In the research I've done on different holds, one thing I see is an inconsistency in what the different holds are called. Or maybe more appropriately, the perception of what the holds are called.
Here's an illustration, if you're so inclined please provide your input. If this is correct, great. Maybe it's more to confirm what I was thinking.
The confusion seems to be based upon the term '6'. My understanding is that a 6 [o'clock] hold refers to the position of the sight in relation to the black as the face of a clock and has nothing to do with the 6 point scoring ring.
So...
A. Center Hold
B. 6 Hold (6 O'clock Hold)
C. Sub-6 Hold
D. Deep Sub 6 Hold (? - Something I read about somewhere...)
Oz wrote:A. Center Hold
B. 6 Hold (6 O'clock Hold)
C. Sub-6 Hold
D. Deep Sub 6 Hold (? - Something I read about somewhere...)
You're pretty much there in relation to A & B.
IMHO C & D are very much a case of personal interpretation and comfort. I would not argue with someone who wanted to use those descriptions. In my mind however Sub-6 is somewhere between pictures C & D, and deep Sub-6 is below D.
It's all a bit vague though. You cannot be specific about an area some distance below a blurred black, nor is there any need to be.
The real critical difference between the sub-6 holds of the archaic 6 o’clock hold is what where you are putting your attention. With the archaic 6 o’clock hold your attention is on the exact location of the front sight blade in relationship to the bullseye. With the “area hold of the sub-6 and even the center hold; your attention is on the front sight in relationship to the back sight. You can not be as precise with your sight alignment and know exactly where you are on the target. The bullseye is just a general reference point of secondary importance with the sub-6 area hold and the "center" hold as an "area" hold.
Hence David’s comments : “You cannot be specific about an area some distance below a blurred black, nor is there any need to be.”
The strange thing I find, and I have no explanation for it, is that one day I will see and think I am using a sub-6 and the next day I will see and think I am using a deep-sub-6.
There is never any reason to change the sights. Over a 60 shot match Sius Ascor always reports the centre of my group to be inside the X ring.
There doesn't seem to be any direct link to the size of my group. Nowdays it's always too big (due to my lack of shooting) but it's something I've noticed throught my shooting career (which has included periods of tight grouping).
There also doesn't seem to be any change in my ability to call my shots.
I know that what I am describing is physically impossible, if your aiming area is lower then the shots should go lower. I can only assume that something I have developed between the ears as part of my technique is having an effect.
It would have been interesting, back in the days when I was shooting well, to have used a Scatt to see exactly what I was doing. In those days however Scatt was rarely seen outside of the USSR. Anyway, my coach and I decided that "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".
Oz, you may try using some training targets other than bullseye to get used to holding somewhere below the black. Kruger makes several training targets for air pistol that I would like to try sometime. In particular, I think the 3038 target with a triangular center (shown below) may help me with my vertical hold. Using a sub-6 hold, I am supposed to hold somewhere under the lower edge of the black and shoot groups close to the center of the triangle. Kruger Target says "because of the special geometrical form, the shooter can very easily work out whether the sights were steady in the holding area when the shot was released". I think the flat lower edge, instead of the arc of a bullseye, might be less distracting from my focus on the sight alignment. The flat edge probably also makes the white gap in the sub-6 hold more apparent (without me paying particular attention to it) and helps me get used to the sight picture.
I have not used the Kruger targets. I am currently using training targets that are black in the top 2/3, which I made from used targets by covering the horizontal area from the lower edge of the bullseye to the top of the target with electrical tape. I use these targets mainly to help me focus on the front sight during and after the shot. On the other hand, I think they do make my vertical hold more consistent (I haven't fired into bullseye targets since I started using those training targets to verify). My home-made targets are probably similar to the Kruger 3038 targets in their training effect, minus the horizontal hold element. So they may be something that you want to try first.
Nick
Edit:
Here is Kruger Targets' website. Their catalog has more detailed information on their training targets.
spacepilot wrote: I am currently using training targets that are black in the top 2/3, which I made from used targets by covering the horizontal area from the lower edge of the bullseye to the top of the target with electrical tape. I use these targets mainly to help me focus on the front sight during and after the shot. On the other hand, I think they do make my vertical hold more consistent (I haven't fired into bullseye targets since I started using those training targets to verify). My home-made targets are probably similar to the Kruger 3038 targets in their training effect, minus the horizontal hold element. So they may be something that you want to try first.
I use similar training targets and have found them to be helpful.
re the C & D 'sub 6' pictures - I have found that as the hold gets lower, at some point the interface between the bottom of the target and the background intrudes into gap picture and I find this disconcerting. Of course this depends on the depth of your rear sight notch. My sub 6 is close to D, but high enough that the vertical gaps show only the tan target color.
VERY interesting insight and more that I expected. The Kruger targets are also intriguing. I might have to give those a try to see what happens.
