Target focus, a paradigm shift

[LSP552]

Aging and changing eyesight has forced me to reevaluate using a target focus, and I’ve spent the last several range trips experimenting. I come from an accuracy-oriented background and a firm belief in the traditional use of iron sights, along with the need to see what you need to see to make the shot. Target focus up close, sure. Target focus at distance, never really experimented with it when I could see.

I will be 62 next month and without range glasses (which I won’t be wearing anywhere other than the range) sight alignment has recently become align the blurry thing with the rear blurry thingy. Without a +2.25 – 2.50 ready correction, I can’t see any detail up close.

As you can imagine, this means I can’t determine precise sight alignment and, even worse, can’t read enough feedback from the sights to call shots with the precision I could previously. My trigger control and index is fine, I just can’t see my front sight as anything other than a blurry blob without any real definition. My distant vision beyond arms length is also fine.

As a result, I’ve been experimenting with a target focus out to 25 yards. What is surprising to me is I’m pretty much staying in the A zone all the way out to 25. I have a lot of time with Aimpoints, so looking at the target isn’t a new thing, just less so with handguns.

I’ve come to the realization that as long as I can see a blurry font sight through a blurry notch, I don’t have to stress over precision any more. I’m actually shooting better using a target focus than trying to focus on sights I can’t see well. Perhaps the new Wilson 92 BT is helping this because I’m shooting it much better than anything else.

What this truly reinforces is how much more important trigger control is over sight alignment.

[BehindBlueI's]

You can probably make a zone hits at 25y with no sights at all, just a touch slower than with a sight picture. When everything is stationary. Try it on the move or with a moving target and see what the targets say.

[Wendell]

That's great...if your target is within 25 yards...but wouldn't a red dot be the real solution?

[LSP552]

You can probably make a zone hits at 25y with no sights at all, just a touch slower than with a sight picture. When everything is stationary. Try it on the move or with a moving target and see what the targets say.

I wish I still had access to a range with moving targets. http://www.jestc.org

Obviously it will be harder, but I have a lot of time on movers and moving so I'm pretty sure I'm still dangerous at typical engagement ranges. Trust me, I'm not recommending target focus for people who can see. I'm saying it's worth trying when your vision goes South. It sucks getting old and loosing capability, but it does beat the alternative...

[LSP552]

That's great...if your target is within 25 yards...but wouldn't a red dot be the real solution?


Yes, once they get to the point where I trust the technology.

[Lon]

That's great...if your target is within 25 yards...but wouldn't a red dot be the real solution?

What he said.

[blues]

Good stuff, Ken. I find the issue of aging eyes an interesting challenge. (I'm three years your senior.) I have a bit of astigmatism which is evident via a small amount of flare with my Aimpoint. I don't wear glasses except to read indoors or do computer work...1.25s.

I have learned not to obsess on the sights per se as opposed to doing just as you say...get the best alignment available under the circumstances and concentrate primarily on grip / trigger control. It's pretty much what I've been doing on my LEOSA quals since I don't wear corrective lenses and the lighting and my lack of near focus doesn't allow for a perfect sight picture. It works.

Thanks for starting what should prove to be an interesting discussion.

[fatdog]

This article has probably been cited, debated, and discussed several times here. When I first read it my thought was "Heresy" but having competed and trained with Frank, and knowing his skill level, I had to give it some consideration.

http://soldiersystems.net/2015/02/14/gunfighter-moment-frank-proctor-13/

Now approaching my "60th winter" I have adopted this idea from his first paragraph "just let your eyes do what they are capable of and see all 3."

[LSP552]

This article has probably been cited, debated, and discussed several times here. When I first read it my thought was "Heresy" but having competed and trained with Frank, and knowing his skill level, I had to give it some consideration.

http://soldiersystems.net/2015/02/14/gunfighter-moment-frank-proctor-13/

Now approaching my "60th winter" I have adopted this idea from his first paragraph "just let your eyes do what they are capable of and see all 3."

Thanks for revisiting this article. He says it better than I did.

[Redhat]

I'm in the same boat vision wise. It occurred to me a while back that in a situation, I might lose my glasses or not have them on if awakened at night so I'd better figure out something. So far I can do okay with HD sights due to the large front dot but I have considered the RDS and even a laser was suggested to me on this forum.

[Totem Polar]

I’m looking forward to seeing (heh) where this thread goes. Good stuff for those of us with declining vision.

[Erick Gelhaus]

Took a couple McNamara classes a while back. One of the takeaways on sights, sighting, eye sight was "put close blur in the center of the far blur." That concept has been beneficial.

From limited experience, when the RDS technology is proven reliable I think there will be some interesting benefits. Better overall view will be one.

[Redhat]

Took a couple McNamara classes a while back. One of the takeaways on sights, sighting, eye sight was "put close blur in the center of the far blur." That concept has been beneficial.

From limited experience, when the RDS technology is proven reliable I think there will be some interesting benefits. Better overall view will be one.

Nothing else we can do I guess but how does it affect accuracy?

[41magfan]

Your experience pretty much mirrors my own.

Even when I had good vision (20/15) I embraced the fact that sight use was really nothing but a continuum dictated by the common variables of lighting, time constraint and the size and/or distance to the target. Even when I could see the front sight clearly, it often just wasn't necessary.

Now that I don't see well at all (+3.50 of correction for reading) the transition to never seeing a clear front sight has been very aggravating but it hasn't practically hampered my ability to defend myself. As a general rule, the hardware that works best for me is plain black sights with lots of light around the front sight, i.e. .156 - .160 rear notch with a .115 - .125 front post. I have a few front sights with tritium inserts, but I have never found them to be an absolute necessity.

As for red-dot sights, I've been using them on my hunting handguns since the mid-80's, so I have some idea of their limitations. Just last week, I played around a bit with a Glock 17 topped with a Leupold DP and for small targets or targets at distance (50-100 yards), a RDS is the bomb. But, small targets at long distance just doesn't resemble a defensive shooting parameter I'm likely to encounter.

Clearly, the benefit of having a single aiming point (vs iron sights) isn't open to much intelligent debate with regards to precision, but I personally have not experienced a practical advantage for their use on a general purpose defensive handgun.

YMMV

[LSP552]

Nothing else we can do I guess but how does it affect accuracy?

I’m shooting 4” groups standing off-hand without my glasses. I’ve shot better but 4” is pretty much the limit of my vision without range glasses.

[JSGlock34]

I've been having some interesting discussions with Gio lately about target focused shooting. Interestingly, I was recently listening to a Ben Stoeger podcast when he talked about improving target focused shooting as an important ingredient in breaking out of USPSA B class.

I'm a hard front sight focus shooter, but I've been trying to experiment with target focus lately. Today was a mixed bag - I had one target focused Bill Drill which was fantastic - and another which was disastrous.

Red dot sights certainly change this equation.

[LSP552]

Took a couple McNamara classes a while back. One of the takeaways on sights, sighting, eye sight was "put close blur in the center of the far blur." That concept has been beneficial.

Totally agree. Once I quite trying to do what was no longer physically possible (focus on a front sight), I made some significant improvements. It also improved my aggravation factor.

[YVK]

I've been playing with the target focus for some time now. I am no Gabe and can't dissociate my convergence and focus so I thought I try to learn aiming faster in a more conventional way. One observation that it is semi-obvious but took me some time to make, so I'll share just in case.



As a result, I’ve been experimenting with a target focus out to 25 yards. What is surprising to me is I’m pretty much staying in the A zone all the way out to 25.


A zone implies the USPSA target. Unless one is shooting Area 3 match, all USPSA targets are relatively high contrast. I was cruising in practice shooting target focused at the A zone one day, and then for whatever reason decided to do the same on a bullseye. Indoors, fiber no good, black sight on black target, I found TF impossible.

The moral of that for me was that I'd need a different high visibility in all conditions on all backgrounds front sight before I could adopt that aiming technique with a carry gun.

[critter]

Shifted to target focus several years ago and haven't looked back (probably couldn't see what's back anyway). Caught a good deal of flack from some idiots with superior vision but I didn't and don't give a shit what they have to say about it. It works for me. It works extremely well. Adapt as necessary and rock on.

[LSP552]

A zone implies the USPSA target. Unless one is shooting Area 3 match, all USPSA targets are relatively high contrast. I was cruising in practice shooting target focused at the A zone one day, and then for whatever reason decided to do the same on a bullseye. Indoors, fiber no good, black sight on black target, I found TF impossible.

