Fred:
Aha! That's one I hadn't really considered much before . . . I can see that under some circumstances that would be a consideration. I'm a -4 something; I think I will try a few shots without my glasses and try a center hold . . . yes, I will put the cats and dogs out of harm's way first!
In general, my guess would be that the amount of "eye strain" *for most people* would be worse with a center hold though.
I would think it would be very difficult to ignore the target when it is behind the front sight- right smack dab there in the center of your FOV. I would think that it would be a lot easier to ignore the target when it is behind and above the front sight; "out of the way" as it were.
I do know some world-class shooters who have tried (at least once) and some who have adopted the center hold. In the US, wasn't Erich Buljung somewhat of a proponent of center hold? Can't remember his logic for it though.
Steve Swartz
where is the best place to aim on the target.
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
Center hold benefits from Michael Douglass
Center hold vs 6 o'clock hold (Archived topic)
Center hold vs 6 o'clock hold (Archived topic)
-
Steve Swartz
Correction: center hold benefit (not benefits) from Mike Douglass back in January 2004. Perhaps Mike should jump in and speak for himself here if he feels the need, but to paraphrase:
Mike's position was that it is harder to see the front sight with center hold- this makes you work harder to concentrate on it- and this is better because anything that makes you concentrate harder on the front sight is good.
He admitted that his logic might not be compelling for everyone.
Later in the thread, he also noted that very narrow slits of light around front sight was preferred, because it would amplify errors in alignment and force you to improve your hold.
As to the first issue, IMHO I agree with him that his logic is not universally compelling on the first issue. Extrapolating the point to make a point, shooting in very dim light without your proper spectacles would also make it harder to see the front sight; forcing you to really really concentrate on it that much more. This therefore must be way better.
Actually I think there is a tradeoff here; perhaps Mike and others feel the "sweet spot" between making the release of the shot "too easy" vs. "too hard" is a little on the "harder" as opposed to the "easier" side.
This "sweet spot" idea when faced with trade-offs in technique is a fascinating one I think.
As to the second issue- trade offs apply here as well. If the amount of light is too much, it will be difficult to maintain precise alignment as the reference points are too far from each other. If the amount of light is too small, "chicken finger" results as the alignment will always look worse than it really is; reference will be lost if one side or the other totally closes off, and (back to the issue one) it becomes more difficult to focus on the front sight as the rear sight creeps into the FOV center.
So- where is the sweet spot between tradeoffs in the mechanical elements of technique?
And waht about the mental elements of technique? For example- my shot plan used to include relaxation mantra, autosuggestive focusing, visualization, etc. for each shot . . . by the time I got the actual sights hanging out there I was too exhausted to focus on releasing the shot! On the other hand, just throwing the sights up there and blazing away works ok for IDPA, but doesn't exactly perforate the center x in my book.
Thoughts?
Steve Swartz
Mike's position was that it is harder to see the front sight with center hold- this makes you work harder to concentrate on it- and this is better because anything that makes you concentrate harder on the front sight is good.
He admitted that his logic might not be compelling for everyone.
Later in the thread, he also noted that very narrow slits of light around front sight was preferred, because it would amplify errors in alignment and force you to improve your hold.
As to the first issue, IMHO I agree with him that his logic is not universally compelling on the first issue. Extrapolating the point to make a point, shooting in very dim light without your proper spectacles would also make it harder to see the front sight; forcing you to really really concentrate on it that much more. This therefore must be way better.
Actually I think there is a tradeoff here; perhaps Mike and others feel the "sweet spot" between making the release of the shot "too easy" vs. "too hard" is a little on the "harder" as opposed to the "easier" side.
This "sweet spot" idea when faced with trade-offs in technique is a fascinating one I think.
As to the second issue- trade offs apply here as well. If the amount of light is too much, it will be difficult to maintain precise alignment as the reference points are too far from each other. If the amount of light is too small, "chicken finger" results as the alignment will always look worse than it really is; reference will be lost if one side or the other totally closes off, and (back to the issue one) it becomes more difficult to focus on the front sight as the rear sight creeps into the FOV center.
So- where is the sweet spot between tradeoffs in the mechanical elements of technique?
