TargetTalk

As a "older" (49) shooter, I feel I'm just hitting my stride. Typically 560-570 for air and standard pistol, and can almost taste High Master in NRA precision. Eyesight is starting to be an issue, but glasses work to correct where needed.

I went through the scores of a high level shooter who's been shooting for at least the last 26 years, from age 32 to 58, and here's the data I managed to collect from ISSF records.

I tracked a total of 100 results across this shooter's career specifically in the 10m Air Pistol Men event, and only tracked qualification scores.

I'm not the most proficient at data analytics, but my observations are:

1. There was a clear incline in scores from age 33 to about 39, after which scores remained steadily between about 575 and 580 between 40 to 50.
2. Shooter "peaked" at around the ages between 47 and 51, where he hit his highest score ever (587) and average score was still in the 580 range.
3. There seems to be a decline in average score starting from 51 to 58, but data collected in the last 4 years have a relatively small sample size.

Feel free to add in your observations!

hohungyi wrote: ↑Sat Jan 21, 2023 11:40 am I went through the scores of a high level shooter who's been shooting for at least the last 26 years, from age 32 to 58, and here's the data I managed to collect from ISSF records.

I tracked a total of 100 results across this shooter's career specifically in the 10m Air Pistol Men event, and only tracked qualification scores.

I'm not the most proficient at data analytics, but my observations are:

1. There was a clear incline in scores from age 33 to about 39, after which scores remained steadily between about 575 and 580 between 40 to 50.
2. Shooter "peaked" at around the ages between 47 and 51, where he hit his highest score ever (587) and average score was still in the 580 range.
3. There seems to be a decline in average score starting from 51 to 58, but data collected in the last 4 years have a relatively small sample size.

Feel free to add in your observations!

AGE.PNG

Interesting! Thank you for spending time doing that.

No worries! I was interested to find out too, just to get an idea of how much longer a runway I would have personally too. Hope the data helps!

Thanks! I’m going to find a more efficient way to parse the data on ISSF and hopefully come back with a bigger sample size with more shooters!

We run a monthly 'Mature Age' competition at the Sydney Olympics range: using age groups rather than grades.
The shooters that were better than I back in the 70s and 80s are still beating me (but our scores are somewhat lower).

Spencer wrote: ↑Sun Jan 22, 2023 12:31 am We run a monthly 'Mature Age' competition at the Sydney Olympics range: using age groups rather than grades.
The shooters that were better than I back in the 70s and 80s are still beating me (but our scores are somewhat lower).

So, I just have to ask. Is there an "Immature Age" competition? ;-)

The postal matches on Net Competitor do categorize with groups for "Senior" and "Veteran Seniors," but I'm not certain how they define those categories. I will send them a message and find out.

I think senior is 55+
Veteran senior are 55+ with a DD214..
I think.

B Lafferty wrote: ↑Sun Jan 22, 2023 6:14 am
So, I just have to ask. Is there an "Immature Age" competition? ;-)

'Juniors' are under 60

Rover wrote: ↑Wed Jan 18, 2023 10:56 pm I love it because it puts a numerical value on your mental and physical decline.

This allows your fellow shooters to laugh and mock you with impunity while you turn to shit.

Rover - insightful as always…

Must say, the Blue Dog Grits & Shrimp sounds delicious.

Bob

My own experience has been that my scores started slipping at 55...which is frustrating as hell. Part of it was cataract issues, though. And I'm not certain I've got the shooting prescription for the post-cataract eyes nailed down.

Mike,
My cataract surgery was done by an Air Force Colonel just back from the desert.
He asked if I wanted close or far vision or both.
(My friend in Kansas chose both and he has to wear glasses all the time.)
I told the doctor, all I do is shoot guns so I think I need far.
You are correct, he said.
Now no glasses for open sights, peep sights, scopes.
No glasses at all except for up close reading.

BTW..I want to thank the American taxpayer for my new eyes.

PeeWeeDaddy wrote: ↑Sun Jan 22, 2023 7:48 pm Mike,
My cataract surgery was done by an Air Force Colonel just back from the desert.
He asked if I wanted close or far vision or both.
(My friend in Kansas chose both and he has to wear glasses all the time.)
I told the doctor, all I do is shoot guns so I think I need far.
You are correct, he said.
Now no glasses for open sights, peep sights, scopes.
No glasses at all except for up close reading.

BTW..I want to thank the American taxpayer for my new eyes.

My Ex is a veterinary ophthalmologist. If I bark a few times, she'll do my cataracts for free. But, do I trust her....

Spencer wrote: ↑Sun Jan 22, 2023 4:37 pm

B Lafferty wrote: ↑Sun Jan 22, 2023 6:14 am
So, I just have to ask. Is there an "Immature Age" competition? ;-)

'Juniors' are under 60

I'm not sure most male brains are done developing by age 60.

There are several parts of you body that decline with age, eyes being one. My personal opinion is that while a lot of eye problems can be corrected using the right lens, the optical understanding to get the right lens is still beyond many shooters, and the field is cluttered with mis-understood advice. While seeing the front sight is a well known problem, 'Focus on the front sight' is technically incorrect.

