Front sight and target together!!??

[tirvin73]

Try this, hold up your thumb and cover an object, like a wall clock. If I shut my left eye, all I can see is my thumb. With both eyes open I can see my thumbnail as well as the clock. Not two thumbs, or two clocks. One thumb and one clock. I would use the term subconcious rather than unconcious. I understand what you mean. There is a possibility there is a subconcious shift between the two eyes. I do know that the subconcious tends to take over during high speed action. Like drawing and firing in 3/4 of a second. I do it without thinking about it. After the timer goes off, the last thing I remember is holding the firing position, seeing the front sight, and the bullet hole. I am fully aware that I am drawing, popping the safety and pulling the trigger. The speed comes from repetition and muscle memory. I believe that the visual muscle memory can be trained as well as other muscles in the body. When I began shooting for speed and accuracy I saw double with both eyes open. I went through the tape over the weak eye lens on the glasses. Closing one completely, whatever.It is funny that the SHOOTERS that I compete with are not so quick to disregard the subject I've talked about here. I guess I'm shooting with those who don't put a whole lot into what these so called "instructors" or "gun writers" have to say. I guess they can, as well as you,think for themselves.

[darkgael]

I'll give it a try. Already have. There is a tendency for the two images - the clock and the thumb to drift together after a moment or two. I can see that concentration can keep them apart. I wonder about this but I'm certainly willing to give it a try. My competition experience is in Bullseye shooting, both conventional pistol and international. I normally shoot with both eyes open.
Instructors and gun writers aside, there is a wealth of evidence from the "optical community" that supports the sub/unconscious shift from eye to eye though. I'll work on it.
Pete

[Erik]

And can you do it on demand? Under stress? With the urgency of the moment? The type of urgency that brings risk of injury or death with it? Does it work in varying degrees of light? Do back-drops significantly alter the success of sighting?

The concept of the sight continuum comes to mind. Where on it does this fall and how would it benefit the shooter over the other techniiques found on it, particularly the ones it would/may replace?

I'm curious.

[Frank Ettin]

tirvin, no sale.

[tirvin73]

Yes on demand every time. Split second distinction, no problem. I am able to verify shoot, no shoot targets under pressure with very quick transitions. It also lends well to low and no light shooting. A quick pulse from my Surefire is all it takes to determine threat priority. There is no longer double vision using night sights in poor lighting. This is where the struggle began. Brand new night sights installed on my Glock, left me seeing two front and two rear sights together. Imagine that under high stress. With practice, I am now able to see one set of sights and one target. Longer range (25-50 yds) the front sight is clear and sharp. The target is in focus, the front sight appears to be "projected" onto the target. Slow cadence, deliberate fire, is a lot easier now and my accuracy has increased. The ability to determine whether the front sight is properly situated on the target has increased as well. You no longer shift focus from target i.d. to front sight. One shooter,after a CCW match this weekend,told me he became confused in the array of shoot/no shoot targets.His ability to shift focus, from front sight to target, was not quick enough to determine shoot or not to shoot. He shot. Imagine how this would have turned out on the "street". I have discussed this with that shooter. He also does not understand how I see what I see. He does not believe I can't, only why he can't. As far as the "go" signal is concerned I no longer focus on a "spot" on the target. Look away or off to one side without "eye contact". When the signal has been given I can direct my attention to the target, (hands,gun,knife,whatever) wait for the front sight and target and break the shot. It did not come in a flash, only from determination to solve a problem.

[tirvin73]

In the beginning there were two images. Concentration allows you to see one. The muscle memory comes from performing the task without thinking or forcing. Like eating, you don't poke your mouth with the fork tines, because you have performed the act with out thinking. (Here subconcious.) When you hold for bullseye shooting you probably don't think about pulling the trigger. It probably happens (subconsiously) on demand. I don't know a whole lot about bullseye shooting but the patience for it must be far more focused than I could muster. Hope I can help and I appreciate the effort.

Todd

[Frank Ettin]

Todd, I don't believe you.

