Hardly being an expert in the game, I'll say what's been working best for me recently. As my eyes get older along with the rest of my body, I keep adjusting.
First, I've found if the rear sight blades aren't wide enough (as on my S&W 14-3), I have a tough time staying locked on the front sight. If they're too wide, as I once tried on my LP-10, I find the front sight dropping in the alignment.
But when they're JUST RIGHT (for me), the sights hold alignment.
What happens to the fuzzy black dot down range? It just finds a nice spot above this front blade that looks right. If the fuzzy black dot isn't in the right spot, the whole shot plan feels wrong and I give myself about a second to decide if I can adjust or abort the shot. Not that I decide correctly all the time, of course.
The orientation is, I believe, some shape triangle (not nearly isosceles) between the gaps in the sights blades, and the fuzzy black dot (which you'll note I'm not calling a "target" cause as soon as I think of it this way, my eyes leave the sights).
For me, this fuzzy black dot position winds up putting my hold at what folks call sub-6.
That's my plan, and I'm sticking to it, for now at least.
Jon
Alternative point of aim technique
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
-
Steve Swartz
-
2650 Plus
Faith
Steve since you seem to be expressing a disdane for faith, Would you mind if I pray for you?? I once had a friend that told me he prayed every night that he would beat me the next day. Ny response was GOD doesn't care who wins a pistol match, and while you are praying I am dryfiring and thats why you can't beat me. I know this is an old thread but when I found it I just couldn't resist. Also Steve, I realy appreciate the gracious way you refered to Russ's performance at the usasc. I still don't understand half of what you describe as a way to shoot. Maybe i'll be smarter next week . Good shooting Bill Horton
-
Guest
Sub-6
This is from a "Life" Sharpshooter FWIW...
Due to difficulties with vision (20/400 and 2.5 diopters of astigmatism) my glasses were like coke bottles and had all sorts of issues with correction. Seeing the black sights on a center of mass aiming area was nigh impossible.
I then read about a Russian technique in Free Pistol using a sub-6 hold. I tried it and have never turned back.
After the switch, I was knocking on Master when the travails of business overtook me.
Now, back at it 25+ years later and having had the Lasik surgery, I still have some uncorrected astigmatism and am 20/30. Still shoot sub-6 and use either a 1.0 or 1.25 + diopter system to enable seeing the sights (presbyopia has overtaken me at the ripe old age of 65).
There is one peculiarity that International shooters do not have to worry about that Bullseye shooters experience. In Bullseye, the targets are commonly fired at 50 yards for slow fire (ten rounds in ten minutes) followed by the sustained fire stages fired at 25 yards.
Interestingly, one has to raise the sights (!) when adjusting from 50 to 25 yards. In my own BE guns it varies by about 6-7 clicks using Bomar sights. Also interesting is that a little less adjustment is needed for my longer sight radius (extended front sight) Giles .38 wadcutter gun.
So: if you are having physical or mental issues using center of mass, give sub-6 an honest try... I don't think you will be disappointed.
Tillman in Sunny, Hot, Humid, Miserable Florida
Due to difficulties with vision (20/400 and 2.5 diopters of astigmatism) my glasses were like coke bottles and had all sorts of issues with correction. Seeing the black sights on a center of mass aiming area was nigh impossible.
I then read about a Russian technique in Free Pistol using a sub-6 hold. I tried it and have never turned back.
After the switch, I was knocking on Master when the travails of business overtook me.
Now, back at it 25+ years later and having had the Lasik surgery, I still have some uncorrected astigmatism and am 20/30. Still shoot sub-6 and use either a 1.0 or 1.25 + diopter system to enable seeing the sights (presbyopia has overtaken me at the ripe old age of 65).
There is one peculiarity that International shooters do not have to worry about that Bullseye shooters experience. In Bullseye, the targets are commonly fired at 50 yards for slow fire (ten rounds in ten minutes) followed by the sustained fire stages fired at 25 yards.
Interestingly, one has to raise the sights (!) when adjusting from 50 to 25 yards. In my own BE guns it varies by about 6-7 clicks using Bomar sights. Also interesting is that a little less adjustment is needed for my longer sight radius (extended front sight) Giles .38 wadcutter gun.
So: if you are having physical or mental issues using center of mass, give sub-6 an honest try... I don't think you will be disappointed.
Tillman in Sunny, Hot, Humid, Miserable Florida
Anonymous wrote:(p.s. some people still believe in moly coating and cryo treating as well. Faith systems are always unassailable.)
And you have the expertise to claim that molycoating is a myth as well???? What qualifications do you claim to make such an absurb statement?
What qualifications do you have to say its an absurd statement?
He has more qualifications than you, for one he has a name.
Last edited by Richard H on Thu Jul 12, 2007 5:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
Steve Swartz
Bill:
There you go again, picking at the Target Talk scabs of yesterday . . . !
