TargetTalk

I shoot air & standard pistol and was wondering if center hold is a viable option. I've shot 6 o'clock hold for ~15 years ...

What peaked my interest in this is that I shoot highpower rifle as a diversion and was struggling in standing until someone suggested center hold ... I tried it and WOW ... scores in the low 90's. I still use 6 o'clock hold for the supported positions.

Do any top shooters use center hold in precision pistol events?

Thanks!

Victor

Centre hold is an option, I did it recently for a Standard match as I was too lazy to change the sights from my Rapidfire settings.

Centre hold works well in good light but I suspect that if the light was dull it may be hard to distinguish the front sight properly.


Mikey

victor6 wrote:Do any top shooters use center hold in precision pistol events?

I would doubt it, especially for the ISSF events.

Apart from the oft discussed problem of black sights on grey target, you could also have serious problems in consistently judging your correct aiming area. Your only reference point is the black area of the target but, using a centre hold, more than half of that will frequently be hidden from view.

I agree with David there. Also as you shoot with the 6 o´clock area, you´re aiming at an area from where you get a good hit if you fire the gun neatly with the sights correctly aligned. If you aim at the center you will propably be tempted with trying to fire at the exact center of the target because that is what you see. That will perhaps result in some really great shots but also in many bad shots.

I know a couple of good shooters who do use centre hold to good effect. It's one of those things that you need to try and see if it works for you as only you can tell. I personally find it very difficult to tell where I am on the target for AP (or FP) and will only use it in rapid type events (i.e. where the black is massive).

Rob.

What level of scores are achieved with centre hold v area aim.

For shooting on Rapid Fire targets, the centre hold is the only realistic option, but for the precision pistol target... could it be that the 'proof of the pudding' is in the eating?

Forget about 'good' scores; how many shooters are in the international elite group using centre hold for a precision target?

Spencer C

Spencer C wrote:What level of scores are achieved with centre hold v area aim.

For shooting on Rapid Fire targets, the centre hold is the only realistic option, but for the precision pistol target... could it be that the 'proof of the pudding' is in the eating?

Forget about 'good' scores; how many shooters are in the international elite group using centre hold for a precision target?

Spencer C

I know one shooter who shoots in the 530 free / 570 air pistol who shots centre hold. I don't know where any international class shooters aim except one who shoots in the traditional sub six aim so not much of a poll from my end.

It doesn't however matter what international class shooters do, if you can't get on with sub six aim and shoot better centre hold then stick with it - we are all different.

Rob.

Erich Buljung, I believe, uses center hold. He holds the still-standing world record for standard pistol, and won an Olympic silver in air pistol.

Some of the objections raised above to center hold are simply not valid. Depending on what size front sight one uses, the black bull can provide an area - not a precise point - in which to hold. And, to the extent that the front sight conceals the bull, again the aim point becomes an area.

Another advantage I find with a center hold is that, when the eye perceives two objects lined up at a distance, it seems to want to focus naturally on the closer object which is partially blocking the view of the farther object. With proper shooting glasses, this can be the front sight. I find it easier to disregard the bull and focus on the front sight using center hold than with sub-six. YMMV

FredB

I am a strong advocate of the center hold. Matter of fact, Erich Buljung is the one who turned me on to it.

I have never heard an argument against the hold that was valid either. Yes it's hard to use. If you concentrate on the front sight like you should anyway, you can distinguish the sight from the target in any light condition. Make sure you use sight black on your sight and that will help.

As far as not knowing your aiming area...you can't pinpoint your aiming area with any of the holds nor should you try. You aiming area depends on training, position and natural point of aim. Once these are solid, you could aim at anything downrange and still shoot well.

Of course this hold does not work for everyone, just my opinion of why it is a good option.

Mike Douglass

I have to agree with Mike, I've tried center hold and shot well into the 60's with free pistol. I had to move back to sub six simply because I shoot indoor for most of the year in ranges with less than ideal light. Jimmie McCoy with the AMU also shot CH and managed 570's with FP. If you hold in the same area reguardless of where it is and break a smooth shot you will be in the middle- try it

I use center hold on about half of my guns. It works, especially if you have a rear sight notch that is large compared to the front sight.

Also, be aware that you are NOT limited to black front sights. Try colors. Fluorescent orange works well. Your eye will pick them right up.

Mike,

I used to use centre aim for air pistol for many years. I highlited the foresight with white paint, to make it easier to concentrate on without trying to focus on the aiming mark.
Quite agree about some ranges with poor lighting levels, but feel that this would only be of consequence if using a black foresight.
Having at last changed over to area aiming and with slightly deteriorating eyesight, I would be reluctant to change back.
As Rob says, if you don't try it you cannot evaluate and compare the end results.
Like all changes in pistol shooting, you would need to persevere with centre aiming for quite a while to be able to reach a sound conclusion.

