Setting and using iron sights on 10 meter air pistols

[PETE S]

Six o'clock hold, as taught for decades is to be strongly discouraged. The simple fact is that you can not have your attention and mental focus and your physical focus on the front sight at the same time you are trying to get the front sight to sit just below and tangent to the bullseye.

Even with a sub-six hold, any atempt to actively hold some consistent position below the bullseye means you have to be looking at the target. It is simply not possible to look at the target and the front sight at the same time. You probably focus in between the two. Also, the precise needed to align the front and rear sight is so critical, you must be absolute in your focus and attention.

I suspect this is what the express "trusting your hold" means. You have to trust that you can hold a consistent location on the target without paying attention to the target. Trust that if you really line up the sights and reduce that error, that the position on the target will work itself out.

I remember Erich Buljung, in his usual harassing manner, asking an individual he was coaching how far below the bullseye the shooter held the front sight. Any answer was wrong. It took quite a while for me to figure out Erich's point. But if you can tell somebody an exact location, even with the sub-six hold, you are really looking at the target and not the front sight.

Whilst speaking to some other members of the USAS pistol team, I got answers like "probably someplace about the five ring but I really don't know."

The bullseye is just a reference point, it is not important. Everything is sight alignment and trigger squeeze. Position on the target is immaterial, it will happen naturally.

[Fred]

Pete,

Good post! And it reminds me of a closely related thing that I heard Erich say (in his usual manner!). He asked if we could precisely call our shots. Most of the 10 or so people around started describing how they could call an 8 at 2 o'clock etc. Then Erich pointed out that the only way you can call your shot precisely is by looking at the target. He said if you're really concentrating on your sights, you can tell which direction your shot went, and whether it was way off, but anything more precise than that meant you were looking in reference to the target. So many posters - many of them very good shooters - recently have talked about the importance of precise shot calls. But Erich's point seems valid to me. I wonder if any precision shot callers would like to comment?

FredB

[Steve Swartz]

Pete:

If you are "trying ot hold a consistent position" with a sub-6 hold, you might have bigger issues than where you are settling your sights . . . =8^)

Steve Swartz

[David Levene]

Even with a sub-six hold, any atempt to actively hold some consistent position below the bullseye means you have to be looking at the target.

Can I suggest that you should be trying to hold the aligned sights in a consistent area as opposed to a consistent position.

To achieve that you do not have to be looking at the target. With my shooting glasses I cannot look at the target, they will not allow me to focus that far away.

Edit Note:- Pete I read your original post in too much of a hurry. Re-reading it I suspect you already know the above.

[PETE S]

Steve,

I have heard of people who really try to hold "EQUAL" amounts of white on each side of the front sight AND between the front sight and the bullseye. These shooters were trying to hold an exact position below the bullseye using a sub-six hold.

That is just plain wrong.

And I remember this poor, unfortunate individual who gave Erich Buljung the wrong answer. This poor, unfortunate individual told Erich he tried to hold an exact position, the poor, unfortunate individual had to see a certain size gap of white, and then the poor, unfortunate individual would take the shot.

The explanation to Erich was all wrong and the poor, unfortunate individual received Erich's wrath.

The correct answer is counter-intuitive. You must focus on the front sight and see nothing except the big, black, sharp edges of the front sight well defined in the rear sight.

Now, I tried center-hold for the past two years. The advantage is supposed to be two fold. If I perceive any bullseye behind the front sight, I will shoot a nine IF the sights are really well aligned, properly focused, sharp and clear. Please note I use the term “PERCEIVE” because I am not looking for the bullseye. The second assumption is proper trigger squeeze, control of motion in the wrist, etc.

The second advantage is supposed to be that you can use center-hold for anything from rapid-fire to AP to standard pistol to FP. My problem is that at certain indoor ranges with particular lighting, I could not see the sights (another story, I digress).

I have returned to sub-six again. It is sort of easier to see the sights under all conditions. I mean “sort of” because, well, the sights are always more visible with the sub-six hold. You can plainly see the silhouette of the front and rear sights. Of course, the front is even in the center. You can also see the bullseye.
On the other hand, until you have developed the intensity to see nothing but sight; to loose track of the bullseye; to see very slight misalignments, to notice a hair or particle of dust on the front sight; you are looking further down range than you want to admit.

If you are taking note of the movement of your front sight on the target but not noticing any misalignments of the front sight within the rear; you are looking further down range than you want to admit.

If the sights are big, black, sharp, and clear, you may be looking at the sight. If the sight becomes slightly fuzzy, gray instead of black, just a little smaller than it had been; you are looking further down range than you want to admit.

[Axel]

Why make this more complicated than it is in reallity?

The basic is to keep focus on front sight, accept movements in aiming area and squeeze the trigger at the same time.

Others (read: some very experienced top level shooters) keep focus somewhere in between the target and front sight. Do whatever feels best for you, improvement and producing good scores is what counts.

[ironfist]

Thanks Joe,

I shall work on the grips after work today. Probably use a bit of the sanding tool and then follow through with the stain etc. How would lint seed oil be?


Regards,

Dev

[Guest]

I have heard boiled linseed oil offers a less sticky finish.

[ironfist]

Thank you keeping fingers crossed.


Ironfist

[jrmcdaniel]

Boiled linseed is just another penetrating type of finish. Almost any penetrating finish works -- I would not use varnish or a surface type of finish both because it scratches and shows wear (another coat of the penetrating finish can always be used) and it will be slippery if your hand gets sweaty.

Best,

Joe

[CraigE]

Be prepared if using linseed oil as a finish to wait several days before it dries sufficiently to handle. If you want to use linseed oil, then I might suggest mixing with mineral spirits or turpentine about 50-50 and use multiple coats. Will dry faster and be more satisfactory. An alternative might be to consider using Ballistol (a mineral oil that is handling friendly) and has been used on stocks and gun parts for over a century with good results. YMMV. CraigE







a

[Fred Mannis]

An alternative might be to consider using Ballistol (a mineral oil that is handling friendly) and has been used on stocks and gun parts for over a century with good results. YMMV. CraigE

Craig,
Is your reference to Ballistol Sportsman's Oil, reg TM of F.W. Klever GmbH? I have been using it to clean firing residue from my firearms. It is a very good powder solvent and provides some lubrication and rust prevention. Nothing on the bottle about using it as a wood finish, and it doesn't seem to dry to a hard film like a finishing oil.

Fred

[CraigE]

Reference is correct. I realize that it doesn't dry to a "surface film", but I have used it successfully on both pistol grips and other woods as a penetrating protectant. It does dry and has repellant properties (i.e. perspiration) without degrading and is easily touched up with another coat (needing only a very small amount). It imparts a slight darkening of natural wood and a very subtle luster. I like the results a lot. CraigE

[ironfist]

Thank you gentlemen, I used a bit of the dremel type of tool on the grips last night. After which I used some sandpaper. So far I haven't mucked up and I can hold the pistol better.
I plan to take a little more off, do nothing fancy and then try the linseed oil and turpentine trick.

Again you all have been most kind.


Regards,

Ironfist