Calling the Shot 201 (advanced)

First topic message reminder :

I've been meaning to start a thread about "how to call the shot", but there are a zillion posts and videos about it all over the internet, and in books too.  Everyone of them explains "how to do it" and "what it means", but none of that is any help for someone like me, who "just doesn't get it".  I just see a blur.

• I'm pretty sure I don't blink.
  
• Flinching is under control.
  
• I'm shooting light loads.
  
• I think my vision is adequate
  
  
• ...but it's all a blur when the gun fires.
  

I made one last attempt today to find an answer before posting, and this time, Eureka!  I found what I wanted, and a whole lot more.

This is the page for the blog:
http://re-gun.com/2012/02/
Suggestion - scroll to near the bottom, "How the eye sees", and read the rest from bottom to top.
Lots of slow motion videos too, which I watched on YouTube at 1/4 speed to make them even slower.


For the first time I can understand what I'm supposed to see, and while I can't try any of it until January, I think I know enough now to be able to see what the rest of you do.    I was wrong - I thought I had "slow eyes", but apparently that's not the case at all.  There are suggestions on how to get into seeing things when you can't (like me).  I figure once I learn how to do it, I'll get better and do it naturally - like learning how to ride a bicycle.

The last post has something else I'm curious about - maybe I should ask in the reloading section, but according to the author, the type of powder you use can change how well you see the sights to call your shot.

SteveT wrote:Bifocals with distance prescription in the middle and reading prescription in the bifocal are OK for dots, but require raising the head and looking through the bifocal to focus on the front sight. Single focus lenses with the optimum open sights prescription in the center of the lens is better.

Progressive lenses also require raising the head to get a close focus but raising and lower the head a little changes the prescription of the lens. Not the best solution.

Merit, which I don't think are still produced, or eye-pals put a small aperture in front of the eye, which increases depth of focus. This will help bring the front sight in focus if the prescription is not right, but it also brings the target more in focus, which can distract the shooter away from the front sight, and it also reduces the amount of light reaching the eye, which can make it hard to see indoors or in poor lighting  conditions.

Since this discussion started, I got three pairs of dedicated shooting glasses, one for 24" (two handed shooting), one for 30" (one handed shooting), and one for red dot sight (distance).

I'm no longer so sure I'm not flinching.  When I get back, I need to work on this.

Also, I just don't see the details you guys see, and never have.  To see the stitching on a ball being thrown - I'm lucky to just watch the ball.  I've had surgery to repair the eye floor, and cataract surgery in both eyes.  In my mind, I'm 100% convinced that my vision is not as good as what some of  you have, but I think it's still good enough to do reasonably well.

Truthfully - I think many people "see" at a high frame rate, and I "see" at a low frame rate.  My vision, or brain, or something is not working as well as what other people have.


Question #1 - which, if any, is the better of the devices that apparently block out all the vision from the shooting eye other than the central area?  I don't think I want more depth of field - I am thinking maybe if the eye is seeing "less", it will notice more of what is important.

Question #2 - to try the "kindergarten" approach, if I use my S&W Model 41 with 7" barrel, steel sights, and concentrate fully on the front sight, and shoot at a piece of white paper, what is it that I should be trying to "see"?  Just something simple, so I can start training my eyes to do this.  I'll put on a pair of muffs with an electronic speaker, and play loud music or something, so I won't "hear" the gun fire, and I'll do this over and over until I begin to see whatever it is you guys see.


.......found this while searching....

mikemyers wrote:

SteveT wrote:Bifocals with distance prescription in the middle and reading prescription in the bifocal are OK for dots, but require raising the head and looking through the bifocal to focus on the front sight. Single focus lenses with the optimum open sights prescription in the center of the lens is better.

Progressive lenses also require raising the head to get a close focus but raising and lower the head a little changes the prescription of the lens. Not the best solution.

Merit, which I don't think are still produced, or eye-pals put a small aperture in front of the eye, which increases depth of focus. This will help bring the front sight in focus if the prescription is not right, but it also brings the target more in focus, which can distract the shooter away from the front sight, and it also reduces the amount of light reaching the eye, which can make it hard to see indoors or in poor lighting  conditions.

Since this discussion started, I got three pairs of dedicated shooting glasses, one for 24" (two handed shooting), one for 30" (one handed shooting), and one for red dot sight (distance).

I'm no longer so sure I'm not flinching.  When I get back, I need to work on this.