John

Thanks to all that replied. I just wanted confirmation before investing valuable training time that it wasn't a 'dead-end' technique. It is clear by the response here that some have found success using center hold ... but that, of course, doesn't guarantee that it'll work for me ... but I'm going to give it a try.

Thanks again,

Victor

Just seems right to aim where you want to hit.Maybe someone tries your gun, wouldn't it be better to point and shoot? Just having trouble shooting somewhere and hitting somewhere else.Maybe I should try 6 oclock or sub 6 but it don't seem natural. How do you get use to it? Gotta try it!

funny that this shouled be talked about. i tried a center hold and it works well for me but there is only one problem, my front sight seed to be too small and i could not tell where it was in relation to the target. i switched to a wider front sight blade that was the same width as the bull and things got better.

if i set my sight picture to be the front sight covering the entire bull with the bull sitting between my rear sight blades, things worked out ok. i am going to try experimenting with this more and see what happens.

Not a rhetorical question: What is the purpose of an aiming area?

*Any* aiming area choice (6, sub-6, center, off to the left, off to the right, above target frame, whatever) will work just fine.

As long as whatever picture you choose accomplishes 4 things:

1) Can precisely align the sights and keep them in alignment
2) Can recognize any deviation from alignment
3) Allows you to determine if your aligned sights are settled
4) Does not cause you to try to release shot with a specific sight picture

Whether or not the particular aiming area you choose is "convenient" in terms of shooting different disciplines, lending someone your gun, etc. are somewhat secondary IMNSHO.

YMMV

Steve

bubba_zenetti wrote: if i set my sight picture to be the front sight covering the entire bull with the bull sitting between my rear sight blades, things worked out ok. i am going to try experimenting with this more and see what happens.

If I'm wrong, I apologize, but this sounds like you are looking for a precise sight picture. Unclear on the concept - it's AREA aim, not precision aim. Listen to Steve and Ed and others. I shoot center hold, and I try to choose a front sight or rear gap that are NOT the same apparent width as the bull, so that I won't be tempted to try to line them all up precisely. Everyone is different, but as you are apparently beginning, I wanted to offer this thought.

HTH,
FredB

Just a few thoughts on the recent threads about hold area.

First some background. I guess we can all agree that shooting is a skill sport. It also is heavily dependent on hand eye coordination, right. Maybe 80% mental discipline and 20% physical, is that fair?

Now all that said. Some basic human instinct stuff. As we deveolp as children we coordinate our physical movements with our primary sense-being vision- See the Ball Catch the Ball stuff. We use this daily. It is instinct. Now this can get lengthy, but I'll try to be brief. As a species we use our paralax vision and our hand eye coordination to give us preditory skills. These skills include many primal functions like grabbing prey and throwing at prey-does this sound right?

Now to the shooting part. As part of this basic instinct we look at "prey" or objects and we "instinctively" look to the center of that target. For example- Bowling. You want to hit a pin, you look at it focus on it and aim for it. Take a rock and pitch it at something, you focus on the area you are trying to hit. Still with me?

In the shooting sports this is also the primary source of aiming. Take a rifle with a scope. Did anybody have to tell you to center on the target? Usually no. As a kid you did this plenty of times. It was an instict that was reinforced by daily life. Like spitting

Now I can hear the calls now- but six o'clock, but sub six etc etc. Yes they do work. I shot sub six for years. I still like it. It is engrained in my skull. It took a lot of work though. I believe that you can get good results with un-natural areas of aim, but I feel that for most shooters who have less than 4-5 days a week to train, that center hold will prove a better method. I believe that to develop the subconscience mind into seeing sub six as a natural hold area takes years of training.

I kind of liken it to this, you are walking on a 4x4 timber laying flat on the ground -foot over foot balancing. No problem right. Now take the beam and place it 20 feet off the ground- same beam right. What has changed. Your subconscience recognizes that you are in an un-natural attitude, making you very uncomfortable. Like many shooters who work with six o'clock hold and sub six holds. Is it that the sights are different? No you feel un-natural.

I work with a great deal of Free Pistol shooters who have this problem- A great deal of desire to train but not enough time to train- especially when it comes to reprogramming a basic instinct.

I read somewere that shooting was an art, not a science- Bull. At the world level there is plenty of science. Just ask a world level shooter. Good programs spend plenty on sports sciences and athlete development.

As for hold- try them all. Find what fits best with your comfort level- yes each has some particular point which need tuning to the individual, like sight width, lens color and magnification etc. This is all just part of the science of shooting. Take a look at Yur Yev's book- the Russian program got so good for so long due to the scientific approach. The Chinese have too.

Greg

It was nice to see some good reasons for center hold.Its got to be your cup of tea! Maybe I'll stick with it. Afraid to try the others.Maybe I can try 6 oclock and sub without changing sights and see what the groups look like.

Not enough time to point-by-point dissect Greg's post.

Beware of paying too much attention to positions that agree with your biases . . . learning comes from paying *more* attention to things that *don't* confirm your existing beliefs . . . not from "rolling around in your own stink" so to speak!

Steve Swartz