Does what your target look like matter to accuracy?

[BaiHu]

I had an odd occurrence today where I felt more comfortable aiming at a human head than the 3x5 card. Even though the 3x5 card is more 'defined', I found the nebulousness of a blue head easier to focus on the eyes/nose area and I 'felt' more comfortable shooting at anatomy.

Here's what I shot at:

http://i739.photobucket.com/albums/xx38/djdemarco/Pistol%20Forum/20120715_184238.jpg

The card I used to cover the holes afterward. As you can see I have a flier up above from pulling the trigger too early, but other than that, I found I was grouping better on this type of target.

Anyone else experience this?

[Chuck Haggard]

I had an odd occurrence today where I felt more comfortable aiming at a human head than the 3x5 card. Even though the 3x5 card is more 'defined', I found the nebulousness of a blue head easier to focus on the eyes/nose area and I 'felt' more comfortable shooting at anatomy.

Here's what I shot at:



The card I used to cover the holes afterward. As you can see I have a flier up above from pulling the trigger too early, but other than that, I found I was grouping better on this type of target.

Anyone else experience this?

I have often used a blank back of our qual target to have folks stop focussing so hard to hit a specific spot and start grouping. Really just a mental trick.

[ToddG]

Many people find it easier to center their sights on a large target (large in this context meaning "bigger than you can cover with your front sight") than to align their sights on a smaller one.

Also, depending on the distance at which you were shooting, you might have been able to see the eyes or other distinguishing marks on the blue man, giving you more reference to your aiming point than a blank white card.

[BaiHu]

It was 7yds and it wasn't distinguishable when I was shooting, but maybe the illusion that I had more room for error calmed me down?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using Tapatalk 2

[ToddG]

It was 7yds and it wasn't distinguishable when I was shooting, but maybe the illusion that I had more room for error calmed me down?

Next time you get a chance, look at a 3x5 @ 7yd through your sights. Can you see the entire outline of the 3x5 rectangle or do your sights occlude your view of some of the card? If the latter, then you're essentially doing some guesswork at where the center of the card is located. With the big blue head, you can probably see the entire outline of the target zone and thus don't rely on guesswork to find the center.

It's the same reason someone might be able to shoot a 2" group at 10yd without breaking a sweat, but hitting a 2" circle at the same distance is harder unless there is some other alignment aid (e.g., the 2" circle is in the center of an 8" circle you can discern at 10yd).

[BaiHu]

Bingo Todd! From memory I know I could see the arch of the forehead and that was helping me maintain my horizontal better. I'm almost positive. First time I ever shot these, simply because it was left behind by a class that just finished. Probably won't see them any time soon:(

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using Tapatalk 2

[Failure2Stop]

Nothing ground-breaking here, just an observation:

Bigger targets seem to make the shooter feel more comfortable with wobble zone, whereas smaller targets tend to induce the "IT'SGOTTAHAPPENNOW!" trigger jump that also tends to cause anticipation.

[fuse]

Nothing ground-breaking here, just an observation:

Bigger targets seem to make the shooter feel more comfortable with wobble zone, whereas smaller targets tend to induce the "IT'SGOTTAHAPPENNOW!" trigger jump that also tends to cause anticipation.

This.

[DiscipulusArmorum]

I've noticed this myself. I warm up by shooting at a silhouette target. My groups are covered by a 3x5 card. When I tape the cards on the silhouette to do the 3x5 card drills, I have more difficulty keeping my shots in the 3x5 zone.

This leads me to ask, what are the practical implications of this fact? Does this add to or detract from the reasons to use 3x5 cards as targets or make no difference at all? I certainly don't have the knowledge or experience to say one way or another, so I'm wondering what others here think.

[SecondsCount]

For me, the smaller the target, the smaller the group. It is the way my eyes focus.

[mongooseman]

For me, the smaller the target, the smaller the group. It is the way my eyes focus.

What he said.

[Corlissimo]

For me, the smaller the target, the smaller the group. It is the way my eyes focus.

So, it stands to reason then that IF I can just see the gnat's balls...

Sorry. :o

[rob_s]

Nothing ground-breaking here, just an observation:

Bigger targets seem to make the shooter feel more comfortable with wobble zone, whereas smaller targets tend to induce the "IT'SGOTTAHAPPENNOW!" trigger jump that also tends to cause anticipation.

This thread, and this post in particular, is interesting to me. I have been working on shooting B-8 targets in order to track performance re: accuracy and precision and dealing with anticipation, and both in that endeavor and in shooting in classes where we go from bulls to USPSA targets, my groups are almost always smaller on the nebulous target than the defined ones.

But, I still believe that if I had spent more time shooting bulls in the beginning, my anticipation issue would have worked itself out earlier on, and I'd be getting better groups on either target if that had happened.