Interesting Vision Comment from Force Science

[Mr_White]

As I read this sort of thing and try to apply it to my own shooting practice and theory (thinking about the worst case scenario) I remember a real lesson from a point-shooting lesson I received last fall. During these exercises, I actually had a hard time focusing on the target, my vision just automatically went to my sights - including all the relatively complex details that make up the OAK Vision that I practice. (See here if you don't know about OAK Vision.) It took quite a few drills before I was able to force myself to keep my eyes focused on the threat even some of the time, and I was never able to override the habit 100% of the time.

I'm very glad I took that class, because I learned a lot about my accuracy envelope when I'm not looking at the sights (though they were certainly in my field of view.) But it also reinforced the idea in my mind, rightly or wrongly, that if I keep being disciplined about my vision during practice, I'll be disciplined about my vision at other times as well. Extrapolation from personal experience is dangerous, but I'll do it here anyway, just for curious speculation: for folks who practice shooting fairly regularly, yet "instinctively" focus on the threat during a shooting, how disciplined are they about their vision during practice? My personal anecdata suggests one answer.

And another navel-gazing type question: does my vision practice, with its distinct "feeling" in the eyes of separating accomodation and convergence, make it easier to subconsciously perform it under stress? There's certainly a very distinct "I'm shooting now" feeling in my eyes when I do it, so maybe subconsciously tying that distinct feeling makes it more likely for my subconscious mind to tightly couple that "shooting eyes" feeling when I flip the switch into shooting mode?

Much of the vision discussion I've read is fairly narrow-minded, in the sense that it assumes one single way of "using" your sights. For most of those discussions, it seems they break down into a restatement of a special case, once you add in the consideration that "using your sights" is a spectrum (i.e., seeing what you need to see,) and the idea that there's a whole matrix of combinations for what, exactly, you're converged on and focused on while shooting.

Same thoughts and observations here on all counts, MDS.

the visual process that he describes is certainly not new and is how good shooters have been doing it for quite some time now

That is absolutely correct. My only contribution is articulation of the ideas, whatever that is worth. When I first got into a discussion about the involved mechanics, it had not occurred to me that anyone did both eyes open/'sight focused' shooting any other way. I thought that was how it had always been done. I had no idea that some people simultaneously converge and accommodate to the front sight. The only thing that I think is not pretty much classically standard about what I do is to move my accommodation before the front sight gets in position.

This. I touched on a lot of this at Tom's. Everytime Lewinsky does good stuff.........one of these things come up and it actually pisses me off, because its wrong and adds to crap like Bruce Siddle/Grossman's stuff that is hard to undo. I also discussed the Bob Stasch interview as he called himself and instinctive point shooter who then almost perfectly describes using a flash front sight picture as used by most successful folks out there.

Targets change rapidly and go from where an "acceptable sight picture" will work to something where a precision shot is needed in a literal "blink". Target distances can be very skewed during these events particularly at night...........that front sight seems to stay fairly consistent in a dynamic event. I suppose if folks want to keep telling folks they can't use their sights, their businesses of trying to explain jacked up shootings, misses, etc will be good, and the trainers who teach this will not have a lot of successes to point to. Glad we have choices.

Obviously, I am coming from a different background from you, but I couldn't agree more with what you wrote there. Lewinski could be advocating for a distinctly better standard of practice than he seems to be on this.

[MDS]

MDS,

My only honest answer to your question is that I don't know. I suspect that I've simply done it so much, for so long, that those muscles don't feel anything, much like lifting a light weight instead of a heavier but doable weight.

Actually, that's not true. For many years, I shot with both eyes and did the OAK thing. For many years after that, I closed an eye, so I couldn't be doing the OAK thing. Now I shoot with both eyes open again. I'll have to pay more attention and see what happens.

Fair enough! I'd love to know what you figure out, if anything. Like you said, if there's a specific feeling in how you see your sights during shooting practice, it might be worth exploring how that helps make it more instinctive to use your sights under pressure...

[Dagga Boy]

Fair enough! I'd love to know what you figure out, if anything. Like you said, if there's a specific feeling in how you see your sights during shooting practice, it might be worth exploring how that helps make it more instinctive to use your sights under pressure...

