TargetTalk

I am changing from Center Mass to Sub-Six ... appears to be working, but the real question is .... What is your sub-six?

I cannot answer your poll; you do not give the option "No idea, it's just a comfortable position for me".

Most of your answers seem to indicate a fixed aiming position rather than area aiming.

Ditto to David's response.

On the (rare) day when I am hot on a precision target, I can not define where in the white the sights are - I am too busy looking and focussing at the front sight.

Same as Dave's, if you pick a distance than its really no dIfferent than a six o'clock hold because you'll be trying to be exact.

So no answer is suitable for me.

My aim is very low. Around the 1 ring, or the lowest part of the
Target. I use the same aiming area for both presision, rapidfiretarget and freepistol.

I'm with David and Spencer, I have no clue where my front sights are in relation to the bull. They are sub-6, and one person claimed it was "deep" sub-6, but I don't consciously 'see' the bull when everything's working right.

My sub six hold is equal light gaps. The amount of light gap between the front sight and rear sight on each side, is equal to the amount of light gap under the black.
This will vary range to range, day to day, indoor light to sunshine.
Rear sight gap may be altered to suit the match.

I'm with David L. too. I get a "comfortable" distance below the bull without working too hard on it and then adjust the sight elevation as necessary. When I started shooting, I tried but could not get anywhere trying to control the gap to a particular degree.

It would be different if I there were micrometer adjustments on a mounted test barrel, but I'm holding a gun out on the end of my arm and the dang thing is never still enough for me to carefully evaluate precisely the gaps between the rear and front sight in comparison with the gap between the top of the front sight and the fuzzy curved line at the bottom of the bull. And if I try, I hold too long and then everything really gets wobbly.

YMMV, of course.

Roger

Wow, 18% shoot with their eyes closed : )

It's "none of the above", but for some reason he decided to be smart and added the "eyes closed" statement...

Same as David's answer.

Added to poll: about half of bull diameter.
I.e. pretty low with lots of white, about bottom of four zone.
But my idea is to make this "natural" without making a deliberate choice.
Purpose is to make this subconscious and avoid stress.
Changed my aiming "system" this autumn, so these things are still settling down and don't feel stable or secure. Strange thing is that despite of this, the shots that feel good are mostly nines and tens.

So the plan is to just let nature take its course and adjust the sights according to this if necessary. Long term thing, but works surprisingly well already. But I guess that's what they've been trying to tell me all the time.

BTW my front sight is pretty wide, about the same width as the bull.

I'm gonna go with David L's awnser, somewhere down there.

I have been told that the distance between the bottom of the bull and the bottom of the scoring ring is the same size as the bull. Just as your eye tends to want to "center" things in the middle of the bull, if you are using a sub six, chances are your eye is also centering your sights in the middle of the area below the bull. Therefore, most people are, consciously or not, holding below the target at about one half the distance of the diameter of the bull, maybe slightly lower ( if you can't see the rings) as your eye is naturally aligning your sights between the bottom of the target and the bottom of the bull.
I can shoot the back side of a target with my sights set for a sub six hold and still end up with all my shots either in the ten ring or close to it if I don't screw up the triggering. This tells me that area aiming works.

So if area aiming works in the white, why not area aiming in the black? I've often seen it written that black sights + black bull = hard to locate, but haven't found this to be the case myself. The target 'black' isn't the same as the sight's 'black' (neither is truly black owing to reflected light, both ambient and target-specific lighting), and it's easy to distinguish between them.

What I find is that my attitude about that area aiming has a lot more bearing on the resulting accuracy of the shot. If I am obsessive about achieving perfect alignment of the sights and holding as steady as possible on whichever target, but it blank paper, sub-6, or centre black, I'll tend to shoot about half in the 10 and half scattered around as stress and the resulting too-long hold before letting the shot break make for various errors in my building panic to get the shot off. When instead I de-prioritize any particular aspect of the shot, just participating in the act but not becoming obsessive, I can often score 5 or 6 10's in a row and the rest quite reasonably close to 10. Maintaining that attitude, with my focus close enough (not uncaring or too casual) but not too exacting, is the challenge at this point.