The moral of that for me was that I'd need a different high visibility in all conditions on all backgrounds front sight before I could adopt that aiming technique with a carry gun.

I’ve been doing well indoors with the Trij white outline front on my Wilson BT and the Trij HDs on my P239. I was predisposed to paint the BT front bright red but so far, it’s been OK.

I remembered Gabe’s epic sight thread and that white was pretty visible under a lot of different lighting conditions. I’m sure I will end up painting the BT front, just haven’t gotten to it yet.

[DocGKR]

I am simply unable to use iron's on handguns at all any more. Thus it is either an RDS (which I have been using now since 2010) and/or a green laser. I generally prefer the RDS...

[fatdog]

As for front sight visibility and color, about ten years ago as I was stuggling to find that front sight, especially when I visited an indoor range with lower light levels, I built this gadget to test colors.

21075

My optometrist told me that as light gets dimmer different people are likely to see different colors more clearly. She understood my problem and suggested I experiment seeing colors in lower light settings to "see what I can see" since it is different for everybody.

These are match sticks, I drilled some holes in a piece of furring strip with a piece of dowel rod as a handle, then painted the whole thing flat black and then went back and painted the tip of each a different color, and glued a piece of red and a piece of green fiber optic to the two ends. I took this gadget into parking lots at dusk and at dark, looked at it in interior rooms with dimable lights at various levels, etc. etc. What I came to learn is that for me the bright orange is visible in the greatest variety of lighting conditions. White and gold got honorable mention, the greens were very poor as was yellow, and the fibers disappeared on me very fast as light grew dimmer...anyhow, it was a worthy experiment for me that was cheaper than buying and installing a half dozen different sights on the real gun...

A friend who experimented with the same gadget came to a completely different solution for what he could see best.

The camera flash distorted the middle in this picture, but but my recollection it was left to right, green fiber, iridescent green, yellow, gold, white, iridescent red/orange, red fiber...held it at arms length for all my observations...match stick width approximated a front sight size very closely.

[Erick Gelhaus]

Nothing else we can do I guess but how does it affect accuracy?

An example, albeit not super current, ... I was in that class with DocGKR (at least the 3rd time we'd been in a class together). We both shot Pick Your Poison aiming for the 150 score or all A zone hits. I was using close blur / far blur while he was shooting a RDS equipped pistol. While we both shot 150, there was zero comparision in terms of group size - he shot one, I filled the A zone. Using it on the the HITS/Wayne/DaggaBoy SuperTest I'm decent. Here's a pic from Wayne & Dagga's class at TacCon, with jlw watching, 25yds & in on some drills.

[CraigS]

I have been looking at blurred sights pretty much the whole 20 yrs I have been shooting. 6-8 yrs ago I learned about the Merit eyepiece.
http://www.meritcorporation.com/products.html
I haven't bought one but got the same results first w/ a piece of black tape w/ a 1/16 inch hole in it. Then I made a slip on piece from some 1/16 thick kydex.
https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4494/37167754124_e333acd706_c.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/YCosoY)IMG_20160212_094711824 (https://flic.kr/p/YCosoY) by craig stuard (https://www.flickr.com/photos/152454123@N04/), on Flickr
There are two holes in it because I got different glasses and needed to re-position. One of them is now covered. W/ this on, sights and target are all in focus at the same time. It is amazing how well it works. My other option is my computer glasses. I got the least expensive frame they had and asked for a prescription to focus at the end of my finger tip. Told them it was for the computer. W/ these on the sights are perfect and the target is slightly blurred. I am right handed and left eye dominate so I shoot pistols w/ my right eye closed.

[SC_Dave]

At 62 myself and wearing transitional lenses I tried target focus and had decent success with it. I think this is what helped some when I decided to go to an RDS. I'm not saying I was good with the RDS right away but having used target focused shooting for a little while helped. Now I'm in love with the red dot and TFS.

[spinmove_]

As for front sight visibility and color, about ten years ago as I was stuggling to find that front sight, especially when I visited an indoor range with lower light levels, I built this gadget to test colors.

21075

My optometrist told me that as light gets dimmer different people are likely to see different colors more clearly. She understood my problem and suggested I experiment seeing colors in lower light settings to "see what I can see" since it is different for everybody.

These are match sticks, I drilled some holes in a piece of furring strip with a piece of dowel rod as a handle, then painted the whole thing flat black and then went back and painted the tip of each a different color, and glued a piece of red and a piece of green fiber optic to the two ends. I took this gadget into parking lots at dusk and at dark, looked at it in interior rooms with dimable lights at various levels, etc. etc. What I came to learn is that for me the bright orange is visible in the greatest variety of lighting conditions. White and gold got honorable mention, the greens were very poor as was yellow, and the fibers disappeared on me very fast as light grew dimmer...anyhow, it was a worthy experiment for me that was cheaper than buying and installing a half dozen different sights on the real gun...

A friend who experimented with the same gadget came to a completely different solution for what he could see best.

The camera flash distorted the middle in this picture, but but my recollection it was left to right, green fiber, iridescent green, yellow, gold, white, iridescent red/orange, red fiber...held it at arms length for all my observations...match stick width approximated a front sight size very closely.

I really liked Gabe’s sight thread as it got me really thinking and testing things for myself. The pictures are nice, but people really kind of need to try it out themselves in person as the pictures might not always be true to what you actually see.

In my experiments I’ve found that red fiber in a black serrated front post with a black serrated rear sight works best for me. The fiber is a nice and fine aiming point when I don’t need to supply my own light and the overall package works better than most when I do need to supply my own light. It’s not perfect, no sight system is, but this gives me the fewest cons vs pros for how my eyes work.


Sent from mah smertfone using tapathingy

[Gio]

Lots of decent advice in here already.

In my experience, teaching your mind to target focus on appropriate targets is crucial for developing consistent, high-level speed. The reason this is faster is because you don't have to waste time bringing your visual focus back from the target to the front sight and then back out to the next target. You can leave your visual focus on the targets and transition it from one target to the next, with your sights following but always blurry. Note: If you are not moving your eyes to the next target you're going to shoot, and instead keeping your focus on your front sight and dragging your front sight to the next target, you are doing it wrong. Like anything else shooting related though, you have to improve this skill beyond conscious thought if you want to master it. You can't just rely on telling yourself, "I'm going to target focus on this next drill." Ideally, you want to look at the spot on the target you want to shoot, bring your sights to that spot, and sub-consciously decide to stay in target focus or adjust back to front sight focus depending on the difficulty and precision needed to make the shot. There are all kinds of drills you can work on to help develop this sub-conscious skill, and they all involve setting up multiple targets at varying distances to shoot in the same string. I like two of Ben Stoeger's drills, one with three targets at varying distances from 5-25 yards, and another with two close paper targets on either side of you and a small plate at about 20+yds in the middle.

With enough practice, you can get to the point where you instinctively know what you can get away with based on the difficulty of the target. I can target focus a 25 yd open target, but I will have a front sight focus on 10 yd partial head shots.

[Dagga Boy]

Wonder if we are using the right terms. In discussion with Tom Givens last night and several others over the years, Tom said he "puts the fuzzy black thing in the fuzzy notch in the middle of he fuzzy target". I think better terms may be "Unfocused" or "Non transferred focus". Basically, transposing sights over your eyes without any conscious focus shift. I use focus shift to get out of being reactive to a target. I want to see my foe, I want to stop reacting to them once a decision to shoot is made and that is my biggest take on not staring at it and bringing that "attention" back to the front sight that is really driving/confirming the shots and placement.
I have a suspicion that what many here are saying is target focus is actually front sight attention with no focus. I have a suspicion that the inability to see sights in perfect focus is forcing "trigger focus" and is also helping to get rid of some trigger snatch.

[Redhat]

I'm okay with whatever terms as long as they're defined. I don't think anyone should misconstrue what I'm saying for some type of point shooting. I use the sights as well as I can which means; I see a fuzzy rear sight + fuzzy front sight + clear target or...fuzzy rear + fuzzy front + fuzzy target. I can attempt to shift focus to the front sight as in a traditional sight picture but there is really no change.