And waht about the mental elements of technique? For example- my shot plan used to include relaxation mantra, autosuggestive focusing, visualization, etc. for each shot . . . by the time I got the actual sights hanging out there I was too exhausted to focus on releasing the shot! On the other hand, just throwing the sights up there and blazing away works ok for IDPA, but doesn't exactly perforate the center x in my book.
Thoughts?
Steve Swartz
-
Fred
actually....
Steve,Steve Swartz wrote: I would think it would be very difficult to ignore the target when it is behind the front sight- right smack dab there in the center of your FOV. I would think that it would be a lot easier to ignore the target when it is behind and above the front sight; "out of the way" as it were.
I do know some world-class shooters who have tried (at least once) and some who have adopted the center hold. In the US, wasn't Erich Buljung somewhat of a proponent of center hold? Can't remember his logic for it though.
Steve Swartz
Actually, I have found the opposite of your supposition to be true for me. I started with sub-6 and used it for a number of years, during which my eye always tended to jump up to "check on" the bull. When I initially tried the switch to center hold about 2 years ago, it was with the concern you expressed above. To my surprise, I found it much easier to ignore the bull when it is partially obscured by the front sight.
Try this: look at 2 objects at different distances from you that do not overlap. Your focus will tend to shift from one to the other. Then look at 2 objects, one of which partially obscures the other. For me at least, it is much easier to keep focus on the nearer one, assuming it is within the comfortable focal distance of my eyes. YMMV
As for your second comment above, I must first do a little tweaking by pointing out that it was you who categorically dismissed the whole question of "who uses what", wasn't it? Anyway, Erich Buljung indeed used center hold in setting the still-standing world standard pistol record and winning the silver in AP at the Seoul (sp?) Olympics.
However he was not what you would call a "proponent" of it. I attended 2 master's camps at the OTC, each a full week long, and never once heard him advocate use of the center hold. Just guessing, but he might well have thought the same thing Mike Douglass mentioned in the Aug. Target Talk posting I previously referenced: aim where ever it is most comfortable for you to aim, and adjust your sights accordingly; alignment is really all that matters. Makes sense to me.
FredB
-
Guest
All,
Shooting is a very individual sport What works for one person may not work for another. Forums like Target Talk give us insite into what works for a variety of people but each of us needs to experiment with various techniques to see what works best in our particular situation.
I have a lot of trouble with sub six hold. That bull is sitting there just above the front sight drawing my focus down range. I agree that it is very easy to see the sights and sight alignment but that damn seductive bull is just hanging there calling to me.
When I use center hold I don't hold on the center of the bull. I hold on the center of the square paper. Very much like a shooter does when the target is turned around with the white showing. I pretty much ignore the bull and focus on the front sight. When I do it right, the bull seems to fade away and all I see are the sights hanging there in the center of the paper.
One problem with using a center hold is that not all air pistols have a tall enough front sight to provide the necessary adjustment of the rear sight. I guess that gives us an indication how prevelent a sub six hold has become. I'm not advocating center hold for anyone else. Usually it's best not to try and reinvent the wheel. If most of the top shooters use a technique then that is probably the best way to start. If it doesn't work for you then change and try something else. When you win the gold doing something different everyone will be trying your technique.
Doug in Virginia
Shooting is a very individual sport What works for one person may not work for another. Forums like Target Talk give us insite into what works for a variety of people but each of us needs to experiment with various techniques to see what works best in our particular situation.
I have a lot of trouble with sub six hold. That bull is sitting there just above the front sight drawing my focus down range. I agree that it is very easy to see the sights and sight alignment but that damn seductive bull is just hanging there calling to me.
When I use center hold I don't hold on the center of the bull. I hold on the center of the square paper. Very much like a shooter does when the target is turned around with the white showing. I pretty much ignore the bull and focus on the front sight. When I do it right, the bull seems to fade away and all I see are the sights hanging there in the center of the paper.
