Stoeger -- People don't understand red dots

[Default.mp3]

Phoria. It’s relatively rare though. Some people also have convergence issues etc again rare though.

Good discussion of those things here:

https://pistol-forum.com/showthread....Occluded-Optic

Define "rare". Phoria's prevalence in the population may be as high as 50%. As @Failure2Stop noted while he was an instructor:

I have never recommended the use of the ACOG as an OEG, mostly because of this distinct shift we see in about 50% of shooters to varying degrees and distances of effect. I use the OEG technique only as a method to get the shooters into shooting with both eyes open.

Obviously, many people with phoria can still use occluded optic shooting to good effect at closer ranges, as they may have a mild case, and with a pistol you get much more less occlusion than with a long gun, but based on everything I know, I certainly wouldn't consider phoria to be rare, and would encourage folks to actually try out occluded optic shooting and see how it works for them, and to not be shocked if it isn't a very viable tactic for them.

[rob_s]

What you just described is the primary seller of 1x prism sights on AR-15s. The lack of target focus is an issue in the rifle world as well and the driver of every forum post that begins with "I have an astigmatism and can't use red dots...".

that hasn't been my experience.

Yes, I can "use" red dots, and even do OK with them, but there is a definite "bloom" effect without correction and it can certainly affect how *well* I can use them.

[HCM]

Define "rare". Phoria's prevalence in the population may be as high as 50%. As @Failure2Stop noted while he was an instructor:

I have never recommended the use of the ACOG as an OEG, mostly because of this distinct shift we see in about 50% of shooters to varying degrees and distances of effect. I use the OEG technique only as a method to get the shooters into shooting with both eyes open.

Obviously, many people with phoria can still use occluded optic shooting to good effect at closer ranges, as they may have a mild case, and with a pistol you get much more less occlusion than with a long gun, but based on everything I know, I certainly wouldn't consider phoria to be rare, and would encourage folks to actually try out occluded optic shooting and see how it works for them, and to not be shocked if it isn't a very viable tactic for them.

Shooting ACOGs occluded has its own issues.

I’ve not seen anything like 50% in the groups I’ve had doing occluded shooting with pistol red dots, nor have other commercial instructors who teach pistol optics.

Is there any source for that number other than anecdotal observation?

As mentioned there are also other factors which can cause issues shooting occluded.

[Default.mp3]

Shooting ACOGs occluded has its own issues.

I’ve not seen anything like 50% in the groups I’ve had doing occluded shooting with pistol red dots, nor have other commercial instructors who teach pistol optics.

Is there any source for that number other than anecdotal observation?

As mentioned there are also other factors which can cause issues shooting occluded.

I do not remember where I saw the 50% figure (I swear I saw it somewhere reputable), but quite a few studies have shown around a 20% prevalence.

• 19.5% of Americans between 1 and 74 were estimated to have either phoria or else tropia in a 1978 CDC study (https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_11/sr11_206.pdf).
• 12.9% of Iranian college students had phoria of some sort according to a 2019 study (https://www.researchgate.net/profile...on-in-Iran.pdf), though note that the abstract specifically states "[one] in every 10 students had phoria, which was much lower than similar reports on Iranian populations" (emphasis added by me).
• 22.89% of Tibetan first graders had phoria, according to a 2020 study (https://www.hindawi.com/journals/joph/2020/9570908/).
• 19.9% of South African high school students had phoria, according to a 2017 study (https://avehjournal.org/index.php/av...e/view/420/825)

[Archer1440]

Just a few thoughts on shooting with occluded optics:

I feel like there’s little practical difference between the process of shooting a 1x RDS occluded, and using a 3.5x ACOG at close distance with both eyes open, target focused, ignoring the fuzzy magnified image from the dominant eye but seeing the illuminated reticle superimposed on the desired target impact point- IF your RDS when occluded actually allows some light to come through the optic.

My thought was that a full black occlusion on an RDS may yield different results than a translucent white occluder for some shooters. (None of this is to be confused with the Bindon aiming concept for the ACOG, which is more about situational awareness and then a focus back to the reticle for a magnified optic)

Now, in Olympic rifle shooting, a white translucent occluder (on the non dominant eye) generally creates a more relaxed visual experience than a solid black occluder, at least for some shooters, and that seems to be because both pupils can receive the same general light level. Obviously this involves an occluder on the eye itself, so the pupillary dilation factor doesn’t apply for our discussion of the RDS, but I found myself wondering if the general principle might apply to an RDS for a different reason. I wondered if the reduced apparent visual contrast from occlusion with the same overall light transmission through the RDS, but with no possibility of focus beyond the RDS lens, might make a positive difference.

I have personally found that occluding the RDS with translucent Mylar tape (Scotch magic transparent tape) does produce a different “feeling” than using blue painter tape or black tape on the RDS. Not necessarily “better”, but “different”. For me, it seems a bit easier to achieve faster visual collimation of the superimposed dot using the translucent occlusion.

Some people having trouble with occluded RDS work might find benefit from experimenting with this.

[stomridertx]

that hasn't been my experience.

Yes, I can "use" red dots, and even do OK with them, but there is a definite "bloom" effect without correction and it can certainly affect how *well* I can use them.