[LSP552]

Wonder if we are using the right terms. In discussion with Tom Givens last night and several others over the years, Tom said he "puts the fuzzy black thing in the fuzzy notch in the middle of he fuzzy target". I think better terms may be "Unfocused" or "Non transferred focus". Basically, transposing sights over your eyes without any conscious focus shift. I use focus shift to get out of being reactive to a target. I want to see my foe, I want to stop reacting to them once a decision to shoot is made and that is my biggest take on not staring at it and bringing that "attention" back to the front sight that is really driving/confirming the shots and placement.
I have a suspicion that what many here are saying is target focus is actually front sight attention with no focus. I have a suspicion that the inability to see sights in perfect focus is forcing "trigger focus" and is also helping to get rid of some trigger snatch.

Excellent comments, as always.

What’s happened to me recently is the inability to bring my focus back to the front sight. Since I can’t do that anymore, I’ve been working on seeing fuzzy sights on top of a target that is mostly in focus. I’m finding that I’m getting better hits than I would have expected outside the 10 yard range.

[LSP552]

.......With enough practice, you can get to the point where you instinctively know what you can get away with based on the difficulty of the target. I can target focus a 25 yd open target, but I will have a front sight focus on 10 yd partial head shots.

Lots of good here, thanks for the comments.

I’ve basically lost the ability to focus on the front sight at all. What’s been surprising to me is the quality of hits I’m getting all the way out to 25 yards. I haven’t really experimented with a target focus at that distance.

[ken grant]

I am 79 and have terrible eyesight but I would never depend on batteries or electronics on my self defense weapons .
All of my shooting now is target focused or what some call point shooting and done mostly from the draw .

I scatter fired shot shells on the berm high , low , right and left . Back off 3-10 yds. and all in between . Draw and try to hit the shells and maybe a double tap mixed in but mostly single shots .
I either use my G19 9m/m or the same pistol with a .22 conversion kit installed .
I hit a few , hit close enough to make them move and miss a lot but always close enough to defend myself against them .:D

I do this both with and without my glasses so I can keep track of what I can do without them .

[critter]

Wonder if we are using the right terms. In discussion with Tom Givens last night and several others over the years, Tom said he "puts the fuzzy black thing in the fuzzy notch in the middle of he fuzzy target".

If I'm wearing my glasses, the target is in well defined, crisp focus with the (two pairs of) sights coming up in peripheral vision. Following them without looking at them, but fully aware of where they are at all times. Just gotta remember to use the pair on the left (kidding, there's no real possibility of using the wrong set of sights..)

Without glasses, absolutely correct -- nothing is in crisp focus, at least not until I look well beyond what anyone would consider a pistol shot distance.



"Non transferred focus". Basically, transposing sights over your eyes without any conscious focus shift. I use focus shift to get out of being reactive to a target. I want to see my foe, I want to stop reacting to them once a decision to shoot is made and that is my biggest take on not staring at it and bringing that "attention" back to the front sight that is really driving/confirming the shots and placement.
I have a suspicion that what many here are saying is target focus is actually front sight attention with no focus. I have a suspicion that the inability to see sights in perfect focus is forcing "trigger focus" and is also helping to get rid of some trigger snatch.

'Non transferred focus.' That's about the best technical description I've heard of what's actually going on.

[OnionsAndDragons]

Wonder if we are using the right terms. In discussion with Tom Givens last night and several others over the years, Tom said he "puts the fuzzy black thing in the fuzzy notch in the middle of he fuzzy target". I think better terms may be "Unfocused" or "Non transferred focus". Basically, transposing sights over your eyes without any conscious focus shift. I use focus shift to get out of being reactive to a target. I want to see my foe, I want to stop reacting to them once a decision to shoot is made and that is my biggest take on not staring at it and bringing that "attention" back to the front sight that is really driving/confirming the shots and placement.
I have a suspicion that what many here are saying is target focus is actually front sight attention with no focus. I have a suspicion that the inability to see sights in perfect focus is forcing "trigger focus" and is also helping to get rid of some trigger snatch.

I don't think the terms are really mutually exclusive, but I do think your reframing is more precise which is great.

I think you are absolutely right on the trigger focus. This was entirely my experience during my last class with Tom, after an extended lecture based on John Hearne's flash sight picture research and presentation.

Letting go of the hard front sight focus for all but the most precision shots, where the refined sight alignment really does matter on the level of trigger control, allowed me to simply confirm alignment with a flash sight picture and focus a majority of my attention to working the trigger on the appropriate target. I saw clear gains in my discrimination ability and speed with no loss of accuracy when applying the concept.

I really saw the payoff for working presentations so much with a single firearm after this aha moment.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Mr_White]

Lots of good here, thanks for the comments.

I’ve basically lost the ability to focus on the front sight at all. What’s been surprising to me is the quality of hits I’m getting all the way out to 25 yards. I haven’t really experimented with a target focus at that distance.

I think you are on the right track LSP552! If you can't get the front sight sharp and clear, then you just need to work on noticing more detail with your mind, out of the (now blurrier) image your eyes present to you.

[Clay1]

I've really enjoyed reading the thread. At 58 and wearing a 2.5 bifocal correction in the progressive lens these days I don't get a sharp front sight unless I lean my head back to get my progressive lens to come into play. I don't shoot with my chin up in the air so that sharp focus on the front site is out. I do still get a very good read on equal height and equal light of the sights.

After shooting some groups with the front site all the way to the left and then all the way to the right in the rear notch. I realize it is less about site picture these days and much more about my grip and trigger control. There is more to hitting the target than sight picture and in my hierarchy of precision, sight picture is moving down the list.

[Mark D]

Fascinating thread. I had cataract surgery in my late 40's and lost the ability to clearing see my front sight without correction. Now I have monovision "shooting" glasses with my dominant eye corrected for near focus (i.e. the front sight) and the non-dominant eye corrected for infinity. They're great, however I probably won't be wearing them in a critical force situation. So I'm following this conversation with interest.

[LSP552]

I think you are on the right track LSP552! If you can't get the front sight sharp and clear, then you just need to work on noticing more detail with your mind, out of the (now blurrier) image your eyes present to you.

What I’m wondering now is how much practice with glasses I can see with vs without? I tend to do a mix of both most practice sessions. I “think” doing a mix hasn’t hurt me, but I’m not sure. Guess it’s time to start benchmarking drills over time both with and without my range glasses.

Perhaps dedicating entire practice sessions to a single method. I’m thinking the training where I can see my sights with glasses helps carry over and instills some Zen for the times I’m not wearing and can’t see a defined front.

[octagon]

What I’m wondering now is how much practice with glasses I can see with vs without? I tend to do a mix of both most practice sessions. I “think” doing a mix hasn’t hurt me, but I’m not sure. Guess it’s time to start benchmarking drills over time both with and without my range glasses.

Perhaps dedicating entire practice sessions to a single method. I’m thinking the training where I can see my sights with glasses helps carry over and instills some Zen for the times I’m not wearing and can’t see a defined front.

This is where I was earlier this year. I tried regular reading glasses, SSP upper bifocal lens in my dominant eye and plain lens in my non dominant eye and standard safety lenses running various drills for pure accuracy,speed and accuracy balance and for speed. I found for me I get consistent accuracy best at longest distances with corrected lens of SSPs or reading glasses but give up speed everywhere and the accuracy penalty is minimal enough beyond 15 yards only. I have since switched to only shooting with uncorrected lenses for all shooting and adapted to the blurrier front sight and more target focus. If I was serious about competition or longer distance shooting more frequently I would go with full monovision set up and accept that I would likely not have them for a real defensive gun use.

I hope you find a good set up that works for you and experimenting with different glasses seems like the best way to determine it.

[blues]

What I’m wondering now is how much practice with glasses I can see with vs without? I tend to do a mix of both most practice sessions. I “think” doing a mix hasn’t hurt me, but I’m not sure. Guess it’s time to start benchmarking drills over time both with and without my range glasses.

Perhaps dedicating entire practice sessions to a single method. I’m thinking the training where I can see my sights with glasses helps carry over and instills some Zen for the times I’m not wearing and can’t see a defined front.

Okay, Ken, first things first. You're from Louisiana...stick with voodoo. (Don't stick any pins in me, I'm just the messenger. :p)

More seriously, you pose an interesting conundrum. My gut reaction is that you should practice for worst case scenarios the way you're most likely to be caught out if the worst should happen....On the other hand, if you do have that bleed over of skill from the sessions where you are using glasses, then perhaps it really does make sense to do so. It's hard for me to be objective because I've never worn glasses outside of my home unless I knew I'd need readers in a setting where I'd have to review or sign documents indoors.