One problem with using a center hold is that not all air pistols have a tall enough front sight to provide the necessary adjustment of the rear sight. I guess that gives us an indication how prevelent a sub six hold has become. I'm not advocating center hold for anyone else. Usually it's best not to try and reinvent the wheel. If most of the top shooters use a technique then that is probably the best way to start. If it doesn't work for you then change and try something else. When you win the gold doing something different everyone will be trying your technique.
Doug in Virginia
Going back over MD's posts, he seems to be referring to a 6-o'clock hold as being 'difficult' (my terminology) to hold precisely on the bottom of the black.Shin wrote:Center hold benefits from Michael Douglass
Center hold vs 6 o'clock hold (Archived topic)
The sub-6-oclock overcomes this once you can convince a shooter (or yourself) that you don't need to try for a perfect 10.9 every time.
60 x 10.0s would put you in a pretty good position going into a Final...
Joking aside, no normal human can 'hold' that well. With (good?) training a shooter will improve on their ability to 'hold'. Aiming into an area WITHOUT a precise aiming mark and letting your mind, body and training do the automatic things is a good and proven way to go (not the only way)
Analogy:
(don't try this!!!) If you tried driving down a multi lane road and keep exactly 6 inches from the left or right lane markings - you will soon start to wander jerkily all over the lane just like a learner driver. Go back to driving with your 'focus' somewhere out in front of the car and you should have no trouble keeping in the lane
Trying to fire a 'perfect' shot in pistol will get in the way - go for a good-ish shot.
With skill and application, anywhere in the 10 ring will do... (I should be so lucky)
Spencer C
Reminds me of the quote from "The Next Karate Kid": the answer is important only if you ask the right question.Steve Swartz wrote:. . . Amazing that people think I am quite rude when I generally point out that the counterargument, however true it might be, is also completely irrelevant. A might be better than B, while B might still be preferred by any number of top-level shooters.
Steve Swartz
For beginners like me, it's really easy to ask the wrong question. Thanks for challenging us to step back and take another look.
Don P
-
Bruce Quick
- Posts: 1
- Joined: Sun Sep 18, 2005 7:00 pm
Where to aim ?
Hi david and others,
I have to say , in my opinion , there is no " best place to aim" . in fact , I feel that where the sights sit on the target is the least important thing aboout shooting a ten. I have used center aim , for all 5 issf matches , and have had a reasonable success rate at commonwealth games level. My technique is an " area " aiming technique , it's simply in the middle of the target. I have always believed that aiming at some exact distance below the black is too much like " aiming at a point" - in summary - I don't think it matters where the AREA is that you aim at , as long as we don't try to hold on a "point"
I have to say , in my opinion , there is no " best place to aim" . in fact , I feel that where the sights sit on the target is the least important thing aboout shooting a ten. I have used center aim , for all 5 issf matches , and have had a reasonable success rate at commonwealth games level. My technique is an " area " aiming technique , it's simply in the middle of the target. I have always believed that aiming at some exact distance below the black is too much like " aiming at a point" - in summary - I don't think it matters where the AREA is that you aim at , as long as we don't try to hold on a "point"
-
David Levene
- Posts: 5617
- Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 12:49 pm
- Location: Ruislip, UK
-
Ed Hall
A "perceived" advantage for the beginner, is the situation where the pellet hits where you are aiming. The concept of aiming at one place to hit a different place is yet another unnatural aspect of the shooting sports. A beginner may find an advantage in the naturalness of expecting a hit were they are aiming.
A type of aiming I have yet to see/hear from any other source than myself is the twelve o'clock sight picture. Of course you'd really have to do some mechanical sight work to achieve it. For those wondering, "What?," the twelve o'clock picture has you aiming at the white above the bull. This allows you to obscure the bull with the barrel and gives you about the same picture as you would have shooting at a blank target.
As others have said, the real issue in finding your best area of aim is to find the one that gives you the greatest consistency. If you get right down to it, even the sight alignment fits this. You don't have to align the sights in the described proper manner, but they do need to be aligned the same for each shot to achieve consistency.
Everything in this sport is governed by consistency. Only through consistency in the application of the process can you expect consistency in the results. The more consistent the process, the smaller the group. Consistency can best be obtained by looking for natural tendencies and using them as much as possible.
Pile it on; I have high shoulders...
