Steel Sights in the 1950's - center hold vs sub-6 hold, and SA vs DA

Back in "the good old days", did Bullseye shooters use a center hold, or a sub-6-o'clock hold?

Trying to align a black steel front sight and a black steel rear sight in front of a black bull seems to be what led shooters to use a 6 o'clock hold, but since that results in "point aiming", many people got better results with the sub-6-o'clock hold which is area aiming.

What did the better / best shooters do back in the day, when revolvers were still king?



Follow-up question - for those shooters, were they using the revolver in single action (takes longer, but good control), or double action (faster, but less precise?)

Greetings,

Hershel Anderson used a "center hold". When quizzed at one of the USA Free Pistol matches why, he replied, "How many tens did you shoot today?"

The only other center holder I know is Mr. Bickar. He has done well with that sight picture.

Cheers,

Dave

I shot this target with my 52 when it had iron sights, with an odd hold...I was holding (and seeing) the bottom of the Ten ring!   If I could see the whit “X” Or the line, I shifted my focus back to the front sight.  So it’s a center-6 o’clock hold.  What highpower shooters call a “flat tire”.  When under a coach in highpower, I could give my coach an X on either side of the 600 yard target with an M14.  Those days are gone I’m afraid as my eyesight just cant hold a focus that long.  Yay for dots. 

Hello mikemyers,

"the good old days" is sort of subjective.  In the early 1970s, when I started in Bullseye, there were still plenty of revolver shooters.

Where I lived/shot....we all, almost universally, used a 6 o'clock.  I always thought it was a holdover from the early training that the many veterans received.  We just stood up on our hind legs and shot; concepts like area aiming or point aiming didn't exist.

I don't remember many double action shooters back then.

Jim

fc60 wrote:Greetings,

Hershal Anderson used a "center hold". When quizzed at one of the USA Free Pistol matches why, he replied, "How many tens did you shoot today?"
........The only other center holder I know is Mr. Bickar. He has done well with that sight picture.....

Did they ever give a reason why they preferred center hold, or how they made it work for them?

Wobbley wrote:.......I’m afraid as my eyesight just cant hold a focus that long.  Yay for dots.....

There is a fascinating (at least for me) article on the Bullseye Encyclopedia that explains why the eye has those limitations:
     https://www.bullseyepistol.com/annex2.htm
Apparently, even young eyes can't do that, one of the things that surprised me.

In order for center hold to work, you must have a very black front sight and a sharp focus on the front sight.  Through the goo a target aiming black isn’t very black, particularly when you’re not focused on it.  If your front sight is sooty black it will stand out against it.  

IIRC a center hold has the advantage of better shot calls.

spursnguns wrote:............I don't remember many double action shooters back then........

Jim, having failed at it terribly this morning, I find it difficult to picture doing rapid fire with a single action revolver.  Jerry Miculek could probably do it in his sleep, but didn't "ordinary shooters" have to do it in bullseye competition?  My friend Tony suggested competitors must have used double-action, and even that must have been quite a challenge.

Maybe I can find some videos of the old events, and see how they did it.

I think I’ll go into the basement, get out the Walther, and try those concepts again.
Cheap, easy, quiet
Did I mention, cheap

Wobbley wrote:In order for center hold to work, you must have a very black front sight and a sharp focus on the front sight.  Through the goo a target aiming black isn’t very black, particularly when you’re not focused on it.  If your front sight is sooty black it will stand out against it.  ......IIRC a center hold has the advantage of better shot calls.

Aha!!!!!  So that's the reason I read about something like "lamp black" that got put on the sights?????         Never seen it, never really thought about it, but what you just wrote makes it sound very logical!

Soot from a carbide lamp was the go-to technology for making sights as flat black as possible.

mikemyers wrote:

Wobbley wrote:.......I’m afraid as my eyesight just cant hold a focus that long.  Yay for dots.....

There is a fascinating (at least for me) article on the Bullseye Encyclopedia that explains why the eye has those limitations:
     https://www.bullseyepistol.com/annex2.htm
Apparently, even young eyes can't do that, one of the things that surprised me.

 In the early 70s my eye could see and stay on the front sight for a long time.  And my hold ability was very good being in my 20s and with a lot of baseball and tennis training going on at the same time.  But there was a limit. 
Back then "wobble" was the front sight moving in the rear notch.  I have no recall of what the target was doing (in terms of wobble) when I was on the sight.  I used 6 oclock.

The Marine manual says for 25 yards hold 6 and 50 hold center.

