Just made major progress ignoring conventional wisdom (front sight focus)

[azrocks]

So the other day at the range I had one of those rare 'aha' moments where the slow, grinding progress that marks 95% of one's improvement is temporarily interrupted by an incremental gain in ability. But I did so by going completely opposite what most people advise.

I've always practiced a front-sight-post focus, but lately in my dry-fire training I've been keeping my eyes focused on the target while allowing the handgun sights to blur - superimposed over the target. So when I went to the range, it clicked. I realized I was finally tracking the gun all the way through recoil. I watched my group sizes - particularly at distance - shrink substantially. Follow up shots were much quicker.

My consciousness was still focused on the front sight. But my vision was focused on the target. I was still able to see the post clear enough to make accurate shots despite the fuzz, as well as maintain the same gap on either side of the front post (it almost seemed like I was using your peripheral vision to maintain this gap. Maybe that's exactly what I was doing? Not sure).

Any input? Has anyone had similar experiences? Am I doing it all wrong despite my success? Is this an 'old eye' thing (I'm approaching 50 now)? Curious what y'all have to say.

 

[drband]

Good for you! I would think tracking the sights all the way through recoil is the source of your improvement.

Try tracking on a sharply focused front sight picture. I'm curious if that is better or worse for you.

 

[badkarmamib]

My consciousness was still focused on the front sight. But my vision was focused on the target. I was still able to see the post clear enough to make accurate shots despite the fuzz, as well as maintain the same gap on either side of the front post (it almost seemed like I was using your peripheral vision to maintain this gap. Maybe that's exactly what I was doing? Not sure).

I started doing this about a year ago, with the same results. I "focus" on the target, while "concentrating" on the front sight, if that makes any sense. I noticed my groups shrunk, and moved up (I was moving the gun "out of the way" as I broke the shot, to check my hits). Doing this with both eyes open has also made an improvement. I squint my non-dominant eye in proportion to target distance. So, if you are wrong in doing this, I must be as well. I think it mostly boils down to consistency, and keeping the sights aligned with the target until recoil takes over.

 

[azrocks]

I started doing this about a year ago, with the same results. I "focus" on the target, while "concentrating" on the front sight, if that makes any sense.

Makes perfect sense to me. That's exactly what I found myself doing.

I was moving the gun "out of the way" as I broke the shot, to check my hits

And that makes perfect sense as well. I know this is at least part of the improvement in accuracy. What I'm wondering is just how much.

Is it even possible to actually track a gun in recoil if you're really focusing your vision on the front sight post? Is it possible the whole 'front sight post' focus is something many competitors & top-level shooters don't really do, despite perhaps thinking that they are? Maybe they're actually focusing more on it with their mind than their eyes after all? Is it possible....

 

[azrocks]

Good for you! I would think tracking the sights all the way through recoil is the source of your improvement.
Try tracking on a sharply focused front sight picture. I'm curious if that is better or worse for you.

That's one of the main reasons I posted this. I know I improved, but I'm wondering if I'm mistaking the actual cause of improvement.

 

[doubleh]

I would just enjoy the fact that I tried something different and it worked. I'm approaching 80 and would love to find something improved my shooting ability or several other abilities for that matter.

 

[bannockburn]

azrocks

Have been having a hard time lately focussing on the front sight as well. Next time I'm at the range I will have to try this out. I also got a pair of shooting glasses that have areas of both upper and lower magnification, sort of like having bifocals top and bottom.

 

[ny32182]

My eyes still work pretty well at 35 (I understand I have maybe a 5 year window at best before that will start to go)... I'm a strong believer in doing what works for you, but to me the described behavior and results are pretty strange.

