TidalWave
Professional
exactly my problem. Working on a solution
Shooting the P365xl left
- Thread starter Sld1959
- Start date
exactly my problem. Working on a solution
ddeuce22
Professional
Same. I have that exact issue with my 365XL - Currently working on correcting it
Annihilator
Emissary
Very nice graph KF, think I will print this out, thanks
^ RE: correction target, @Annihilator - remember, that target, as I noted in my follow-up above, is meant for aimed, slow-fire, single-handed bullseye style at the 25 [or greater] - https://pistol-training.com/archives/292 <----- excellent article by the late ToddG, and https://aegisacademy.com/blogs/test-blog-post/pistol-correction-chart . Using this target, two-handed freestyle, rapid fire, and at closer range will all introduce additional complications: complications which the chart cannot help address.
Annihilator
Emissary
Understood, I just thought that graph would a good thing to print out and hang at my gun club for others to learn from
^ Ah, got it. 
Absolutely - but be sure to fully discuss the ramifications of what's printed with your fellow club members. Remind them that there's more to it than just what the illustrations show.
I realized that my own reply was far short of complete, so I worked on a better breakdown - hope this is more helpful!
The Forum's editing time-out prevented me from making that initial post better, so please pardon this "double post," of-sorts.
RE: correction target,
As I noted in my follow-up above, is meant for aimed, slow-fire, single-handed bullseye style at the 25 [or greater] . The following article by the late ToddG - https://pistol-training.com/archives/292 - and this post on Aegis Academy - https://aegisacademy.com/blogs/test-blog-post/pistol-correction-chart highlights the history of these targets as well as better frames their utility. Using this target, two-handed freestyle, rapid fire, and at closer range will all introduce additional complications: confounding factors which the chart cannot address.
In terms of sight misalignment - I think that the following requires context.......
While these pictographs show well what happens with sight misalignment, in-practice, what we see is much less dramatic. What do I mean?
tacticalprofessor.wordpress.com
^ This article by Claude Werner (whose résumé includes being Chief Instructor at the famed Rogers Shooting School in Ellijay, GA), shows just how much deviation one's shots will print, with the sights so misaligned, at 7 yards. With the result being approximately 4 inches of deviation, that's still printing well within the space occupied by one's open palm.
Certainly, as we alter the BSA template - i.e. increase distance-to-target or decrease target-size - we'll need more and more refinement of sight alignment, but overall, the infographic above, without context, simply doesn't paint a full picture.
This also ties-in well with how we look at the sight picture, specifically -
Again, while this is canonically correct and objectively factual, the problem with this infographic is that it assumes that there's always only one "correct" way to view the handgun's iron sights.
We know that this is not true simply because so many modern instructors and shooters have called this to-attention.
In-reality, the sight package as-presented above - assuming target shown is a standard NRA B8 Repair Center - at less than 10 yards, what we can observe is that we really only need to sharply resolve the front sight blade and insure its perfect alignment within the rear notch ("equal height, equal light") if we're intending on hitting in that picture, the bullseye (i.e. at the center of the "10" lettering). The way that infographic is set up, if the shooter was able to achieve the "incorrect" depiction shown in the middle panel, he/she would actually be able to hit within the black, if not inside the 10-ring outright. Similarly, of the far left panel, that level of visual resolution of the gun's slide, at that range, would most likely result in at least "a hit on paper."
In-reality, the level of refinement that's needed of the sight package should be based on the demands of the target (i.e. how tough it is to hit) as well as the speed with which we must engage it. A full-torso silhouette at the 10 (left panel engagement) is a much different target than an A-zone at that same distance (middle panel), and is again much different versus a 4-inch "head" at the 25 yard line (right panel).
Finally,
I really believe that the is among the most egregiously faulty illustrations of all time.
Why?
Because as John "Shrek" McPhee and Pat McNamara showed, these gross errors are actually due to a failure of the shooter to properly index the handgun, versus how the shooter's trigger finger is placed on the trigger (which, in-reality, is defined as based on proper indexing and then the interaction between that specific weapon's grip dimensions and shape, versus the anatomic considerations of that shooter's unique hand) -
and
A shooter with a bigger hand - or simply longer fingers - can well require the almost-to-the-knuckle pull that the middle panel shows, and if so, his/her shots will be on-the-bull, even though their trigger finger placement is not at the canonical "meat" or "middle of the distal phalanx" as it is shown in the far left panel. We instinctively understand the practical applications of this necessary difference in how we mount the trigger to the trigger finger when we are shooting double-action guns.
Similarly, if one were to use a marker to draw a line at the index-point on the wrist in each of the panels, we can easily see that the deviations are due to how the gun is placed in the hand, and is not really what we're doing with our trigger finger.
The idea, as Rob Leatham pointed out in the "Aiming is Useless" video is that we must finish the trigger path without disturbing the sight package. How we accomplish this at the trigger is irrelevant versus that final objective - and depending on the specifics of the gun's physical dimensions and design and how that interacts with our unique anatomy (the size and shape of our hands, its musculature/fat, as well as how we articulate - which can be influenced drastically by disease, injury, and/or age), how our trigger finger lands on that trigger can well be very different from the ideal.
Absolutely - but be sure to fully discuss the ramifications of what's printed with your fellow club members. Remind them that there's more to it than just what the illustrations show.
I realized that my own reply was far short of complete, so I worked on a better breakdown - hope this is more helpful!
The Forum's editing time-out prevented me from making that initial post better, so please pardon this "double post," of-sorts.
RE: correction target,
As I noted in my follow-up above, is meant for aimed, slow-fire, single-handed bullseye style at the 25 [or greater] . The following article by the late ToddG - https://pistol-training.com/archives/292 - and this post on Aegis Academy - https://aegisacademy.com/blogs/test-blog-post/pistol-correction-chart highlights the history of these targets as well as better frames their utility. Using this target, two-handed freestyle, rapid fire, and at closer range will all introduce additional complications: confounding factors which the chart cannot address.
In terms of sight misalignment - I think that the following requires context.......
While these pictographs show well what happens with sight misalignment, in-practice, what we see is much less dramatic. What do I mean?
Sight misalignment, speed, and accuracy
While I was teaching a private lesson last week, my student was struggling with improving his times, while maintaining an acceptable degree of accuracy. I could tell by the size of his groups, whic…
tacticalprofessor.wordpress.com
^ This article by Claude Werner (whose résumé includes being Chief Instructor at the famed Rogers Shooting School in Ellijay, GA), shows just how much deviation one's shots will print, with the sights so misaligned, at 7 yards. With the result being approximately 4 inches of deviation, that's still printing well within the space occupied by one's open palm.
Certainly, as we alter the BSA template - i.e. increase distance-to-target or decrease target-size - we'll need more and more refinement of sight alignment, but overall, the infographic above, without context, simply doesn't paint a full picture.
This also ties-in well with how we look at the sight picture, specifically -
Again, while this is canonically correct and objectively factual, the problem with this infographic is that it assumes that there's always only one "correct" way to view the handgun's iron sights.
We know that this is not true simply because so many modern instructors and shooters have called this to-attention.
In-reality, the sight package as-presented above - assuming target shown is a standard NRA B8 Repair Center - at less than 10 yards, what we can observe is that we really only need to sharply resolve the front sight blade and insure its perfect alignment within the rear notch ("equal height, equal light") if we're intending on hitting in that picture, the bullseye (i.e. at the center of the "10" lettering). The way that infographic is set up, if the shooter was able to achieve the "incorrect" depiction shown in the middle panel, he/she would actually be able to hit within the black, if not inside the 10-ring outright. Similarly, of the far left panel, that level of visual resolution of the gun's slide, at that range, would most likely result in at least "a hit on paper."
In-reality, the level of refinement that's needed of the sight package should be based on the demands of the target (i.e. how tough it is to hit) as well as the speed with which we must engage it. A full-torso silhouette at the 10 (left panel engagement) is a much different target than an A-zone at that same distance (middle panel), and is again much different versus a 4-inch "head" at the 25 yard line (right panel).
Finally,
I really believe that the is among the most egregiously faulty illustrations of all time.
Why?
Because as John "Shrek" McPhee and Pat McNamara showed, these gross errors are actually due to a failure of the shooter to properly index the handgun, versus how the shooter's trigger finger is placed on the trigger (which, in-reality, is defined as based on proper indexing and then the interaction between that specific weapon's grip dimensions and shape, versus the anatomic considerations of that shooter's unique hand) -
and
A shooter with a bigger hand - or simply longer fingers - can well require the almost-to-the-knuckle pull that the middle panel shows, and if so, his/her shots will be on-the-bull, even though their trigger finger placement is not at the canonical "meat" or "middle of the distal phalanx" as it is shown in the far left panel. We instinctively understand the practical applications of this necessary difference in how we mount the trigger to the trigger finger when we are shooting double-action guns.
Similarly, if one were to use a marker to draw a line at the index-point on the wrist in each of the panels, we can easily see that the deviations are due to how the gun is placed in the hand, and is not really what we're doing with our trigger finger.
The idea, as Rob Leatham pointed out in the "Aiming is Useless" video is that we must finish the trigger path without disturbing the sight package. How we accomplish this at the trigger is irrelevant versus that final objective - and depending on the specifics of the gun's physical dimensions and design and how that interacts with our unique anatomy (the size and shape of our hands, its musculature/fat, as well as how we articulate - which can be influenced drastically by disease, injury, and/or age), how our trigger finger lands on that trigger can well be very different from the ideal.