It will never be "instinctive" to see your sights. It is not "instinctive" to use modern complex tools correctly. You learn how to operate tools efficiently and properly. With some tools we learn to operate them under stress. Do we "instinctively" drive. After we learn to drive do we also have to learn to properly operate under stress if we intend to survive a crisis. The other day driving my kid home from school we hit a big patch of black ice. It required multiple precise corrections and it was a non-event. My kid says "that was scary, how did you do that (keeping the vehicle under control in a generally straight line and not crashing)". I told her that you don't panic and do the right correction for the problem. This is the same thing.

[SLG]

It will never be "instinctive" to see your sights. It is not "instinctive" to use modern complex tools correctly. You learn how to operate tools efficiently and properly. With some tools we learn to operate them under stress. Do we "instinctively" drive. After we learn to drive do we also have to learn to properly operate under stress if we intend to survive a crisis. The other day driving my kid home from school we hit a big patch of black ice. It required multiple precise corrections and it was a non-event. My kid says "that was scary, how did you do that (keeping the vehicle under control in a generally straight line and not crashing)". I told her that you don't panic and do the right correction for the problem. This is the same thing.

I agree with that, but think MDS's idea is worth exploring.

[Dagga Boy]

I agree with that, but think MDS's idea is worth exploring.

Sorry, I tend to be obsessed with it being important to address terms like "instinctive" in the training field for things that are not. Back to instinctive sighting.

[ToddG]

Jim Cirillo told me in conversation that he was convinced that a well trained shooter would and could use the sights, often subliminally, and see enough sight picture to make the shot they were needing to make at that moment. I think Jim was correct in his assessment.

The question, as posed in the OP, is what constitutes "well trained?"

I think their use of equipment that actually provides confirmation of eye focus is key. There is all sorts of science backing up the idea that what people say they remember in moments of great stress isn't necessarily correct. We've all discussed that before in terms of people forgetting how many rounds they fired, where they were standing, etc. If they can get that wrong, isn't it possible that they got "I used my sights" wrong, too?

I attended an IALEFI ATC seminar one time with a woman who was primarily involved in doing shrinky-type work with LE folks. She'd studied post-stress memory stuff at great length. Her #1 take away was that will often fill in things that our mind didn't have enough power to remember when it was busy with things like staying alive under extreme stress, and those fill ins almost always defaulted to "this is what I was trained to do and since I succeeded I must have done it that way." IOW, lots of people can claim they saw their sights even if in reality they didn't.

People cannot have it both ways. Either we accept that memory from a gunfight is imperfect or we accept that someone's claims of seeing their sights aren't necessarily correct.

[ToddG]

Their minds might not say, FI distance, traffic stop distance, High risk stop distance. Add that to a very large percentage of officers giving incorrect distances after a shooting and that is a recipe for missing.

My brief take is this, unless you need to shoot from retention, get the gun into the eye target line.

This. I've been to some classes where sighting technique or even stance was supposed to change depending on distance. It's utterly absurd. One of the things I always covered in class was "how close am I to you?" The student would say, e.g., five yards. Then we'd take a show of hands vote. Half the class would say I was closer. Half would say I was farther. The point, regardless, was that we generally suck at figuring that stuff out even if were not under horrible stress.

Practice using your sights makes you better when you're using your sights and when you're not. It builds up the necessary habituation to put the gun where it needs to be when you decide to break a shot.

Practicing without using your sights, at best, will only make you better when not using your sights. And as John said, there are plenty of shooting situations where you either get a decent sight picture or you miss. Which is why a lot of people miss.

[Dagga Boy]

How much of a priority do you guys think it is to get feedback on training from those involved in shootings and how qualified are those asking the questions. Another factor is when and how it is asked. This is a subject I have some first hand experience with.

[MDS]

Sorry, I tend to be obsessed with it being important to address terms like "instinctive" in the training field for things that are not. Back to instinctive sighting.

Totally fair, terminology is important and I'm pretty ignorant on these things. Would the term "subconscious habit" be more accurate than "instinctive?"

[Dagga Boy]

Totally fair, terminology is important and I'm pretty ignorant on these things. Would the term "subconscious habit" be more accurate than "instinctive?"

We would be beyond good.