Ken Roxburgh, USMC (ret) is a well-known coach. He advocates a wide front sight post, .072" for an AR. I figure two things:
1) I want a narrow sight post for more precise placement and
2) I'm always wrong.
Can anyone explain why a wide sight would be better? I bought an .05" "National Match" front sight post. What do the competitors use?
For precision shooting, I don't know if a wider post is makes any difference. People with more experience in competition could probably tell you. I know one reason the military went with the wider post from the A1 to the A2 is that the narrow post on the A1 was harder to pick up in low light.
I don't know what "the official" reason is, but I find that a wider sight is easier to focus on. This leads to two things:
1.) I'm more likely to actually focus on the front sight
2.) My eye gets less tired from a day of shooting because it's less work to focus on the wider blade
I'd be interested to hear "the official" answer.
There is probably more than one answer to this inquiry. Myself; .072 is what my eyeballs like. I would like to think that military folks eyeballs are a lot younger than mine, so it stands to reason that they could use a thinner post; but they don't; they also use .072. Why; I believe is all about range estimation and BSZ. If the front sight appears equal or narrower than the target (enemy combatant), then center mass aiming would result in a "hit" (BSZ theory). Front sight wider than the target, aiming would now require some kind of compensation. WAG.
High power competitors use .062, .052, .045, .040. So maybe they know something I don't know.
My final answer, for me .072,; every shooter needs to try different widths and find their answer.
aj
Actually most high-power competitors use a wide post, generally .062-.072. There are exceptions. I believe that I have posted Roxburgh's advice on this in the VA section of the forums. But the short answer is that it is easier to focus on the wide post. For many people the post is the width of the target at 600 yards and that helps to center one's hold. It also helps one to avoid focusing on the target or on some middle distance from post to target. Finally it helps to avoid losing the post in the bull when you are shooting a centerhold at 600.
What many people don't realize is that just because you are not focusing on the target does not mean that you are focusing on the front sight when the shot breaks. You may find yourself focusing somewhere in the middle. Focusing in the middle has the same net result as focusing on the target. You will find your shots going around the X ring rather than in it.
If you are in Ohio and game for it, sign up for the Remington Advanced Highpower clinic at Camp Perry. It is 2.5 days, with one day of classroom, and 1.5 days of dryfire range work. You will be coached by some amazing shooters and learn a lot.
http://www.odcmp.com/NM/AdHPClinic.htm
Checkin/Registration is on Aug. 14 and the clinic runs the 15th, 16th and 17th.
http://www.odcmp.com/NM/2014NMCalendar.pdf
The clinic is a dryfire only event, but I believe that is a positive. I took it last year and found that my rapid scores jumped by more than 5 points per stage and my slow prone went up as well.
If anyone has questions about the Remington Clinic, I will be happy to answer what I can. It is not a casual affair. You will be worked for 2.5 days and you will learn things that would otherwise take many years of shooting to learn. It can be exhausting. But I think that it was worth every minute.
Practically speaking, the wide front sight post is also helpful in range estimation. I'm pretty sure the wide front sight post, .072" takes up 7 MOA. So if you look through your sights and a 21 inch target takes up the width of your front sight post, you know your target is 300 yards away. If the same 21 inch target takes up ½ the width of your front sight post, you know the target is twice that distance (i.e., 600 yards), and lastly if it is double the size of your front sight post, then the target is 150 yards.
With nose to charge handle on a 20" barreled upper, my .072 sight is the width of the target at 600 yards (6 feet), that makes it 12 moa. It's still somewhat useful for range estimation. A .052 front sight is around 7 moa.
Somewhere in the instructor area, both BD and I have posted tools to let you measure YOUR front sight at 25m. You can use these to check your own rifle, and print them out and use them as part of the training for KD to teach people to estimate ranges using their front sights. But, it is always best to measure your own sight to know what it is for you.
Such an interesting question, and one that I've pondered many times as well. What width for the front sight post?
When I first started shooting Highpower matches, not long after my first Appleseed, I started with a .052 front sight post and a 6 O'clock hold. Didn't actually put much thought into either of those choices at the time, as the .052 front post is what my first service rifle came with, and 6 O'clock hold was more "encouraged" by my Appleseed instructors, so that's what I was used to.
In theory both of these are more precise ways of sighting. The smaller sight post gives you a more precise sight picture (aim small, miss small), and the 6 O'clock hold ensures precise shot placement as well.
Interestingly, this is one of those things that breaks down when theory meets reality. I had a great opportunity to shoot and get instruction from the AMU a couple of weeks ago, and as many here know the vast majority of the AMU shooters use the .072 width front sight, and a center mass hold. Why would this be, if the smaller sight and 6 O'clock hold are more accurate?
As I understand it, it largely has to do with consistency over a wide range of conditions, both external (environmental) conditions, and internal (eye fatigue, exhaustion) conditions.
As others have said, the wider front sight is simply easier to focus on, especially when eyes get tired or lighting is not good. One thing you'll notice in either of these cases is you'll start to "lose" the corners of the front sight post, either due to low light or eye fatigue. With a small sight post, you can almost lose the ability to focus on the front sight entirely, especially for those of us with older eyes. I watched many members of the AMU shoot some amazing scores with their service rifles, so it's hard to argue with the wider sight post. I still think you could make a valid argument that for a single shot or a few shots (i.e. hunting) the smaller front sight post would be more accurate, and fatigue is likely not an issue, but over the course of a longer engagement or match, the wider front sight post wins for most shooters.