Assuming the OP is talking about this in the context of action type competition:
How far is "at distance"?
For me, looking through the gun rapidly loses utility past about 7 yards. I would describe the focus that works for me as follows at various distance, assuming open target. If there are partials, no shoots, whatever, then that shot is harder; move it out to treat it as a further target as applicable:

<5yd,: I do look through the gun and point shoot. Target focus. This is the only time I actually see hits as they occur and occasionally I find this distracting. I don't want to be looking for hits, ever. Hopefully I'll see a fiber dot, but if something goes wrong and I lose it for a shot, probably I'm not making up that shot. This is a high hit factor section of the stage and speed is where it's at on average.

7-10yd: Front sight focus, but not much attention being paid to the rear at this point. As long as the front sight is in the A zone I'll shoot a high percentage of A's without much attention to the rear. Usually seeing fiber is fine, but top of the front blade is fine too if the lighting is good.

>10yd: Front sight top of the blade focus with some attention being paid to the rear. How much is distance dependent. Starting at about 20-25 yards I've got to make an effort to have "equal height, equal light" on the rear, as it doesn't take much error at this distance for bad things to happen. Shooting on the clock, you will likely have a little more error than you think, so.... I need to see sights pretty good at this range.

Honestly, trying a target focus at further distance of 20+yd, I think I'd be lucky to call a shot yes/no on even hitting the paper. So I guess it comes back to how far, and if it is this far, I would possibly wonder what other variables are at play. What kind of group do you expect in slow fire at 25yd with a front sight focus? Is your target focus group size less than this, again in slow fire?

 

[azrocks]

Assuming the OP is talking about this in the context of action type competition:
How far is "at distance"?

I was actually speaking in the context of shooting at static targets. I haven't had the chance to put this to use during movement. But my biggest improvements came at 25 yards.

For me, looking through the gun rapidly loses utility past about 7 yards...

Honestly, trying a target focus at further distance of 20+yd, I think I'd be lucky to call a shot yes/no on even hitting the paper.

And this is why I'm questioning whether or not what I think I'm doing is what I'm actually doing, and whether that it responsible for the improvement. There was a definite improvement, one that involved easily tracking the gun in recoil when I couldn't consistently do it before. I'm wondering (as BadKarma touched on above) if the improvement wasn't more due to eliminating the subtle tendency to evaluate my shot in-between rounds (a bad habit I've been trying to eliminate for a while now). Perhaps I'm actually focusing on the front sight but it feels different because I'm not moving my focus back & forth as much between it & the target? I'm really not sure...

So I guess it comes back to how far, and if it is this far, I would possibly wonder what other variables are at play. What kind of group do you expect in slow fire at 25yd with a front sight focus? Is your target focus group size less than this, again in slow fire?

Before my last trip, I'd average around 10-12" groups at 70 feet. The last time I shrunk them down to 5-8". That's indoors where the dim light really messes with me, but it provides a reliable basis for comparison. Probably 1 round a second rate.


EDIT: I just did a few exercises focusing intently on the target, and that definitely doesn't work... the whole gun disappears. Then I tried focusing intently on the front sight post, and it's like I was before I made the improvement.

What it feels MOST like I'm doing is not focusing on anything at all, or focusing at an imaginary mid-point somewhere between the front post & target. I'm not saying that's what I'm doing - I don't even know if it's possible - but it feels that way.

 

[stu1ritter]

Being able to follow the gun in recoil is called FOLLOW-THROUGH. It is an indication that you are paying attention to your shooting technique and is the final step in every shot you take. If you will read the Army's Advanced Marksmanship manual located here, and read all the chapters, you will understand your process. http://www.bullseyepistol.com/chapter1.htm or http://tinyurl.com/gsemq85

Stu

 

[ny32182]

I was actually speaking in the context of shooting at static targets. I haven't had the chance to put this to use during movement. But my biggest improvements came at 25 yards.

