TargetTalk

I'm starting a new thread since this this was in another thread with a different subject line.

The question has come up about shooters with two eyes open, one eye shuts etc.

First in some photos you will see shooters with both eyes open and no occluder or side blinders in particular international shooters. This many times is for the sake of a good photo. The ISSF/UIT photographers would ask to take pictures after the finals of many matches- in front of the firing line of winners with guns on point. They would also ask for us to take out glasses off to get a better image. (Yes some shooters use nothing for glasses or occluder) But many do and are just photographed from the front without them.

I have seen some( not many) shooters with the minimalist of eye cover, some Russians used to use a headband with the cover of a Tenex box stuck in it as an occluder. Yifu Wang who wears glasses would just squint his non shooting eye. I did see him ask for sunglasses in Milan one time- so the Chinese see ( no pun) the need for proper vision.

I shoot with both eyes open an a semi transparent occluder- for two hours trying close my non shooting eye I got spasms in my face. Skanaker used a clip on occluder on his hat.

I guess it's just a matter of comfort- allows you to shoot for a long period with ease. I'm training with just the "final" occluder now, since I don't want to change between the match and finals.

On blinders- I usually just use one on the shooting eye side to avoid shifting focust as my peripheral vision picks up the shooter next to me lifting his gun etc. This will have to come off for the finals.

I am farsighted. My optometrist allows me to bring my air pistol with me for an exam. She made me lenses for my knoblochs - great lenses with a very, very small bifocal so I can see my pellet or 22 on the bench. I wear blinders and an occluder. I keep BOTH eyes open BUT... I find as the match goes on that if I close my left eye I can see the sight clearer. Is this just psycological, is it due to being far sighted, or is it due to some eye fatigue?

Thanks for your reply.

Why would you need to change your blinders for the finals? Is this for something other than ISSF?

Yes ISSF changed the rules a few years back and USAS did also- I'm sure someone will post the exact wording- I'm not near my rulebook, sorry

FP570 wrote:Yes ISSF changed the rules a few years back and USAS did also- I'm sure someone will post the exact wording- I'm not near my rulebook, sorry

The ISSF rule isn't just for the Finals, it's for the complete match.

David: Thank you, can you post the rules and dimensions of the occluder please?

FP 570 wrote:David: Thank you, can you post the rules and dimensions of the occluder please?

8.4.7.7 Side Blinders (either or both sides) attached to the hat, cap, shooting glasses, or to a head band, not exceeding 40 mm deep are permitted (A). These blinders must not extend further forward than to a line from the center of the forehead.
8.4.7.7.1 A piece to cover the non aiming eye not larger than 30 mm wide is permitted (B).

I am not certain how to post the explanatory drawings in 8.4.7.7.2 so you will probably be better looking at them in the online ISSF rules

As quoted above, rule 8.4.7.7 states:
"Side Blinders (either or both sides) attached to the hat, cap, shooting glasses, or to a head band, not exceeding 40 mm deep are permitted (A). These blinders must not extend further forward than to a line from the center of the forehead."
Which leads to my question:
When is a blinder not a blinder?
I have a transparent (totally clear) side shield that exceeds the dimensions permitted for side blinders. My argument is that because it is transparent, it can not be a 'blinder' and because it is not a blinder, the dimensional restrictions of 8.4.7.7 should not apply.
If a transparent side shield is a 'blinder', then a prescription eyeglass lens on the non-aiming eye would also be a blinder (8.4.7.7.1). Clearly (pun intended) this latter is not considered a blinder and so, I contend, a transparent side shield (side blinder) can not be a blinder.
The transparent side shield meets the spirit of the rules, in that it allows the shooter's face to be seen by any TV cameras. It is larger in size than 8.4.7.7 permits in order to provide more protection from errant, bouncing, empty cartridge cases - a safety concern.
My arguments were overruled by the jury and I was denied use of the transparent side shield unless I trimmed it to the dimensions permitted by 8.4.7.7.
Comments?

I've always been either a "squinter" or an occluder (opaque tape over non-shooting lens). After reading the recent posts on the topic I tried shooting with both eyes open, and it was an eye-opening experience (sorry about that).

Shooting with both eyes open will readily show when your focus on the front sight lapses. When focused on the front sight you'll have 2 images of the rear sight (relatively close together) and 2 widely dispersed images of the target. If the two images of the target start to move together then you know your focus is drifting. Is nothing else, this will be a good training device to ensure focus on the front sight.

Thanks!

Tom Amlie wrote:Shooting with both eyes open will readily show when your focus on the front sight lapses. When focused on the front sight you'll have 2 images of the rear sight (relatively close together) and 2 widely dispersed images of the target. If the two images of the target start to move together then you know your focus is drifting. Is nothing else, this will be a good training device to ensure focus on the front sight.

Whilst many people say that we must focus on the front sight, the most important thing is that we have a sharp picture of the sight alignment, so we need to see both sights clearly. In your case, which rear sight do you use ;-)

Mike Taylor wrote:The transparent side shield meets the spirit of the rules, in that it allows the shooter's face to be seen by any TV cameras. It is larger in size than 8.4.7.7 permits in order to provide more protection from errant, bouncing, empty cartridge cases - a safety concern.
My arguments were overruled by the jury and I was denied use of the transparent side shield unless I trimmed it to the dimensions permitted by 8.4.7.7.
Comments?