I know you didn't ask about sight picture, but to me this goes hand in hand with the front sight post. A six o'clock hold allows for a great deal of precision, since you can very precisely align the tip of your post with the bottom of your target. The problem here lies with consistency, at least for me (and for many shooters, I think). Everyone's eyes are a bit different of course, but for me as soon as the sun went behind a cloud, my elevation was off (lights up, sights up, as the old saying goes). Even worse when my eyes started to get tired, as I could no longer align a crisp front sight with the bottom of a blurry target. The target turned from a blurry silhouette into a fuzzy grey blob. I can still align my sights with the center of a fuzzy grey blob (or even align them with the target frame if necessary), but I cannot precisely determine where to align my sights on the grey blob when using a six o'clock hold.
I'm sure many people have different experience, but my scores went up 30 points almost overnight when I switched to a center mass hold. I'm still in the process of learning to use the wider front sight, but I expect it will gain me at least another 5-10 points (on a 500 point course of fire).
As long as you have a good position, are relaxed and can keep the top edge of the front sight crisp and in focus. You will shoot well. You might lose some points to wind, but that can be overcome with experience and practice. It is far more disconcerting to lose points to elevation problems at the end of the day at 600.
I spoke with my optometrist the other day. He is triple distinguished (Rifle, Pistol, Revolver). Two years ago, my eyecare plan for shooting days was to wear sunglasses when not actively shooting and to use my shooting glasses on the line. This plan improved my performance, but in the meantime I have had a prescription change. When I shoot practice and walk and paste reduced matches my slow prone scores are in the 90's and high 180's. When I spend 8-10 hours shooting an across the course 80 shot match, those scores drop to the 170's. Since I knew that my eye was always trying to focus (I am far sighted with a mild astigmatism), my theory was that wearing distance correction (with sunshades) should help to keep my aiming eye from becoming as exhausted as it does after a couple of days of matches. He agreed and the new plan is to wear the distance correction (even though it is not required for driving) on and immediately before shooting days. This is a change for someone who had 20/12 vision until he was 47 and is kind of hard to accept. But the bottom line is that if you can't keep that front sight clear, you can't win.
I have virtually the same problem, jmdavis, in that I can shoot low-mid 190's on a reduced range match in slow prone, but at 600 yards at the end of an 80 shot match, my eyes just give up and my last 5 or 6 shots seem hopeless, resulting in similar 170's or so at the 600 yard line. In one recent match my last 7 shots went 10-6-X-6-10-6-6. I had a crossfire in another recent match because by shot 15 I could no longer read the number boards.
My eyes are a bit younger than yours (46 years they have on them, almost 47), and I'm nearsighted without correction, but the results are similar. I currently shoot with a +0.25 diopter lens in Bob Jones sights, which makes the front sight nice and crisp. Currently experimenting with removing that lens, though, to see if it will make any difference, as well as trying out a larger 0.046 aperture in the hopes that more light will lead to less eye fatigue (currently I shoot with a 0.042 aperture). I'm even considering trying out the Miso sight that Creedmoor offers, as it purports to help a great deal in improving focus on both the front sight and the target.
Anyway, I don't mean to take this thread of track, and maybe we should start another one, but if anyone has any good ideas I haven't thought of for reducing eye fatigue in these situations, I'd love to hear them!
We could ask Scuzzy to split it off if other people aren't interested.
Quote from: jmdavis on July 03, 2014, 07:30:03 PM
We could ask Scuzzy to split it off if other people aren't interested.
It's not like anyone's posting about Appleseed anymore. Might as well read about High Power. At least you guys are talking about something. :pop:
Quote from: jmdavis on July 03, 2014, 07:30:03 PM
We could ask Scuzzy to split it off if other people aren't interested.
Definitely interested, 56 y.o. eyes, couldn't qualify until I went to single vision Rx in Revision Sawflies instead of progressive bifocals, love Marksmanship, HP, Appleseed and Liberty most of all.
Totally appreciate JM & Agrivere sharing hard-won experience to allow an old noob to improve.
Credilbility of marksmanship & instruction allows us to hit the mark with the harpoon of Heritage & History.
I say leave it here, but I'll read it where ever.
Actually slim we are talking about long distance precision shooting with iron sights and the issues that come up when doing such shooting after long days. Highpower merely provides the opportunity to do that shooting.
But, Gunny Hathcock, Alvin York, and Jeff Cooper all made the point multiple times that the stress of competitive shooting was excellent training for serious shooting.
Totally agreed. As stated, at least I'm getting to read about something.
On a semi-related note. When I get those "I have old eyes" noobs out there and they ask what they should do, do you guys recommend going to the doctor or getting an optic? Or both?
Bad astigmatism almost always means that they will wind up needing an optic. That was the case with a one of the VA instructors 5 years ago. She knew instruction and shooting, but was unable to advance past IIT4 due to her eyesight keeping her from shooting Rifleman scores. Both VA shooter and I (and her husband) kept trying to convince her to try it with a scope. When she did, her first AQT was a 207 and her new high, the second was a 219. That day was also my first time cleaning the red coat with irons. It was a good day.
The truth is that a scope is the easiest and usually the cheapest correction for eye issues. Particularly if the shooter already has glasses. Shooting glasses can be tricky and take some experimentation. The generally accepted formula for iron sights is to at +.75 to your normal prescription. That works better for some people than others. I would at least get the person to try a scope. If they are serious enough to want to shoot irons well at distance, then they need to make sure that there current prescription is up to date and if that won't let them see the front sight, they will need to add some positive diopter to it, ranging from +.25 (28+ inch barrels) to +.75 (AR barrels) depending on barrel length.
But I think an important thing institutionally is to get instructors to stop thinking that shooting a good score with a scope is cheating. For someone with good eyes, it's a wash. For someone with bad eyes being able to see is a big help.