Everyone's experience is unique, and I won't discount that. I'll put money on the table that my astigmatism is worse than most. Uncorrected, if I focus on looking at the dot indoors it looks something like a geriatric stripper trying to do pole tricks. Outdoors in daylight, again uncorrected, with a target focus I perceive a rough dot. With glasses or contacts, the dot is still not perfect but much better than before. I can shoot the same size group at 100 yards in both scenarios. Believe it or not, I have one rifle that loves M193 and that group is often 1.5-2.5 MOA if the rifle is front and rear bag supported, I have a target that easy to center on, and I'm having a good day with my fundamentals. About the size of the dot itself.
I honestly believe that users with astigmatism using dots on rifles are having problems target focusing if they are saying they can't use the dot accurately. Now, it's up to the user if they want to go to an etched reticle or train to use that dot as designed. As many shooters as I see in my RSO duties shooting their red dot rifles with one eye closed, I maintain that this lack of understanding of target focus is making Primary Arms a killing on their 1x mini prism sight.
He's a mind-blowing thing that doesn't get talked about. The fiber illuminated dot in LPVOs like the Razor Gen II 1-6 are susceptible to problems with astigmatism too. I use one of those as well and it's the same scenario for me.

[stomridertx]

Just a few thoughts on shooting with occluded optics:

I feel like there’s little practical difference between the process of shooting a 1x RDS occluded, and using a 3.5x ACOG at close distance with both eyes open, target focused, ignoring the fuzzy magnified image from the dominant eye but seeing the illuminated reticle superimposed on the desired target impact point- IF your RDS when occluded actually allows some light to come through the optic.

My thought was that a full black occlusion on an RDS may yield different results than a translucent white occluder for some shooters. (None of this is to be confused with the Bindon aiming concept for the ACOG, which is more about situational awareness and then a focus back to the reticle for a magnified optic)

Now, in Olympic rifle shooting, a white translucent occluder (on the non dominant eye) generally creates a more relaxed visual experience than a solid black occluder, at least for some shooters, and that seems to be because both pupils can receive the same general light level. Obviously this involves an occluder on the eye itself, so the pupillary dilation factor doesn’t apply for our discussion of the RDS, but I found myself wondering if the general principle might apply to an RDS for a different reason. I wondered if the reduced apparent visual contrast from occlusion with the same overall light transmission through the RDS, but with no possibility of focus beyond the RDS lens, might make a positive difference.

I have personally found that occluding the RDS with translucent Mylar tape (Scotch magic transparent tape) does produce a different “feeling” than using blue painter tape or black tape on the RDS. Not necessarily “better”, but “different”. For me, it seems a bit easier to achieve faster visual collimation of the superimposed dot using the translucent occlusion.

Some people having trouble with occluded RDS work might find benefit from experimenting with this.

This reminds me a lot of when I first started shooting rifles. I'm right-handed and left eye dominant and started out shooting rifles left-handed to overcome this. I got tired of opposing gear placement and took advice from a more experienced shooter to try shooting rifles right-handed with clear tape over the left lens of my eyepro for a while. I did this for a few months and when I took the tape off, I found I had sufficiently trained to effectively use my right eye in scopes and red dots. I could switch to my right eye with AR-15 iron sights but was still faster with those if I slightly squinted my left eye. I've stuck with that over the years and don't think about it anymore. Interestingly enough, I can shoot red dots on pistols with the dot in front of my right eye now with both eyes open no problem, whereas with pistol iron sights I still need to sight with my left in order to be effective with both eyes open. This thread has me evaluating if I'm really target focusing like I think I am with the pistol dots.

[rob_s]

Everyone's experience is unique, and I won't discount that. I'll put money on the table that my astigmatism is worse than most. Uncorrected, if I focus on looking at the dot indoors it looks something like a geriatric stripper trying to do pole tricks. Outdoors in daylight, again uncorrected, with a target focus I perceive a rough dot. With glasses or contacts, the dot is still not perfect but much better than before. I can shoot the same size group at 100 yards in both scenarios. Believe it or not, I have one rifle that loves M193 and that group is often 1.5-2.5 MOA if the rifle is front and rear bag supported, I have a target that easy to center on, and I'm having a good day with my fundamentals. About the size of the dot itself.
I honestly believe that users with astigmatism using dots on rifles are having problems target focusing if they are saying they can't use the dot accurately. Now, it's up to the user if they want to go to an etched reticle or train to use that dot as designed. As many shooters as I see in my RSO duties shooting their red dot rifles with one eye closed, I maintain that this lack of understanding of target focus is making Primary Arms a killing on their 1x mini prism sight.
He's a mind-blowing thing that doesn't get talked about. The fiber illuminated dot in LPVOs like the Razor Gen II 1-6 are susceptible to problems with astigmatism too. I use one of those as well and it's the same scenario for me.

my primary and favorite rifle has a TA33 on it. never had the issue with that one. Only problem with that optic now is it's so old the tritium has died.

It remains my favorite optic, even with the dead glow.

and I saw the discussion up-thread about occluded eye, which I also do (did, it's been a minute) with the TA33 with great success.

[Noah]

Is it fair to say that occluded shooting is a useful test and training aid for many people, but a failure to be able to do it is not conclusive proof that you are NOT target focused? IE, some people are not physically able to make it work, or experience significant POI shift.

Failing the occlusion test MIGHT mean you aren't target focusing, but it doesn't automatically mean that for all people. If that were true, how could someone with only 1 eye shoot target focused at all? Necessarily, if they are shooting target focus, they are still looking through the optic window or sights, at the target, without their focus (accommodation being the medical term?) being on the dot or sight.

[Caballoflaco]

@Archer1440 All those thing you talked about Olympic rifle shooting hold true for what I have learned about vision in high level clay shooting which is another 100% target focused sport.

Eta, I’ve also thought that a neutral tone gray, FDE/tan or light blue optic might be much better than black for helping keep peoples focal plane on target vs the usual bold black that can have lots of contrast and be an additional focal point.

In that vein has anybody had experience with some of the FDE optics and how to they work?