Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 51

Thread: POI Shift with Occluded Optic

  1. #41
    Oh Dremel, Dremel, Dremel JCN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Location
    Probably dry firing
    @Clusterfrack

    Name:  576A5E05-6F07-4746-9EF5-1AFF0EC187D1.jpeg
Views: 179
Size:  57.5 KB

    So this graph is a little hard to follow. It represents the total time spent in what youíre looking at.

    So if you are at the line above, where are you spend the entire time looking at the target, and I am the lower graph where I flick my eyes to the dot and then back on the target, what additional information are you getting from staring at the target the whole time. It costs nothing to dart the eyes quickly back and forth and significantly improves my accuracy in predicting the rate and angle of approach.

    You could see it in the flipside, and say why not to do it that way. If it affects your ability to get back onto the target in time, then, sure. But really with stationary targets, you know where they are in space. The thing thatís moving is the gun.
    Currently Iím still within the acceptable dickhead parameter of PF 2017+.

  2. #42
    Deadeye Dick Clusterfrack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Wokelandia

    POI Shift with Occluded Optic

    Ok, crow tastes pretty good. A little feathery, but not too bad.

    Dryfiring just now, I paid closer attention to my dot transitions. Especially on wider transitions, I'm doing exactly what @JCN is describing. Crazy that I didn't notice it until now, and actually rejected the idea. As always, it's good to be reminded how important an open mind is for learning.

    One thing I want to clarify: my focal depth does not change as I track the last few degrees of dot trajectory as it arrives on target. Focal depth is on the target, always. Of course with a laser-based optic, the dot remains crisp at all focal depths. It would be super cool to use an eye-tracking device to measure this.

    Quote Originally Posted by Clusterfrack View Post
    I do a similar thing, but with a significant difference. Once my eyes are aimed and focused on the center of the target, I don't move them (other than to continue to track the target if there's motion). I pick up the dot, track it in peripheral vision, and break the shot when appropriate.
    Quote Originally Posted by JCN View Post
    So a couple things about that. I believe a quick glance at the dot for milliseconds is more effective and then bringing the eyes back to the target is better for a couple of reasons. Itís only a quick eye saccade and my eyes are back on target well before the dot gets there (so still accomplishing the terminal aspect of what youíre doing). What it allows me to do is calculate the velocity and rate of approach so I am more ready for it by the time it comes into my primary vision.

    The target isnít moving. I donít need to stare at it. And truly, even if I closed my eyes after the point where I track my velocity blanked out the last few hundred milliseconds I would still be able to hit the target with my eyes closed.

    Iím getting additional information earlier about the tracking that is very important for calculating velocity and approach timing.

    Basically, if someone were throwing a football in an arc, I would be tracking the football partially, and not just my hands.

    If I know where my hands are, I donít need to stare at them until the final approach.

    Same thing with a target. If I know where the target is in space, donít actually need to stare at it. Most of the time the target difficulty is not such that we need to make a microprecision shot at speed. So what is the point of staring at the target. As important as it is, itís really not that important.

    What I care about is how is my gun approaching the target and that information I want as the center of my focus for at least a split second so I can calculate the approach rate to preset my intended timing for the trigger.

    @Q5shooter it takes a LOT of practice to get efficient at doing this. Donít expect to be able to do it yet. Thereís a reason why some people can rip steel challenge and plate racks after practicing.
    Last edited by Clusterfrack; 11-29-2022 at 09:31 PM.
    "You can never have too many knives." --Joe Ambercrombie
    "You donít really graduate from certain problems or certain thingsÖ like you always have to work on trigger control and pulling the trigger straight. " --Ben Stoeger 1/24/2018

  3. #43
    Oh Dremel, Dremel, Dremel JCN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Location
    Probably dry firing
    Quote Originally Posted by Clusterfrack View Post
    Ok, crow tastes pretty good. At little feathery, but not too bad.