[LSP552]

This is where I was earlier this year. I tried regular reading glasses, SSP upper bifocal lens in my dominant eye and plain lens in my non dominant eye and standard safety lenses running various drills for pure accuracy,speed and accuracy balance and for speed. I found for me I get consistent accuracy best at longest distances with corrected lens of SSPs or reading glasses but give up speed everywhere and the accuracy penalty is minimal enough beyond 15 yards only. I have since switched to only shooting with uncorrected lenses for all shooting and adapted to the blurrier front sight and more target focus. If I was serious about competition or longer distance shooting more frequently I would go with full monovision set up and accept that I would likely not have them for a real defensive gun use.

I hope you find a good set up that works for you and experimenting with different glasses seems like the best way to determine it.

I have a set of low power reading glasses that work best for my eyes. I tried a full mono set, dominant eye set for front sight and left eye for infinity. My brain hated this combo and using it gave me headaches.

Bruce Gray and I talked about this in one of his classes and he mentioned he had a similar issue and recommended a set of lower power readers with just enough magnification to sharpen the front but not distort distance too much. This has been working for me and I had a set of glasses made with 1.25 in my right eye and clear in left. I don’t give up speed but gain accuracy with this setup. My brain also works better with the lower power instead of a full on correction for front sight distance.

My intent is to get settled this winter in my new place (RI) and then start shooting competition again. Is been a long time but for some reason the Beretta has inspired some passion of the gun thing.

[octagon]

Good. It sounds like you are close to finding your ideal set up. I didn't have any issues with monovision set up using the SSP upper bifocal but I am also using a lower correction as 1.25 is my normal reading glasses RX. The issue I had was finding the small bi focal lens at speed since I am cross eye dominant and the lens in located in the upper inside position of the safety glasses lens. True full lens monovision would probably work best but so far I don't have enough accuracy degradation to justify the cost,complexity or artificial nature of going that route. That may change with age and continued deterioration of the eyes but I am also trying MRDS at the same time and liking it.

[41magfan]

Personally speaking, I don't bother using my "shooting glasses" unless I'm doing some T&E of a gun, ammo, sights, etc. For me, that's just an artificial form of gratification that will not translate to a real-world circumstance. Even with compromised vision, I have confidence my muzzle orientation will be enough to carry the day if I can get my trigger finger to cooperate.

Competition is another matter however and I'd use any piece of gear it took to maximize my performance.

[critter]

I'm also now curious as to what the training experts would recommend concerning practice. I currently devote about a third of every practice session to practical 'without glasses' defensive shooting and the rest to the progressives ( a ratio basically pulled out of the air based on my assumption that I'd be a little more likely to run into problems while wearing glasses than not, and may lose them during a scenario, so need to get used to the transition). But that's the range... Would it be better to practice only one or the other at a given session? Does it matter as long as practical competency is achieved both ways? Am I missing something important?

[41magfan]

I'm also now curious as to what the training experts would recommend concerning practice. I currently devote about a third of every practice session to practical 'without glasses' defensive shooting and the rest to the progressives ( a ratio basically pulled out of the air based on my assumption that I'd be a little more likely to run into problems while wearing glasses than not, and may lose them during a scenario, so need to get used to the transition). But that's the range... Would it be better to practice only one or the other at a given session? Does it matter as long as practical competency is achieved both ways? Am I missing something important?

I shoot occasionally without my everyday glasses just to reaffirm to myself that “pointing” is an acceptable means of orienting the muzzle as long as the profile of the target is larger than the profile of my handgun. That distance is a lot farther than most people think when we’re talking about an unobstructed torso sized target.

Along these same lines;

To prove the point that hitting is more about trigger manipulation than muzzle orientation, an Instructor will occasionally shoot an entire qualification COF with a pistol that has NO SIGHTS installed on it. That equates to “point shooting” for all practical purposes .... all the way back to 25 yards. The scores are always in the high 90’s with clean scores not that uncommon.

[Duelist]

I shoot occasionally without my everyday glasses just to reaffirm to myself that “pointing” is an acceptable means of orienting the muzzle as long as the profile of the target is larger than the profile of my handgun. That distance is a lot farther than most people think when we’re talking about an unobstructed torso sized target.

Along these same lines;

To prove the point that hitting is more about trigger manipulation than muzzle orientation, an Instructor will occasionally shoot an entire qualification COF with a pistol that has NO SIGHTS installed on it. That equates to “point shooting” for all practical purposes .... all the way back to 25 yards. The scores are always in the high 90’s with clean scores not that uncommon.

I recently did some uncorrected vision shooting for the first time in my life. I was able to make hits much further than I thought I would be able to. Gratifying.

[BN]

I think better terms may be "Unfocused" or "Non transferred focus". Basically, transposing sights over your eyes without any conscious focus shift.
I have a suspicion that what many here are saying is target focus is actually front sight attention with no focus. I have a suspicion that the inability to see sights in perfect focus is forcing "trigger focus" and is also helping to get rid of some trigger snatch.

This is a very interesting thread to me. I think "front sight attention with no focus" may be what I have been doing for years.

In 1986 I had an injury to my eye and part of the result meant I could no longer focus my right eye at different distances. I have been wearing a contact lens in place of the natural lens in my master eye. Where ever my glasses focus is what I have to use. I have a set of glasses for competition, that focus my strong eye close to the front sight, but I never have a perfectly focused front sight. With either my normal street glasses or my shooting glasses, my left (non master) eye is focused for distance and it sees the target somewhat clearly. Not good enough to see bullet holes in a target though. My master eye, with either set of glasses, is (probably) looking through the sights, without a clear focus, and seeing the target.

I have trouble seeing a target such as a B-8 center at distance. It is sort of an oblong blob. I shoot tighter groups using a larger target such as an IDPA target because I can center the sights better.

Mr White's confluence and congruence is confusion and confusion to me. :(

[LSP552]

This is a very interesting thread to me. I think "front sight attention with no focus" may be what I have been doing for years.

In 1986 I had an injury to my eye and part of the result meant I could no longer focus my right eye at different distances. I have been wearing a contact lens in place of the natural lens in my master eye. Where ever my glasses focus is what I have to use. I have a set of glasses for competition, that focus my strong eye close to the front sight, but I never have a perfectly focused front sight. With either my normal street glasses or my shooting glasses, my left (non master) eye is focused for distance and it sees the target somewhat clearly. Not good enough to see bullet holes in a target though. My master eye, with either set of glasses, is (probably) looking through the sights, without a clear focus, and seeing the target.

I have trouble seeing a target such as a B-8 center at distance. It is sort of an oblong blob. I shoot tighter groups using a larger target such as an IDPA target because I can center the sights better.

Mr White's confluence and congruence is confusion and confusion to me. :(

Thanks Bill. I was really hoping you would see this thread and add the perspective of an older, Master class shooter. The “front sight attention with no focus” is probably the best way to say what I’ve had to start doing. Like you, I’ve found myself shooting tiger groups at 25 using a larger target. Not sure why. Perhaps it’s easier to perceive and float the sights on a larger target?

[blues]

Thanks Bill. I was really hoping you would see this thread and add the perspective of an older, Master class shooter. The “front sight attention with no focus” is probably the best way to say what I’ve had to start doing. Like you, I’ve found myself shooting tiger groups at 25 using a larger target. Not sure why. Perhaps it’s easier to perceive and float the sights on a larger target?

I've found the same thing to be the case. I just think it's easier for the eyes / brain to find the perceived center of a larger mass. Maybe because the larger size of the overall target makes it easier for us to use our receptors to point our finger toward its center.

It also seems less daunting and I have a feeling that in itself translates to success (to some extent).

[Redhat]

Does that mean index card size targets are out for you guys?

I think I'll try those my next time out.

[blues]

Does that mean index card size targets are out for you guys?

I think I'll try those my next time out.

I think that the point was that it was easier to hit them when they're put in the center of a larger target...like a B27.
(At least that's my perception.)

[BN]

Does that mean index card size targets are out for you guys?

I can see them OK at 7 yards. Any farther and they are just an irregular blob.

[Redhat]

Got it thanks! I don't use B27 or idpa type targets, just paper plates, B-8's mostly.