Once the person has an up to date prescription, they can try something like the lens frame from Shooting Sight, LLC to figure out what additional power they need to get a hyperfocal focus point for the front sight (~2x the sight radius). The hyperfocal provides a good enough front sight and a good enough target.
http://shop.shootingsight.com/Lenses_c14.htm
Quote from: jmdavis on July 03, 2014, 08:16:34 PMBut I think an important thing institutionally is to get instructors to stop thinking that shooting a good score with a scope is cheating. For someone with good eyes, it's a wash. For someone with bad eyes being able to see is a big help.
I wish I had a dollar for everyone who said, "Yeah, but I want to be able to do it with irons."
When you have someone on the line and needs some help right then I've advocated a line of white/sub 6 o'clock hold. The front sight doesn't melt into the target and is easily seen unless extreme vision issues are at hand.
Quote from: TOMINCT on July 03, 2014, 09:30:40 PM
When you have someone on the line and needs some help right then I've advocated a line of white/sub 6 o'clock hold. The front sight doesn't melt into the target and is easily seen unless extreme vision issues are at hand.
+1 on Marine Corps" 6 o'clock
I was stubborn about qualifying without a scope. I'm stubborn about shooting irons as long as I can too.
V is a good resource too on this topic re Rx glasses. No line progressive bifocals -- very common after after age 45 just won't cut it on irons, so either let them know they need adaptation via shooting glasses or scope, or at least "many people" have found that to be true.
If they can't clearly see the top edge of the sight, I can guarantee that line of white or six o'clock won't fix it. I wish it would. But one reason many older shooters move to a centerhold is that if you are holding in the center with a zeroed rifle, you are shooting in the black. This starts to break at 600 though.
I can offer one piece of advice for that situation and it can work if there is good light. I was shooting a match a few months ago, and on around shot 10 at 600 everything started going south FAST with a 7 followed by another 7. I closed my eyes and rested them for a minute. I was still losing the target but the front sight was ok. I remembered then something that VA shooter had told me about shooting irons at 1,000 yards. He said that when he was doing it in the Navy (and with young eyes) sometimes when the front sight entered the target, the bull would just disappear in less than 2 seconds. He had to break the shot as soon as he reached respiratory pause. I tried it that day and wound up shooting my best score at 600. But the sight was clear and the problem was with the target that day (partially due to mirage).
When the top of the sight get's blurry, there is not much that you can do. You can try to rest your eyes, and that may help a little. But once your eyes are at that point for the day, you aren't going to be able to quickly correct it.
Things you can do to help your vision on a long day.
1. Drink lots of water, start hydrating a couple of days before you plan to shoot. According to a Navy Chief Corpsman from the Fleet Matches, you should have to take a wizz at every yard line. If you don't you are not drinking enough. I try to have drunk at least 3 liters of water before I shoot 600 yards in an Across the Course match.
2. Rest your eyes by looking out at the grass with your eyes at infinity.
3. Breath to keep enough oxygen to see well.
4. protect your eyes with sunglasses and glasses. The less the eye has to work all day, the better your vision will be. For me this will mean wearing bifocals or a distance prescription all day and the day before (with flip down sun shades).
5. See your eye doctor at least once per year.
6. Don't give up
Quote from: slim on July 03, 2014, 09:25:31 PM
Quote from: jmdavis on July 03, 2014, 08:16:34 PMBut I think an important thing institutionally is to get instructors to stop thinking that shooting a good score with a scope is cheating. For someone with good eyes, it's a wash. For someone with bad eyes being able to see is a big help.
I wish I had a dollar for everyone who said, "Yeah, but I want to be able to do it with irons."
I wish I had a dollar for everyone who gave up on irons, when that wasn't their problem.
It usually is the folks, who actually have poor vision, that want to stick with irons the most.
Typically, they're older and carry a little more grit and determination.
But still there are those who can see .22cal holes at 25m and their fingerprint at FS distances who feel they can't do it with irons. Simply because they can do it better with a scope.
Very good info here!
Regardless of how much someone wants to use irons, the fact is that there are some people who's eyes just aren't going to let them shoot well with the short radius of an AR and post sights. As I noted earlier, Azwildcat2001 could not get a rifleman score until she switched to a scope. She tried for more than a year. But even with glasses she saw either 2 front sights or 2 targets. That is what astigmatism will do to you.
My astigmatism is mild, -.5 cylinder, but it still makes it very difficult to get really good front sight focus when I get to 600 yards after a long day of shooting. At this point, between vision exams and glasses, I have $1,370 in trying to see well enough with conventional service rifle irons sights to be competitive in high power and the Excellence in Competition program. And that is with mild astigmatism and a triple distinguished optometrist. In order to be competitive, I need to see the front sight well enough to average 1 to 1.5 moa groups from prone at 600 yards for 20 individual shots.
You have to see the front sight clearly enough to focus on the top edge. If you can't you need to get your eyes checked. If it is simply presbyopia, the fix is not expensive a +.5 to +.75 diopter lens will do it. If you have mild astigmatism it is more difficult but still doable. But it will take some work. If you have severe astigmatism, you can still succeed with irons, but the cost in time and eye care may be significant.
I went to a .72 front sight on my AR 15 which helped a lot shooting high power for my 64 year old eyes. I also got the rear aperture with the largest hole available for my match sights. Helped even more. I was still having problems with the front sight not as clear as I thought it should be. I went to my eye doctor with my AR-15 broken down in a gym bag so as not to get his other clients uproar. He took some measurements with me holding my AR in different positions. He made me a set of shooting glasses with an +.75 diopter lens built into my glasses for about $130. This made a really big difference.