As to your comment re Russ if you go back and check I don't think I have ever had a dispute with Russ re anything substantive he has had to say about SHOOTING TECHNIQUE (pretty much everything on his website and what he has posted in that regard is pretty much standard stuff).
You will find most top shooters (I don't have the luxury of including myself in that fraternity anymore; apparently there are many in TT who believe in the "What Have You Done For Me LATELY?" philosophy!) don't really disagree on the key issues of shooting technique in any case.
My disagreements with Russ have centered on his use of Scott's bulletin board as a "free advertising" vehicle. Heck, I haven't even criticized his controversial positions on scoring/registration/awards etc. Met him at USASNC and he seems like an agreeable enough guy (albeit very, very serious). Seems like he does a lot of chest pounding on this board, but that's probably a cultural thing.
I came from a big family . . . I am used to "getting my nose rubbed in it" by certain personality types (not necessarily referring to Russ here- he was very gracious in person, as long as he was kicking my ass!).*
Mr./Ms./Mrs. Anonymouse:
I am pretty familiar with the actual "studies" on moly coating (and cryo treating, for that matter) going back to my high power and LR rifle days. I mean *beyond* the vendor spokesman (Tubb et al) supplied hype. Both the NRA and Precision Shooting have performed some studies- and while not quite up the the threshold of peer reviewed scientific literature (seems like even the peer reviewed scientific literature isn't up to those standards anymore in some disciplines!) they weren't horrible.
- If you want increased accuracy and increased barrel/throat life, don't bother.
- If you want decreased resistance on pulling the first couple of patches through the bore, then by all means moly your butt off.
Steve Swartz
* This recent spate of comment on a couple of threads has been ve-e-e-e-ery ee-e-e-e-en-teresstink from a psychology standpoint indeed! Welcome to the Jungle, Baby!
There you go again, picking at the Target Talk scabs of yesterday . . . !
As to your comment re Russ if you go back and check I don't think I have ever had a dispute with Russ re anything substantive he has had to say about SHOOTING TECHNIQUE (pretty much everything on his website and what he has posted in that regard is pretty much standard stuff).
You will find most top shooters (I don't have the luxury of including myself in that fraternity anymore; apparently there are many in TT who believe in the "What Have You Done For Me LATELY?" philosophy!) don't really disagree on the key issues of shooting technique in any case.
My disagreements with Russ have centered on his use of Scott's bulletin board as a "free advertising" vehicle. Heck, I haven't even criticized his controversial positions on scoring/registration/awards etc. Met him at USASNC and he seems like an agreeable enough guy (albeit very, very serious). Seems like he does a lot of chest pounding on this board, but that's probably a cultural thing.
I came from a big family . . . I am used to "getting my nose rubbed in it" by certain personality types (not necessarily referring to Russ here- he was very gracious in person, as long as he was kicking my ass!).*
Mr./Ms./Mrs. Anonymouse:
I am pretty familiar with the actual "studies" on moly coating (and cryo treating, for that matter) going back to my high power and LR rifle days. I mean *beyond* the vendor spokesman (Tubb et al) supplied hype. Both the NRA and Precision Shooting have performed some studies- and while not quite up the the threshold of peer reviewed scientific literature (seems like even the peer reviewed scientific literature isn't up to those standards anymore in some disciplines!) they weren't horrible.
- If you want increased accuracy and increased barrel/throat life, don't bother.
- If you want decreased resistance on pulling the first couple of patches through the bore, then by all means moly your butt off.
Steve Swartz
* This recent spate of comment on a couple of threads has been ve-e-e-e-ery ee-e-e-e-en-teresstink from a psychology standpoint indeed! Welcome to the Jungle, Baby!
-
2650 Plus
Alt POA
Steve I wasn't here several days ago. I search the posts and contribute when ever I think I may have something worthwhile to say. Thats based on my opinion only and may often be unnessasary. If it is unnessary don't bother to read it. Do you think there might be something interesting back arround page 51 ? Good Shooting Bill Horton
-
Steve Swartz
-
John Ariani
- Posts: 109
- Joined: Wed Aug 30, 2006 6:25 pm
I have some thoughts after reading the original thread of Ed's in 2006 and this updated version. I've given the centre hold and the 12 o'clock hold a try and prefer them both over the sub six hold - mainly because I can no longer see that damn fuzzy black circle.
However - I'm wondering if those who believe categorically that it's the job of the subconscious to release the shot, that maybe the subconscious needs to 'know' exactly where the centre of the target is. With sub six - whilst the black is out of focus and should be ignored, it is available for the subconscious to 'steer the shot' to.
With centre hold and 12 o'clock and the fuzzy black 'out of sight', could this mean that the subconscious release is only to an accepted settle area? I'd really like some feedback on this. Thanks.
However - I'm wondering if those who believe categorically that it's the job of the subconscious to release the shot, that maybe the subconscious needs to 'know' exactly where the centre of the target is. With sub six - whilst the black is out of focus and should be ignored, it is available for the subconscious to 'steer the shot' to.