I can see both sides of the arguement here.

My only concern would be that if you allow transparent side "shields", do you allow micro-scratches on the shield (so tiny that you need a microscope to see them). If you do, then how about a few slightly heavier scratches (damn, I put the shield down on the table and it got scratched). You then go to the other extreme of multiple heavy scratches as caused by sandpaper, suddenly the previously clear shield is opaque. Where do you draw the line.

You might call them transparent but, however little, they will cut down on the light passing through. Would you allow them to be a tiny bit darker? A lot darker? Again, where do you draw the line.

It really comes down to the Jury's interpretation of the spirit of the rule and how they can apply it consistently.

Tom Amlie wrote:...Shooting with both eyes open will readily show when your focus on the front sight lapses. When focused on the front sight you'll have 2 images of the rear sight (relatively close together) and 2 widely dispersed images of the target. If the two images of the target start to move together then you know your focus is drifting. Is nothing else, this will be a good training device to ensure focus on the front sight.
Thanks!

Sounds like you might be shooting with your non-dominant eye.

Spencer

Mike Taylor wrote:As quoted above, rule 8.4.7.7 states:
"Side Blinders (either or both sides) attached to the hat, cap, shooting glasses, or to a head band, not exceeding 40 mm deep are permitted (A). These blinders must not extend further forward than to a line from the center of the forehead."
Which leads to my question:
When is a blinder not a blinder?
I have a transparent (totally clear) side shield that exceeds the dimensions permitted for side blinders. My argument is that because it is transparent, it can not be a 'blinder' and because it is not a blinder, the dimensional restrictions of 8.4.7.7 should not apply.
If a transparent side shield is a 'blinder', then a prescription eyeglass lens on the non-aiming eye would also be a blinder (8.4.7.7.1). Clearly (pun intended) this latter is not considered a blinder and so, I contend, a transparent side shield (side blinder) can not be a blinder.
The transparent side shield meets the spirit of the rules, in that it allows the shooter's face to be seen by any TV cameras. It is larger in size than 8.4.7.7 permits in order to provide more protection from errant, bouncing, empty cartridge cases - a safety concern.
My arguments were overruled by the jury and I was denied use of the transparent side shield unless I trimmed it to the dimensions permitted by 8.4.7.7.
Comments?

I maybe missing something straightforward here, but what would the purpose be of having a transparent blinder be ? If the use of a blinder is to limit the distractions to the side, and thus maintain your focus on your own aim ?

Steve.

SteveR wrote:I maybe missing something straightforward here, but what would the purpose be of having a transparent blinder be ?

Something we, regrettably, don't have much exposure to here in the UK Steve; protection against flying fired cartridge cases.

David Levene wrote:

SteveR wrote:I maybe missing something straightforward here, but what would the purpose be of having a transparent blinder be ?

Something we, regrettably, don't have much exposure to here in the UK Steve; protection against flying fired cartridge cases.

Ahh now I see, I knew it would be something straightforward.

Thanks,

Steve.

I'm taking this thread a little off-course, but still within the subject of the original post:
David Levene wrote:
"You might call them transparent but, however little, they will cut down on the light passing through. Would you allow them to be a tiny bit darker? A lot darker? Again, where do you draw the line."

That would apply to an eyeglass lens over the non-aiming eye, too!

At the same match to which I referred above, at one point, in an attempt to reduce glare from the target, I put a pair of 'clip-on' sunglasses over my prescription shooting glasses (regular style eyeglasses with a 'shooting' prescription). I wasn't challenged on this, but in view of David's remark, was I in violation of rule 8.4.7.7.1? The sunglasses were very dark and definitely wider than 30 mm!

Going back to where we started, I might add my experience. When I started I used to close my non-shooting eye and then I bought some shooting glasses with a 35mm wide strip of opaque plastic to shield my non shooting eye.
After a while I often found that after a break I was shooting with both eyes open but I had forgotten to flip down this plastic strip to block my vision from the non-shooting eye. I believe that my brain has been trained to ignore the vision coming from my non-shooting eye because I can shoot just as well whether the flap is down or not, at least for five or six shots before I realise what has happened.
I am definitely not seeing two sights or a confusing sight picture. Just a crisp front sight.
It might be helped by the fact that my shooting eye has a prescription lens whereas my non-shooting eye would be getting an out of focus typical short-sighted picture, which no doubt the brain can easily filter out.

Mike Taylor wrote:That would apply to an eyeglass lens over the non-aiming eye, too!

At the same match to which I referred above, at one point, in an attempt to reduce glare from the target, I put a pair of 'clip-on' sunglasses over my prescription shooting glasses (regular style eyeglasses with a 'shooting' prescription). I wasn't challenged on this, but in view of David's remark, was I in violation of rule 8.4.7.7.1? The sunglasses were very dark and definitely wider than 30 mm!

If you're looking for a definitive answer backed up by rule numbers then I'm afraid you are going to be unlucky Mike. The ISSF have not gone so far as to define whether clear or coloured material constitutes a side blinder or an eye cover. That distinction is therefore left to the match jury.

In my opinion, and no more than that, if you can read through the material then it is simply a lens and not covered by the 30mm width limit.