I shoot with Mike at Camp Perry at the National Matches. Hey Mike, when did you start shooting 1 to 1.5 moa at 600 yards. Maybe you can give some pointers this year.
OutaAmmo
I can only do the 1 to 1.5 with fresh eyes, that is the problem. But that is what it takes to win matches. Last June I managed to do it in a walk and paste which was very cool, I had the top, non-highmaster service rifle score. I played around Spring 2013 shooting .22lr matches at 200 yards with a scope (I was ready to quit high power at that point). That work showed me that it wasn't my position or fundamentals but rather my eyes that were causing the problem. With the scope and Remington Target .22lr I could consistently shoot 1.5 moa groups at 200 in any winds. And was able to shoot 1 moa on multiple occasions. To confirm that I started shooting the match rifle (aperature sights) some in practice and managed a slow fire clean on the reduced target.
I've shot mid 230s on the AS AQT with my scoped 10-22. I figured I'd go for a challenge and hung a Williams rear aperture
sight on my old Marlin 39-A and slung up a spare stock I had, and off to an AS I went. 190s or worse, plus I hadn't been shooting
lately. I got occasional stovepipes, about once a AQT, and I figure the old rifle needs a spring kit as it lived a hard life with
the previous owner. Trigger could use some help, and flipping the lever didn't help the npoa much.
As for sights, I had two issues. I left the Marlin stock front on there, which is a small round bead on a narrow blade. Hard to
focus, like said already on this thread, and hard to distinguish as well. It's sort of a patinaed rust brown, like the rest of the rifle is.
I don't particularly want to change it, but I may put a bright orange paint pen marker on it. Also, there is the relevant six oclock hold
factor, which changes as the targets scale.
I like the conversation, I may have the worst eyesight here, I run a -8.5 power contact in my shooting eye, and -6 in the other one.
Born with strabismus (crossed eyes), I got surgery for that at 1 year of age, so I'm missing a couple muscles pairs. Fortunately, I
have no astigmatism, and, while my vision is horrible, it's just simply horrible, not horribly complicated. Give me enough nearsightedness
correction and a bottle of eyedrops, and I'm good to go.
Does that 39a have the gold bead or is it just steel. If it is steel you could smoke it to get more contrast. But it may be that you have minute of squirrel rather than minute of aqt sights. A 190 with a lever gun is still pretty good. Good luck.
Neither. It appears to be a sight that formerly held a gold bead. I think it's time for a daub of paint pen.
I'm 62 now. In Apr 2010 I took my 16yo boy to Gainesville FL to our first Appleseed event. I had set up two Ruger 10/22s identically, except mine had a Tasco 1.5-9x variable scope, his had Tech-Sights. I shot two Rifleman scores at 25m and 100yds, earned a patch. Prouder of that than my law degree (no surprise, eh). I used the scope at 4x all through the event, and still use that setting 5yrs later which seems to work perfectly for me. On the ride home, he told me, "You know I think you were cheating, using a scope." The next month, I shot a Rifleman score on the AQT with his iron sight rifle, but it was not so easy. Two years later I could not duplicate that, and finally realized I could not sharply focus on the iron front sight. Bought a Garand from CMP. Went to the Walmart optometrist, told him I wanted glasses that corrected my focus at the distance to the front sight (my wife had helped me measure it while I was dry firing, gotta love her forever). Optometrist picked up a wooden yardstick, taped a kitchen match upside down at that precise distance. I put it to my cheek. The first lens he put in front of me was the correct lens, though he tried one or two more. I had a corrective lens made for my trigger side eye, no correction in the support eye, both polycarbonate, re-used a set of old frames. I have no other vision problem (just lucky, not pious). One of these days I will need a modification. Traded the Garand for a DPMS AP4 7.62NATO. This past Friday I discovered the front sight is 12MOA, I measured it on the Squares target paper. I think that's too much for shooting 4MOA squares at 25m, so I've ordered a finer front sight, and will continue that process until I find one that works for me, they aren't expensive, and I sort of enjoy zeroing rifles. I'm grateful people are writing on this thread about this topic. My vision situation is simple, but may not stay that way forever. My eyesight might improve! Heck, I may even make it to Heaven in spite of my profession. Just saying.
12 moa is good for squares and better for round targets and the aqt. The square will occupy the middle third with a center hold and make a nice top to the post with a 6 o'clock. But if you don't like it, you don't like it.
The first "wide" sights I ever heard of were used by the Marines on their match conditioned 1903's. They won a lot of championships in those days on the old 5v targets. M1 sights seem to range from 7-12 moa with the National Match Sights being on the wide end. For AR's NM sights could range from .040-.072 or bigger.
Thank you for the thoughtful comments. This probably is a bit off thread, but my understanding is: 7.62NATO zeroed at 25yds (near zero) crosses the line of sight again at 200yds (far zero). I like shooting squares with iron sights using 6 o'clock hold. But 6 o'clock is a hold not a zero. And seems like a little bit of hold at the near zero will have a big effect at the far zero. So what would that effect actually be, if anyone knows?
Life is quite a lot simpler with an optical sight and crosshair . . . Thx, R
Now that I've been to a couple KDs, I believe the answer is: "With a 6 o'clock hold at 25m, the bullet will strike the target at any distance 2MOA above the point of aim." And that may be the complete answer.
You will need to determine the "exact" zero. But you are correct in that a 6 o'clock hold on squares at 25m will not be a zeroed for a 6 oclock hold on an aqt or 6 moa round target it will be about 2 moa above point of aim. Since you are shooting at a 4 moa square and hitting it in the center.