Also, I just don't see the details you guys see, and never have.  To see the stitching on a ball being thrown - I'm lucky to just watch the ball.  I've had surgery to repair the eye floor, and cataract surgery in both eyes.  In my mind, I'm 100% convinced that my vision is not as good as what some of  you have, but I think it's still good enough to do reasonably well.

Truthfully - I think many people "see" at a high frame rate, and I "see" at a low frame rate.  My vision, or brain, or something is not working as well as what other people have.


Question #1 - which, if any, is the better of the devices that apparently block out all the vision from the shooting eye other than the central area?  I don't think I want more depth of field - I am thinking maybe if the eye is seeing "less", it will notice more of what is important.

Question #2 - to try the "kindergarten" approach, if I use my S&W Model 41 with 7" barrel, steel sights, and concentrate fully on the front sight, and shoot at a piece of white paper, what is it that I should be trying to "see"?  Just something simple, so I can start training my eyes to do this.  I'll put on a pair of muffs with an electronic speaker, and play loud music or something, so I won't "hear" the gun fire, and I'll do this over and over until I begin to see whatever it is you guys see.


.......found this while searching....

Try to have another bullseye shooter watch you. Maybe you are doing things you don't think you are. Even Bill Blankenship learned something after having someone watch him.

Also look at this program.. i haven't used or read it but i hear a lot of new shooters find it useful.
http://www.distinguishedprecision.com/X-Count-Training-Systems_c_175.html

Maybe this will help?
http://www.meritcorporation.com/products.html

Update.

I am sitting in front of my computer watching the sights in this video.  No noise, no bullet, no reason to flinch or blink.  I was thinking maybe I just don't understand properly.

Is >THIS< what you guys see, and what I am trying to see?  

mikemyers wrote:Update.

I am sitting in front of my computer watching the sights in this video.  No noise, no bullet, no reason to flinch or blink.  I was thinking maybe I just don't understand properly.

Is >THIS< what you guys see, and what I am trying to see?  

No, i think most shooters see like this or want to
 

It is the same thing as looking for undisturbed sights as you dryfire.

Wonderful - so if I can see what you just put here, THAT is what the goal is?  I see the sights until a split second before the "explosion", and nothing afterward.  So I know where the front sight was as the gun fired.  I am able to see that.

All this time I thought I was supposed to see "something" after the gun fires.  I don't see that in your video, just as I don't when I'm firing.  Once the gun fires, everything is a blur, just like when I'm shooting.

THANK YOU.  I guess this is one more thing I just didn't understand.

.........and yeah, I **wish** that I could see exactly that.  Probably never happen, but I can get closer than I am now.

Jack H wrote:It is the same thing as looking for undisturbed sights as you dryfire.

Someone else will answer you better, but for me,  after enough dry fire, I see the sights behaving very nicely.  Unfortunately, as soon as I know the gun is actually going to fire for real, my "anticipation" messes things up for me.  That is getting much better nowadays.

I guess I now realize I do have the information to start calling my shots.  I didn't know what I was looking for.  


Anyone interested - you can do what I do here.  Play the video, and find the spot just before the gun fires, put the cursor there.  Then you can play the same shot over and over and over again...   which I find interesting...    and then do this in slow motion (just change the YouTube playback settings).  Impressive shooting!!

The key here is to keep your shooting eye open. For beginners that can be the hardest part to master as it is human nature to blink when a small explosion takes place at arms length. It you can train yourself to do it. If you see the case being ejected in your peripheral vision, you can reasonably say you have kept your eye open. Remember though, your wobble means that your sight picture at discharge was history not reality.

Note in the AMU video the sight alignment isn’t always perfect but the top of the front sight doesn’t move near as much as in the first video.

Wobbley wrote:The key here is to keep your shooting eye open.  For beginners that can be the hardest part to master as it is human nature to blink when a small explosion takes place at arms length.   It you can train yourself to do it.  If you see the case being ejected in your peripheral vision, you can reasonably say you have kept your eye open.  Remember though, your wobble means that your sight picture at discharge was history not reality.

Note in the AMU video the sight alignment isn’t always perfect but the top of the front sight doesn’t move near as much as in the first video.  

it doesn't have to be perfect to shoot a 10, if you sand band your gun and can keep your head still slightly miss align the sights and take a shot gradually moving them further. The farther the distance the less you can get away with

Chris Miceli wrote:No, i think most shooters see like this or want to...

Chris, I set the play back speed at 1/4, and found a spot on the video playback screen just before every shot.  By clicking on that spot, I could watch each specific shot over and over and over, and more importantly switch between what your gun did, and then see the hole appearing in the target.

