TargetTalk

I'm old too; so I read Carlos Castaneda in my youth in addition to Zen in the Art of Archery. Remember what Don Juan said?

That to become a sorcerer you had to "stop your internal conversation".
Exactly what the scientists say in the linked research report above!
So it's not empty mind, but maybe "non-verbal" brain function.
And they have measured it :-)

Anybody know how to "eskimo roll" a kayak?
It's very hard to teach and learn verbally.
Best done through motor learning.
Visual and physical guidance works better than words.

The same approach seems relevant to all technical sports.

luftskytter wrote:I'm old too; so I read Carlos Castaneda in my youth in addition to Zen in the Art of Archery. Remember what Don Juan said?

That to become a sorcerer you had to "stop your internal conversation".
Exactly what the scientists say in the linked research report above!
So it's not empty mind, but maybe "non-verbal" brain function.
And they have measured it :-)

Anybody know how to "eskimo roll" a kayak?
It's very hard to teach and learn verbally.
Best done through motor learning.
Visual and physical guidance works better than words.

The same approach seems relevant to all technical sports.

"non-verbal brain function" is a very good verbal description of what is supposed to be non-verbal. Thought mantra words are ok, but even they need to be trained into non-verbal. Perhaps "concept" might apply

1.
a general notion or idea; conception.
2.
an idea of something formed by mentally combining all its characteristics or particulars; a construct.
3.
a directly conceived or intuited object of thought.

Our best shooters found that switching from words to a "picture" after establishing NPA and when ready to allow the rifle to fire gave much better results. They either "saw" the perfect sight picture or the projectile going through the enter of the X.

It has been measured that doing so cuts the associated mental time in half (thus cutting wobble area in half).

Words are "left brain" while pictures are "right brain" associated.

I like what Pat said. I guess I used a similar approach, starting with key words to get me started than transition into visual stimulation to break the shot via subconscience actions.

I also worked with music as a passive stimulant for between shots, filling the mind with non stress related matter. Playing a tune in my head.

I wish I could visualize a picture as easily as I can a tune in my head. (sometimes the tune is hard to get rid of). But an in the mind picture for me is so fleeting, I find it hard to utilize.

Can someone set up a camera to snap a picture of sights and target all lined up and focused to duplicate what you are supposed to see when making a shot? As if the camera were your eye.



H H

This question of exactly what the sights/target should look like has come up a number of times here, though at present I'm having trouble finding a more recent thread with image contributions by various members. So far though all I've seen are 'theoretical' sight pictures, done in MS Paint or other image editing/authoring software. So I gave it a try using my actual pistol and home target setup. It'd be cumbersome to try at the club... and my time there is somewhat precious, only 2 hours per week, so I don't want to waste it on picture taking. So here are a couple of rather unsatisfying but perhaps useful images. One is of a conventional sight picture for 10m AP, namely sub-6 hold with focus on the front sight. The other is how I see it, as I centre aim and focus on the target, not the front sight. Neither image is exactly how I see it, largely owing to the limitations of my camera (Pentax Optio W90 - I can set focus manually, but the depth of field is not user-definable so these are much less crisply focused than my eye sees it). The front blade/rear slot in my case actually show a white line, thin but visible, when I shoot. In these pictures that's rather hard to see. What I've gone for is mostly zooming to the correct ratio between target paper (scaled 7metre target) and the rear sight blade. Forgive my bad 'aim'... it's difficult holding the camera just right behind the pistol which was mounted on my only tripod.

I don't have the time to set up and photograph, but let me give some technical info for those who might want to do so. The eye is a simple optical system; the lens is a slightly aspheric meniscus lens with a focal length of roughly (people vary) a 15-17mm focal length and an aperture of about f/3.5 when the pupil is fully dilated.

If the eye is focused at infinity everything is in tolerable focus (1/30 mm circle of confusion) at about 3.5 meters. Focused at 1 meter (crudely arm length plus distance to the front sight) depth of field extends from a bit more (I think) than half a meter to about 2 meters. I got into this about 15-20 years ago when I was doing some analysis of the old Minox subminiature camera system, and in particular examining its potential and its shortcomings.

If you Google "Eye is a Minox" you'll find references to the article, but sadly the site I wrote it for is gone.

Everything appears much sharper if you can turn up the light level so that the pupil is not fully dilated. The depth of field increases, and the effects of any uncorrected aberrations in the eye are reduced.

I've just had a peek at it, and that looks like a fascinating article, something to do before sleep tonight, thanks! In case anyone's interested, it can still be found intact on the Internet Archive site, here:
http://web.archive.org/web/199710091645 ... peterd.htm

Man, I wanted a little Minox so badly back in my photographer days. Just never could quite justify the $400 or so for a mint condition unit of the model I wanted, as the film is so tiny and was already getting more difficult to find in the 1980's, and I was really more interested in optics like the pricier Leica stuff. Then that career sort of faded as I lost interest in spending long nights in the darkroom... Still, lovely bits of design in those old Minox cameras.

