24 ms·

Pistol sights

372 points by luu 9y ago

RUG3Y 9y ago
Near the end of the article, he mentions that some people say that it's more difficult to aim a weapon that has a shorter sight radius. Actually, I think it's more accurate to say that having your sights out of alignment with shorter sight radius will have a more dramatic effect on your accuracy.
- electrograv 9y ago
  Or put another way, a shorter sight radius by a factor of X makes it X times harder to visually confirm your iron sights are correctly aligned. This makes the visual-mental-physical feedback loop of keeping them aligned as precisely as you possibly can, much more difficult. Shooting accurately is much more than just physically holding the barrel steady; it's a whole "symphony" of coordination, involving physical, visual and mental components.
  - RUG3Y 9y ago
    That's a great way to explain it.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
cynicalbastard 9y ago
> I was told once by a proficient pistol shooter that he ignored where the front sight was on the target, and paid attention only to the alignment of the two sights relative to each other. Since he did in fact hit the target, is the "two sights" here the rear sight which has two posts, or the two sites as in front sight + rear sight? several pages of reading and then .. an ambiguously worded conclusion.
- function_seven 9y ago
  He means the sights. Like you said, the rear site is composed of two posts, the front sight has one post.
- mgarfias 9y ago
  He means the front sight and rear sight.
electrograv 9y ago
If you're interested in the science behind this, you may be even more interested in learning how peephole style rear iron sights almost eliminate the dual sight alignment problem of goal-post style rear sights (as commonly found on pistols). The rear peep sight on rifles take advantage of actual "optical effects", without any glass -- much like a pinhole camera can actually magnify images without any lenses or mirrors at all. By simply providing an arbitrarily small "aperature" you're looking through in the rear, the front-rear sight alignment problem is not only capped at an upper bound of error (defined by the peephole size and sight radius), but the actual error from front-rear sight misalignment is visually magnified and centered through a fixed viewing point, making it vastly easier to keep the actual error near zero. So generally, to achieve precision within the (small) upper bound of error with a peephole sight, all you need to do is place the front sight post on the target when looking through the rear peep sight. Even better precision is made much easier via a sort of "peephole camera" effect through the aperature of the rear sight.
- arthur_trudeau 9y ago
  Palma competitors routinely hit out to 1000 yards with iron sights (in reality, aperture sights). They are extremely effective.
  - fivestar 9y ago
    Palma rifles don't have post front sights. They use adjustable front and rear apertures. You still generally focus on the front sight. All you do with the rear is center up the front in the rear and the target is blurry but centered in the front one. This is the same for really any distance from 50 feet up to 1000 yards. And yes, I have been involved in those competitions. The hard part is having a solid hold and body control, reading the wind, and having super consistent ammunition that you intimately know all the elevation adjustments for. The remainder is how much money you spent on your barrel and how many rounds it has down it. A tight shooting coat helps a great deal, too. I got bored with the whole thing when it occurred to me that I was just throwing money at barrels and other gear. Not to say that the game isn't highly competitive, but like auto racing, it's a money thing. Similar to many such pursuits, to take it to the max you will pretty much end up divorced.
xtreme 9y ago
I wonder if this is related to [Hyperfocal Distance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperfocal_distance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperfocal_distance), a concept familiar to many photographers. Roughly, if you focus on the background (infinity), the foreground would be blurry; and vice-versa. If you focus about ~1/3rd into the scene, you'd have everything in reasonably sharp focus. Unlike camera lenses, our eyes can't easily focus on an arbitrary distance without an object being present there. Perhaps the front sight is working as an approximation of the hyperfocal distance.
