TargetTalk

I have come across an alternative point of aim technique that is apparently being used by some top (world champion) air and free pistol shooter, but I can find no refeance to it, I don’t even know what the name for it is. Apparently it works something like as follows;

As opposed the the traditional technique; the point of aim being 6 o'clock below the black say the 6,5 or 4 ring etc the idea is that you imagine a circle between the bottom of the black and the bottom of the card. Now shoot your imaginary circle straight through the center.

Has any one come across this technique? Are you using it? Whats it called , how can I find out more about it?

Regards

JY

That sounds like a deep sub-six area aim. I'm not so sure about imagining a circle though. I prefer to think of it as accepting the area of aim.

I hate that term "point of aim". Unless you're made of steel girders, it's impossible.

It's called "Sub Six" and varies from "Line of White" (wobbling about one ring below the bottom of the distraction bull) and "Deep White" (wobbling just above the bottom of the target frame).

A more typical Sub6 hold wobbles in an area about 1/3 of the visible distraction bull diameter below the fuzzy black edge. If front sight is visually equal in width to target diameter, you would open up the rear sights to present 1/3 front sight width of light on either side. That way, the properly aligned sights will "naturally" tend to seek an area of equal light (1/3 target diameter) on sides and top.

Steve Swartz

(many advantages to Sub6 hold discussed in great detail in the last 6-8 months or so)

The following method works as a great training aid and is very similiar to what you describe:- Cut out the eight ring (or nine ring depending on skill level)of a 25m precision target and paste it onto a new target so that the outside of the ring touches the black at 6 o'clock. Aim into the ring below the black - just place that front sight inside and watch it move about and squeeze the trigger while keeping the sights aligned - you will be amazed at how good your groups are and how many 10's you have scored! This works really well at 50 metres.

Steve Swartz wrote:It's called "Sub Six" and varies from "Line of White" (wobbling about one ring below the bottom of the distraction bull) and "Deep White" (wobbling just above the bottom of the target frame).

A more typical Sub6 hold wobbles in an area about 1/3 of the visible distraction bull diameter below the fuzzy black edge. If front sight is visually equal in width to target diameter, you would open up the rear sights to present 1/3 front sight width of light on either side. That way, the properly aligned sights will "naturally" tend to seek an area of equal light (1/3 target diameter) on sides and top.

Steve Swartz

(many advantages to Sub6 hold discussed in great detail in the last 6-8 months or so)

I am aware of the sub six, but as i understood it the imaginary circle is a very big part of it. i dont think the techniques is a sub6.

i think that top end get the closest in his? description. as i understand it is suposed to be like shooting a blank card tha just starts between the black and the bottom!

Remember, though, that at least two former olympic winner of the free pistol disipline used a "high 9 o´clock" aiming point. Yes, that is about at the very top of the target.

Changing light conditions, as when clouds obscure the sunlight for some time, and then bright sunlight again, will cause a considerable change in point of impact, when aiming "sub 6 o´clock. This is due to the change in the "apparent" size of the black sighting "bull". More light, less apparant diameter of the "bull, cause the white paper reflects more light than the "bull", hence an unintensional higher aiming point, and a high impact.

A high 9 o´clock hold eliminates this, and induces a more relaxed sighting.
Some benefit from this technique, some not, though.

the imaginary circle is just the threshold for acceptable wobble imo.
this is still a sub 6 with additional detail/information on what has to be accomplished.

and previous post dont you mean 12 o'clock and not 9 o'clock?

Guest:

Donning my fire-resistant survival suit once again, I'll toss out an admittedly "contrarian" side of this issue. IIRC, last time we had this discussion (about change in POI as a result of light intensity/direction) it seemed (to me, FWIW) to boil down to a few issues:

1) The observed effect (change in POI) has been noted over many years for apertures, open sights, center/6/sub hold etc. and is (arguably) not well understood, although the "apparent size of aiming bull" is generally given as the reason for the phenomenon . . . (makes sense) . . .

2) The use of irises/filters would tend to mitigate the physical manifestation of the effect, if not the psychological manifestation . . .

3) Generally, a very wide variation in conditions is necessary for the physical manifestation of the effect . . .

4) In many- if not most- instances, other factors are more likely to have caused observed shifts in POI other than the lighting conditions (technique elements) . . .

however

5) Those who believe in the effect will see it more frequently and experience it at a much higher level of intensity than those who either ignore it or don't put much stock in it.

So is the effect "folklore" or "fact?" Probably has elements of both. It really seems to make sense though- but then again, I can't say that I personally have ever experienced it even with several years of outdoor competitive shooting under a wide variety of light & weather conditions.

But a lot of other fellers swear by it, especially after having a rough day . . .

Steve Swartz

Hello,

I shoot PPC and have recently picked up Free and Air.