High power targets are 6 moa bulls. So if you are using a 6 o'clock hold and you are hitting the X ring (.75 to 1.0 moa), you are hitting how high above point of aim?
If you find that your 6 o'clock zero on the squares is costing you points on stage 4 at 25m, the simple solution is to use a line of white hold when you shoot stage 4. That will lower your impacts and you will find more 5's and V's than 4's.
Good luck.
I really appreciate this thread. I am going to print it out if I can. This addresses the issues I had shifting from a scoped 10/22 at 25m to my AR on the kd range. My front sight tended to swim and dim at times. I need to swallow the pride I felt with the score I shot and either get some special vision help or swap out the carry handle upper for a flat top and some sort of optic.
Quote from: jmdavis on July 03, 2014, 10:09:09 PM
He had to break the shot as soon as he reached respiratory pause. I tried it that day and wound up shooting my best score at 600.
Firing at respiratory pause, aka following Rifleman's Cadence, actually improved your score? Funny how that works.
"Fussing The Shot", or trying to ensure an absolutely perfect sight picture prior to squeezing the trigger, is an excellent way to throw shots- either due to a trigger jerk, or as is most often the problem with experienced shooters, eye fatigue.
What you are really doing when you fuss the shot is to change the focus of your eye rapidly between the target and the front sight, as you cannot focus on both at the same time, trying to get a 'perfect' sight picture. This wears your eyes out, making it difficult to even focus on the front sight, let alone the target.
Establish a perfect NPOA, then use Rifleman's Cadence.
RE: 'sliver of white' while using six o'clock hold:
With most iron sighted rifles, the stage 3 silhouettes will be about as big as the front sight, maybe even a little smaller- this means that your front sight is as big, or even bigger than the target, which means that it can easily obscure part of it; a 'proper' six o'clock hold may be impossible to achieve, as it is difficult to differentiate between where the sight stops and the target begins. This problem is compounded on stage 4, where the targets are even smaller. The purpose of using the sliver of white hold is to ensure that your front sight has not 'crept up' into the target on stages 3 & 4. You should consider using the sliver of white hold on all targets that are smaller than the front sight, including the 4 MOA squares. Not because your zero is wrong (it isn't), but because it is too easy to inadvertently hold higher than 6 o'clock without realizing it- in effect holding (near) center of target, while using a 6 o'clock zero.
Cadence is something that appears to an outside observer. What the shooter should see in prone or sitting is a sight at the exact point of aim when he is in respiratory pause. That's what made VAShooter not drop a single point at 1000 yards in the 1969 shooting season. There is nothing wrong with shooting fast, if you do it right and nothing wrong with shooting slow if you do it right. But the point is to do it right. By the way, his actual process to was to let out his breath, check the sight picture at the target, run his focus back to the front sight and break the shot.
I was at highpower practice last month and being coach by Alex Arrietta. You can look him up but the short version is he is a National Champion and won the Erdman offhand trophy for 1995, both with the M14. Alex was watching me shoot with good breathing and what some might call perfect cadence, but he was also seeing me shoot some 9's at 300 in rapid prone. I finished with 10 seconds on the clock. When he pointed that out to me, something hit me. I had started highpower thinking that shooting 9's was good. It's not, for me. It's fine if that is the best that you can do. But if you have 65 seconds and only use 55 and wind up with some 9's, you would have been better off to make sure of your hold and take a little more time.
Watch the video below to see what I mean. Does the shooter have a good "cadence?" Some would argue that when you shoot a 100 with 8x in sitting, the "cadence" doesn't matter. Earlier that year 2012, I was watching the shooter on the line at Camp Butner for the Creedmoor Cup. That particular day she shot a 200-17x in sitting setting a new Range Record. The strings looked alot like the one in the video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bI3CNcLDvTs
jmdavis, I am certain that we have a similar understanding of what Rifleman's Cadence is, though some who read this may not, so allow me to spell it out, thereby ensuring that there is no room for confusion. A proper understanding of Rifleman's Cadence requires an understanding of related terms, and I will define those as well.
Rifleman's Cadence: Using Natural Point of Aim and the natural breathing cycle to engage the target, firing one round for each breath, at the Respiratory Pause.
Respiratory Pause: The natural lull at end expiration (a natural, unforced exhale). It is a purposeful pause, allowing the sights and body to settle.
Natural Point of Aim: Where the relaxed body would place the shot. AKA: The art of aiming the rifle by adjusting the body position, without using or relying upon muscle input.
In order for Rifleman's Cadence to work, the shooter must A: have a perfect Natural Point of Aim, and B: have established that Natural Point of Aim to achieve their chosen Sight Picture at Respiratory Pause.
For me it has to be skinny on a 16" I lost some eye sight and can not focus 400m due to short sight radius.
If I want to shoot Iron sights wide blade does not do it!
A wide blade is good for quick CQB and BSZ but beyond that is where Appleseed starts.
Take anyones advice but verify in the feild! ..:..
Quote from: Sly223 on April 17, 2015, 09:36:59 AM
For me it has to be skinny on a 16" I lost some eye sight and can not focus 400m due to short sight radius.
If I want to shoot Iron sights wide blade does not do it!
A wide blade is good for quick CQB and BSZ but beyond that is where Appleseed starts.
Take anyones advice but verify in the feild! ..:..
Most of the best shooters I know would suggest exactly the opposite, Sly, particularly for those of us who are a bit older and are more prone to eye fatigue and eyesight issues. I would certainly encourage anyone who is having vision challenges at 400 yards/meters (or beyond) to consider both a wider front sight (0.072 is common for AR15's) and a Center of Mass hold. These both seem counter intuitive at first, but just to give an example, virtually all of the AMU Service Rifle team uses that configuration, and there are good reasons.