[darkgael]

Todd: "In the beginning there were two images. Concentration allows you to see one."
I was under the impression that one wanted the two images - each eye focused on a different object at a different distance.
At what distance do you most commonly shoot? That may make a bit of difference. The closest targets that I practice on are 50 ft., 25yds is more common, and the Bullseye long line is at 50yds, as is the International Free Pistol target.
Despite my willingness to try, I remain skeptical. You pretty obviously have excellent eyesight (can see the perforations on a IPSC target at seven yards); that gift would make the "switch" from eye to eye (which I still feel is far more probable - with all due respect) almost completely seamless, giving the strong impression that the images were being seen simultaneously as opposed to sequentially.
In any case - more info about the one or two image thing would be helpful.
Pete

[the_pragmaticist]

There's a possibility we're getting our legs pulled by these dual-focusing fools. However, no one seems to be arguing that one eye can focus at two distances simultaneously. Perhaps it can shift focus fairly quickly and form the illusion, but optical physics preempts the possibility of genuine dual focus with a single eye.

There is also a possibility that they have learned how to temporarily dissociate their stereo vision such that one eye focuses on the sight, and the other on the target. I would not be so quick to dismiss that as impossible, but rather inconceivable to the uninitiated. The Princess Bride comes to mind..."You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it does."

[tirvin73]

You want to see two images. If you close one eye, in my case the left eye, the target disappears. However, with the focus on both, the front sight seems to be translucent, but clearly in focus. Now, instead of using the flat square top of the sight, you can use the white dot as an index point. If you can't see the target, you can't index the front sight. (fine precision shooting)Usual shooting distances vary from arms length to 50 yards.

[darkgael]

Todd: "seems to be translucent, but clearly in focus ". WADR - if translucent means "in focus" to you, then we have each have a quite different understanding of what "focus" means. Even today, when I was giving this a try, seeing the two images, they were both clear enough that I could describe each if I wanted to in some detail but one of them, the far one, was not what I consider "in focus". Shooting with both eyes open, as I do, It is normal to see two targets. They, are as I have noted, clear enough to describe. But I focus only on one since the image of the sight is what determines whether or not the shot goes into the 10 ring. The other image is of no consequence, though I am aware of the bullet holes. I believe that it may be easier to get the feeling that you have if the target is close, like the seven yards that you refer to. I return to the idea that what you have is a rapid and very smooth shift of focus from eye to eye that creates the strong impression of simultaneity.
White dot? There are no white dots on my target pistols; they are not combat guns. A front blade as dark as I can get it.
Pete

[Erik]

I'm beginning to think you're describing what some might recognize as a "type two focus" or "seeing through your sights." Except that you are attributing an independant focus which I, and others, believe to be impossible. Are you sure you are using the word "focus" appropriately? "Distinguish" I can see, no pun intended, but not focus.

[Erik]

From Roger Phillips' AKA Sweatnbullets' ""All About Aiming" and Being "Inclusive" at WT:

Situations dictate strategy, strategy dictates tactics, and tactics dictate techniques......techniques should not dictate anything.

With these truths in mind, while working varying distances, needed precision, time pressure, position in the reactionary curve, necessity and type of movement, necessary visual input of the entire encounter, and retention considerations it is plain to see that it is not a "one size fits all world."

Here is the full sight continuum as I see it (opinions may vary and that is cool.) As individuals, I feel that we need to find out what is neccesary for us (at a personal level) to make the hits inside of the correct context of the fight.

Gun focus

Hard Focus on the top edge of the front sight
Hard focus on the front sight
Solid sight picture
Flash sight picture
Shooting out of the notch
Front sight only with focus on the gun

Target focused

"Type two focus" Focus on the threat with a fuzzy sight picture
Front sight only with focus on the threat
Aligning down the top of the slide
Metal and meat (silhoutte of the gun)
Below line of sight with peripheral vision of the gun

The last one works all the way down to "half hip." If you can see your gun in your peripheral vision your brain will use that information to help facilitate your hand/eye coordination.....whether you want it to or not. That is what the brain, eyes, and body does.

There is also body indexed firing position with zero visual input on the gun.

There are muscle memory techniques such as Quick Fire which relies on punching/driving the gun to the targeted area.