Focusing on the target

U

UncleEd

New member
To see my sights on a handgun, revolver or automatic, I need my reading
glasses (off the Foster Grant stand).

Without them the target is sharp but the sights are very faint though I am aware of where the front sight is.

I've become a fan of Grant Cunningham and he advises to focus on the
target and learn to point the handgun from eye level but not seeing the
sights clearly. Which is exactly how I am without my reading glasses.

Following his advice, I've been shooting pretty well out to about 10 yards; meaning, I can keep my rounds within a 10-inch circle or area. Hardly think putting three neat holes in nearly one spot is either practical or possible in a confrontational situation any way.

I suspect that if I needed to draw a handgun, I'd not be having my reading glasses handy tho I always carry a pair in my shirt pocket.

Now, unless I want "target shooting" type groups, I have been practicing
regularly without my reading glasses (safety glasses on, of course).

And no, I'm not going to get some sort of bifocal glasses.

Any similar experiences out there?
 
A friend of mine's a USPSA GM and IDPA DM and he uses a target focus. A number of top runNgun shooters claim they go faster with a target focus. And they're "top shooters" because they're also accurate (accurate enough) while going really fast.

A target focus works for them because 1) they've got an excellent index, 2) they look at a precise point on the target, not just the target itself and 3) they still "see" the front sight, though subconsciously.

If you're shooting well enough with a target focus, then, there's nothing wrong with it, IMO. I can tell you from personal experience that adopting a target focus from a front sight focus is a tough transition if you want to do it well, and it takes a lot of practice.

For fine target work, though, I tend to believe a front sight focus is the way to go.
 
UncleEd said:
Any similar experiences out there?
Click to expand...
Except for reading Grant Cunningham on the topic (didn't know he had written on it), I'm in exactly the same situation. I KNOW I can shoot better with drug store cheaters, but I don't wear them when "out and about," and my primary purpose for owning a pistol and practicing is to be able to defend myself effectively, if necessary, when out and about. On the theory that we fight as we train, I choose to train for the way I may encounter the need, even if I sacrifice a bit of pin-point accuracy.
 
Last edited:
Me, three.
While I have shooting glasses with two different lenses, (one for sights and the other for the target distance), I rarely use them.
Only when shooting for groups at relatively far distances.
Target focus can always be reliable.
Sight focus, less so.
But to be trustworthy, lots of practice is required in order to have full confidence with target focus.
 
I wonder in what ways the "target focus" differs from the older "flash sight" aiming as advocated by Applegate, Cooper and others?

In the latter the gun comes up into the field of vision as the focus is on the target. The shooter can see the outline of the barrel (or slide) and see the front sight enough so that they can be indexed on the target. So although no bead is drawn you can see the barrel is aimed at center mass. This with some practice will hit inside the 9 ring of a B27 out to about 10 yards with regularity.

I'm a machinist so accurate vision is essential to my livelihood and life. When I hit 40 I needed bifocals. So for any fast defensive shooting at close I do as above and use the upper lens of the glasses. For any more accurate shot where a clean view of the large front sight is needed...I tilt the head a bit.

tipoc
 
Last edited:
I think you will find, that the more youve been shooting, the more it just happens, and the easier it is, and generally without thought. Your brain has done it so many times, that it really doesnt need the sights. It sees the gun and knows the index, even if youre not consciously focusing on it.

Hardly think putting three neat holes in nearly one spot is either practical or possible in a confrontational situation any way.
Click to expand...
I think this is just the anal retentive focus of the "target" shooter crowd, who are more concerned with shaving points, and impressing theselves and others with their tight, little groups, than accepting the fact, that good hits are good hits (and actually, bad hits are good too, as long as you arent the one taking them ;)), and those tight little groups, are really counter productive, especially if you didnt hit anything vital with the first one.

Id much prefer a fist to open palm sized group in the area I was looking as the gun was going off, with its likelihood of doing more damage to more things, than to keep drilling one small spot, and possibly miss them all. Not that youre likely to do that while moving and shooting anyway.

Funny thing is, the more you do it, over and over, the more you notice at the end of the outing, you usually still have ragged holes, they're just fist to palm sized holes, right around where you were focusing.
 
AK103K said:
I think this is just the anal retentive focus of the "target" shooter crowd, who are more concerned with shaving points, and impressing theselves and others with their tight, little groups, than accepting the fact, that good hits are good hits (and actually, bad hits are good too, as long as you arent the one taking them ;)), and those tight little groups, are really counter productive, especially if you didnt hit anything vital with the first one.
Click to expand...

Pshaw. Shooting well at speed is an extension of shooting well slowly.

Show me a shooter who can't shoot a decent group when given all the time in the world, and I'll likely show you a shooter who greatly overestimates their skills when going fast. I'll likely also be able to show you a shooter who believes in the "I only need to be combat accurate" schtick while forgetting about the combat speed part of it. Either way, my friends, it's just poor shooting.