[BN]

Got it thanks! I don't use B27 or idpa type targets, just paper plates, B-8's mostly.

I can see a B-8 at 25 yards, but trying to determine what part to shoot at is difficult.

If I ever get in a gunfight at distance I hope it's with a big fat guy. :)

[Redhat]

I can see a B-8 at 25 yards, but trying to determine what part to shoot at is difficult.

If I ever get in a gunfight at distance I hope it's with a big fat guy. :)

How far out do they typically place targets in IDPA?

[BN]

How far out do they typically place targets in IDPA?

Typically I see targets at 15 yards and closer with an occasional target at 25 yards. By the rules, 75% of the shots must be no farther than 15 yards.

[Redhat]

Typically I see targets at 15 yards and closer with an occasional target at 25 yards. By the rules, 75% of the shots must be no farther than 15 yards.

Hmmm...thanks. I figured with the nature of the organization they would be mostly in the 3-7 yd range.

[BN]

The majority of the targets I have seen are 7 to 10 yards.

[LSP552]

Does that mean index card size targets are out for you guys?

I think I'll try those my next time out.


For me, they are OK out to 10 yards or so. After that, a larger target is just easier for me to center the sights over.

[lwt16]

Ah aging and eyesight.......

After a lifetime of 20/15 it's really starting to affect me with my pistol shooting.......and I hate it.

But, I am able to maintain some decent shooting with cheap reading glasses from the dollar store. At each session, I try to do some "combat" shooting and some target drills.....just so I don't use the glasses as too much of a crutch.

My last trip to the department range I shot on five different targets with my sidearm and my back up....shooting on the move, 1-5 drills and whatnot. All my usual stuff.......and I shot about 350 rounds in an hour and a half.

They had two bowling pins and I started shooting them with my G43. Somewhat on a bet (as the two instructors there were both several years junior to me in seniority and were watching me shoot due to my rep), one asked me had I ever tried to hit the bowling pins at the 50 yard line.

Of course, I lied and said "no".

So we walked back to it and I had two rounds left in the magazine. Used my 1.5 readers and focused on the orange Ameriglo front sight and REALLY focused on that trigger press. I tend to push left bad with 43s and 42s. I was using Federal aluminum so I wasn't expecting much......

Two shots later, both pins were on the ground knocked clean from the target stands. I got called a "sandbagging son of a ...." and other names.....but both instructors told me not to worry with policing up the aluminum cases. Said they would handle it.

So even with aging eyes I can still perform like when I was in my youth but I have to have the glasses to sharpen up that front sight. If it's the least bit blurry, it hoses me up at distance.

Oh, and I can's stand shooting at those Q targets....I can't put a decent group on one without a 3x5 index card stapled to one. At 25, I have to have something to aim at other than that little Q. I guess I am too used to shooting at index cards.

Regards.

[Dagga Boy]

I was doing some instructional work with my girlfriend yesterday. This topic came up as she has the same eye issues many here do. We were shooting a bunch of multiples of ten inch steel. Typical of this kind of shooting for both new and experienced is a desire to see the target. This was corrected through having her describe sight track to me. I wanted her to tell me exactly what her front sight was doing when the shot broke and immediately afterwards. This solved the issues instantly and she was hitting with boring regularity. So, because she cannot necessarily "focus" on her front sight, the key is that you still have to have your attention on that front sight as the priority. It is why I get uptight about calling things exactly what they are. It helps to explain what is going on and the correct response. I go back to having a feeling that good shooters with decaying vision are doing the same thing they always have, it is just not clear.
I am a bit different. I went from 20/10 vision to basically crap like everyone else at age forty. When I retired from LE I also stopped wearing glasses because my issue is an inability to see at distance. My front sight is in perfect focus, the target is very blurry. The issues with getting those sights aligned with the blur is tough, compounded by having lost my binocular vision due to a head and ocular injury. You simply have to sort of figure this stuff out. The principles of marksmanship do not change, only how we are reading them. Just because the front sight is not in perfect focus does not mean we are not still focused on it. It is like the whole shooting with the sights removed......you think you are really not "seeing them". You are simply using a router version of what you are looking at. I tend to notice those who can hit with removed or taped sights (which I have done) are using all the same neural pathways, minus a detailed confirmation. Otherwise, you could simply blindfold people and get the exact same results if their "instinctive point shooting" was as good as they say. Visual verification is what delivers hits in fights....period. How much verification is needed is very situational and shooter dependent.

[lwt16]

And at nearly 48, it's the sights that went fuzzy and yet I can still call shots on targets at the 25 yard line. On good days, I can see holes in paper at further distances.

Not sure which is better for shooting......I know that even though the front sight is fuzzy, I still need focus on it to make shots count.

I guess I'll quit whining as I interact with people my age and younger each day that are on death's door......usually due to their own bad choices.

[BN]

To those of you that are experimenting with cheap reading glasses. Please be sure you have true eye protection. Glasses should be rated Z-87 or better.

My eye injury years ago came when a bullet ricocheted from a nearby shooter and shattered my non rated glasses. If I had been using the proper glasses I would not have had that 50 mile ambulance ride on crooked roads, midnight eye surgery and over 30 years of trying to see out of that eye.

Wear true eye protection. Do as I say not as I did. :(

[Erik]

I am a bit different. I went from 20/10 vision to basically crap like everyone else at age forty. When I retired from LE I also stopped wearing glasses because my issue is an inability to see at distance. My front sight is in perfect focus, the target is very blurry. The issues with getting those sights aligned with the blur is tough, compounded by having lost my binocular vision due to a head and ocular injury. You simply have to sort of figure this stuff out.

I would love to hear more about how you've addressed your issues. I have no binocular vision (lost an eye over the summer) and I while I have lousy distance vision, the front sight is still sharp. I think I need to figure out a way to get my ass to Texas and get some training from you.

[Dagga Boy]

I would love to hear more about how you've addressed your issues. I have no binocular vision (lost an eye over the summer) and I while I have lousy distance vision, the front sight is still sharp. I think I need to figure out a way to get my ass to Texas and get some training from you.

It has actually been fairly easy as I just close my left eye when a decision to shoot has been made. I have been doing this for ages as a means to stop taking information in from the wrong place and forcing me to take information in from the eye that has a pistol in front of it. Where the binocular issue is kicking my butt is using a red dot with the only the massive astigmatism eye. For pistol work, it has not been a huge issue. Obviously if you "can" shoot without issue with both eyes open, by all means.....however; if you are dealing with which sight picture is the right one, rounds impacting in places that you don't intend because of how you are seeing sights with both eyes open, then I would contend it is not a positive for self defense shooting.

I used to keep my strong eye closed when using high powered illumination stuff in high risk searches. Kept my night vision trashed in one eye, and intact in the other. We can do a lot to adapt our eyes to various situations if we at least Pre think it and then train it.

[Mr_White]

It has actually been fairly easy as I just close my left eye when a decision to shoot has been made. I have been doing this for ages as a means to stop taking information in from the wrong place and forcing me to take information in from the eye that has a pistol in front of it. Where the binocular issue is kicking my butt is using a red dot with the only the massive astigmatism eye. For pistol work, it has not been a huge issue. Obviously if you "can" shoot without issue with both eyes open, by all means.....however; if you are dealing with which sight picture is the right one, rounds impacting in places that you don't intend because of how you are seeing sights with both eyes open, then I would contend it is not a positive for self defense shooting.

Just to add my unsolicited $.02, I completely agree with the above - and from the technical, tactical, and combined perspective too. Particularly the part about closing/squinting the nondominant eye upon making the decision to engage. That's also when I think the focal shift to front sight distance is best done, if the shooter can do it at that time.

[Erik]

Thank you both. I used to be fine shooting both eyes open. Now, that issue is off the table. I was more asking about ways to deal with the blurry target due to lousy s=distance vision, but I think "you simply have to sort of figure this stuff out" probably covers it.

[Mr_White]

"you simply have to sort of figure this stuff out" probably covers it.

The popular phrase "See What You Need To See" (to make the hit) is simultaneously the real, true answer, and also completely empty and devoid of direction. So I love it and hate it. The bottom line is that there is a lot of variation in eyes, brains, interpretation, etc. so people do ultimately have to find their own way.

However, there are some specific aiming schemes that I think are worth exploring, pursuing as a primary method, or at least experimenting with enough that you know how they work for you even if they are not the best idea, circumstance-dependent.