I started shooting BE in '68. That same year we started indoor matches at our club. The Oak Harbor Conservation Club. We had one revolver shooter in our early days and later quite often none. 
Jim Leonardson shot w/ us as a teenager in those early matches. When he returned from the Navy he 
competing w/ the top shooters. His last Navy match was Perry where he finished 3rd.  I understood that  shooters went to a center hold as they started getting to elite level.

Ok, here is THE answer that I got from talking to a LOT of shooters who were better than I will ever be.  The very best shooters will use the hold (area of aim), single or double action for rapid fire, etc. etc.; that produces the most consistent results and greatest number of points for THEM.  Whatever they did or did not do, may or may not work for YOU.  They achieved this by trying different options for a long enough time, keeping records in their journals (scores, conditions, etc.) and then worked on getting the most consistent results they could. (Remember even Zins started with looking at the dot before he decided the target was better for him.) 

And when things changed, the very best also went through the exact same process again, and again, etc.  (Changing glasses, older eyes, moving to dots, etc., etc.)  Not trying something different or doing something that way "just because" you started that way is a self limiting condition.  There needs to be a reason for what you do, and the basic test of "reason" for bullseye is if it produces more points. 

Not that it makes any difference, but I shot single action for TF and RF and sub-6 hold.  (DR#9)

CR

Mike,

Regarding revolver sustained fire. I know that you have Paul Weston's book "Target Shooting Today." Read chapter 3: "Single vs. Double Action." Cpt. Weston emphatically advocates Single Action for Sustained fire (timed and rapid) and gives sound reasons for his preference. Then read the rest of the book to figure out exactly how this should be done. This is exactly how "they" did it in the "good old days"!
BTW, Paul Weston was one of the first people to define Area Aiming - also in this book.

And, if you want to see how single-action revolver shooting was done in the "good old days", watch this video - it is a gem on many levels:



Regards,
Oleg.

CR10X wrote:......The very best shooters will use the hold (area of aim), single or double action for rapid fire, etc. etc.; that produces the most consistent results and greatest number of points for THEM.  Whatever they did or did not do, may or may not work for YOU.  They achieved this by trying different options for a long enough time, keeping records in their journals (scores, conditions, etc.) and then worked on getting the most consistent results they could.......

As with so many other things, I believe you are spot on.  Maybe out of 500 shooters, this applies to 1% of them, 5 shooters.

I might as well use myself for this next part - I am absolutely nowhere remotely close to being a "best" shooter.  I don't have what it takes to be able to do what you wrote, and appreciate it.  So what I do, is emulate what many people in this forum do, following their advice mostly "blindly". 

If you, or Brian, handed me your gun and asked me to shoot a target, even if you were standing there telling me what to do, the results would not be good.  If a NASCAR driver handed me the keys to his car, and asked me to put in a good lap, I'd probably kill myself.  I'm not "good enough" to be able to do those things.   BUT, by following the advice of others, here, online, at the range, in phone calls, and even this specific post, I figure I'm likely to get "better", and the "better" that I get, the more I can appreciate ideas to improve even more (within my own limitations).  

So, I guess I'm saying that I agree with you, that I ought to try things on my own, and see what works best for me, but I get the ideas for things to try on my own by reading information you and others pass on.

(Or, worded differently, to be blunt, I think of myself as an amateur, trying to catch up with so many people in this forum, but I can still look back to last year, or years before that, and see how much better I've gotten.  I think my improvement is due to getting good advice here, and then doing my homework trying to get things to work for me.  So yes, personally, I DO want to understand how you and others do things, at least well enough to try them on my own, and see if they work for me.   ......which is part of the reason I so much appreciate the way you and others teach "the rest of us" how to catch up.)

Oleg G wrote:........Regarding revolver sustained fire. I know that you have Paul Weston's book "Target Shooting Today." Read chapter 3: "Single vs. Double Action." Cpt. Weston emphatically advocates Single Action for Sustained fire (timed and rapid) and gives sound reasons for his preference. Then read the rest of the book to figure out exactly how this should be done. This is exactly how "they" did it in the "good old days"!...........BTW, Paul Weston was one of the first people to define Area Aiming - also in this book......

Excellent idea, I now have the book sitting on the desk in front of me.  Sure, I'll read Chapter 3 first, then start on page 1 and read the whole book.  I'm still trying to make it through "Bullseye Mind" - what a struggle.  I think Weston's book will be just what I need right now.  Thanks!

Wow, I didn't see the link to the video until just now.  I think I watched this once before, but this time I saved the link for the future.  Great video, based on what I have learned about shooting, and also my own efforts at making videos over the years.

