Accuracy as a function of target color and contrast

[YVK]

Short version of a question: getting much better groups at 25 yards shooting at white 3x5 card then shooting at 5.5 black NRA bullseye. Analysis of bullseye suggest trigger control or anticipation error. Why and why?

Long version, if anybody finds details important: shooting well rested and in good mood, best unsupported 5 round group at 25 yards at 3x5 is 2 inches, all rounds in left lower quadrant of the card. Best unsupported at bullesye is 2.5 inches, 2.5 inches left and low.
Shooting tired, 20 rounds into each, half off bags, half unsupported, the bullseye shots all left and low. 3x5 card, out of 20, 12 shots are on the card, couple of flyers, and few close to the card, not much difference between supported and unsupported.

What I can't understand the most is why my trigger control or anticipation management get worse depending on target contrast.

[Spr1]

Shooting against a black background and lower contrast decreases your ability to resolve aiming errors and decreases your ability to percieve changes in sight alignment during the trigger press, this will vary with the ambient lighting (both intensity and direction). It is also more fatiguing for the same reason. So aiming errors could be the answer, or, what happens in the brain/trigger finger connection based on the sight/target feedback loop given the above.
Or, somebody might have a better answer........

[orionz06]

Could it be possible that the two things that impact positive results (trigger press and sight picture) are different between targets? Perhaps the trigger press is less of an issue than the sight picture. I also do better on some targets than others, especially at distance with effed up eyes. Most of the time I don't believe it is my trigger press being the issue, but instead my sight picture.

[YVK]

I'd expect a group all over the place if I had inconsistent sight picture, unless I am seeing that bullseye left and low because of effed up eyes.

So far the only way I could explain all of that is that the sight picture is in fact harder to get and maintain on bullseye, and that leads to trigger snatch when I think I have a good picture. I need to make a conscious effort to roll through the press without looking for the perfect picture and see what happens. What I can't explain is why supported and unsupported groups are affected about the same.

However, you're absolutely right that sight pic is very important when shooting long, and that the trigger press on itself is may not be as much issue as we make it out. My groups shrink considerably when I shoot my Glock with RDS vs. irons, same frame/same trigger pull/same skill in trigger control.

[orionz06]

Perhaps "inconsistent sight picture" was the wrong phrase to use. I think it is just harder for me to align the sights on the target than it is to press the trigger, at distance.

[Spr1]

The bullseye shooters might take exception to this, but if you are trying to optimize group size and confirm sight settings maximizing contrast and finding an optimum target size is really important (at least to me). Older eyes really play into this as well, and going to a larger rear sight width can help if visual acuity or focal distance limitations are appearing.
What I am suggesting is to give less weight to what happened on the bullseye.

[ToddG]

All else being equal, the smaller your target, the smaller your group size is likely to be. With the 3x5 you're essentially forcing yourself to work within a 3" wobble zone instead of a 5.5" wobble zone, so if you're doing your job you're being more cautious with the shots and turning in tighter groups.

[TCinVA]

Inasmuch as the intended target impacts your ability to precisely align the sights, it can impact your accuracy. My usual range is an indoor affair with bad lighting. Shooting at a black NRA bullseye at 25 yards, it is often difficult for me to see small errors in my sight picture that lead to pushing shots out of the 10 ring when I think I did everything right. Yesterday, for example, I fired a shot at the NRA bull at 25 yards and it wasn't until I saw the front sight contrasted against the muzzle flash that I realized it was slightly higher than the rear. When I shoot at an outdoor range in bright sunlight I note a considerable difference in the quality of the sight picture I get and the resulting accuracy I can get downrange. If I had to pin a number to it, I'd say that I'm about 15-20% more accurate on precision shooting exercises on an outdoor range than I am in my usual practice location directly attributable to the quality of the sight picture I get.

[JHC]

I think the rectangle of the 3x5 card is easier to hold on perfectly than a circular bullseye.

[Doug]

All else being equal, the smaller your target, the smaller your group size is likely to be. With the 3x5 you're essentially forcing yourself to work within a 3" wobble zone instead of a 5.5" wobble zone, so if you're doing your job you're being more cautious with the shots and turning in tighter groups.

Thank you. I have always wondered why when I shoot at playing cards hung from a zip tie at 7 yds, at times I can keep the whole magazine within the center of the card but as soon as I switch to a man size target my group opens up to a much wider circle.

For general accuracy practice and proficiency, is it better to use smaller targets? I usually switch it up.

[MechEng]

As the saying goes “Aim small, miss small.” or in archery hunting for big game it’s “Pick a spot.”

[ToddG]

Shooting at small targets forces you to slow down and gives you a lot of feedback when you're going to hit (or miss).

Being able to shoot good, fast groups on a less well defined target is also a good skill to develop, for obvious reasons. But like most things, until you can get your hits under ideal conditions it's probably better to work on marksmanship before trying to do faster stuff.