- kbart 9y ago
  To stay hyperfocused, you would have to keep your sight focused on a certain dot (probably between sights and target), so it would be extremely hard to align iron sights without focusing on them as our eyes/brain automatically focus on things of interested. Peripheral vision training might help, but I believe, it still would be much harder than aiming in traditional way (focused on front sight only). Actually, our vision is extremely adaptive and after few sessions of practice shooting you don't even notice blurring anymore as it becomes natural. "Perhaps the front sight is working as an approximation of the hyperfocal distance." I haven't seen such gun yet. It would not be practical as distance of a target and illumination (two key factors for hyperfocus of human eye) varies greatly.
chrissnell 9y ago
Going target shooting is incredibly relaxing and a great break from the workday. The focus required to sight in a target and control one's breathing, arm, and finger movement is a very powerful relaxant to me and melts stress away. I work from home and I live in the burbs so pistol or rifle shooting is not possible. However, I've gotten really hooked on shooting (of all things) my Red Ryder BB gun. It doesn't make a loud noise, it costs almost nothing to shoot, and it's surprisingly accurate for how inexpensive it is. These little BB guns have iron sights like the article discusses. My favorite thing to shoot is little plastic bottles--particularly the ones that over-the-counter medication comes in. They're durable and make a nice popping noise when you hit them. I put them on little stakes in the back yard at about 10-15 yards and shoot at them from my deck. As I got better, I made up little games, like shooting them in a sequence and trying to get 100% accuracy. I find it easy to get back to writing code after doing this for five or ten minutes.
- solotronics 9y ago
  shooting for me is incredibly therapeutic you can devote a large portion of your concentration to it and disconnect your brain for a while. I think some of the appeal is that you can see an immediate result of your effort and therefore can attempt to analyze and calibrate your performance. I really recommend shooting with advanced holographic optics because it brings you closer to your own reactions and can help hone your skill.
  - JoeAltmaier 9y ago
    I have the same experience! Whatever is going on in my life, when I look down the sights my concentration becomes wholly focused on the moment. Its startling how centered I come out of a target shooting session.
- gadders 9y ago
  I think any hobby that requires a high level of concentration is relaxing as it makes you focus on that activity and forget other worries. I've had the same effect from lifting and fly fishing.
c517402 9y ago
Instead of using convolution to produce the imagery, I think it should be produced using fractional Fourier transforms. IIRC fractional Fourier transforms are mathematically equivalent to Fraunhofer and Fresnel diffraction integrals. Although, the convolutions look good.
- wnkrshm 9y ago
  I'm also not super up-to-date on my Fourier optics but I had to research again a bit, as I had something in the back of my brain telling me: Hey, there was something with simple convolutions in Fourier optics and I know spatial convolution with a response function is used extensively to gauge the resultion of your system's image due to diffraction in the system. Within the Fresnel approximation, the output field can either be formed in a frequency-domain approach with a spectrum of plane waves or as a spatial superposition of paraboloid waves (in which the transfer function is inverse-fourier transformed and then convolved with the input field). And the latter approach is simply a convolution of the input field (in position space) with an impulse-response function of the linear (and shift-invariant) optical system between. Shift invariance (i.e. the response function itself isn't position dependent) is an okay approximation for the central FOV of the human eye. So what he's doing, the formalism, is kinda correct within the Fresnel regime, only he uses an approximation for the impulse-response function itself. This impulse-response function is called the PSF or Point-Spread Function in imaging optics design, defined as the image (including diffraction effects of course) of a point source. His approximation as a disk is okay-ish, qualitatively (google "PSF of human eye defocus") but I didn't check the numbers for the size.
binarytransform 9y ago
Former JSOC dude here. Circumstances requiring engaging with pistols == bad day for everyone, so only a few things matter. Front sight focus (which implies maintaining equidistance from the rear sight posts), both eyes open, fast presentation, parallel grip, smooth trigger pull, reacquire, repeat as necessary. And optical sights = more things that can break / run out of batteries / fall off and make noise / etc etc.
- gadders 9y ago
  You may be former JSOC, but I've played Call of Duty.
  - binarytransform 9y ago
    Did we just become best friends? Someone fire up the GoldenEye. Slappers only!