The baseline is to aim as precisely as you can. Classically, this is with sharp and clear front sight focus, blurry target, blurry rear sight, with the greatest detail visible in the equal-height/equal-light sight picture. For people who can't see the front sight sharp and clear, trying to notice as much detail as possible in the blurrier sight picture is probably the way to go. A high visibility front sight can help a lot here.

Another way to aim that is important to be very practiced with, is to see the front sight somewhere, anywhere, approximately within the rear notch (never mind having equal height and equal light.) That's an easy condition to achieve and an easy condition to recognize visually. This is highly applicable to the kind of targets we typically address in defensive shooting (gun at full extension, targets usually 10 yards or closer.) It's worth exploring this one thoroughly.

I think it is very worthwhile to experiment with taping off the sights and firing the gun with basically Jim Cirillo's "weapon silhouette point" technique, where you aim the gun, but coarsely, using the overall shape of the gun as seen from the rear, instead of using the sights. I don't think this should be a primary aiming method (it's never going to be the goal) but it's good to have had the experience of aiming and shooting the gun that way so if we are ever confronted with needing to aim that way (front sight broke off, eye injury, light condition that doesn't allow use of the sights - all reasonably far afield, but possible) it is not a new experience.

We also need practice shooting the gun from one and two-handed retention positions, which is going to mean aiming without the sights, but at a very close target.

I strongly believe two things - all those should be explored (and more than just those) but we should practice heavily to get extremely efficient at firing the most accurate shot we can. That is the one to cultivate the most strongly. Every presentation beyond where retention is necessary, should proceed directly to that aiming condition. From there, it's easy to stop the gun less and/or see a less perfect sight picture when the target difficulty allows it. So go for the first one - equal-height/equal-light, as detailed and perfect as possible - and if the shot is sufficiently certain on the way to achieving that aiming ideal, then go ahead and shoot.

But that's a lot more words (where are you Les?) than See What You Need To See. :)

[GJM]

I would love to have a device that sorted out how much of bad shooting is a result of aiming/focus and how much is less than optimal trigger control. Complete guess, but I bet 80 percent or more is trigger control.

[Dagga Boy]

The popular phrase "See What You Need To See" (to make the hit) is simultaneously the real, true answer, and also completely empty and devoid of direction. So I love it and hate it. The bottom line is that there is a lot of variation in eyes, brains, interpretation, etc. so people do ultimately have to find their own way.

However, there are some specific aiming schemes that I think are worth exploring, pursuing as a primary method, or at least experimenting with enough that you know how they work for you even if they are not the best idea, circumstance-dependent.

The baseline is to aim as precisely as you can. Classically, this is with sharp and clear front sight focus, blurry target, blurry rear sight, with the greatest detail visible in the equal-height/equal-light sight picture. For people who can't see the front sight sharp and clear, trying to notice as much detail as possible in the blurrier sight picture is probably the way to go. A high visibility front sight can help a lot here.

Another way to aim that is important to be very practiced with, is to see the front sight somewhere, anywhere, approximately within the rear notch (never mind having equal height and equal light.) That's an easy condition to achieve and an easy condition to recognize visually. This is highly applicable to the kind of targets we typically address in defensive shooting (gun at full extension, targets usually 10 yards or closer.) It's worth exploring this one thoroughly.

I think it is very worthwhile to experiment with taping off the sights and firing the gun with basically Jim Cirillo's "weapon silhouette point" technique, where you aim the gun, but coarsely, using the overall shape of the gun as seen from the rear, instead of using the sights. I don't think this should be a primary aiming method (it's never going to be the goal) but it's good to have had the experience of aiming and shooting the gun that way so if we are ever confronted with needing to aim that way (front sight broke off, eye injury, light condition that doesn't allow use of the sights - all reasonably far afield, but possible) it is not a new experience.

We also need practice shooting the gun from one and two-handed retention positions, which is going to mean aiming without the sights, but at a very close target.

I strongly believe two things - all those should be explored (and more than just those) but we should practice heavily to get extremely efficient at firing the most accurate shot we can. That is the one to cultivate the most strongly. Every presentation beyond where retention is necessary, should proceed directly to that aiming condition. From there, it's easy to stop the gun less and/or see a less perfect sight picture when the target difficulty allows it. So go for the first one - equal-height/equal-light, as detailed and perfect as possible - and if the shot is sufficiently certain on the way to achieving that aiming ideal, then go ahead and shoot.

But that's a lot more words (where are you Les?) than See What You Need To See. :)


One of the biggest benefits I got from having a lot of access to LEO's both immediately after a shooting and again shortly thereafter (within a week usually) was to really get into the weeds as to what they were seeing in fights and being able to separate what they were seeing as to how that translated to what they were hitting.

Most of the "trained" people who had gotten serious, repetitive solidly reinforced training on sighted fire and use of the sights and how much was needed for various distances and levels of accuracy. Most of these had huge success using the entire back of the gun like Cirillo described to get solid hits at typical pistol engagement distances. Later in depth interviews usually confirmed that they were "seeing" sights as they had been trained, but not deeply focused on them.

When we had officers that were top of their food chain shooters, and/or those who made very difficult or surgical shots, I got some amazing descriptions of front sights and the level of focus was both intense and memorable.

Those who missed....a ton of interesting data there as well. Misses completely correleted to two distinct things....never saw any kind of sights or the gun in he visual eye line, and I usually got exceptional details as to what the crook was doing when they were shooting.

Guess why "Target Focus" sets me off as to being pushed as a good thing? It also was interesting to see hit ratios change massively when the training methodology went from "you can't see sights in a fight" to "you need to use sights in a fight". I still lose this on he internet as far as arguments, but there is a sizable stack of violent felons no longer cohabitating with the decent people because of proper use of sights in a fight.

[Erik]

Really great posts. Thank you.

[LSP552]

Completely agree Darryl. Officers who remember seeing sights or gun referenced on the target get hits.

Thanks for adding clarity to the terms, language and thoughts in this thread. You have explained things much better than I in my original post.

[octagon]

One of the biggest benefits I got from having a lot of access to LEO's both immediately after a shooting and again shortly thereafter (within a week usually) was to really get into the weeds as to what they were seeing in fights and being able to separate what they were seeing as to how that translated to what they were hitting.

Most of the "trained" people who had gotten serious, repetitive solidly reinforced training on sighted fire and use of the sights and how much was needed for various distances and levels of accuracy. Most of these had huge success using the entire back of the gun like Cirillo described to get solid hits at typical pistol engagement distances. Later in depth interviews usually confirmed that they were "seeing" sights as they had been trained, but not deeply focused on them.

When we had officers that were top of their food chain shooters, and/or those who made very difficult or surgical shots, I got some amazing descriptions of front sights and the level of focus was both intense and memorable.

Those who missed....a ton of interesting data there as well. Misses completely correleted to two distinct things....never saw any kind of sights or the gun in he visual eye line, and I usually got exceptional details as to what the crook was doing when they were shooting.

Guess why "Target Focus" sets me off as to being pushed as a good thing? It also was interesting to see hit ratios change massively when the training methodology went from "you can't see sights in a fight" to "you need to use sights in a fight". I still lose this on he internet as far as arguments, but there is a sizable stack of violent felons no longer cohabitating with the decent people because of proper use of sights in a fight.

The problem is that there are very few detailed documentations of results and training reviewed and available. The "evidence" is anecdotal,no scientific method followed and the involved person's and the reviewers almost always have their own subjective bias and those involved officers recall can be less than absolute due to effects of stress and recollection quality.

When a more neutral third party is given access to training and OIS detailed results as well as officer interviews and/or eye tracking data and they publish their research the topic can be resolved beyond anecdotal opinion for the masses. Even then some will cling to their sights or no sights dogma.

[LSP552]

I would love to have a device that sorted out how much of bad shooting is a result of aiming/focus and how much is less than optimal trigger control. Complete guess, but I bet 80 percent or more is trigger control.

I believe trigger control will always yield the biggest benefits or the worst problems. My “focus” going forward is trigger control and not stressing over what I can’t see anymore. I will make the most of what I can see.

[Mr_White]

I will make the most of what I can see.

That is truly the bottom line in all this.

[octagon]

I would love to have a device that sorted out how much of bad shooting is a result of aiming/focus and how much is less than optimal trigger control. Complete guess, but I bet 80 percent or more is trigger control.

