Stoeger -- People don't understand red dots

[RJ]

I'm still not getting the occluded optic? How are you confirming you're on target when you cannot look through the optic? It's like diving with an occluded windshield.

What am I missing?

I got some good input here, maybe it will help:

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

[WobblyPossum]

I'm still not getting the occluded optic? How are you confirming you're on target when you cannot look through the optic? It's like diving with an occluded windshield.

What am I missing?

For this example, let’s say you’re right eye dominant. The optic window lines up with your right eye. That eye sees the dot but the blue tape or whatever on the target side of the lens prevents the right eye from seeing the target. There is nothing between your left eye and the target so your left eye sees the target. Your brain superimposes the view from your right eye (the dot) over the view from your left eye (the target). You end up with a normal sight picture as if the tape wasn’t there.

This only works if both your eyes are open and you’re actually focusing on the target. Otherwise all you’ll see is the dot and the obstruction because you aren’t taking in the target info through the other eye anymore. That’s why people use occluded optics to train target focused shooting with the dot. If you can’t see a target then that’s your clue you focused on the dot.

[DMF13]

I'm still not getting the occluded optic? How are you confirming you're on target when you cannot look through the optic? It's like diving with an occluded windshield.

What am I missing?

If you cover your windshield, its huge relative to your eyes, and both eyes are blocked from seeing the road, and everything else, in front of the car.

However, The optic, even a big one, like the SRO or 507COMP, is tiny enough, and far enough out in front of your face, that only one eye is "blocked," and the other is seeing "around " the optic. Your brain combines the images from each eye to make what you see into one image, and the dot is on the target.

It works, and plenty of people do it.

[HCM]

First you have to have both eyes open. You can see the effect right now, look at this word with both eyes open, but then put your hand in front of your dominant eye. You can see your hand, but you are "looking through it" because your brain is putting both eyes images together. Now imagine your hand is an optic/gun with a red dot. If using an occluded dot, your brain will still superimpose the dot and target that your eyes are looking at. This was how the original "red dots" worked, as far as I've looked into it. Even as far back as the Son Tay Raid, where occluded red dot sights were hose clamped on to carry handles.

Armson OEG

I'm still not getting the occluded optic? How are you confirming you're on target when you cannot look through the optic? It's like diving with an occluded windshield.

What am I missing?

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

Don’t over think it.



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.

[TCinVA]

I'm still not getting the occluded optic? How are you confirming you're on target when you cannot look through the optic? It's like diving with an occluded windshield.

What am I missing?

One eye sees the dot.

One eye sees the thing you're trying to hit.

Inside your brain those two signals merge in the same way that the different cameras in your head are blended together in any other circumstance. It's the Binden Aiming Concept. If you are target focused you can see the image of the blocked dot with one eye but the other eye sees the target beyond. As long as your eyes aren't spaced weirdly, both eyes will be looking at the same thing as they move and operate in tandem, and those images merge well enough that you have a precise alignment on target.

[ASH556]

I would also submit that a lot of guys that are running super fast draws are purely index shooting despite what they say about "flash sight pictures" and "over confirming." Scott Jedlinski is the master of that. From what I've seen he pushes his students to what I would consider irresponsible levels of getting on the trigger an relying on the dot to confirm what they're already most of the way into putting a hole in. Or, maybe I'm just on the super slow end of the spectrum, but a 1.2 draw is about as quick as I can get where my vision is confirming I'm good to press the trigger.


I bring this up as another related element of shooting a dot well. A solid index will make shooting a dot, especially at speed, easier. A solid index will make your draw "faster" because your index is going to bring your sights to your desired target. It's a spectrum, though, and you've got to be careful not to get the cart in front of the horse.


So when guys are talking about how occluded optics, dead dot, etc are a non-issue, how much of that just goes back to index shooting rather than a vision thing?

[Jay585]

I would also submit that a lot of guys that are running super fast draws are purely index shooting despite what they say about "flash sight pictures" and "over confirming." Scott Jedlinski is the master of that. From what I've seen he pushes his students to what I would consider irresponsible levels of getting on the trigger an relying on the dot to confirm what they're already most of the way into putting a hole in. Or, maybe I'm just on the super slow end of the spectrum, but a 1.2 draw is about as quick as I can get where my vision is confirming I'm good to press the trigger.

I bring this up as another related element of shooting a dot well. A solid index will make shooting a dot, especially at speed, easier. A solid index will make your draw "faster" because your index is going to bring your sights to your desired target. It's a spectrum, though, and you've got to be careful not to get the cart in front of the horse.


So when guys are talking about how occluded optics, dead dot, etc are a non-issue, how much of that just goes back to index shooting rather than a vision thing?

I agree, this is the case for me. I can do sub 1 second draws (in dry practice) but ~1.2 for accurate hits on on the lower half an 8.5x11 sheet of printer paper

[GJM]

I think it is more complicated than simply index. Index is a good thing, as it is better to look at a spot and have index bring your sight(s) to that spot and confirm with your vision, as opposed to using your vision to look at the dot and drive it to a spot.

I am not a fan of pushing draw speed at the expense of establishing a great grip. It seems like there are too many tactical tests that are draw heavy. In USPSA it is rare to draw without moving, and a good grip trumps a fast draw. I really enjoy doing some fast draws, but it is a parlor trick that shouldn't be confused as being something other than that.

[konkapot]

Agreed 100% that "index is a good thing."

Particularly with a shooter who has a self induced barrier of "I can only shoot when the sights are perfect."

A good/consistent/repeatable index is a foundational step to getting gooder.

[ASH556]

Let me reinforce: I don't think an idex is a bad thing. Developing strong index skills helps with all kinds of stuff: draw, reloads, etc. My only point is not to claim something that isn't. Sure, let your index get the gun where it needs to be, but let your vision confirm you're where you need to be before you break the shot. In a training/gaming environment, there are times to play the odds and if you know that 80-90% of the time your index is good for an "A" zone hit, go for it. In a situation with lives on the line for both hits and misses, let's surely train to build index skills, but not rely solely on it when the stakes are the highest.