And yeah, I'm the one vote so far for centre mass. The other day I spent a good long session dry firing then live with a deep sub-6 hold, making an effort not to be overly specific about exactly where in the white, just a comfortable, natural area, my results were mixed, but generally too randomly spread out to be satisfying. The next session I went back to centre aim, and this time changed my focus from the front sight to the target, just as I aimed when I was a kid with a pellet rifle, plinking and hunting through the summers. Between about 8 and 12 I shot a lot, and usually hit whatever I aimed at this way. I don't recall ever focusing on the front sight nor the rear, rather always looked at the target and watching the pellet hit that point of focus.

And in this session, focused on the target but not with too much effort, the iris stopped all the way down, the front sight just slightly blurry, I hit a bunch of 10's. I found it very relaxing shooting this way, where focus on the front sight has been somewhat stressful. I know it's what I 'should' be doing, as nearly every authority swears it's the only way. And of course I'll have to persist with it a while before it either proves worth pursuing or just another lesson to add to my experience and then move on. Think I'll stick with this way for a few months, through a competition in June, then decide.

I'm guessing that if you had an iris stopped down and could readily distinguish the front sight against the bull, you were outdoors or in pretty bright light. If that works for you, go with it.

At the range where I shoot, there is no way I could easily distinguish the front sight, or more importantly, the evaluate the gap between the front and rear sights, against a black background.

Roger

Nope. Shooting in two locations, both at home. First at a 7 metre target with an 18" florescent tube above the target, then at a 10 metre target set up in a tube hanging off my back porch, with a clear frosted plastic window in the top of the tube to admit natural light. On that one the clouds kept coming and going, so at times it was very bright, at times rather dim and then just a little bit difficult.

I suspect that the reading glass lens I fitted to my Varga shooting glass holder plays a role, as it's not quite optimized for the front sight. The focus is more like a metre in front of my front sight. This is something I'm considering, for when I get around to visiting the optometrist to have a proper glass lens made. I might end up having him make me two lenses, one for target focus, one for front sight, and testing extensively as to which suits me better in the long run.

The lighting at the pistol is also important. I try to get as many lights on as possible when practicing at home. At the range there are big sodium lights, way up high, so the lighting is diffuse but quite bright and focus is okay for both the sights and the target, in most cases. The bulb used on a given target lamp can help or hurt. Apparently they check every bulb with a meter to make sure it meets ISSF specs, but some are certainly better than others. I find the white light bulbs much better than the more yellow types simulating natural light.

Count me in for aiming at the center.

I used to aim at 6:00, tried it for about a year until I realized I was aiming at nothing in particular but the bottom of the 7 ring, and somewhere in the middle left/right. As soon as I adjusted for dead center my scores improved by 10 pts or more per match, and now I know where and what I'm aiming for. I can also pretty much call my shots instead of guessing like I used to.

Lighting is very important.

FWIW,
Scrench

"So if area aiming works in the white, why not area aiming in the black? I've often seen it written that black sights + black bull = hard to locate, but haven't found this to be the case myself. The target 'black' isn't the same as the sight's 'black' (neither is truly black owing to reflected light, both ambient and target-specific lighting), and it's easy to distinguish between them."

Area aiming works fine in the black, especially if you are young. I used it when I was in my 20's and it worked great, but the older you are and the lower the light, the less black sights stand out against the bull and your eyes tend to jump back and forth between the target and the sights which freezes the trigger finger for many people. I don't want to use one type of hold for four matches a year that I shoot outdoors with irons on an uncovered firing point and another for indoor air pistol so I standardize by going sub six for irons. The other thing you can do is to paint your sights white, when you are practicing indoors. I am in my 50's now and can shoot fine with the dot using a center hold but seeing the sights move around against the black tends to make me less confident in my hold. If all I see it white behind them, my eye is not drawn to the target and stays on the front sight where it belongs.

No white. Against the black ball.