    Dryfiring just now, I paid closer attention to my dot transitions. Especially on wider transitions, I'm doing exactly what @JCN is describing. Crazy that I didn't notice it until now, and actually rejected the idea. As always, it's good to be reminded how important an open mind is for learning.

    One thing I want to clarify: my focal depth does not change as I track the last few degrees of dot trajectory as it arrives on target. Focal depth is on the target, always. Of course with a laser-based optic, the dot remains crisp at all focal depths. It would be super cool to use an eye-tracking device to measure this.
    Agreed that focal depth does not change. Target focal depth (which is what keeps the dot clear as well).

    But some people misinterpret ďtarget focusĒ as only center on the target, which isnít the case. Itís just about accommodation and focal distance. Youíre supposed to look at a whole bunch of stuff in order to get the most information to make the most educated and efficient movement.

    Iím happy that you trusted me enough to go one step further, and actually test out what I was saying with an open mind.

    As we said in our sidebar, the wonderful thing about efficiency is convergent evolution. In order to do something fast and accurate, certain things have to hold. At medium or slow speeds, all kinds of inefficiencies can be tolerated. But to get to the highest levels of performance, with speed and accuracy, certain things have to be present.

    People talk about M or GM, but when I reference it Iím not talking about what our paper USPSA cards say. Iím talking about a certain level of performance thatís very fast and very accurate.

    Iíll post it up again for @Q5shooter since he probably has not seen the video of the Jason Bradley shotshell challenge, but thatís an example of what I am talking about with fast and accurate transition without over transition or insufficiency in the approach to the final press.

    Currently Iím still within the acceptable dickhead parameter of PF 2017+.

  4. #44
    @JCN and @Clusterfrack, I'm really enjoying this discussion. It's really interesting to see how such a simple concept of might the gun from one target to the next can involve so many processes that we're not even aware of.

    You were right that I had not seen that video before. Being able to transition to such a small target that accurately and quickly is extremely impressive and very motivating. It reminds me of a video I saw of Jerry Miculek shooting a grape with an AR from low ready in some blistering speed... The efficiency of movement and the controlled stop/timing of the shot is definitely going to be a focus of my dry fire for a while, and I'll report back as I gauge my progress and begin to figure out what my eyes are actually doing during my transitions. Until then, I'm going to enjoy reading this discussion play out!

  5. #45
    @JCN @Clusterfrack
    I wanted to update you guys on my very brief range session yesterday. It was cold and I wanted to conserve some ammo, but I did the 4-step test that you (JCN) suggested with shooting groups at various speeds occluded vs not occluded. Based on the results, I'm inclined to say that I don't actually have a true vision problem/abnormality, but that I instead just lined up my optic in front of the wrong eye while doing hard leans...

    I believe this, because my groups for occluded and non-occluded were almost the exact same. There was no apparent POA/POI shift in any of the scenarios from 5-7 yards, and all shots were either touching each other or were at least within an inch. I tried a few other tests, all with the optic occluded, just to see if I could replicate the problem I had at the match, but every shot was hitting exactly where I was aiming. I had an issue where my pasters absolutely would not stick to the target, so it was hard maintaining accountability for all my shots. Regardless, I spent around 100 rounds on Ben Stoeger's Doubles drill with the optic occluded from around 8 yards. My splits ranged from around .15 to .18 and I was mostly able to call my shots. Throughout the drill, my POI seemed to be holding properly.

    So basically, I just screwed up at the match. I still think it's strange that as soon as I took off the occlusion I started hitting where I saw the dot, though I didn't seem to have any problems with the occluded dot yesterday. I guess more experimenting is in order, particularly with hard leans.

  6. #46
    Oh Dremel, Dremel, Dremel JCN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Location
    Probably dry firing
    @Q5shooter sometimes in rain or when pasters donít stick Iíll staple brown index cards over the group, kind of like replacing the center on a distance rifle target.