Ah ok. Sorry I didn't mean to oversell the importance of whether it is in competition or not; I believe the fundamentals are the same regardless. I think you will find that any high level shooter that I'm aware of will agree that there is a fundamental ideal of a hard front sight focus on the tip of the blade, and "equal height, equal light" on the rear, which, all else equal, will lead to the smallest groups in slow fire. Depending on the shot difficulty and time constraints, you begin to "cheat" this ideal to speed things up. How, and how much you cheat are shot-dependent.

And this is why I'm questioning whether or not what I think I'm doing is what I'm actually doing, and whether that it responsible for the improvement. There was a definite improvement, one that involved easily tracking the gun in recoil when I couldn't consistently do it before. I'm wondering (as BadKarma touched on above) if the improvement wasn't more due to eliminating the subtle tendency to evaluate my shot in-between rounds (a bad habit I've been trying to eliminate for a while now). Perhaps I'm actually focusing on the front sight but it feels different because I'm not moving my focus back & forth as much between it & the target? I'm really not sure...

I think this might be a key driver here. If you are shooting at one target (not transitioning between multiple targets) then whatever your type of focus (whether it be sights or target) it should not be changing between shots. If you are sight focused, when the shot breaks, you should be waiting for that front sight to track back to where it was, and your focal point should stay right there. Same with target focus. I can't think of a reason in my own shooting as to why it would be harder to track the gun with a sight focus... if anything, I'd say it is easier. Unless you are changing your focal distance to look at a distant target right as the shot breaks. That might do it. Although at one shot per second... I'm also still not sure that this is a contributing factor to your observed results at all, since a full second should be enough time to iron out any visual abnormalities between shots, and reset to your "ideal" sight picture, whatever it is at the time.

Before my last trip, I'd average around 10-12" groups at 70 feet. The last time I shrunk them down to 5-8". That's indoors where the dim light really messes with me, but it provides a reliable basis for comparison. Probably 1 round a second rate.

These groups are centered on the point of aim, and generally round in both cases?

EDIT: I just did a few exercises focusing intently on the target, and that definitely doesn't work... the whole gun disappears. Then I tried focusing intently on the front sight post, and it's like I was before I made the improvement.

What it feels MOST like I'm doing is not focusing on anything at all, or focusing at an imaginary mid-point somewhere between the front post & target. I'm not saying that's what I'm doing - I don't even know if it's possible - but it feels that way.

How well defined is your target and point of aim? Is it a contrasting circle of some number of inches? Just a blank piece of cardboard like an IDPA target?

 

[wally]

I'm now forced to do this with iron sights as I got old and my eyes can't focus on anything closer that 3-4 feet without reading glasses. Yes it works, but I'm hopelessly slow on the steel plates compared to what I used to be when I could actually focus on the front site.

I pretty much only shoot handguns with red dots these days but I do run a few hundred rounds a month through my iron sighted "long slide" 1911 and S&W BodyGuard 380 which I often carry as a backup, but it is "work", when I whip out the pistols with red dots I start having some real fun!

 

[azrocks]

If you are sight focused, when the shot breaks, you should be waiting for that front sight to track back to where it was, and your focal point should stay right there. Same with target focus.

So when the shot breaks with a strong front-post focus, what do you see? Do you see the entire handgun rising in recoil, or just the spot you were focusing on 'blacked out' by the rising firearm only to 'clear' once the sights settle back down?

These groups are centered on the point of aim, and generally round in both cases?

Pretty much. Up to 30 or 40 feet they're pretty much round and point of aim. At 70 feet they start to turn into a vertical elipse (I seem to string vertically a bit as distance increases) and hit a couple inches high. I have a stock (fat) front sight so that also makes the longer shots more problematic.

How well defined is your target and point of aim? Is it a contrasting circle of some number of inches? Just a blank piece of cardboard like an IDPA target?

I tried both. With a 1" square aim point things tightened up the most, as I would expect. Got a little looser with no aim point (just centering things on target), but the basic pattern was the same.