The issue might be semantics to the average shooter, but it isn’t to an eye doctor or lens maker, so I think the distinction is important. My frustration is the huge numbers of older shooters I know who went to the eye doctor and asked to be able to focus ON the front sight. The resulting lens they were given was so strong the target was impossibly blurry, and not understanding the optics, the shooters just gave up shooting irons.

Let me start with the simple notion distinguishing between ‘focusing on’ and being ‘in focus’. You have a depth of field. Your eye has analog ‘pixels’ on your retina that range from about 300 to 500 per millimeter, depending on the person. Any blur line smaller than about 1 MOA cannot be recognized, because it falls between the pixels. 20/20 vision is technically defined as being able to distinguish 1MOA lines. With a 3/8” aperture, ie pupil fully dilated by drops in a doctor’s office, this translates to a minimum diopter error of about +/- 0.125 diopters. If the pupil is smaller, at around 0.15” (not an unreasonable pupil size for indoors), 1 MOA blur translates to a diopter error of about +/- 0.20 diopters.

Diopters are the inverse of a lens focal length, in meters. So if my eye is focused at infinity (ie totally relaxed ciliary muscle), and I add 2.00 diopter reading glasses, my focus will shift to a point 1/2 meter away. 3.00 diopters will focus me at 1/3 meter, 0.75 diopters will focus me at 1.33 meters. So for me, rear sight 24” away, sight radius of 7” puts my front sight at 31” or 80cm. To focus ON the front sight, I’d need to use a 1.25 lens, but if you do the lens math, you would have a 15 MOA blur on the target. For a 5MOA target, I would see a 20MOA blob. However, if I back off on my lens by 0.2 diopters, moving to a 1.05 diopter lens, I’m now focused beyond my front sight, at 0.95 meters, 37.5”. My front sight is still in perfect focus, because the width of the blur line is less than I can see, but my target blur has reduced by 5MOA. I cannot speak to how your brain achieves the balance of giving up a little on the front sight to gain a lot on the target, but the crossover happens at about +0.75 diopters, where you have 8.5 MOA of blur on the target, and 7MOA on the front sight. I think the optimal is about 0.85 diopters, but lenses only come in ¼ diopter steps, and your eye can add, but cannot subtract, so in my experience testing pistol shooters with trial lens sets (granted, many at Camp Perry with good light), 0.75 boost is what most preferred, 1.00 being too strong, creating too much target blur – even though 1.00 is still too little to bring the front sight into perfect focus.

So bottom line is that the theory and the practice from testing many shooters is that the proper focal point is beyond the front sight, at something between 1 meter and 1.33 meters, requiring a little more than 0.75 diopters, but 1.00 diopters are too strong, unless you can use a reduced aperture to improve your eye's depth of field (eg a Merit disk).

I think it is appropriate to say 'concentrate' on the front sight, so I can fully understand in normal language to equate that to focusing on the front sight, but in technical terms if you are getting a lens made, there is an important distinction. If any of you want to experiment - for about $5 you can get a cheap pair of 1.25 reading glasses at the dollar store. If you have 20/20 distance vision, wear them while aiming. If you wear glasses ofr contacts, put them on in addition to your glasses (looks a little silly, but lens powers add if you stack them). What you will see is a crisp, beautiful, perfectly focused front sight. But your target is much too blurry.

ShootingSight wrote: ↑Mon Jan 30, 2023 10:48 am Diopters are the inverse of a lens focal length, in meters. So if my eye is focused at infinity (ie totally relaxed ciliary muscle), and I add 2.00 diopter reading glasses, my focus will shift to a point 1/2 meter away. 3.00 diopters will focus me at 1/3 meter, 0.75 diopters will focus me at 1.33 meters.[...]

I think I have read all your posts here, but I have few questions, as you are the one who knows :)
How it looks like one have -2.0 diopters? How his focus shifts? Where?
And second question, how it looks like that he have -2.0 spherical and +1.0 cyl.? What power he should use? -1.25 or maybe -0.75? Should we calculate theoretical power from sphere and (half of)cylinder, and then add 0.75? Or just ignore cylinder?
Thanks in advance.

Positive diopter lenses will move your focal point closer to you, negative lenses will move your focal point away from you. The concept is not as obvious, in terms of visualizing the inverse of diopters, but it works.

Eyeglasses work because lens diopters add if you stack lenses. If I stack a +2 diopter lens on top of a +1 diopter lens, it is effectively a +3 diopter (ignoring a small error, because lenses have thickness, so I cannot truly stack two lenses on top of each other). If your eye is focused at infinity, so it has zero diopters added (1/infinity is zero), and I add a 2.00 diopter lens, you are focused at 1/2 meter. However if your eye has a +2.00 diopter built in, so you are near sighted, I would give you a -2.00 diopter eyeglasses, so your relaxed eye can again focus at infinity.

If you have a prescription of -2.0 sphere, +1.00 cyl, you would want to shoot pistol iron sights with a -1.25 sphere, +1.0 cylinder.

When you correct, you only change the sphere value to move your focus closer. You do not change the cylinder value.

Thank you!

A bullseye for me is hitting the black.