It can probably be done today at least in a lab or range setting.

https://imotions.com/eye-tracking/

https://pressureprofile.com/fingertps/?locale=en

[Dagga Boy]

The problem is that there are very few detailed documentations of results and training reviewed and available. The "evidence" is anecdotal,no scientific method followed and the involved person's and the reviewers almost always have their own subjective bias and those involved officers recall can be less than absolute due to effects of stress and recollection quality.

When a more neutral third party is given access to training and OIS detailed results as well as officer interviews and/or eye tracking data and they publish their research the topic can be resolved beyond anecdotal opinion for the masses. Even then some will cling to their sights or no sights dogma.

Yep,and that is the nature of OIS investigations. They are generally secretive, and non accessible, and unique to every case and agency. The focus is never about training and training goals as a priority. I was in a very unique position in a very unique place. I have absolutely subjective information that I was able to gather. I used that information to commit career suicide but completely changed how we did firearms training and had exceptional results. At this point, folks can believe me or not. I have lost interest in caring, or in most cases even sharing. What I put out is worth exactly what you paid for it, and if someone wants to try to replicate the experience, have fun. The reality is that I found most info out there is 17th hand cop stories and theory. Mine is first hand to me, and in context to the exact situation. The nature of the beast is it ain’t science and really can’t be. With that said, a lot of the work John Hearne has done has added a lot of confirmation and made sense of a lot of my simple observations.

[Mr_White]

One of the biggest benefits I got from having a lot of access to LEO's both immediately after a shooting and again shortly thereafter (within a week usually) was to really get into the weeds as to what they were seeing in fights and being able to separate what they were seeing as to how that translated to what they were hitting.

Most of the "trained" people who had gotten serious, repetitive solidly reinforced training on sighted fire and use of the sights and how much was needed for various distances and levels of accuracy. Most of these had huge success using the entire back of the gun like Cirillo described to get solid hits at typical pistol engagement distances. Later in depth interviews usually confirmed that they were "seeing" sights as they had been trained, but not deeply focused on them.

When we had officers that were top of their food chain shooters, and/or those who made very difficult or surgical shots, I got some amazing descriptions of front sights and the level of focus was both intense and memorable.

Those who missed....a ton of interesting data there as well. Misses completely correleted to two distinct things....never saw any kind of sights or the gun in he visual eye line, and I usually got exceptional details as to what the crook was doing when they were shooting.

Guess why "Target Focus" sets me off as to being pushed as a good thing? It also was interesting to see hit ratios change massively when the training methodology went from "you can't see sights in a fight" to "you need to use sights in a fight". I still lose this on he internet as far as arguments, but there is a sizable stack of violent felons no longer cohabitating with the decent people because of proper use of sights in a fight.

Hey DB, would you mind clarifying, when you are talking about the target focusing you are against, do you mean aiming and using the sights with a clear front sight vs. a blurry front sight, or do you mean aiming the gun using the sights (whether the front is blurry or clear) vs. shooting from below eye level/otherwise mentally ignoring the sights even if they were visible (because the shooter is mentally/ emotionally glued to the threat)?

Sorry I could not phrase that more succinctly. Maybe this is better - are you against visual threat-focusing or mental threat-focusing?

[Dagga Boy]

Hey DB, would you mind clarifying, when you are talking about the target focusing you are against, do you mean aiming and using the sights with a clear front sight vs. a blurry front sight, or do you mean aiming the gun using the sights (whether the front is blurry or clear) vs. shooting from below eye level/otherwise mentally ignoring the sights even if they were visible (because the shooter is mentally/ emotionally glued to the threat)?

Sorry I could not phrase that more succinctly. Maybe this is better - are you against visual threat-focusing or mental threat-focusing?

I ll give you the answer in the form of a question. In a lethal force encounter where you are trying to deliver action stopping hits on a human as the criteria or goal. Here is the question. After a decision is made to shoot based in specific stimulus often found in the hands, and you have visually picked a location to hit, what benefit to hitting that spot is there to focusing on it? Is focus on the target a means to hitting it? Or, would focus on some bumpy stuff at arms length a better means of getting precision hits. How much clarity we get on bumpy things is vision dependent and those bumpy things may or may not be “in focus”, but wouldn’t they be a better place to place our focus range than on the target? What is a better indicator of getting solid hits....visual attention to what the sights are doing or what the target is doing? You can see it all, but if we want hits, what thing in vision plane should get the priority? I say...the front sight. Others thing the target should get the priority. Life is full of choices.

[John J. McCarthy, Jr.]

I look at what I want to shoot, then my hands put the front sight onto it.

[Mr_White]

How much clarity we get on bumpy things is vision dependent and those bumpy things may or may not be “in focus”

This is what I was getting at. Thanks DB! That is what I thought you meant.

[OlongJohnson]

It has actually been fairly easy as I just close my left eye when a decision to shoot has been made. I have been doing this for ages as a means to stop taking information in from the wrong place and forcing me to take information in from the eye that has a pistol in front of it. Where the binocular issue is kicking my butt is using a red dot with the only the massive astigmatism eye. For pistol work, it has not been a huge issue. Obviously if you "can" shoot without issue with both eyes open, by all means.....however; if you are dealing with which sight picture is the right one, rounds impacting in places that you don't intend because of how you are seeing sights with both eyes open, then I would contend it is not a positive for self defense shooting.

I've found I can get my brain to process a both-eyes-open-focused-on-the-front-sight picture to suppress the "wrong" rear sight image and I can shoot reasonably accurately that way. But it's very, very slow. I'm much faster at cleaning it up if I momentarily close my non-dominant eye and let my brain work with just the one set of information. I still think of my skill level as "trying to not suck so much," though.

[MGW]

I would love to have a device that sorted out how much of bad shooting is a result of aiming/focus and how much is less than optimal trigger control. Complete guess, but I bet 80 percent or more is trigger control.

This is an interesting statement to me. It sounds ridiculous but I observe, and often participate in, lots of bad trigger presses when shooters are trying to be very precise. There’s a relationship between sight picture and trigger press that I haven’t cracked the code on yet. See the perfect sight picture and mash the trigger or don’t see the perfect sight picture and try to “save” the shot as it breaks.

Often times a softer front sight focus fixes the issue. It’s easier than getting someone to understand and then trust wobble zone.

[willie]

As an old bullseye shooter I learned not to "pray over" the sights. Proper stance, grip, sight picture formation, and then pulling the trigger would place the bullet in the target center. Hesitation or hitting the trigger when I thought I had the perfect sight picture did not work well. The whole process seemed complicated but became simple with practice. Does this statement relate to the question at hand?

[BehindBlueI's]

This is an interesting statement to me. It sounds ridiculous but I observe, and often participate in, lots of bad trigger presses when shooters are trying to be very precise. There’s a relationship between sight picture and trigger press that I haven’t cracked the code on yet. See the perfect sight picture and mash the trigger or don’t see the perfect sight picture and try to “save” the shot as it breaks.

Often times a softer front sight focus fixes the issue. It’s easier than getting someone to understand and then trust wobble zone.

Speculation on my part, but if you focus on the front sight you have feedback of what your grip/trigger control is doing to your aim. I would figure most of us here can call shots by now, and many do it subconsciously. Taking away that visual feedback and relying solely on physical awareness can't help, but how much it hurts is skill dependent. One of our senses is sensing where our body is in space and in relation to other parts of our body. It's how we type without looking at the keys, and how the Japanese steak house dude can make those awesome cuts without really looking, whereas someone knew needs to watch their hands and see where they are. Martial artist tend to have a better sense of where their body is, as well.

So, "no sights" would leave us relying solely on the sense of where our hands are and what they are doing. Sights would add the visual feedback is to what they are doing.

[Dagga Boy]

Speculation on my part, but if you focus on the front sight you have feedback of what your grip/trigger control is doing to your aim. I would figure most of us here can call shots by now, and many do it subconsciously. Taking away that visual feedback and relying solely on physical awareness can't help, but how much it hurts is skill dependent. One of our senses is sensing where our body is in space and in relation to other parts of our body. It's how we type without looking at the keys, and how the Japanese steak house dude can make those awesome cuts without really looking, whereas someone knew needs to watch their hands and see where they are. Martial artist tend to have a better sense of where their body is, as well.