    I carry a bunch of different sized brown paper rectangles in the trunk to use as scaled targets and transitions when Iím lane limited at a structured range.

    Iím not so sure I buy the explanation of using the wrong eye during a lean because with an occluded dot I would think that would be very noticeable.

    I wonder if itís something to do with what you did with your zero at the match.

    Typically people donít change their zero when changing from dot open to dot occluded (and cluster was saying you did for the match).

    The other thing buried in the discussion or maybe it was in texts to Cluster but as context:

    For me, Iím pretty much using my dominant (right) eye to see the target and to pick up the dot and to track. The left eye is just there to place the target in space while moving to help triangulate.

    So whatever the goal of dot occlusion (training the non-dominant eye to look at the target?) it doesnít apply to me.

    Basically even if I patch my left eye, I can shoot and transition about the same as both eyes open. The only place I suffer is if Iím moving or the target is moving and thats where depth perception and binocular vision come into play for me.
    Currently Iím still within the acceptable dickhead parameter of PF 2017+.

  7. #47
    @JCN That's a great idea about the brown paper and index cards, I'll have to pick some up before my next range trip. Also, as far as changing my zero, I think I changed it for a single stage, then changed it right back afterward, so I'm not sure how much of an impact it would have had beyond that one stage. In all honesty, I also think I have to be honest with myself and accept that Maybe the stress of being in a match after so long away caused some firing hand tension that caused me to miss so much. It feels strange to consider that as an option, since I had dry fired a decent bit the previous weeks and felt pretty good. I also know that firing hand tension for a righty more often than not causes rounds to go left, not right, which doesn't quite match up, but I'm still considering it a possibility.

    That's really interesting that you can shoot with the dot more or less the same with one eye patched as with both eyes open, except for when there's a moving element. I didn't get to do any moving and shooting this session, but that's something I'll throw into the mix next time. Regardless, since I don't seem to have too much trouble with being target focused (which, to my understanding, is the whole reason for running an occluded dot), there's no reason to risk running the dot occluded in live fire.

  8. #48
    I don't think one practice session is definitive. My issues with the occluded dot come and go, as phoria is not necessarily binary as in yes/no.
    Likes pretty much everything in every caliber.

  9. #49
    Oh Dremel, Dremel, Dremel JCN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Location
    Probably dry firing
    Quote Originally Posted by Q5shooter View Post
    That's really interesting that you can shoot with the dot more or less the same with one eye patched as with both eyes open, except for when there's a moving element. I didn't get to do any moving and shooting this session, but that's something I'll throw into the mix next time. Regardless, since I don't seem to have too much trouble with being target focused (which, to my understanding, is the whole reason for running an occluded dot), there's no reason to risk running the dot occluded in live fire.
    Agreed. Thereís also probably not much point in running the dot occluded in dry fire, eitherÖ
    Currently Iím still within the acceptable dickhead parameter of PF 2017+.

  10. #50
    Quote Originally Posted by GJM View Post

    Back to the SRO, a squad mate who is a lead red dot trainer for a major department, had his SRO occluded on the first stage. I meant to ask him, but didn't get the chance, how the department would feel about an occluded SRO on duty. The false SRO dot is such a problem, because rather than being splatter that you know is a problem, it is a single deceptive dot.
    If itís the guy I assume it is, I just asked him about it last night. He said heíd never run an SRO occluded on duty. He runs occluded for most of his training, dry-fire, and live fire. His philosophy for running it occluded at matches, is that he generally views a match as an extension of his training. If he was in the running for a win at nationals (just a hypothetical example), heíd run it un-occluded, same thing for working. The visual information for processing the bad guy is too important to run occluded. However, heís seen an improvement in true target focus with his vision by running occluded, and helps him diagnose when heís shifting focus. Or something like that. We donít have a policy on running occluded or not on duty, but thatís probably because thereís only a tiny handful that actually practice occluded anyways.

User Tag List

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •