Foresight Element Size

It wasn't me!

Was reading an article last night which claimed that it's easier to centre a circle in another circle, the greater the difference between the two, with the ideal being that the larger circle will be 2.5 times the size of the smaller one. I find I can't distinguish between sight pictures from a middle nine upwards, and couldn't tell you the difference between a ten and a mid nine in terms of my sight picture, so would increasing the size of the foresight element help with this by allowing less margin for error? I find I get what looks to be a perfect sight picture, and I release the shot well, and it could be a nine one shot, then the next shot it'll look the exact same, and it'd be a ten. Is changing the element for a slightly larger one the answer? I'm currently using a 3.3, what would anyone suggest I try to better distinguish a nine from a ten?

Sparks

Definitely change IWM. 3.3 is way too small. 3.9 would be even a bit small to be honest, given your current shooting I'd be thinking 4.2 up to 4.5 depending on how bright it was out. When standing, you'd want to be on a 5.0.

The thing is, the worse your hold, the larger a foresight you need because otherwise, you see the target heading towards the foresight element ring as you wobble, and there's a strong tendency to correct this, but you always overcorrect and the wobble gets worse. Larger element = less noticable wobble = less tendency to correct = less overcorrection = higher score.

In prone, wobble's less noticable, but optical effects make it necessary to have a larger element as well - if the element's too small, you get a kind of blurry glare-yness around the inside edge of the element and the target. Not good for aiming. And this varies with ambient light - with brighter light, open up the element ring and close down the rearsight iris.

And while 1.1 to 1.3 is the usual zone for the rearsight, do not think of those limits as being hard limits. Below 1.1 is rarely needed except on the brightest of days, but you choose your rearsight setting by closing right down until it's all dark and then opening up until you can see the sight picture clearly - not by reading numbers off a scale. I've had to shoot at 1.8 in air rifle in the past because of dark sight pictures, and that's not the widest I've ever heard of.

Sparks

Oh, and quit worrying about the 9/10 bit. Worry about the group size and the consistency. The scores will follow.

It wasn't me!

Cheers Sparks, I'll try a 4.2 this week so, planning to go down to Rathdrum anyway.

It's mostly the ability to distinguish that's what I'm looking for to be honest; not being able to tell whether it's entirely centred has got to be opening up my groups as well.

Sparks

Indoors it'll be a bit darker IWM, you might well be able to go down to 4.0, but I'd start with a 4.4 to be honest. Take the box of elements with you, start with 4.4, and move down after about 50 rounds; then try the 4.0 for 50 and see the difference in the group sizes.

And as to what's opening up groups, I usually find it's never the thing you think it is...

It wasn't me!

I'll take the box down with me anyway and see how I get on.

If the larger elements provide a more definite centre, I'll be happy enough, and I think that will do a lot of good.

It wasn't me!

It wasn't me! wrote: »

Was reading an article last night which claimed that it's easier to centre a circle in another circle, the greater the difference between the two, with the ideal being that the larger circle will be 2.5 times the size of the smaller one. I find I can't distinguish between sight pictures from a middle nine upwards, and couldn't tell you the difference between a ten and a mid nine in terms of my sight picture, so would increasing the size of the foresight element help with this by allowing less margin for error? I find I get what looks to be a perfect sight picture, and I release the shot well, and it could be a nine one shot, then the next shot it'll look the exact same, and it'd be a ten. Is changing the element for a slightly larger one the answer? I'm currently using a 3.3, what would anyone suggest I try to better distinguish a nine from a ten?

Ive knocked in tonnes with 2.9 - currently using a 3.3 (as 2.9 is too small for outdoor) and finding that plenty big. Personal choice really, and it really doesn't matter how you view the target as long as your foresight is crisp and clear.

BountyHunter

Deleted User wrote: »

Personal choice really, and it really doesn't matter how you view the target as long as your foresight is crisp and clear.

I'm kinda getting confused at the moment, should you not really want the target to be crisp as well as the foresight? I realise the distance from your foresight and target is 50 metres (in my case) so your eye will need to focus from one to the other?
If you only have a crisp foresight and blurry target is this not bad for aiming?

BountyHunter.

Nope - the target for me is often a bit blurry.

You want a very crisp foresight ring, as this forms the basis of your aiming. It is pointless to have, for example, a perfectly clear target and blurry foresight ring as then you don't actually control what you are aiming at.

Instead, you want a very crisp foresight ring and a decent image of the target, your eye will be able to line them up properly providing the foresight ring is well defined.

Sparks

It's not actually personal choice - it's personal eyesight. Zara doesn't wear specs for example, IWM does. So if you have to up the element size and rearsight iris setting to get a good sight picture, you do it - and if you don't, well, then you're good too.

But there is this incredibly strong urge to crank down on the foresight element even when it comprimises your sight picture, because when you get the shot routine right a smaller element can get your shot closer to the middle. In a match and under pressure, that works against you and you get a mix of really tight groups with really bad fliers from where something wasn't quite perfect. A larger element leads to more consistency and higher scores. I'll take a single group that encompasses 7 10's and 3 9's over 9 10's and a 6 myself, it's easier to fix. Maybe Martinov can walk in and lie down with an ancient rifle in a treetrunk stock with a 0.9 rearsight and 1.1 foresight and shoot 600/600, but he's also spent decades shooting for hours every day with that setup. What works for him won't work for everyone.

It wasn't me!

Okay, it's report time.

I started out with a 4.5, and did 30 rounds with it, mostly in five-shot groups, but also a ten-shot group. I found it quite disorienting. The picture seemed to swim about a lot and I found myself jerking at shots. Groups were possibly a little better than I had been shooting, but nothing remarkable at all, and definitely not worth it for the disadvantages.

Then I tried a 4.1, for another 30 rounds, and the groups were tiny, some barely bigger than the bullet, and with one nice little ten-shot group, bigger edges (thanks to me) but tight centre.

I liked this setup, so went on to shoot a ten-shot sighter series and a match with it, just to see the improvements it offered. Shot a 97 in the sighters, and went on to shoot a 562 in the match, with another 97 and a 96 (which was a tiny little group that would have easily fit in the ten, but it was low, so a few broke the nine ring). For perspective's sake, before today, my best cards had been 95's, and they had been very few and far between, and my best match score had been a 549 (not competition, training), so just changing the foresight element allowed me a host of new personal bests. I also was on for a 99 with the second 97, but fluffed the last shot and got an 8.8, entirely my own fault.

Sparks

Sometimes it is the thing you think it is
Congrats IWM, nicely done. Don't forget, if you go outside and it's brighter than inside, you may need to up the element size, even if it looked off indoors.

It wasn't me!

Sparks wrote: »

Sometimes it is the thing you think it is

Sometimes, just once in a while, I get something right.

Congrats IWM, nicely done. Don't forget, if you go outside and it's brighter than inside, you may need to up the element size, even if it looked off indoors.

I'll bear it in mind. Probably heading to Fermoy next week, so can see what works. The element still looked huge around the bull, but it was decidedly more manageable to shoot a lot of ten's. Now just have to make my new position less uncomfortable and I'll be sorted for the indoor season.

Sparks

It wasn't me! wrote: »

The element still looked huge around the bull

Don't worry about that so much. It only looked huge because it was too small before and you'd gotten used to the smallness and thought it was normal. Remember, our common sense is derived from millennia of experience as tree-swinging apes on the edge of the serengeti. It's a bit out of its element when it comes to olympic target shooting

It wasn't me!

What a difference two clicks might have made.

The 97 with that dodgy 8.8 is the target directly above it too. Also a fairly nice group if that didn't fluff it up.