Take Care,
Ed Hall
http://www.airforceshooting.org/
http://www.starreloaders.com/edhall/
A type of aiming I have yet to see/hear from any other source than myself is the twelve o'clock sight picture. Of course you'd really have to do some mechanical sight work to achieve it. For those wondering, "What?," the twelve o'clock picture has you aiming at the white above the bull. This allows you to obscure the bull with the barrel and gives you about the same picture as you would have shooting at a blank target.
As others have said, the real issue in finding your best area of aim is to find the one that gives you the greatest consistency. If you get right down to it, even the sight alignment fits this. You don't have to align the sights in the described proper manner, but they do need to be aligned the same for each shot to achieve consistency.
Everything in this sport is governed by consistency. Only through consistency in the application of the process can you expect consistency in the results. The more consistent the process, the smaller the group. Consistency can best be obtained by looking for natural tendencies and using them as much as possible.
Pile it on; I have high shoulders...
Take Care,
Ed Hall
http://www.airforceshooting.org/
http://www.starreloaders.com/edhall/
sub six hold
Considering how our eyes/minds percieve geometric patterns, wouldn't a sub six hold with the amount of light betwen the top of the front sight and the bottom of the bull being equal to the white on either side of the front sight (between the rear sight ) be most efficient? Seems to me it would be nearly as good as the aperture sights used in rifle shooting.
Re: sub six hold
That's exactly what my coach is teaching me. But that requires you to focus on the target. I'm sooo confuuused!Pat McCoy wrote:Considering how our eyes/minds percieve geometric patterns, wouldn't a sub six hold with the amount of light betwen the top of the front sight and the bottom of the bull being equal to the white on either side of the front sight (between the rear sight ) be most efficient?
Perhaps the problem is the definition of focus. You need to pay close attention to the top edge of the front sight, and the rest of the sight picture will be slightly out of focus. If you are young your eyes can accomodate fast enough that you think you see everything in focus, but it is really due to rapid eye movement from one part of the sight picture to another.
Look, really look hard, at the buffalo on the back of a new nickel for fifteen to twenty seconds and see the hair on his beard. resist shifting your attention to his mane, eye, nose, etc. Harder to do than you may think. Once you cand do it, try the same depth of attention to the top of the front sight. Don't let your attention wander to the bull, rear sights, gaps between sight, etc.
I find this easier to do, and show, using a pistol with a front sight the has a scratch or nick near the top edge. Givess one someting to focus on and try to maintain that focus.
Look, really look hard, at the buffalo on the back of a new nickel for fifteen to twenty seconds and see the hair on his beard. resist shifting your attention to his mane, eye, nose, etc. Harder to do than you may think. Once you cand do it, try the same depth of attention to the top of the front sight. Don't let your attention wander to the bull, rear sights, gaps between sight, etc.
I find this easier to do, and show, using a pistol with a front sight the has a scratch or nick near the top edge. Givess one someting to focus on and try to maintain that focus.
-
Mike Douglass
front sight
For me focusing on the front sight as a whole worked best. I was unsuccessful when focusing on a scratch or other imperfection on the sight. My opinion is you are trying to make your focus too narrow and you are therefore not focuisng on the sight.
This is why I am not a big fan of putting a dot on the front sight. Just because you can see some imperfection or smaller dot on the sight does not mean you are looking at the sight.
Once again, there will be disagreement with this and that is understandable. Use what works for you. As I have said before I tend to tell you why I did things and then explain the reasons behind it.
I worked toward seeing a big, crisp, black rectangle with all sides clearly visible.
Mike Douglass
This is why I am not a big fan of putting a dot on the front sight. Just because you can see some imperfection or smaller dot on the sight does not mean you are looking at the sight.
Once again, there will be disagreement with this and that is understandable. Use what works for you. As I have said before I tend to tell you why I did things and then explain the reasons behind it.
I worked toward seeing a big, crisp, black rectangle with all sides clearly visible.
Mike Douglass
Just wanted to jump in and add my .02 in reply to Don90250. I just came up from session in my basement, so while it's fresh...