When you first pick up the rifle and start looking through the sights, commonly a 6 O'clock hold and a skinny front sight looks really good. It looks (and is) usually very precise, and allows a very precise sight picture. Most of the time we'll start shooting at 100 yards (or 200 yards, if it's a Highpower/CMP course of fire), and scores are good. For me this usually holds up well through the rapid prone stage.
Several problems can begin to creep in, however. The first occurs on days where light is variable. Maybe your target is shaded when the day starts, then the sun comes out. Or it's one of those days where the sun move behind clouds a lot. As light levels change, our perception of the target changes, and a 6 O'clock hold can result in significant elevation changes as the light changes. The old saying is "lights up, sights up". When the target appears brighter, it also appears bigger to our eyes, and a 6 O'clock hold results in shots hitting the target low. The biggest issue here is that this "target perception" issue is unpredictable, as it's affected by both light levels and eye fatigue. Using a center of mass hold is almost always superior to a 6 O'clock hold in any conditions where light levels are changing, as the center of a target is always the center, no matter how big or small it appears to our eyes. I will certainly grant that this is a bit trickier to accomplish on a AQT target, but it can be done. Changing from a 6 O'clock hold to a Center of Mass hold had a huge improvement in my scores.
The second challenge with the skinny post, and where the wide front sight really shines is simply the fact that it's easier to focus on that big massive front sight. Focusing on the front sight is critical to good shot placement, and that big fat front sight is just easier for our eyes to focus on. This it one that seems counter intuitive, because when you first pick up the rifle the skinny front sight sure seems more "precise", but you'll find eye fatigue to increase faster with the skinny front sight as your eyes are working harder to focus on it.
The third concern, very much related to the first two, is eye fatigue. Most courses of fire start up close and move back, and many shooters find their problems at 400/600/1000 yards are simply due to eye fatigue. As our eyes get tired, it's harder and harder to get a good sight picture, and for me sometimes the target simply fades away at 600 yards. Most of the time it's a slightly blurry blob. A 6 O'clock hold on a blurry blob is a formula for disaster, as it's nearly impossible to have a consistent line of white when the target is fuzzy. Similarly, as our eyes get tired we start to lose the edges of the front sight. Many shooters may not even realize it's happening, but tired eyes will first start to lose the corners of the sight, and soon the very tip of the front sight (the important part) will start to fade. You might not even notice it's happening, but the target will tell you. Elevation issues will be the result. Again, the wider front sight is simply easier to focus on, and even if our eyes get tired and we start to lose the corners of the wide front sight, there's a lot more sight there, and the center of the tip (again, the important part) will stay in focus much longer.
It's important when making a change in sight width or sight picture to give it a good test. All too often I see shooters who have been doing things one way for months or years try another way for a day and decide it doesn't work for them. The real issue is often they just need more time to get used to the new way, and once they have more time and practice with a new sight picture or sight width they can make a better comparison.
There certainly are no hard and fast rules, and what works for one shooter may not work so well for another, but the experience of champion shooters would suggest that for the vast majority of us a wide front sight and a center of mass hold is ultimately superior.
Quote from: ItsanSKS on April 17, 2015, 02:49:57 AM
In order for Rifleman's Cadence to work, the shooter must A: have a perfect Natural Point of Aim, and B: have established that Natural Point of Aim to achieve their chosen Sight Picture at Respiratory Pause.
While I would certainly agree that using a cadence is a valuable training tool for new shooters, I would suggest that experienced shooters will improve their scores if they abandon the idea of a cadence. What experienced shooters will do may LOOK to an observer as though they are firing to a cadence, they are in fact actually not.
Here's what I mean. The idea of establishing natural point of aim and then firing in your respiratory pause is certainly correct. But it ignores several issues that may be important to increasing scores in rapid fire stages.
The first is that the NPA may move over the course of the string. The is certainly true for me when firing a 30 caliber rifle like a Garand. I'm a smallish guy, and that rifle will push me around over the course of 10 shots. Getting caught up in using a cadence will entice the shooter to make small adjustments using muscle tension, which naturally causes shots to go awry. Better scores will result if the shooter takes a second or two between shots to make slight adjustments to NPA if needed. This may look like Rifleman's Cadence to an observer, but it is in fact not.
The second issue that comes up is even with lighter rifles, AR15's and .22's, positions may deteriorate over the course of a strong. I've had a few targets where my first few shots are nicely centered, then toward the end of the string they fade toward 4:00. This was due to my right elbow moving over the course of a string. There are many small ways a position may break down over the course of a string, but if one gets too caught up in shooting to a cadence they may be overlooked.
A third issue which I've encountered when shooting to a cadence, especially in the sitting position, is pulse. I usually have at least a minute of pulse when sitting, and sometimes more. If you shoot to a cadence, and ignore the pulse, you'll see it on the target. If instead of shooting to a cadence you shoot to sight picture, you can shoot at the same point in your pulse and eliminate most if not all of the vertical string from pulse.
So the better suggestion I would have for experienced shooters is one that was given to me by a member of the All Guard shooting team. Simply breath between each shot, and shoot to sight picture. When the sights are aligned, break the shot. If they are not, make the necessary correction and then break the shot. If your NPA is excellent and no other issues are occurring, this will be identical to a cadence. If, however, some of these other issues do occur during a string, or for whatever reason your sight picture isn't what it needs to be, don't get so caught up in a cadence that you ignore what the sights are telling you.