There's no question shooting well at speed takes practice, but shooting even better slowly (i.e. "target" shooting") is the foundation. If you want to be a good shooter, you gotta put the time into the boring stuff.
 
I never said you didnt need to have the basics down, you do, or should, but once you do, its time to move on to more realistic things and expectations.

My point was, most people I see shoot, are stuck in the "target" mentality, and place to much emphasis on scores and those little groups being a realistic base, for what their skills are. Whats worse, the targets used, are often not based in reality, when it comes to anatomy. People are not flat, nor do they stand still, and the important parts, are not where most are conditioned to shoot (ie. COM) on most silhouette targets, and even more so, when the "real" target, isnt facing head on.

I would hope everyone can shoot those nice, tight little groups, on demand, when asked, but thats not the important thing here. Its being able to get good, rapid, multiple hits (think "burst") on target, and accept them for what they are, even if they arent a tight little ragged hole, which again, I believe, is counter productive, when it comes to realistic shooting.

A fist sized group, shot while moving, with the proper trajectory, to the important parts, regardless of target position, to me is a better thing, than a tight little group, one that likely took to long to shoot in the first place, that misses the important parts, because the shooter practices "target" shooting, and not "people" shooting.
 
Id much prefer a fist to open palm sized group in the area I was looking as the gun was going off, with its likelihood of doing more damage to more things, than to keep drilling one small spot, and possibly miss them all. Not that youre likely to do that while moving and shooting anyway.
Click to expand...

I wasn't intending to comment on these remarks mostly because it's a dead end conversation. But it was repeated more than once, so...

The author of the lines I quoted above I believe knows that he's wrong about the "shooting for tight little groups" being not worth so much in combat or defensive shooting because he right off tells us he's wrong. He says that the shooters who practice for accurate and precise shot placement at the range will come undone once they are moving and the target is moving and the "tight little groups" are not possible. He admits it would be impossible to put all your shots in one cloverleaf at 15 yards while fear and movement are added but right away decides to argue against it anyway. He takes a strong stand against dwarfs without arms making a career in the NBA.

Now this is no great revelation. It's a commonplace observation. He's observed that the separate disciplines of bullseye shooting, competitive PPC match shooting, "Combat Oriented" shooting sports matches, 3 gun matches, etc. all require different skill sets and that the accuracy requirements of each vary. It's a stunner when you realize that cleaning a rack of steel plates in under the range record requires a different standard of "accuracy" than standing on the 50 yard line and placing 5 rounds inside of 3" with a revolver held in one hand. But they both require skill and that comes from practice.

If a fella can't shoot a revolver well in da rapidly at 10 yards enough to place a bullet where you want it to be (say 12 rounds in a space and outstretched hand can cover) then they are not likely to do better when movement and fear is added. But doing that well and better comes from practice and a good deal of that comes at slower speeds where the basics are learned.

AK103K knows this and says so grudgingly. He admits ya gotta have the basics down. Then he says don't get stuck there. OK I agree with that. But I disagree that you then discard them.

The problem most shooters have, especially new ones is that they don't take time for the basics. They don't know what shooting well means.

No one shoots a group. Ya shoot one shot at a time and each shot needs to hit where you want it to. It takes practice to do that whether the target is still or moving.

tipoc
 
Last edited:
OK I agree with that. But I disagree that you then discard them.
Click to expand...
Phttt...Phttt. Phttt. Wow, took awhile to spit out all those words that somehow got put in my mouth. :rolleyes:

I never said to discard anything, simply said move on. Why would you not continue learning, and try to be as realistic at it as you go?
 
Why would you not continue learning, and try to be as realistic at it as you go?
Click to expand...

Why would ya think most folks don't? But in order to do it they don't dump, or skip, the basics.

For many years my brother and I went shooting in a quarry. We'd line up pine cones at various distances and compete to who could hit the most at any given distance. Then we'd toss them for each other to shoot at and compete at that. But we'd always go back and end at the accurate shooting at distance, da or sa. Fast or slow. Pine cones or tin cans or a bulls eye at 25 or 40 yards. Didn't matter.

Hitting what ya want at speed da ain't easy. Why disdain a fella at a range from training to put the shots where he wants em?

tipoc
 
Why would ya think most folks don't? But in order to do it they don't dump, or skip, the basics.
Click to expand...
I never said they should. Youre the one insinuating thats what happens when you advance.

Hitting what ya want at speed da ain't easy.
Click to expand...
Maybe you need more practice?

Why disdain a fella at a range from training to put the shots where he wants em?
Click to expand...
You should be training to put them where you want them. I never said you shouldnt. All Im saying is, once you get there, move on or stagnate. Youre the one who seems to be stuck there.
 
AK103K said:
I never said to discard anything, simply said move on.
Click to expand...

