TargetTalk

i am trying to get in to more air pistol matchs. i am shooting in 10 meter air pistol. should aim for the middle or the bottom of the black.

The optimum place to aim is sub six ring below the black. Most people have roughly 1/2 inch or so white between foresight and bottom of the black. What you will find is that you will settle in the area that feels right for you and it should be in that sort of area. If you try and aim right on the bottom of the black you will find that it is difficult to be precise. This results in overholding looking for that 'perfect sight alignment' that you will never get. Go with the sub six aim and you will be suprised how very reproducible it is as your brain quickly gets to know where is the right place (or area).

Rob.

The traditional place to aim for air pistol is somewhere in the white below the black. You cannot be specific about how much white should show as you shouldn't be concerned about holding the gun still at a specific point, you should be holding the sights in an area of wobble, the size of which depends upon your ability.

It would not be unusual for that area aim to be between 50% and 75% up the white section under the black.

One interesting alternative is to aim at the bottom edge of the paper target, doing so will remove your vertical problem (but it will make a slight horizontal problem as the bull became quite far from your sight). But don't take this seriously though, as I'm not a pistol shooter. I use this "aiming method" when shooting 10m with hunting rifle (air, open sight) . In my country this sport (10m air rifle hunting) exist because people want to participate in precision shooting without spending to much $$$.

Bill:

Dittos to the previous posters (sub-6 O'Clock aiming area) but allow me to emphasize one aspect of "why" this method is preferred.

The precise alignment of the front and rear sights is much, much, much, much, much more important, critical, etc. to the proper shot process than the orientation of the properly aligned sights to the target.

A simple statement with far-reaching implications.

Add in the following propositions:

1) You will not be able to precisely manage both the alignment of the sights to each other and the aim of the sights against the target;
2) You will not be able to keep the precisely aligned sights aimed anyhow;
3) While you could do a good job of mentally focusing on one task (alignment) you would never be able to mentally focus on the job of placing the front sight against the target

Add those three propositions to the statement about where the error comes from and you have a very strong argument- both mental and physical- for placing your entire "focus" on sight alignment; the rest of the shot process (settling the aligned sights into an aiming area and releasing the shot) is somewhat secondary.

Finally- and perhaps more to the point!- placing your sights against *any* part of hte target (6 O'Clock, center, etc.) will make the most improtant task (sight alignment) that much more difficult . . .

See the discussion threads with "darticus" on the fundamentals of the shot process for additional perspectives.

Steve Swartz

When aiming at the bottom edge of the target tilting of the gun becomes more important because of the long vertical distance from aiming point to impact point.
Precise leveling of the gun, or a very uniform tilt angle, is then fundamental. Varying the tilt angle will make the gun spread horisontally. With a sub 6 o´clock hold this tendency is less prononunced.

Do not discount the advantages of a center hold. Particularly if you use a brightly colored front sight.

Mike McDaniel wrote:Do not discount the advantages of a center hold. Particularly if you use a brightly colored front sight.

Sorry Mike but I am doubtful of any alleged advantages of the center hold for any ISSF event except the rapid event / stages. I am even more doubtful for air pistol.

Wow, it seems that on this forum the center hold is like Rodney Dangerfield! It appears to be Target-Talkly incorrect to advocate it, even as a possibility.

Lots of excellent international pistol shooters have used the center hold with great success. I won't go into all the arguments for it once again, but I do want to point out one important thing: the center hold, properly used, IS an area aim method, i.e. you don't try to hold on the exact center of the target.

FredB

Fred wrote:Wow, it seems that on this forum the center hold is like Rodney Dangerfield! It appears to be Target-Talkly incorrect to advocate it, even as a possibility.

Not at all but remember that we have a newcomer who has asked the original question.

Mike made a simple statement that there were advantages to using the center hold. I made an equally simple statement that I was doubtful that any advantages exist, especially for air pistol. I have never heard one arguement that even started to convince me otherwise.

. . . not to just "me too" Davids comment; HOWEVER just to emphasize-

the question is NOT

"Can a center hold be used successfully by a shooter"

but is instead

"Are there any advantages to the use of the center hold"

And these are indeed separate questions that perhaps deserve separate answers; like Yes of Course and No Not Really.