The following is a video from last weekend's Confederate Nationals that shows exactly what I mean. The video is of Brandon Green from the AMU shooting a 10X clean at 200 yards. At first look it may seem like he's shooting to a cadence, but if you watch more closely you'll see that he pauses anywhere from 2-5 seconds between shots. Many of his shots are in cadence, but if the sights aren't where he wants them to be, he makes a correction and then breaks the shot.
Rapid Fire Sitting (https://www.facebook.com/brandon.g.16/videos/10153279486696318/?pnref=story)
This was one of the few pieces of Appleseed training that I had to "unlearn" as I started shooting more, so I thought it was worth mentioning.
Good thread. At my Level 1 NRA Coaching certification last January, Joe Miller (a Level 3 Coach) confirmed what ItsanSKS said above about eye fatigue being a big issue if shots are delayed more than a few seconds. Experienced shooters were encouraged to break focus to avoid fatigue. With regard to breathing, Joe was recommending a two breath cycle with the first breath being normal to heavy and the second breath being shallow. He had diagrams showing the "tremor" of the shooter being vastly reduced after the second, shallow breath. My experience dry firing and at the range seems to confirm the benefit of the second breath.
The problem with the above is that these are advanced techniques and are difficult for a more novice shooter to absorb. At the usual AS event, I have difficulty getting many shooters to even remember to exhale before firing or firing before the diaphragm has completely settled. In the usual instance teaching a shooter to fire with a one breath cadence comes closest to allowing them to avoid the eye fatigue while at the same time firing the shot at respiratory pause. However, if I run into an experienced and sophisticated shooter trying to refine his/her results, then I might make some suggested refinements. I try hard to work with a student at his/her level of ability.
Quote from: Agrivere on April 17, 2015, 11:06:36 AM
The first is that the NPA may move over the course of the string. The is certainly true for me when firing a 30 caliber rifle like a Garand. I'm a smallish guy, and that rifle will push me around over the course of 10 shots. Getting caught up in using a cadence will entice the shooter to make small adjustments using muscle tension, which naturally causes shots to go awry. Better scores will result if the shooter takes a second or two between shots to make slight adjustments to NPA if needed. This may look like Rifleman's Cadence to an observer, but it is in fact not.
(snip)
The second issue that comes up is even with lighter rifles, AR15's and .22's, positions may deteriorate over the course of a strong. [sic] I've had a few targets where my first few shots are nicely centered, then toward the end of the string they fade toward 4:00. This was due to my right elbow moving over the course of a string. There are many small ways a position may break down over the course of a string, but if one gets too caught up in shooting to a cadence they may be overlooked.
(snip)
If your NPA is excellent and no other issues are occurring, this will be identical to a cadence. If, however, some of these other issues do occur during a string, or for whatever reason your sight picture isn't what it needs to be, don't get so caught up in a cadence that you ignore what the sights are telling you.
(emphasis mine)
Agrivere, it appears that you missed the first requirement for using Rifeman's Cadence: A PERFECT Natural Point of Aim. If your position has deteriorated, then your NPOA has shifted, thus breaking your cadence.
Even when a shooter is using Rifleman's Cadence (and they should ALWAYS use Rifleman's Cadence) they aught not disregard the rest of the Six Steps & Steady Hold Factors. If, for whatever reason, their NPOA shifts unintentionally, then the shooter must re-establish their NPOA, and resume firing by the numbers.
With regards to the position breaking down due to recoil:
Generally, this occurs due to a failure in the Steady Hold Factors. If you find that your trigger elbow in prone is shifting around, you need to pull it in closer to your body, to get more weight on top of it. If the rifle is shifting in the shoulder pocket, the Firm Handshake Grip should be pulling the rifle Smartly into the shoulder pocket.
In prone, the only muscle input on the rifle should be the trigger hand pulling the rifle into the shoulder. The sling alone is woefully inadequate for this, as 10/22 and Garand shooters alike can attest. There is a fine line between the muscle input required to hold the rifle in position, and too much muscle input. With the Garand, I find that pulling the rifle in until my hand begins to tremble, then slowly releasing that tension until the tremble stops, is right for me. Adding 'stickum' or sandpaper, or other traction-enhancing articles to the butt stock of a rifle, or to the shooting jacket itself, to reduce slippage in the shoulder pocket, is an effort to mitigate a SHF failure.
The rules may allow such things in competition, but that does not mean they are necessary.
Quote from: Shooter30-06 on April 17, 2015, 12:19:12 PM
At my Level 1 NRA Coaching certification last January, Joe Miller (a Level 3 Coach) confirmed what ItsanSKS said above about eye fatigue being a big issue if shots are delayed more than a few seconds.
When we teach Respiratory Pause, we must also include the proviso that it should not be an overly-extended pause; pause no longer than 2-3 seconds. If you have not broken the shot, maintain trigger pressure and restart the (natural) respiratory cycle.
A too-long respiratory pause usually indicates an NPOA that isn't adjusted properly, thus forcing the shooter to attempt fine adjustments to their POA prior to breaking the shot. This extended period of intense focus will very rapidly cause eye fatigue. This is typically a failure to properly establish NPOA in the first place.
For this reason, I advise all shooters to routinely practice acquiring NPOA at home during dry fire sessions- have a partner toss small objects that the shooter must then 'engage'. This practice builds the muscle memory and eye-body coordination that is necessary for rapidly establishing a proper NPOA.
QuoteJoe was recommending a two breath cycle with the first breath being normal to heavy and the second breath being shallow.
With all due respect to Joe, I only recommend using the natural breath, for a number of reasons.