Trouble is, most move on before well before they should. And their proficiency in the fancy stuff isn't very good then, either.

Also, when one does "move on" they ought not ditch the basics. Brian Enos once remarked about the title of his book that he'd probably call it something else if he had to do it over again - "You never really go beyond the fundamentals. You just apply them better and faster".
 
I'm not sure I'm personally stuck anywhere AK103K. I try not to make assumptions about the shooting abilities of people I don't really know on gun forums. My abilities are modest but I continue to bang away. :)

I thought Uncle Ed started a good discussion about techniques for fast defensive shooting where you couldn't see your front sight or where it might not be needed at close ranges. "Target focus", "flash sight picture", point shooting were mentioned. Beginnings of a good discussion.

Maybe it's the case that you see a lot of shooters "stuck" in shooting static targets at set distances and thinking that that type practice is "good enough" for defensive shooting encounters or that it easily transfers over to defensive shooting competition or encounters.

I don't see that too often myself, sometimes. But I gotta admit that I don't pay all that much attention. What I see more often is people who don't know the basics of trigger control, sight picture, a good non flinching grip, etc. trying to rush themselves into being pistoleros.

Most often in my experience these are the guys who tell you "I don't need to shoot small groups they are no good in a gunfight. One small hole with 6 bullets in it doesn't do enough damage. My shots will do more damage spread out some." Most often it's an excuse for sub par shooting and lack of trigger discipline. They create a straw man of a teeny tiny group and then denounce it.

I do see that fellas who learn the basics bring those with them where ever they go and go back and practice them as they needed.

I see those basics needed in long range shooting, silhouette for example or handgun hunting. In three gun competition, at a wide variety of shooting meets, etc.

tipoc
 
Last edited:
As the OP let me chime in on what already has been said and happened for me.

Since I started shooting regularly without my reading glasses, and focusing
on the target, my groups have shrunk a few inches (from about 10 to 6 inches) at 7 to 12 yards.

I attribute this to the fact that I can shoot very tight DA groups at those same
distances with glasses and seeing the sights.

Thanks again for the comments. :)
 
Usually I focus on the target but the sights I see abit blurry but most certainly see them.

I use the sights to verify the aliment on the target.

And if I cannot see my sights, I bring the gun up AS IF I could see my sights.

The only time I do not use sights is true from the hip shooting.

And if firing from chest level, my peripheral vision sees the sights and compensates (but I almost never shoot from the chest level.)

Deaf
 
I am blind in one eye and can't see very well out of the other. I have a pair of glasses that help minutely but when I am training I only use standard safety glasses because it is more real to life. When I am plinking for fun I wear my prescription glasses. Everything is blurry but my brain, through training has learned to use the blurriness to an advantage. It also changed my dominant eye from right to left. It is hard to explain how but with a handgun I can hit an inch wide bullseye in an eight inch steel target more than not at 25 yards. It was not an easy quick process and I am still working on getting decent with a rifle but if it is big enough I can hit what I am aiming at. When my eyes went bad I thought I was going to have to quit shooting altogether and about gave up but I didn't.
 
I've become a fan of Grant Cunningham and he advises to focus on the
target and learn to point the handgun from eye level but not seeing the
sights clearly. Which is exactly how I am without my reading glasses.
Click to expand...

I'd not heard of this school of thought--and have tried fairly religiously to stay focused on the front sight. To the degree of wearing my glasses, having prescription shooting glasses made, and buying red dots here and there.

So, given I never know where my glasses are when I'm in the house let alone when I'm out and about, given I will never have my prescription shooting glasses with me, and given my carry weapons don't have red dot sights on them and the holsters I have don't accomodate them...thanks for the post and asking the question. While no one should feel they need 'expert opinion' or 'approval' to try something--many of us I suppose strive to do our best while doing what seems to be the proven and highly repeated.

What I have found is that as I practice at the range over a given session, I seem to have an increasing difficulty in keeping focus on the sight. The eyes start alternating focus between sight and target to the point I have to stop, put the weapon down, take some air and start over. I've even taken to using targets that are black, and putting them downrange wherever the lighting is the worst just to help keep from looking at the target at all,

Anyway, you've given me something to go do that seems like it would have a real practical benefit. Combined with practice in having the trigger break at the right time and no later*, I think this sounds like a good time.

By this I mean having the trigger prepped as the gun gets back on target and discharging as soon as it is, rather than what I more often do is--get the gun back on target then start the trigger. Bad juju. It's especially bad with my DA pocket gun where it seems I have the gun in place to shoot long before it 'goes off'. Too much thinking.

Yup, 'target focus' is totally new to me. Thanks.
 
both

I'm in the same boat, shoot handguns, and now some carbines with irons, best with readers. And I don't wear the things for anything but reading and shooting handgun well.

I try and shoot a bit with and without them as a nod to reality. I'll shoot better with them at any speed.

For me, front sight is key.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top