I'm thinking now - thanks to this discussion - that my improvement probably came from finally succeeding at ridding myself of the urge to evaluate each shot. It seems like I may have worn it down to the point where it was so subtle it didn't seem like I was doing it anymore, while in reality I still was.

 

[Kman314]

I started focusing on the target rather than the front sight quite a few years ago because I've reached that point where I can't focus on the front sight without reading glasses. And if I were wearing reading glasses, I couldn't see the target. I shoot just fine this way. I probably wouldn't win any pistol competition, but I can out-shoot a lot of people. Not too long ago, I read in a Grant Cunningham book about this very topic. I believe he suggested trying this method of shooting for people with poor reading vision.

 

[ugaarguy]

I've moved this to ST&T since it's primarily a question of training and technique.

 

[ny32182]

So when the shot breaks with a strong front-post focus, what do you see? Do you see the entire handgun rising in recoil, or just the spot you were focusing on 'blacked out' by the rising firearm only to 'clear' once the sights settle back down?

It is possible for me to track the sight pretty well through its movement, but I kind of have to try, so I really don't bother. I just see blurry target aiming zone until the front sight returns crisp in my line of sight. Since my weak side eye is open at least a little, I really don't have any sensation of the target being blocked by the slide, even if it might be for a small fraction of a second in some cases.

One thing that I think can be helpful here is to temporarily take the target out of the equation entirely. If you just fire into a plain berm or backstop (ideally as plain as possible with nothing interesting on it to draw your vision out) at a moderate pace, maintain that front sight focus as the only thing to concentrate on shot to shot, to me, that makes the easiest possible situation for "tracking the sights". For me it is very easy to see what I want to see in terms of tracking the gun there. Once comfortable, reintroduce the target, but make sure you don't let it draw your focal distance out.

 

[azrocks]

One thing that I think can be helpful here is to temporarily take the target out of the equation entirely. If you just fire into a plain berm or backstop (ideally as plain as possible with nothing interesting on it to draw your vision out) at a moderate pace, maintain that front sight focus as the only thing to concentrate on shot to shot, to me, that makes the easiest possible situation for "tracking the sights". For me it is very easy to see what I want to see in terms of tracking the gun there. Once comfortable, reintroduce the target, but make sure you don't let it draw your focal distance out.

I'm all over this. Thanks!

 

[straightshooterjake]

I think what is being discussed here is closely related to techniques described by Grant Cunningham in these two articles:

http://www.grantcunningham.com/2013/04/i-spent-my-weekend-teaching-and-what-i-learned-from-doing-so/

https://www.personaldefensenetwork.com/article/i-cant-see-my-gun-sights/

For myself, I am very aware that my eyes cannot do things that they could do when I was younger, and I use a variety of techniques to make the best of the situation.

 

[AZAndy]

This is very interesting; thanks for writing about it. I'll try the idea out over the weekend. Being nearsighted, I can either wear my regular glasses and see the target, or clip magnifiers on my glasses and see the sights. Without the magnifiers, I can tell the sights are there, but they're not sharply defined, so this should be easy to check out. There is something to be said for the target being out of focus, as it forces me to mentally "call my shots," which a lot of big-name shootists make a big deal about.

 

[ny32182]

I think what is being discussed here is closely related to techniques described by Grant Cunningham in these two articles:

http://www.grantcunningham.com/2013/04/i-spent-my-weekend-teaching-and-what-i-learned-from-doing-so/

https://www.personaldefensenetwork.com/article/i-cant-see-my-gun-sights/

For myself, I am very aware that my eyes cannot do things that they could do when I was younger, and I use a variety of techniques to make the best of the situation.

This sounds like what virtually everyone is doing at close distances, and guys with close vision issues are just necessarily doing it at further ranges. Luckily I don't have to deal with this (yet), so can't speak from experience, but.... I can see how it would be ideal for them, but, imo, they are still going to lose some precision in shot making and shot calling ability vs. someone with a full visual range. I've seen some pretty good shooters switch to dot guns as they get older for this reason.