1. The natural (relaxed) breath is typically very shallow; this induces the minimal deviation to sight picture while breathing.
2. A forced breath of *any* type, is impossible to duplicate. Being consistent in ones methodology is the key to achieving small groups.
3. Taking a deep breath sympathetically increases the heart rate. A high heart rate induces unwanted movement in the sights.
Now, when we are working with students at an Appleseed, in order to get them to use Respiratory Pause, we must usually first get them to control their breathing. Due to the pace of our course, the unfamiliar positions, and overall physical fitness of Americans in general, the likelihood of a first-time attendee being able to settle into a natural breath cycle behind their rifle is about slim-to-none. In order to accomplish this, they first need to accomplish a relaxed position, and most of our students are incapable of relaxing in prone- it is too foreign, and too uncomfortable. If one is struggling to relax, they are going to struggle to achieve any semblance of a normal (sinusoidal) breath cycle.
Controlled breathing is preferable to uncontrolled breathing, and will allow a shooter to achieve the 4 MOA standard, but a natural sinusoidal rhythm should ultimately be the goal, and is attainable for most shooters simply by becoming familiar (comfortable) with the position. Teaching breath control as we do is also useful for instances where the respiratory rate has increased due to physical exertion.
I know I read the thread thats why I said for Me!
Feild tested by me for me!
Quote from: Agrivere on April 17, 2015, 11:06:36 AM
While I would certainly agree that using a cadence is a valuable training tool for new shooters, I would suggest that experienced shooters will improve their scores if they abandon the idea of a cadence. What experienced shooters will do may LOOK to an observer as though they are firing to a cadence, they are in fact actually not.
Here's what I mean. The idea of establishing natural point of aim and then firing in your respiratory pause is certainly correct. But it ignores several issues that may be important to increasing scores in rapid fire stages.
I think I've heard that somewhere. :-)
I'll be blunt about it, I don't and didn't teach a cadence. Part of the reason for that was something that I saw even among experienced instructors in KD. They were firing to a cadence or time and not a sight picture, particularly in slow fire. They were all over the target because they were more worried about firing in 3 seconds than in firing to a sight picture at respiratory pause. I do teach that we fire with the natural respiratory cycle and that after 7 seconds or so the vision starts to dim.
What is also true is that sometimes what we see when we hold too long is not something that actually exists. By this I mean that sometimes as the vision fades an image may appear better than it really is and a shot at that moment will not be a good thing. For me itsansks is right about the 2-3 seconds, or maybe 2-5 seconds. If I don't break the shot, I start the process for that shot over. including releasing the slack on the trigger and checking the feel of my position.
What should also be understood, is that my focus with this discussion is iron sights and competitive shooting. I want a wide front sight (.072), a medium wide rear aperture for overcast days (.046) and a slightly smaller one for BRIGHT days (.042). On the worst days I may pull out a .052 rear hood if that is what it takes to get the best front sight view.
Quote from: ItsanSKS on April 17, 2015, 03:16:50 PM
Agrivere, it appears that you missed the first requirement for using Rifeman's Cadence: A PERFECT Natural Point of Aim. If your position has deteriorated, then your NPOA has shifted, thus breaking your cadence.
I think we're mostly saying the same thing. You're saying that if the NPOA shifts unintentionally, you must re-establish it, which I certainly agree with. I'm saying that there is no such thing as PERFECT NPOA, and that because our bodies are constantly making small movements, our NPOA will ALWAYS change, at least a little, from shot to shot. Whether that is an amount that matters enough to make an adjustment is a question that can only be answered by what we see in the sights.
I think the video I linked of Brandon Green shooting (and he is without question one of the top position shooters in the country) demonstrates this very well. He is shooting to sight picture, without any thought or concern about any sort of cadence. If he needs to make a tiny (imperceptible to us on the video) adjustment, he does so, then shoots. If he does not, then he just shoots. When the sights are aligned, he shoots. He shoots to sight picture.
Since we're saying almost exactly the same thing, why split hairs? If you're ever read Lanny Basham's book With Winning In Mind, you'll understand the risk of getting too wrapped around a cadence. If we program our subconscious to shoot to a cadence, it's far more likely that we'll find ourselves blazing away without even realizing we should have been making small corrections along the way. I've certainly finished a string, especially in rapid fire, and the target told me things I didn't see in the sights. When that happens, it's almost always an error in my subconscious program (like shooting to a cadence instead of shooting to sight picture), which didn't allow me to even SEE the error that was occurring. Even though the distinction is subtle, if experienced shooters (note I'm not remotely suggesting this for a new shooter) train our subconscious to shoot to sight picture, without any concern for cadence, our shots will improve.
I would not suggest that Appleseed teach anything like this, as this is certainly an advanced topic, but for those shooters who are more experienced and would like to improve their marksmanship further, this is the sort of thing that good scores into cleans.
QuoteWith regards to the position breaking down due to recoil:
Generally, this occurs due to a failure in the Steady Hold Factors. If you find that your trigger elbow in prone is shifting around, you need to pull it in closer to your body, to get more weight on top of it. If the rifle is shifting in the shoulder pocket, the Firm Handshake Grip should be pulling the rifle Smartly into the shoulder pocket.
I certainly would agree with this, but I think it also has something to do with 2800 ft-lbs of force from a 30-06 rifle bullet and my 160 pound frame. I'm sure if I shot my Garand more I would develop a better position that would withstand that recoil better, and my shots would improve with that rifle. Also doesn't change the fact that a rifle like that will physically MOVE a small person, no matter how steady your hold factors. It can literally push you across the ground, and short of staking myself to the ground, I'm not sure there's much that can be done about that.