With centre hold and 12 o'clock and the fuzzy black 'out of sight', could this mean that the subconscious release is only to an accepted settle area? I'd really like some feedback on this. Thanks.
-
Steve Swartz
John:
It has always been my contention at least that the primary mechanism at work in the sub-six hold is increased precision of and focus on perfcecting the sight alignment. Both because the error induced by not having perfect sight alignment is so huge, and the criticality of your brain needing to have perfect sight alignment so it can know where the muzzle is pointed.
I had never given much thought to your idea- it's an interesting issue. If I understand your point correctly, you are raising the issue of "aiming" (separate from "aligning") with respect to the three holds.
My initial reaction would be (see above) that the "aiming" issue is so much less important than alignment that it wouldn't really matter. However, on second thought, my response would be that my current thinking is that you are releasing to an "area" in any case.
Not randomly, of course- we shoot much better than random shot releases would allow- but does our brain really need a "point center" as a reference to know when the perfectly aligned aim is "getting better" or "closing on" the center?
Interesting idea. In terms of the data processing needed (at whatever level) to get the "planets to align" for a ten, my gut tells me that more information (sub six, where you can see everything) would have some kind of advantage over less information (center hold) or conflicting information (six hold).
?
Steve Swartz
[STANDARD DISCLAIMER: the above are the opinions of a guy who hasn't shot over 580 in a while, and who didn't shoot over 570 at the most recent Nationals! Your mileage may vary. Not valid in Alaska, Puerto Rico, or the Virgin Islands.]
It has always been my contention at least that the primary mechanism at work in the sub-six hold is increased precision of and focus on perfcecting the sight alignment. Both because the error induced by not having perfect sight alignment is so huge, and the criticality of your brain needing to have perfect sight alignment so it can know where the muzzle is pointed.
I had never given much thought to your idea- it's an interesting issue. If I understand your point correctly, you are raising the issue of "aiming" (separate from "aligning") with respect to the three holds.
My initial reaction would be (see above) that the "aiming" issue is so much less important than alignment that it wouldn't really matter. However, on second thought, my response would be that my current thinking is that you are releasing to an "area" in any case.
Not randomly, of course- we shoot much better than random shot releases would allow- but does our brain really need a "point center" as a reference to know when the perfectly aligned aim is "getting better" or "closing on" the center?
Interesting idea. In terms of the data processing needed (at whatever level) to get the "planets to align" for a ten, my gut tells me that more information (sub six, where you can see everything) would have some kind of advantage over less information (center hold) or conflicting information (six hold).
?
Steve Swartz
[STANDARD DISCLAIMER: the above are the opinions of a guy who hasn't shot over 580 in a while, and who didn't shoot over 570 at the most recent Nationals! Your mileage may vary. Not valid in Alaska, Puerto Rico, or the Virgin Islands.]
Richard H wrote:And you have the expertise to claim that molycoating is a myth as well???? What qualifications do you claim to make such an absurb statement?Anonymous wrote:(p.s. some people still believe in moly coating and cryo treating as well. Faith systems are always unassailable.)
What qualifications do you have to say its an absurd statement?
He has more qualifications than you, for one he has a name.[/quote]
I have been following this thread and find it quite amusing. The use of 'moly' on jacketed bullets (for high power and long range) is not a myth. I have moly-coated several hundred thousand bullets in my high power and long range career (spanning 30 years) and have won several local, state and regional championships using them exclusively. Upon retirement from high power shooting, I held High Master cards in High Power and Long Range. I used to have an extensive collection of comparison groupings and chronograph (Oehler) recordings illustrating that moly-coated bullets are much more advantageous to use. The data was only collected on excellent barrels.
Moly-coating did give my ammo/guns combination that extra precision that I demanded.
Matt
-
Steve Swartz
Hi Steve,Steve Swartz wrote:Matt:
The NRA and Precision Shooting need to look at your data- have you contacted them?
Steve Swartz
The information I collected over the years is nothing new to the NRA or Precision Shooting Magazine. I merely did what I learned from the articles that were published (mainly in Precision Shooting) and it did pay off. I also obtained information from other fellow 'moly' users that I put to use - all of which was available to subscribers of Precision Shooting Magazine. I don't know about present day high power competitors, but Precision Shooting Magazine was the 'standard' by which alot of us subscribed to. It was an excellent information source in my day.
Evidently, the 'guest' also had great success using moly-coated bullets as well.
I apologize for temporarily highjacking this thread but I needed to input what I learned and applied.
Matt
-
2650 Plus
Ref moly coated bullets
I really would rather discus shooting but hears a thought about moly coating. I called Seirra and spoke to one of their engeneers involved in bullet developemant. This was about ten years ago . When I inquired about mol;y coating he lead me to believe that it made no difference but if I thought it did ,the company would be happy to supply then at a slight premium to the uncoated bullets . Bottom line is I agree with Steve. Good Shooting Bill Horton