Stoeger -- People don't understand red dots

[HCM]

I always saw index as the tool that gets you visual confirmation faster rather than a competitor or replacement to it.

Yes. This ^^^^

I guess the exception would be something like a 0.8 draw where you are reacting to your index prior to visual confirmation, but for anything else (a 1.2 draw and hit, very fast and accurate transitions) index and visual confirmation are good friends...

No. Everyone has different skills and abilities. Those metrics may be true for yourself, (not a critique as most can't do that) but not for everyone. I shoot with some folks who, through a combination of talent and hard work, can get sub second hits in the .7 or .8 range with visual confirmation with reasonable consistency say 90% of the time. There are two aspects to this: 1) people who "see faster" even in other disciplines like racing, sporting clays or who have the potential hit a major league fastball etc; and 2) learning to accept less visual confirmation. There definitely times when dialing that back is advantageous but that's often more about wanting a durable and consistent grip vs an inability to get visual confirmation.

When Ben talks about index he is not talking about point shooting. When practical shooting competitors say "index" they mean what tactical shooters call "natural point of aim" (which is a misnomer, all the time it is far from natural and needs to be trained to exist in the first place).

He's talking about training an "index" to the point where if you look somewhere and you point the gun there the sights show up there, and you're not hunting for the dot/aligning irons. He's not talking about shooting without a sight picture.

This ^^^^^

[Noah]

@HCM , you're right, using numbers in the example was misleading. I was trying to make the example of a shot with visual confirmation vs a shot faster than *a specific shooter* can achieve visual confirmation- which times will be totally different for different shooters.

[GJM]

I’m tracking with you and we agree on what we mean by index. My indictment against the Jedi crowd is they’re leaning on an index and hoping the sights confirm rather than responsibly confirming visually before getting into the trigger.

Point shooting to me is a fuddism akin to shooting from the him propagated by “tactical” wannabes with no skill or experience to the contrary.

If the game is to stand and shoot a few rounds at a relatively close paper target, and there is a largely time driven standard to collect your pin, this rounding the corners all makes perfect sense.

[HCM]

I’m tracking with you and we agree on what we mean by index. My indictment against the Jedi crowd is they’re leaning on an index and hoping the sights confirm rather than responsibly confirming visually before getting into the trigger.

Point shooting to me is a fuddism akin to shooting from the hip propagated by “tactical” wannabes with no skill or experience to the contrary.

For clarity, who are “the Jedi crowd?”

I ask because “Jedi” usually refers to Modern Samurai Project that is not what they teach.

[YVK]

For clarity, who are “the Jedi crowd?”

I ask because “Jedi” usually refers to Modern Samurai Project that is not what they teach.

He is referring to time standards assigned to top performance brackets in those tests. Sub-sec 7 yards draw or sub-1.5 25 yards draw for most people require a predictive draw. I know that with a DA pull of 6-7 lbs on my CZs I have to break a shot as soon as gun hits full extension and hope the dot is there to hit 8 inch steel at 25 in 1.3 or so. I believe the question is whether a de facto endorsement of a predictive draw is legit for the defensive shooting classes. I am not sure how that is related to the original post that talks about people using a dot like an iron sight, and what correct target focusing entails.

[DMF13]

I believe the question is whether a de facto endorsement of a predictive draw is legit for the defensive shooting classes. I am not sure how that is related to the original post that talks about people using a dot like an iron sight, and what correct target focusing entails.

Yeah, predictive and reactive shooting can be done with irons, and PMOs, and has nothing to do with the original topic.

[ASH556]

The point I was tying into is that Stoeger mentions working to develop a solid index as being fundamental to using the dot correctly so you’re not “living in the dot.” Some folks then convolute that into predictive index shooting.

[Doc_Glock]

One eye sees the dot, the other eye sees the target. Your brain merges the images.

Don’t over think it.

Attachment 115435

95% or more of people who claim this doesn’t work for them, are closing one eye, looking at the dot, or both. If you have normal binocular vision, this works, and it works better when you just do it instead of trying to overthink it.

When I do this with both eyes open I am massively off to the side. Massively. This was discussed before on the forum but some brains are wired such that they will be consistently off by about a B8 target at 25 yards. I forgot the actual diagnosis, but some proportion of the population is just so eye dominant they can not pull this off.

[HCM]

When I do this with both eyes open I am massively off to the side. Massively. This was discussed before on the forum but some brains are wired such that they will be consistently off by about a B8 target at 25 yards. I forgot the actual diagnosis, but some proportion of the population is just so eye dominant they can not pull this off.

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

[Noah]

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

I'm struggling with this right now. Oddly I can shoot rifle with the optic right in front of my eye occluded, but pistol I cannot converge the images.

(ETA: let me correct that statement. I thought I could shoot rifle occluded, but I've never tested it for POI shift except close steel...)

I can mentally flip between either the dominant or off eye, and if I really try, I can get double vision with the left eye with the occluded dot in my left FOV, and right eye in my right FOV, and my brain telling me to move the POA multiple FEET to the right to match the image of the target on the right.

I've been going to the eye doctor since I was two. I have a very dominant left eye, and no visual depth perception.

Experimenting with occluded optic in the basement for a few hours yesterday, I finally proved to myself that I'm really shooting with essentially 1 eye, even with my off eye fully open. When looking at targets I'm using both eyes like normal, but when I have a sight picture, even with a hard target focus, it's dominant eye only.

Not sure what to make of it yet but it explains some of the struggles I've had with dots.

ETA: reading the linked thread now.