Those guys were good back then!!!!   .....at least some of them.  I'm glad the video showed so many other things, such as reloading.  Thanks for posting!!!

You got your answers above, and they were different. So what to do next? That's where shooters get lost and that was what my answer applied to.

You seem to be very fixed on your perspective about the ability or lack there of various shooters concerning the application of my comments. At least the words come across that way.

I dont think I've ever made process comments based on the ability of shooters. This was a process post and reply, and should apply to all levels and experience.

I've given a gun to some one who never shot a bullseye gun before, they listened to my simple instructions, having no pre conceived notion of what to do or expect. She shot a 90. At 50 yards. With my wadgun. Then she started shooting, listening to everything, not taking the time to actually evaluate what was being said and basically got "coached" into a mediocre shooter by her significant other and quit.

It does not matter your ability or level of shooting, unless you have some process to try out different things, you will probably wind up limiting yourself.

Sure, you can and should ask what people do. I even stated I did it a lot. And what did you get? Different answers to the same question. So the point is, what do you do and how do you evaluate the answers to help yourself. That should apply to 100 percent of all shooters that want to improve. So its not the 1 percent it APPLIES TO, it just may be they are the 1 percent that DO IT in some form?

Don't be thinking in terms of 1 or 5 or 10 or whatever percent level of shooters you want to break it into. I've gotten input from shooters of all levels about lots of things. The one consistent thing I've tried to do is try different things.

CR

By the way, I've had trouble shooting open sights in low light like early morning at Perry and in the rain. It's sprinkling rain and overcast today. What am I doing? I'm at the range, shooting open sights, trying different lens powers and tints to see what seems to work better for me now. Making notes and comparing to what i was using.

Getting old is a pain.

CR

CR10X wrote:........You seem to be very fixed on your perspective about the ability or lack there of various shooters concerning the application of my comments. At least the words come across that way.......

Sorry, I mostly write what I think, as I'm thinking it.  I very well might be "fixed" on my perspective, but I'm always open to change - with this forum, I'm not "fixed" at all, I'm more like a sponge, trying to soak up information and perhaps apply it to myself.  I try to never sound like a "know-it-all".  I certainly don't feel like a "know-it-all".  I think I'm in the habit of writing things in a way to encourage other people to respond.  Several people in this forum seem to be a goldmine of good information, but sometimes I struggle to assimilate it. 

On the other hand, outside of this forum, I find what I consider mostly mis-information.

CR10X wrote:You got your answers above, and they were different.  So what to do next?  

That I can easily answer - Target Shooting Today is right in front of me.  When I finish what I need to do online, and when I put away my revolver I'm struggling with, I need to get comfortable, and start reading.    :-)

CR10X wrote:By the way, I've had trouble shooting open sights in low light like early morning at Perry and in the rain.  It's sprinkling rain and overcast today.  What am I doing?  I'm at the range, shooting open sights,  trying different lens powers and tints to see what seems to work better for me now. Making notes and comparing to what i was using.

Getting old is a pain.

CR

Getting old may be a pain, but it beats the alternative.    :-)

Maybe one reason why you're as talented as you are, is because you work on your "weak points", and take notes, so you'll be better prepared in the future.

You know, sometimes I can't tell if you're joking or just missing the point. 

CR10X wrote:You got your answers above, and they were different.  So what to do next?  

That I can easily answer - Target Shooting Today is right in front of me.  When I finish what I need to do online, and when I put away my revolver I'm struggling with, I need to get comfortable, and start reading.    :-)



But what you should do next to get any value from all the responses everyone took the time to post for you is to follow the process I gave in my response.  You have a lot answers, but they have no determinate value like Schrodinger's Cat sitting there waiting in the box.  You don't know which is right for you until you give an adequate trial with commitment to each and then evaluate your results.  There is no "majority rule" when it comes to performance improvement.  

The majority opinion might be the place to start, but we need to be sure.  And it will show up if we're not sure every time we reach a plateau in our shooting.  As long as we are improving, then keep at it.  But when we reach a plateau, we will remain there unless we use some process again to identify what other changes will help our shooting and produce improvement.  When we get to the point that repetition is not producing more points, it's time to reevaluate.  

(People think repetition is always the path to getting better. And when repetition does not produce what they expect, that leads into the trap people fall into thinking talent or ability has anything do with improvement.)    

As I've reminded you on many occasions, talent and ability have very little to do with consistent results and especially getting improvement.  Talent and ability are crap next to effort and desire.  Just ask "Vociferous" (Phil) on the forum here for his opinion on what effort will get you.  There's someone that really put forth the effort to get his Master card!

CR