There was a time when I was a bit flush and fascinated by Minox. So now I own at least one each of every major variant through the LX and ECX (I don't worry about short run commemoratives; there was no new technology in those.). All bought used.

And I have 3 M-series Leicas and a bunch of lenses. Haven't used a Minox in a long time, but I still love the design and tech.

Apparently we do share interests! But I don't have the machining skills you do!! I envy.

All but one of the Leicas came used - one for my thirtieth birthday, so not young.

Pete

I had a well-broken-in M2 first, in art school. Loved that thing, so dense it felt like military equipment. Then I treated myself to an M4 and a 50mm Noctilux, but it turned out to be bad timing as I lost my nice part-time union job and had to sell stuff for a while to pay rent. Missed those things ever since, especially experiments with IR film and that old Ilford polyester dye-transfer stuff, some incredibly fine grain and beautiful textures with both films. But for me film is long gone history, as is taking photography seriously. I have the waterproof, knock-proof (mostly kid-proof as my boy tortures everything to death) Pentax and my phone takes good enough snapshots. Had a Yashica 6cm camera but just never used it. Even broke down and craigslisted my old Gossen Lunasix meter recently, as it was languishing in a drawer for 30 years. I'll always feel a bit wistful about highschool and college film work, but won't go back. Too much else to do. And for now, pistols satisfy my fine hardware cravings. :-)

The M-2 was issued as military hardware. Some versions were made in Canada, and I think some in Germany. Some used special model numbers and weren't exactly like their civilian counterparts.

Just saw this in the BBC news, a record auction price for an early Leica prototype:
http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-18050363

jackh wrote:I wish I could visualize a picture as easily as I can a tune in my head. (sometimes the tune is hard to get rid of). But an in the mind picture for me is so fleeting, I find it hard to utilize.

Can someone set up a camera to snap a picture of sights and target all lined up and focused to duplicate what you are supposed to see when making a shot? As if the camera were your eye.



H H

What your eye sees is past history. If you wait for a perfect sight picture you will always be behind the shot. What you need to do in order to execute slow fire shots that are mostly in the ten ring, or close to it, is to develop a shot process that will allow your shots to break when your wobble is inside the ten ring. The army has conducted many experiments to show their shooters that for most people, who all have good holds, triggering is everything. They set up a machine to pull the trigger while the shooter just held the gun, as still as possible. The shots were all good, and within the shooters hold. Most people shoot poor shots because they watch their sights move and lose confidence in their hold. Instead of putting the gun down, and starting again, they commit a triggering error which gives them a shot far worse than what their hold allows. it is not the 9s that destroy your score. It is the 6s and 7s.

That point about seeing the sights moving around, putting off the will to shoot, is stated in many writings on shooting. I think that's why I'm making good gains lately (shot a 553 yesterday with no warm-up and saw at least a half-dozen shots I can improve on with my current hold stability) after shifting to focus on the target, blurring the sights. It takes pressure off, when aligning two blurred sights which don't jump around so obviously as when focused on the front sight. Of course the same rationale is used in blurring the target, which is the most popular method. It's just something I grew up doing with pellet rifles and have found more comfortable after a year struggling with focus on the front sight, something which caused more 'chicken finger' in my case.

Gerard, you can be a successful shooter by looking at either the sights or the target, or at least some people can look at the target with a blurred sight. Most people especially the near sighted find it easier to focus on the front sight. This is why so many people succeed with a sub six hold. Their eye does not jump back and forth from their sights to the target. A good pair of shooting glasses can make your only focus, the front sight while it blurs out the target and kind of makes it difficult for your focus to shift. This eye jumping back and forth from the sights to the target is one of the worst habits to get into, and does cause a lot of chicken finger. I know what you mean about getting good shots with the sights blurring out. I find that as long as my trigger finger isnt chicken and I get the shot off before my hold goes, and dont stop my trigger pull in reaction to sight movement, I have a good shot.

Very nice inputs. I must learn not to let the eye travel between target and sights. The Carlos Casteneda stuff bought back memories, specially about the inner silence and stopping the chatter in the brain. It is as close as I could get to being in the zone.

Warm Regards,

Dev

The first step is to not take the term literally because as many have stated it's not possible. What it means is to replace distracting thoughts as they enter the mind with a silent mantra, a word or a phrase that wipes away the useless thought. Every time a thought creeps in, replace it with a mantra. You decide what the mantra should be, it's uniquely yours. It takes practice but works pretty quickly. What happens is that once your mind is quieted down, under your control, your shooting instincts take over, you move totally into shooting mode. You don't think it, you become it. You don't know it, you are it. What that means is that it is not a battle between you and the target. In a sense you become the target. If this leaves you confused just get hold of some material about meditation. It will clarify the subject.