I'm surprised to hear that C and D are generally too high for many. I based C as a 'sub-6' from a comment I read which originated with Don Nygord. As I recall, he preferred to shoot with the side sight space being equal to the space between the black and the top of the blade. And I believe he called it a sub-6. But I could be wrong. It wouldn't be the first time. *gasp*
To summarize what I've heard so far, I should add a 5th hold pattern. C would remain as-is and would be called the Nygord semi-sub 6 o'clock hold. (For lack of better description.) D would need to be moved up slightly and called the sub-6 and the new E hold would be added, slightly lower than the current D, being the lowest hold and would be called the deep sub-6 hold.
My only issue is my understanding of the deep sub-6 six hold; since it needs to be lower than the current 'D' illustration, how much? Do people shoot as low as to have the top of the blade on the outer ring?
I think one way of describing it might be based on the relative width of the bars to the L and R of the foresight post. I get the impression (and I could be wrong !) that many people use a gap above the foresight equal in height to the width of the light bar on each side of the post. So it sort of depends on how much light you like...
As I am in the process of going from 6'oc to sub 6 this is very interesting. I'm going for the equal widths at each side and above, btw.
edster99 wrote:As I am in the process of going from 6'oc to sub 6 this is very interesting. I'm going for the equal widths at each side and above, btw.
regards
Ed
So by definition it sounds like you're moving to the 'Nygord Sub-6' hold vs. a standard sub-6 hold?
Let me try again about the AREA HOLD of the sub-6.
If you know or are trying to hold a speciific distance below the bullseye, you are not watch your sights. You are merely seeing the general outline of your sights and are not concentration your attention on sight alignment.
Sub-6 as an AREA HOLD means not really caring where you are, just that you are generally below the bullseye and where does not matter nearly as much as your sight alignment.
I might be missing the point somewhat on this, but my take on it is that the key to a true sub six hold is that you really don't have a specific area your aiming for, the key is that the aim point is just a vague area.
With the Nygord sub 6 hold your almost using the same mechanism as a six hold.
E.g with a six your concentrating too much on the target and aligning your sight to rest just on the edge of the black.
with the Nygord your swapping the resting on the edge of the black to concentrating on maintaining a specific gap.
With the deep sub 6 your just vaguely aware of some out of focus black area on the target...
A true sub-six below the 'Nygord near-sub-six' is individually defined. It appears as a zen-like hold position, determined by a shooters one-ness with the space that exists below the black.
PETE S wrote:
Sub-6 as an AREA HOLD means not really caring where you are, just that you are generally below the bullseye and where does not matter nearly as much as your sight alignment.
Can you keep battering me with that every time? I'm going to need to have some 'faith' !!!! I know its true, and I totally agree with the 'alignment is everything' concept, but I need to follow through with that belief. So no sneaky looks at the bull...
Please forgive me gentlemen but I guess I’ll have to admit my ignorance.
I started off years ago using center, then migrated to a 6 hold.
Now you astute guys are talking ‘sub-six hold’ and ‘deep sub-six hold’.
How in the world can one place the sights on a ring below the bull that is invisible at 10M and expect the pellet to***repetitively*** seek the bull?
Is this a metaphysical, mind-control thing?
Is this sub-six hold what the Olympic medallists do?
What is going through my mind is that, as per your descriptions, I’m hoping to put 5 pellets through the same hole, but I’m NOT AIMING AT THE HOLE! How can one do that?????
I ordered an LP-10 from these good folks here at Pilk today, but after trying to digest this topic, maybe it is out of my league……..
I’m just a dumb engineer, can someone please put this in simple terms?
Here in OZ we refer to D as area aiming, you aim somewhere between the bottom of the black and the bottom of the target, what you have to do is find a comfortable place down there and go back to it consistently, because you are not looking for a specific place to aim, your subconcious will allow you to do all those other things correctly that lead to a perfect shot.
ming wrote:
Is this a metaphysical, mind-control thing?
No
ming wrote:Is this sub-six hold what the Olympic medallists do?
Most
ming wrote:What is going through my mind is that, as per your descriptions, I’m hoping to put 5 pellets through the same hole, but I’m NOT AIMING AT THE HOLE! How can one do that?????
Where you aim is immaterial as long as the relationship between the sights and the projectiles path has the correction for the difference
patro5 wrote:Here in OZ we refer to D as area aiming, you aim somewhere between the bottom of the black and the bottom of the target, what you have to do is find a comfortable place down there and go back to it consistently, because you are not looking for a specific place to aim, your subconcious will allow you to do all those other things correctly that lead to a perfect shot.
I will admit that "area aiming" is the term I prefer, having used it when I started shooting. Your use of the words "comfortable place" also remind me of where I was originally told to put the sights, and seems perfectly natural.
I think that our sub-6 and deep-sub-6 terms have probably found favour because of the clamour to copy what the top shooters do, and the resulting need for a precise description. Putting the sights "somewhere below the black" is a bit too vague for some.