So, "no sights" would leave us relying solely on the sense of where our hands are and what they are doing. Sights would add the visual feedback is to what they are doing.

Excellent observations that tie into something else I was going to broach. In the shootings I have been in I had very little tactile “detail” in the trigger press. Could feel it moving, knew I was doing it, but no real accurate sensation like we get on the range. While that tactile sensation is declining, visual acuity is going through the roof with what you can see and how fast you can process it. It is why I am a big advocate of blocking the eye line with the sights to get that acuity working in the place where it can best be utilized to hit with a high degree of efficiency. Three things become important in the process...identify the threat/force indicator, shift focus to where you want to hit, visually verify that location with the pistol (sights, back of the slide, hard front sight focus, etc). Failure to do all three gives poor results. Focus will need to shift on the target and then back to the gun.

[CCT125US]

Of the things I constantly work on, vision and understanding how it is best used is one aspect. Lately I have been working on the HiTS Advanced Super test, because it is such a great measure. The target on the left was shot after 100 rd session working on grip, stance, recoil control and vision. I felt really good about the session and needed to call it quits. I had the idea to test on demand performance, as a way to call myself out. Shot my highest ever score, significantly under par on each string. This thread then popped up and caused me to really think about what I was doing visually. 11 days later I shot the right target completely cold and picked up 2 x ring hits over the prior session. However, I was just under par on each string. While I would describe it as target focused, understand that I am monovision corrected. My dominant right eye is slightly undercorrected to the depth of the front sight (16.5"). Without glasses, the FS actually appears more clear. While the left eye is corrected for distance. My next session I will give it a run using only safety glasses.
21186

[Mr_White]

Lately I have been working on the HiTS Advanced Super test

I wanted to ask you about this, but didn't want to derail this thread. I started a new one here: https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?28281-The-Test-Variations&p=667350#post667350

I'd love to hear what's entailed in the HiTS Advanced Super Test (if it's ok to post the details!)

Thanks!

[LSP552]

As an old bullseye shooter I learned not to "pray over" the sights. Proper stance, grip, sight picture formation, and then pulling the trigger would place the bullet in the target center. Hesitation or hitting the trigger when I thought I had the perfect sight picture did not work well. The whole process seemed complicated but became simple with practice. Does this statement relate to the question at hand?

It may. I understand wobble zone and not trying the mash now to persevere the perfect sight picture. What I’m learning is just how accurate I can be without a distinct sight picture. Floating blurry stuff over the target and focusing on trigger control is yielding better results than trying to focus on stuff I can’t physically see anymore.

Perhaps that’s very related to accepting, and trusting, the wobble zone and not worrying about it.

[GJM]

Lots of good discussion here, sometimes confusing because of the way we use words to describe trigger and sighting, that have multiple meanings to different people.

I would suggest the following drill as a test of sorting out trigger, grip, and target vs sight focus. Do a partial Garcia dot drill, where you draw and fire three shots to the two inch dot at 7 yards. The target is close enough to tempt peeking during the shot, and small enough, that you need sight focus discipline, trigger control and grip. While some may be much faster or slower, 3.5 seconds should be reasonable for proficient timmies.

[willie]

LSP552, I had not heard the term wobble zone but think that it's the same concept as area aiming, which I'll briefly comment on. Because only a dead man can hold his hand(or gun)perfectly still, the rest of us will have some movement. However, the precision shooters movement's must avoid canting the weapon as if it were on a swivel. That is, the barrel and butt should remain in line. Now, movement might be up and down or side to side or somewhere in between, but the weapon's front and rear must remain aligned. Hence the sight picture of this "perfectly aligned" handgun moves around that area in the center of the bullseye. I've taught many persons to shoot. After I explained this concept to them, they then practiced the basics with this idea in mind.

I taught school at various levels for 30 years and had good success because I could figure out why a kid could not learn math or writing or whatever I was trying to teach. For me teaching shooting was easy when I started with the above model and observed and advised and adjusted--things a coach does. Occasionally I would have a shooting student who was a fool and refused to follow instructions. I did not waste my time with these folks and would dismiss them. I never charged a fee to teach others. My biggest concern was safety. Marksmanship was next. I've helped some police officers who could not shoot learn the basics of trigger control and sight picture but never went past this step with them. I have zero qualifications for teaching tactical shooting and am ignorant of 90% of the tenets taught in this area. So kept my mouth shut .

[critter]

Lots of good discussion here, sometimes confusing because of the way we use words to describe trigger and sighting, that have multiple meanings to different people.


Yeah, the ambiguity of both descriptions with words and the mental images conveyed may lead to a bit of confusion for sure. Whether "target focus", or 'non transferred focus'
or 'non focused sight attention/awareness' or others, whatever it is, it works. My sight picture is not really all that different from the sight picture when using a red dot. The fuzzy sights kinda float over the target and pop pop pop, the target has holes in it.

[DallasBronco]

This whole discussion has really intrigued me. I hope it can help with a few areas I've struggled with for years with regards to my accuracy. I've been practicing this in dry fire and hope to be able to hit the range tomorrow and put it to the test.

[DallasBronco]

I just wanted to follow up after practicing this technique. This has been a real game changer for me. I've never really been able to practice multiple shot strings or do any form of speed work since I started wearing glasses nearly 10 years ago. Shooting with a front sight focus and progressive bifocals, the muzzle would come up in recoil and go out of focus, I then had to bring it down, reacquire the front sight, try to align sights to target, refocus, and fire. My "splits" could've been measured with an egg timer. Using the target focus shooting my 92A1, I was actually running drills and multiple shot strings. Thanks to all who provided insight into this technique.

[JHC]

Last Sunday I shot this way out of necessity as I was wearing my prescription multi-focal glasses instead of contacts with monovision prescription that dials in my front sight in focus.

I found the 25 yard shooting, slow fire up to a moderately fast clip considering the distance to come easier than shooting transitions to multiple targets at 7 yards where I was really trying to move out. Takes some practice I'm sure.

21812

I also found the faster shooting at closer range to feel easier and more intuitive with Trijicon HDs vs black sights. Probably a Captain Obvious observation. But it felt more like shooting a RDS. Just "aware" the fuzzy bright blob was superimposed on the 4x6 card.

[NH Shooter]

I was diagnosed as severely near-sighted (myopia) at seven years old (I'm now 64). I've obviously worn prescription lenses all my life for that.

When I began pistol shooting 35 years ago, my prescription for near sightedness did not prevent me from getting good focus on the front sight, though I had to converge my focus on the front sight. I simply closed my non-dominant eye.

Around 10 to 15 years ago, my near vision began to decline as well (Presbyopia) so I would wear reading glasses over contacts. One day I realized that if I removed all corrective lenses, my focus was razor-sharp at about 16 inches away from my uncorrected eyes. It was at that point I went back to wearing glasses for distance, but taking them off for close work. However, no combination gave me a sharp front sight that would not render the target an absolute blur. It was around this time my pistol shooting activities went into decline.

Fast forward and now that I'm 64, my ever-changing eyesight have morphed into something much more usable: my distance vision has improved quite remarkably and my prescription has been dialed way back. With my glasses on I still cannot get a sharp front sight, but it's not terrible either. With my glasses off, the target is somewhat blurry (not that bad, though) and the front sight is almost sharp. I seem to shoot about the same with or without glasses at this point, and as always with convergence (both eyes focused) on the front sight with the non-dominant eye closed.

Which brings me to Gabe's vision article (http://www.gabewhitetraining.com/articles/vision/) (which I read for the first time today) - while it's a struggle to accommodate sight focus with convergence on the target with my glasses on (especially in low light), I discovered it's quite easy with them off. With no corrective lenses, I can simply use target-focus (though it's somewhat blurry) with both eyes open and accommodate reasonably-sharp sight focus with little-to-no effort. Here's the kicker - the focus of the target does not change when I "accommodate" the sight picture, even in low light. So the net result is a target that is consistently sharp enough to establish/maintain POA and a sight picture that is sharp enough to allow high precision, all without wrenching eyeball muscles. I'll take it!

I know my eyesight situation is probably unique, but the "target focus" and "accommodation" concepts were not something I had previously tried or considered. Discovering I can now simply focus on the target and quickly accommodate the sight picture with both eyes open has had me snapping the PPQ into my line of sight and admiring the results all morning.

I will be trying this live-fire with non-prescription safety glasses soon. Thank you, Gabe!