 

[azrocks]

This is very interesting; thanks for writing about it. I'll try the idea out over the weekend. Being nearsighted, I can either wear my regular glasses and see the target, or clip magnifiers on my glasses and see the sights. Without the magnifiers, I can tell the sights are there, but they're not sharply defined, so this should be easy to check out. There is something to be said for the target being out of focus, as it forces me to mentally "call my shots," which a lot of big-name shootists make a big deal about.

I'm in the same boat you are regarding near-sightedness, but I've never had a problem with it until I developed age-related presbyopia (unable to focus close up). Probably same for you I'm guessing. No way I could shoot uncorrected, as I'd be close to blind shooting at anything past 20 feet or so. Corrected I'm 20/20 once I get past a certain distance (which unfortunately is beyond my sights). So it's just like you said - either the target is sharp or the sights are. That's the compromise we're forced to make. If I could stretch my arms another foot everything would be fine (lol), but as it is now both front & rear sights are somewhat blurry.

I did some more exercises last night to try to figure this thing out, and I'm back to where I started. I do believe that some of the improvement is due to me no longer changing my focus to evaluate my shot, but that doesn't account for all of it.

I need to do some more experimenting, but working with what I've got, I'm starting to think that a target focus might just be the best approach for me. If I try to focus on the front sight, then everything's blurry (because my eyes physically cannot focus on the front sight). When I focus on the target, the sights are pretty much as blurry as they are when focusing on them, but the target becomes clear. So I'm having a hard time finding the down-side.

 

[azrocks]

I think what is being discussed here is closely related to techniques described by Grant Cunningham in these two articles:

http://www.grantcunningham.com/2013/04/i-spent-my-weekend-teaching-and-what-i-learned-from-doing-so/

https://www.personaldefensenetwork.com/article/i-cant-see-my-gun-sights/

For myself, I am very aware that my eyes cannot do things that they could do when I was younger, and I use a variety of techniques to make the best of the situation.

I really appreciate this!

 

[Varminterror]

Is it even possible to actually track a gun in recoil if you're really focusing your vision on the front sight post?

Recognizing you're asking a rhetorical question, but returning in kind:

Is it even possible to actually track the front sight if you're not focusing your vision on it?

 

[JamieC]

This is all great stuff. I'm in my second year or so of IDPA shooting. The last year, at least twice a month. I'm 63, started needing reading glasses in my mid 40s. My distance vision is still good, I'm just edging into 2.0 readers from 1.75. The other day I was installing a mag well on my 1911, had just finished it up, was checking the safeties, "man, that front sight is big and clear", realized I still had the magnifier safety glasses on. It dawned on me, (yeah, kinda slow), that maybe if I could see the front sight better, my shooting might improve. One of my recent 'discoveries' in IDPA shooting was learning to pay attention to the targets to see where the holes actually were instead of rushing to shoot the next target...basic, I know, as I said, "kinda slow". Wearing my 'normal' strength readers, the front sight is crystal clear, the targets, (and the accompanying holes), not so much. Bought a pair of .75 safety magnifier glasses, might have the best of both worlds. The front sight is clear enough that trying to focus on it is quite easy, seeing the targets and holes still seems possible. I'll know for sure tomorrow at a match, looking at things around my yard with the glasses on and off, I don't think seeing holes in the targets will be a problem, (that and the fact that I'll be shooting my 1911, LSWCs will certainly help)

 

[MartinS]

If you're shooting has anything to do with training for defense I would think that your target should be you're primary concern. Is that really a gun in his hand? Did he drop it when I yelled at him to do so? Any orange on the barrel?
Lots of stuff on the target you better keep track of and how do you that if all you think and see is FRONTDIGHTFRONTSIGHTFRONTSIGHT. Does this have anything to do with the cases of cops shooting people with pens and other harmless objects in there hands, or nothing?