I thought watching you in slow motion was wonderful, as while I can't do that, I know better what to try to do.   As to predicting where the hole would be, I was wrong most of the time.  So I still have much to learn.

(How did you set up your camera or phone or ???)

mikemyers wrote:

Chris Miceli wrote:No, i think most shooters see like this or want to...

Chris, I set the play back speed at 1/4, and found a spot on the video playback screen just before every shot.  By clicking on that spot, I could watch each specific shot over and over and over, and more importantly switch between what your gun did, and then see the hole appearing in the target.

I thought watching you in slow motion was wonderful, as while I can't do that, I know better what to try to do.   As to predicting where the hole would be, I was wrong most of the time.  So I still have much to learn.

(How did you set up your camera or phone or ???)

Oh this ain’t me. That’s an a AMU shooter. They have a special head ups visor thing that lets them review the shooters eye and what they saw. The clip is from the CMP 3 disc pistol shooting fundamentals. This is all from memory so I could be wrong

mikemyers wrote:...
(How did you set up your camera or phone or ???)

See this post:

https://www.bullseyeforum.net/t8110-good-sight-alignment-video#69015

from this thread:

https://www.bullseyeforum.net/t8110-good-sight-alignment-video

So after more than 6 months, we finally get to the point of asking what we need to see.

First off, that video, as good as it is for a different subject discussed below; is NOT what the shooter sees.  It is a movie that shows a shooter completing shots within his holding area very well.  BUT it does not show what he actually saw.  

How can we tell.  Because the focus is the same for all the objects in the video.  The front and rear sights are equally in (out) of focus.  The shooter was focused (obviously) on the front sight and therefore able to complete the trigger when the sights were properly aligned and within the aiming area.  

(That's the good thing about this video.  How purposeful and complete the trigger process was based on sight alignment, not on where the sights were specifically on the target, but within the holding area).

The down side is shooters might say, "Oh, my front sight is that fuzzy and so it must be OK."   Incorrect, the front sight must be in the best visual focus possible, and usually that is much better than the clarity of this video.  If it is not, clearer (more visually in focus than this video, help is probably needed. 

Lastly, yes, you should be able to see the sights begin to lift out of the aiming area.  If not, then how can you really say you were "seeing" the sight right up to when the shot was fired?  Again, there is a world of difference between "looking at the sights" and "seeing the front sight". 

Again, a great video, but not exactly what the "shooter" sees. 

CR

I guess I view the video differently, I just watch the front sight in the video. I’ve never seen the front sight perfectly clear for every shot. As Cecil said you should be able to pickup the direction the gun lifts to the moment the shot breaks. For the airpistol when I shoot it if it’s straight up lift I know it’s the best shot

CR10X wrote:So after more than 6 months, we finally get to the point of asking what we need to see..................the focus is the same for all the objects in the video.  The front and rear sights are equally in (out) of focus.....................yes, you should be able to see the sights begin to lift out of the aiming area.  If not, then how can you really say you were "seeing" the sight right up to when the shot was fired?.............

Regarding your first comment, you are 100% correct.  I should have asked before anything else.  I read somewhere what you're supposed to see, and I could never see that, so I got frustrated, thus, this thread.  I should have asked, and gotten the correct information.  Sorry.


Focus - I'm a photographer.  You're a shooter.  You see the video, and say what you did up above.  To me, I just assumed the camera had a very small lens aperture, making front and rear sight equally blurry.  To capture what you want to show, I would need to set up the camera with a fairly wide lens aperture, and set the focus manually to the distance to the front sight.  I spent much of last night thinking about how I could do that.


Regarding your last point, I'm back to square one.  If the video camera couldn't, or didn't, capture what you want to see, how am I supposed to see it with my own eyes?  Both video cameras and eyes do NOT show a continuous image, they show it at a "frame rate", perhaps 30 frames per second.  At least my eyes do.  If I go into a dark room,  with a small point of light, then quickly roll my eyes to the right and left, I do NOT see a continuous path, I see maybe 30 or more "spots" of light, just what I would get if I was using a camera, each one showing the light in a slightly different position.   Video can be played back in something like VLC video player, and if it was shot at 30 fps, you can view every frame, one at a time, and advance to the next frame.  For me, I've already proved to myself that my eyes do this (but I have no idea of what the "frame rate" really is).



I'm back to asking, can anyone here show me something I can play over and over on my computer, so I can see exactly what it is you want me to see?