I can say from my experiences that the point of impact for me and most other competitors I know that shoot PPC changes with light conditions.

The point of impact at 7 am is not the same as 3 pm and is not the same from one range to other. This will usually reflect more at 50 yards.

PPC is mostly shot outdoors and we blacken the sights with carbide lamps.
The fact is that the light reflection will trick you believe that the sights are in a different location and like somebody said here, the group will usually follow the light.

If you want to try this theory go shoot a gun in daylight without cover and see what happens. Especially if you use clean sights for one string and blacken the sights for another.

Granted some of the group issues will be shooter grip or trigger pull induced, and I will even dare to say that depending on how tight or loose you grip the gun the group might change but for PPC I grip the gun in relatively the same way everytime (as hard as possible :) so my group changes are more due to light and once set up for a particular range and time of the day I can shoot all week of the competitions without making any sight changes.

In a range where you shoot from under a roof I do not think light has much of an effect to your impact as I usually do not have to play much with my sights when shooting local NRA matches under a roof even when the target is outdoors and under sunlight.

This is just my personal experience and view!

Hmm... Twelve o'colck hold - something I've been talking about for years - actually, super-twelve, I suppose. The most recent time I mentioned it, I believe, was in this thread:

http://www.targettalk.org/viewtopic.php?t=11690

But I've never heard anyone else mention it and I'm usually ignored when I do. Has someone actually used it with success? It takes a gross sight change to try it.

Maybe I really don't need to post my "odd" ideas and suggestions, after all. If I wait long enough someone else will hit upon it, or I will find that, "it's already been tried (and rejected) long ago..."

Take Care,
Ed Hall
http://www.airforceshooting.org/
http://www.starreloaders.com/edhall/

Hi Ed,

I did notice your previous comment about 12 o'clock hold, and it got me thinking (as do all your posts). I shoot what is normally called center hold, but I feel that the term is misleading, as people often infer that center hold means aiming at a precise spot. I treat center hold as an area aim situation, in which the area is basically the black bull. However I have noticed that I tend to aim more high than low within that area, and I realized that what I'm really using is a sub-twelve o'clock hold. I would guess that either the sub-12 or the supra-12 would be good for area aim, but the straight-on 12 o'clock hold would likely be as problematic as the 6 o'clock hold.

So, you more or less invited comments and now you've got one ;-). What do you think?

Regards,
FredB

Well, I haven't been talking about it for years, as Ed Hall has, but I did bring it up in the thread: Olympic Pistol>Aiming Point?
http://www.targettalk.org/viewtopic.php ... highlight=
in my last post on the subject, 1 Oct 2006.
At that time, no one had anything to say, so the thread died.
Am I to understand that some top-level shooters use this hold?
I have dry-fired using Supra-12, but, as I stated in my post, I haven't gone so far as to get a taller front sight in order to centre my groups in live-fire (my rear sight "bottoms out" before my shot group can be lowered sufficiently).

Steve,
Just a gentle brush with my 'flamethrower' :-)

Why do you insist on labeling something 'folklore' because it is outside of your personal experience and/or you are unable to come up with statistically valid experiments to validate or invalidate the 'folklore'? Your use of the term folklore implies something that exists only in the mind, not in the physical world.

Anyway, my experience is similar to Yak54's. I shot PPC for many years where the sight picture is of aligned sights against a large black mass (center of mass hold) or small black mass (neck hold). I found that the light affected my perception of the front sight, not the size of the target.

Fred

Of course, Guest55, 12 o´closk hold it is. ( High 9 o´clock would be at the upper left corner. A bit wierd.)

Ed Hall wrote: But I've never heard anyone else mention it and I'm usually ignored when I do. Has someone actually used it with success? It takes a gross sight change to try it.

Yes, this technique havs been used by east-europeean shooters for many years. I a m not sure we ther it is/was used by the actual shooter(s) constantly, or under difficult light conditions/ or extra high stress.

Yes, it takes quite a few clicks of elevation down-adjustment, more than many pistols can accomodate. I use a plastics spacer under the front blade. (A longer screw was then needed to fix the blade).

The effect is two-fold: theoritically less change in point of aim with changing light.
More important, perhaps, is the stress-relaxong effect of this aiming-point.
Wobbling becomes less distracting when one aimes at a white "field", contrary to aiming relative to the black bull.
The front blade obscures the bull completely, and the aiming "field" is located relative to the upper corners of the target.
The actual aiming "field" is some cms below the mid-top of the target. How much below is a personal preference.

This technique is worth trying out, at least. Olympic gold is claimed to have been won by one or more shooters using this aiming "point".

The usual misunderstanding is that using an aiming"point" relative to the black bull brings more accurate aiming. That is probably not always the case.