    - gadders 9y ago
      TBH, I was lying for comedic effect. I mostly play Borderlands 2 now. I don't like anything with too much strategy. //edit// Sorry if that sounds too rude. Email in my profile if you want my Steam ID.
      - pc86 9y ago
        > Call of Duty > strategy You've outed yourself, I'm afraid.
        gadders 9y ago
        Maybe strategy isn't the right word. Maybe stealth would have been better.
      - gkya 9y ago
        CoD became so complex... CoD2 is the only game I ever liked. Maybe I'm too stupidbut I don't know, I can't play any other fps.
euroclydon 9y ago
I have this little drill I do, with a iron sighted handgun or rifle. I give myself no more than 2 seconds to bring the weapon up, acquire the target a shoot. I can pay attention to the rear sights, but then I never hit anything. In this drill, I've found that maintaining a consistent body position, and only paying attention to the front sight yields the best results. I just put the front sight on the target and pull the trigger. Distance about 10-15 yards. Target is soda can.
- madengr 9y ago
  I shoot the small size paper plates. If you are missing those, you are shooting too fast. If you are consistently hitting center, you are shooting too slow. 2-3x diameter of the paper plate is about center of mass for a person, so that 3x spread in shot during stress should still result in a hit.
baby 9y ago
Kind of off-topic. But I had a thought the other day: without the US we wouldn't have action movies like James Bond or FPS and other shooters video games. It's interesting to see that guns are rare in other countries' movies/discussions. Maybe FPS would all be like Nintendo's octopus thing.
- tim333 9y ago
  Dunno - James Bond is kind of English. Not just the character but the writer and the film production. The character was actually fairly closely based on the author http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/jamesbond/11026227/Ian-Fleming-the-real-James-Bond.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/jamesbond/11026227/I...
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - baby 9y ago
    Good point, but the James Bond of nowadays (Jack Reacher, john wick, etc...) are all American movies now.
- thristian 9y ago
  You may be interested in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=os3lWIuGsXE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=os3lWIuGsXE
- rkangel 9y ago
  James Bond comes from a time before handgun control in the UK (the films are based on books written in the 50s and 60s). Gun culture existed in the UK then in a way that it doesn't now. That doesn't mean we can't and don't produce creative works involving it these days. Plenty of gunplay in prime time British drama.
  - baby 9y ago
    1. Examples of gunplay in prime time british drama? 2. this might still be because we're influence by the movies in the US
danielvf 9y ago
I lucked into learning to shoot with a small weekly local group that included a future many time US National Champion, and another person who was in the top five nationwide. Competitive pistol shooters actually use several different sight picture styles. In the speed styles of competitive shooting, the goal is to hit targets as fast as possible, so you want to make each shot in the "worst" way that will give you about a 95% chance of a hit. So for a close, low risk target, a shooter may look only at the target and ignore the sights, for a tiniest fraction more speed. For most targets, the looking at the front sight is correct. Shooters tend to lock their upper body into one shape, then pivot it from target to target while shooting a string. This locks the rear sight in just the right place behind the front one. When the front sight is put on target, the rear sight is automatically in the right place. It's true that the target does become blurred a little when you do this. Then for really far targets, you do have to bring your focus back a little farther, and see and care about both sights. The sight picture is not the only thing that changes from target to target. You usually budget the amount of time spent for each shot. Surprisingly, many pros know where their round will hit before it reaches the target. The time penalty for missing a shot is so high that it's almost always better to take a second shot in case of a miss. However, it takes a while for a pistol shot to reach the target, and for your eyes to see where it landed (plus you'd have to change your focus to look for it, then back again to your sights). To get around that, with practice, you can know in the moment you pull the trigger where the round went, and follow it up in about a twentieth of a second with another round. In most competitive pistol matches, the sequence of targets to be shot on a given stage is not rigidly defined. There are often plenty of constraints (this group must be shot before these) or timing related constraints in some sports (shooting this target will cause a pair of targets to pop up in 1.2 seconds). Given this, there's a surprising amount of planning that goes into discovering the optimum run. The details of each shot are then worked out and mentally rehearsed.
