crap, it is crap. But I don't think so. Too many golds are won by guys with no occluders.

[rkittine]

I am cross eye dominant and use an ocluder on my glasses (started with a piece of the not so transparent scotch tape. For pistol shooting though I have used a patch. For benchrest rifle I need to see the wind flags with my one eye while sighting through the scope and for Skeet I need to be able to get a good sighting of the bird coming out of the house, but the dot on the glasses takes care of the issues.

Bob

[Gwhite]

you don't need perfect two eye visions for stereo 3D focus. Dominant eye, yes. The other eye, just coming for the ride. The dominant eye still need that +0.75 for front sight best clarity, the other eye could be anything, it is just "there", seeing but not seeing. It aids in 3-D perception, but not involved in front sight clarity, which is the job of your dominant eye.

If you look at the video of shooters in ISSF video, shooting with two eyes, with no opaque occlude patch, you will notice they blink a lot. Somehow, blinking, not staring, helps a lot in shooting using both eyes wide open.

I am interested in a bigger cohort study to see whether people can shoot as well, if not better, with two eyes vs two eyes+occluder. Every body gives it a good go. If it is crap, it is crap. But I don't think so. Too many golds are won by guys with no occluders.

Do they use a lens? If they use a strong lens, they may only be able to focus on their sights with the aiming eye, and the image from the non-dominant eye will be ignored.

I wear contact lenses, and because I'm a bit over-the-hill, they are set up for "monovision", where my right (aiming) eye is set up for distance vision, and my non-dominant eye is set up for reading. I can't focus on the front sight with my right eye without a lens, but the front sight is far enough away that I can't focus on it with my left eye either. Using a lens on the right side in my shooting glasses, my brain picks the image where it can focus, and doesn't worry much about the other one. I still use an occluder because I'm used to not having an image there at all.

Don't get hung up too much on what the gold medal winners do. Shooters follow fads just like everyone else, and what works well for one may be copied by many others without any benefit. If you want the latest science, buy the MEC book "Pistol Shooting The Olympic Disciplines". That's where I learned about the importance of peripheral vision.

[huckleberg]

I am interested in a bigger cohort study to see whether people can shoot as well, if not better, with two eyes vs two eyes+occluder. Every body gives it a good go. If it is crap, it is crap. But I don't think so. Too many golds are won by guys with no occluders.

I have tried for years to shoot two eyes open. I do very well both eyes open but only when the focus is the target (ie, defensive pistol, my AR 15 defensive still shooting, etc.). I haven't really tried shotgun sports.

[william]

Why does it seem like there are two totally different conversations going on here?
"I have tried for years to shoot two eyes open. I do very well both eyes open but only when the focus is the target (ie, defensive pistol, my AR 15 defensive still shooting, etc.). I haven't really tried shotgun sports."

Are you talking two eyes open or two eyes able to see front sight which is a very different kettle of fish.

Both eyes open - an absolute necessity. I've read studies that show acuity of the open eye reduced by as much as 50% (30% seems a more common result) compared to having the offside eye closed, patched or otherwise. Add in the peripheral vision, equilibrium problems and it's a no-brainer.

Both eyes looking at front sight - why even bother? When the problems can all be solved by a 1/2" square piece of Scotch Magic Tape, why look for the hard way to do it?

I've found an easy way to get the tape in the right place first try. Have a shooting buddy hand you your pistol after he confirms it to be safe (His confidence is very important). Then as you aim at a blank wall downrange, he steps in front of you on your weak side. While you continue to aim, he puts a magic marker dot on your lens, directly over your offside pupil. Center your tape or whatever you choose on that dot, and Bob's your uncle.

You can experiment with other materials, for instance the adhesive part of a Post-It note. But nothing beats translucent.

[seamaster]

10M ISSF shooters shooting with both eyes, with no occluder, certainly is a small, small band of brothers. Chance of them winning gold at next year Tokyo Olympics, amongst the legion of occluders, certainly should be small.

But if one of them takes gold, again. I really have to ask them, “Why make it so hard for yourself ?”

[Gwhite]

You'd be better off spending your time training than chasing phantom "advantages" like shooting without an occluder. The shooters who don't use one may have a strongly dominant shooting eye & don't need one.

I knew a very good shooter who lost all the vision in one eye from glaucoma, and it left the other eye with tunnel vision. Within his narrow field of view, he could focus just fine, and still shoot very well. Oddly enough, he didn't use an occluder. Unless you can get a copy of the vision test results for the top shooters who don't use an occluder, you are wasting your time speculating that it might help your shooting.