Chris Miceli wrote:I guess I view the video differently, I just watch the front sight in the video.......

What you wrote, is what I did, one shot at a time, for every shot, at regular speed, and then at 1/4 speed (slow motion).  I was ONLY paying attention to where the front sight was, in relation to the rear sight.  I thought I would see something on the target that demonstrates what we say, that the location of the front sight is where the bullet hole will be.

Didn't work out that way.  Watching over and over, so many times, such as the very last shot, I see where the front sight is, but that's not where the hole appears.  I was going to ask here later today, but wanted to point out two the shots where it was most obvious.

I'm assuming that the video was 30 frames per second if it was digital, or 24 frames per second if it was film, and the front sight had moved somewhat after what I see in the video, which explains the error - or, the gun had its own errors, over and beyond those from sighting.

Jack H wrote:

Try and show that with a camera - not quite so easy.  Then with a video - harder still.  Then with the gun actually firing.....    I will try and do that, but I don't know if my idea will work.  Maybe.

Do you see movement of the sight in dryfire as the hammer clicks?  That movement will tell you where a shot would have gone.  It is different in live fire, but you do the same thing in holding, and seeing the sight.  When the gun goes bang, your attention and vision should be on the sight just like dryfire.  I see a momentary freeze frame of what I would have seen if it was a dryfire.  The freeze frame is like a snapshot of the sight picture just before recoil moves the sights from view. 
You take that snapshot in your mind and combine it with your knowledge of/confidence in your ability, equipment and zero.  It's a mental thing.

Jack H wrote:Do you see movement of the sight in dryfire as the hammer clicks?  That movement will tell you where a shot would have gone.  It is different in live fire, but you do the same thing in holding, and seeing the sight.  When the gun goes bang, your attention and vision should be on the sight just like dryfire.  I see a momentary freeze frame of what I would have seen if it was a dryfire.  The freeze frame is like a snapshot of the sight picture just before recoil moves the sights from view. 
You take that snapshot in your mind and combine it with your knowledge of/confidence in your ability, equipment and zero.  It's a mental thing.

Next time I am at the range, I will try this.  Yes, in dry-fire I see everything perfectly clearly,  I know what happens to the view of the front sight, and I have taught myself to realize where the bullet would have gone, had the gun been firing for real.  If the front sight goes down and to the left, the tip of the barrel moved down and to the left, and the bullet hole should appear more or less down and to the left.

Between what was posted up above, and what I already knew, I should be able to capture that momentary freeze frame.  I can practice on the videos, now that I understand better.

I guess I need to pay 100% attention to that front sight, at the exclusion of everything else, including the noise and recoil.

I have asked for permission to post this article in the Bullseye Forum - the main website is down, so this is from the Internet Archives.

This article explains what I was trying to say, but in infinitely more detail:

https://web.archive.org/web/20161017223913/http://re-gun.com/2012/02/how-the-eyes-see/

Everyone using red dot sights has been left out of this so far.  Here's a similar YouTube slow motion video of six targets, shooting with a red dot sight.  See where you think the holes are going to be - compare with results at the end of the video.

(Maybe one of the reasons I enjoy red dot sights more, is because I did much better at understanding these, than with steel sights...)

sounds like you need work calling your shots. Here are a few drills for you. Dry fire at a target of the correct size and distance, Have a target on the bench along with some colored pencils. Dry fire the shot, note the target on the bench with shot placement and number it.  Make sure your gun has a good zero on it. Then fire a shot do not scope it right away, plot it for position on your bench target, then confirm it in the scope. 


Or look for an electronic dry fire device that plots traces.

Try and show that with a camera - not quite so easy.  Then with a video - harder still.  Then with the gun actually firing.....    I will try and do that, but I don't know if my idea will work.  Maybe.

Very good camera example, already done many years ago.  "The Pistol Shooters Treasury" pages 17 and 39.  

CR

I have that book, but I'm not home.  I'll check when I return.  At any rate, it will be a photograph, not a video.  I will do this again, now that I have a better understanding of what I need to see.  In addition, I want to make my own video "through the sights".

My plan is to put my Canon G7X Mk II on a tripod directly in front of me.  The lens will be at the same height as the sights on the gun.  The focus will be set for the distance to the front site.  The viewing screen swings out, so I hope I can look down at the viewing screen, and line the sights up while watching the screen, not my sights.  I'll record in HD video, the highest frame rate I can use.  Will this work?  In theory, yes.