As other posters mentioned, you're looking for an equal gap between the front sight and rear sight sides and bottom of the black. But this certainly doesn't mean you need to focus on the target. My last second? or so before squeezing the trigger goes something like this:
- A final "relational glance" as I call it, at the bull, to make sure I'm
roughly where I should be.
- Bring primary focus back to the front sight with an awareness of the gap
between it, the sides of the rear, and the bull (fuzzy now).
- So now I've got the whole picture (albeit mostly fuzzy). And when gaps
are even and front/rear sight alignment square, I....
- Focus HARD on the front sight and squeeeeeze back slow and straight
on the trigger, continuing to stare at the front sight for 2 sec or so after
the shot.
Despite how much it feels the gun may have moved, I'll tell you... If those sights were square and you were focusing hard on the front, what seems like a lot of wobble translates into VERY little on the target (as read on this site). This was hard for me to accept initially. But my four tight 9's and a 10 tonight attest to that, after me thinking I wasn't even all in the black. (And I'm a newbie with a Daisy 717, so that's really GOOD for me! Hmmm, a bit of windage and elevation and that could've been more 10's.... :)
Good shooting all!
As other posters mentioned, you're looking for an equal gap between the front sight and rear sight sides and bottom of the black. But this certainly doesn't mean you need to focus on the target. My last second? or so before squeezing the trigger goes something like this:
- A final "relational glance" as I call it, at the bull, to make sure I'm
roughly where I should be.
- Bring primary focus back to the front sight with an awareness of the gap
between it, the sides of the rear, and the bull (fuzzy now).
- So now I've got the whole picture (albeit mostly fuzzy). And when gaps
are even and front/rear sight alignment square, I....
- Focus HARD on the front sight and squeeeeeze back slow and straight
on the trigger, continuing to stare at the front sight for 2 sec or so after
the shot.
Despite how much it feels the gun may have moved, I'll tell you... If those sights were square and you were focusing hard on the front, what seems like a lot of wobble translates into VERY little on the target (as read on this site). This was hard for me to accept initially. But my four tight 9's and a 10 tonight attest to that, after me thinking I wasn't even all in the black. (And I'm a newbie with a Daisy 717, so that's really GOOD for me! Hmmm, a bit of windage and elevation and that could've been more 10's.... :)
Good shooting all!
-
Lanning R. Hochhauser
- Posts: 62
- Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 8:45 am
- Location: Illinois
Center Hold Etc.
MSC,
The one thing I never do in my shot preparation is focus on the front. It can easily get to be a bad habit. As I raise my pistol I focus on the rear sight until the front sight comes into view. I use sub-six hold and set up the spaces between the post, rear sights and bull with the bull fuzzy at all times. I strive to keep the focus on the front sight during the 1/2 to 1 second follow throught after shot release. If you ever reach a point where your focus jumps from post to bull and back again, it will drive you nuts. It took me many hours of blank wall drills to break the habit.
The one thing I never do in my shot preparation is focus on the front. It can easily get to be a bad habit. As I raise my pistol I focus on the rear sight until the front sight comes into view. I use sub-six hold and set up the spaces between the post, rear sights and bull with the bull fuzzy at all times. I strive to keep the focus on the front sight during the 1/2 to 1 second follow throught after shot release. If you ever reach a point where your focus jumps from post to bull and back again, it will drive you nuts. It took me many hours of blank wall drills to break the habit.
Re: sub six hold
The point is that is doesn't require you to 'focus' on the target. You can perceive the differences in light very well between blurred target and sharp sights. The whole concept relies on you letting your subconscious do the hard work, whilst you relax and just 'concentrate' on the foresight. The whole idea is that you find somewhere to point the sights that feels comfortable and natural and then you will be able to repeat that process with a high degree of consistent precision. If however you try and control it consciously you will more than likely mess it up.Don90250 wrote:That's exactly what my coach is teaching me. But that requires you to focus on the target. I'm sooo confuuused!Pat McCoy wrote:Considering how our eyes/minds percieve geometric patterns, wouldn't a sub six hold with the amount of light betwen the top of the front sight and the bottom of the bull being equal to the white on either side of the front sight (between the rear sight ) be most efficient?
Rob.