This is (odd thought just striking) exactly where we sit on a lot of these electronic vs. mechanical trigger, Steyr vs. Pardini, etc. discussions as well.

The (completely lame, IMNSHO) usual counterargument to "A is Better Than B" will inevitably collapse to "But B is used by [insert shooting wizard here] to set [insert impressive shooting record here]."

Amazing that people think I am quite rude when I generally point out that the counterargument, however true it might be, is also completely irrelevant. A might be better than B, while B might still be preferred by any number of top-level shooters.

Steve Swartz

Hey Steve, how you do'in
Darticus Ron here
Shooting with your sites on the center of the bull is call "center hold"?
Sub six I got.
In english are most people saying sub 6 is better?
Trying to learn Ron

Well, sorry for not rehashing all the arguments. If you go to the following posting from Aug. 10, you will find a discussion dealing with the advantages (aren't almost all the statements made on this forum "allegations"?) of the center hold:

http://www.targettalk.org/viewtopic.php?t=11469

Enjoy,

FredB

Fred wrote:If you go to the following posting from Aug. 10, you will find a discussion dealing with the advantages (aren't almost all the statements made on this forum "allegations"?) of the center hold

I've re-read that thread Fred but there are precious few advantages mentioned, certainly none that would convince me to shoot center hold.

I used to be a C/F shooter so was totally happy with aiming into the black of the rapid fire target. I always changed back to a deep (personal preference) sub six for the precision stage though.

Steve - I wouldnt characterize your responses as "rude" ---- blunt and brusque have come to mind though.

However, I quickly add that those same posts are both well reasoned and helpful to shooters of all abilities. The same is true for David Levene's posts - except he's more diplomatic. (Gotta be that British blood in his veins)

Gentlemen, your combined contributions to us have been enormous.

F. Paul in Denver

David Levene wrote: I've re-read that thread Fred but there are precious few advantages mentioned, certainly none that would convince me to shoot center hold.

David,

I really wasn't trying to convince anyone. Rather I originally simply commented that the center hold, as a possible option, is given no respect on this forum, that there are some arguments for using it, and that it does not entail, as its name might imply, aiming at the exact center of the bullseye (this last for the benefit of the new shooter).

There is another advantage to it, not mentioned on the previously-referenced thread. This advantage, however, might apply only to extremely near-sighted shooters like me. When you are very near-sighted, and your shooting glasses are properly ground to focus on the front sight, your depth-of-field is very narrow, and the target very blurry. Since the ISSF targets all have the black bull in the center of the paper, I find it natural to aim at the center area of the paper (the eye tending naturally to center things). The sub-six hold, which I started with and used for a number of years, always felt strained.

So, for me the center hold is preferrable, and it's possible that the same could be true for others.

FredB

Fred wrote:When you are very near-sighted, and your shooting glasses are properly ground to focus on the front sight, your depth-of-field is very narrow, and the target very blurry.

Believe me Fred, as someone with a day-to-day -6.25 right lens I know the problem. A tip to anyone who is very near sighted, work closely with you optometrist to get the shooting lens as close to the eye as possible. Then get him to do the eye test with that exact eye relief. It's amazing how much bigger you can get the sights to look just by moving the lens 3/16" closer to the eye. If you have tried using contacts (the ultimate close-to-eye lens) to rectify near sightedness you will understand what I am talking about.

David, I am -5.5 day to day in my shooting eye. Do shoot 10m with glasses or contacts?
Regards
John Braks

Sorry, that should say "do you shoot with glasses or contacts?"
John

johnbraks wrote:Sorry, that should say "do you shoot with glasses or contacts?"
John

Champion shooting glasses. No idea what the prescription is. Because the lens is much closer to my eye than with my normal glasses the strength is quite different. I am not sure by how much, but then I don't really care. It is my optometrist's job to worry about things like that.

Sorry if I gave the impression that I wear contacts. I did try them about 10 years ago but couldn't be bothered with all of the faffing about.