Sorry Mike,

I somehow missed the reactivation of that post - I only remember the first part. Had I noticed your reference I would have commented...

I have not fired this either but have mentioned it in training sessions and on boards for quite some time. In the training sessions I usually cover it last and only as a brief introduction of yet another aiming technique, after describing the center, six o'clock, and variations of the sub-six. BTW, I like the "supra-12" designation.

I used to mention it now and then when someone would suggest being able to fire a match on blank targets or the backs of the record ones. I would bring up that if they wanted that blank target "feel" (image) they could simply sight above the black and let the barrel and/or rear sight obscure the bull. I never heard anything back on this theory until now. It is much harder to have a bull there and not reference to it than it is to fire on a truly blank target. It takes a discipline few shooters will submit to.

I would like to add that there is no "correct" reference area as defined by a specific choice of anyone but the actual shoooter. If you allow your subconscious to tell you where to hold, you can often be more consistent, but your conscious may argue the reference and destroy the consistency. If you can, let your subconscious determine what it prefers by observing where your hold wants to sit. You might be thinking that I'm suggesting to not set up your NPA, but that is not the case. What I am suggesting is to observe where the sights like to sit when you are aiming. If you move your feet around and back and forth and the sights always seem to settle in a particular area in reference to the bull, try firing with that settle and see how your groups look. You should find that your groups look a lot better if you are not correcting for perceived errors, and simply being consistent in your picture.

Like Fred's center hold rising into the top of the bull, I find my sub-six often drifts up from where I intend to aim. As long as I let it move to where it wants to settle, it normally becomes consistent at that location. Remember that being consistent will outweigh fighting to reproduce someone's definition of a particular method.

I just noticed some extra entries as I was composing this. Thanks Guest! I appreciate your feedback.

Take Care,
Ed Hall
http://www.airforceshooting.org/
http://www.starreloaders.com/edhall/

Fred:

I know I don't know everything; and I don't claim to know everything- but I do know I appear to be a know-it-all to a lot of people . . . !

For me: "A disputable piece of knowledge that is commonly accepted as fact, but for which contrary evidence exists, and that has not been formally tested" is a working definition of "Folklore." So when something pops us that is generally accepted as true, but contrary evidence exists, and it has not been formally tested, I call it "Folklore."

Maybe "Myth" would be technically more accurate term?

Anyhow

A big problem with Myth/Folklore is that when two criteria are met:

1) The knowledge really sound reasonable, logical and sensible; and
2) The knowledge is suggestible (we see it if we think we should see it, even when it isn't there)

the myth/folklore is self-fulfilling and expands in a culture rapidly and becomes very difficult to challenge. [There are actually people who spend their life's work studying stuff like that]

The thing about lights and sights fits that category. That doesn't mean it isn't "True" - it just means it might not be "True" and as long as we don't test it we will never know whether it is "True" or not.

As to the issue at hand . . . in previous posts I have already agreed that when shooting uncovered the effect is more than likely true- the lights on sights are probably much more important than the lights on the target.

But since I haven't formally tested any of this, and am not aware of anyone else who has, I could just be making it all up like everyone else on this issue . . . or, perhaps I am just uniquely ignorant on this since I generally shoot from under cover (or indoors) and only experience a moderate amount of Lights on Sights effect (but quite a bit of Lights on Target effect).

Steve

Steve Swartz wrote: That doesn't mean it isn't "True" - it just means it might not be "True" and as long as we don't test it we will never know whether it is "True" or not.

But since I haven't formally tested any of this, and am not aware of anyone else who has, I could just be making it all up like everyone else on this issue . . . or, perhaps I am just uniquely ignorant on this since I generally shoot from under cover (or indoors) and only experience a moderate amount of Lights on Sights effect (but quite a bit of Lights on Target effect).

Steve

Perhaps this is where we differ. I am not looking for universal Truth. I am content if I can take a myth and make it work for me. For example - I find that today the sun is bright and to my left and that my group is 1" to the left of where it was yesterday (when it was overcast). My buddy says - don't you know your group follows the sun? Readjust your sight. I do so and my group is back where it should be. So in the future, when trying to analyze why my group has shifted I will consider light condition as a cause, and I will probably pass along this myth to another shooter, hopefully with all the disclaimers, YMMV, in my experience, etc.

Fred

I usewd to shoot the High Standard at 100 yards with iron sights on the 50 yd target. I held above the black just like the current subject. I had to in order for the bullet drop to hit. Come to think of it sight alignment was foremost on my mind because it was 100 yds.

The mere fact that a belief is "disputable" and yet unproven does not make it a myth or folklore.

In the 1500's some people believed the world was round. No one could prove it and alot of people disputed it. As it turns out, the belief was neither myth or folklore.

Some things are true whether we believe them or not.