seibelj 9y ago
Anyone who is diehard anti-gun for personal use, I recommend taking a pistol class from a reputable organization, and keep an open mind. No one is telling you to get a license or buy a gun, just go take a class. They will teach you all about safety, how to shoot, gun cleaning and maintenance, and all of the basic skills needed to properly own a gun. Then if you are still diehard anti-gun, great! But if you have no experience, then taking a day to learn more might help you understand how the other side thinks.
- uberchet 9y ago
  This is good advice. I grew up hunting and shooting, but in adulthood have come to agree that reasonable gun control is really something we have to do. However, the gun vs. anti-gun divide in the US is as pure a split as exists on any policy position. Few on one side know or understand the thinking or positions of any on the other. People who don't shoot often don't know even the most basic things, like what differentiates a rifle from a shotgun, or what happens when a modern pistol runs out of bullets. They don't get the vast difference between a .22 and a 9mm on any level (size of projectile, powder load, etc.). And they certainly don't understand why pursuing something like a quote-unquote assault weapon ban is legislatively and logically difficult.
  - hansthehorse 9y ago
    I believe this pure split you refer to is the fault of the gun control advocates. In the mind of the 2nd amendment folks every compromise they have made has led to that being the new normal to build the next compromise, thus sliding down the slope. Both political parties would do well to soften their purity tests.
    - ythn 9y ago
      Well if one side only ever pushes in one direction and the other side only ever "compromises" to keep from being pushed too far, eventually the one side has everything they want (total gun control) and the other side has nothing. I'd like to see some compromise in the other direction too. Like "Ok, we'll relax CCP regulations or 'assault weapons' regulations so that normal citizens can have them, but in return we need to ramp up background checks in X and Y ways". That's how compromise should work, but instead with gun control it's very one-sided compromise.
ajmarsh 9y ago
There are improvements to be had in pistol sites that don't involve battery powered gimmicks. The trapezoid sights on Steyr M pistols for example. I rented one from my local range and it works well for new shooters.
- mtreis86 9y ago
  I found the length of the channel in between the rear sights makes a large difference for me in accuracy - compare [1] and [2]. The longer sight nearly eliminates (or at least makes the errors more obvious) the issues being discussed at the end of the article. By having a long sight you are forced to align the front closer to the center - there is almost no gaps between the left-gap-front-gap-right because the length of the sight occludes the front entirely if not aligned. Some stock sights are now being shipped with long rear aperture. This may make target acquisition take longer - I would be curious how professional and competition shooters feel about the difference. 1 http://cockedandlockedguns.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/IMG_28981.jpg http://cockedandlockedguns.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/IM... 2 http://assets.suredone.com/1928/media-photos/truglo131gt1y-1-truglo-131gt1y-tfo-tritium-fiber-optic-sight-glock-17-19-22-34-brite-yellow-rear.jpg http://assets.suredone.com/1928/media-photos/truglo131gt1y-1...
- ianamartin 9y ago
  Came here to say this. The Steyr Triangle front sight/Trapezoid rear sight is a really great improvement. Actually, the weapon itself is pretty much a work of art. I've had the 9mm and the .40 S&W versions, and they are my favorite shooting pistols of all time. Very low bore axis helps with aiming and recoil. It's technically a double action firing mechanism, but the trigger is crisp with a travel almost as short as a single action. Not at all spongy like cough some other striker fired polymer handguns.un-cough I know this discussion is really about sites, but after all the off-tpoic-ness we've had so far, I don't really feel bad derailing a little to talk about how much better this handgun is than pretty much any other. For reasons including the sights.
leroy_masochist 9y ago
It's also important to note for broader context that pistols, despite the number of people who take pistol accuracy seriously, are not really designed for precision marksmanship. For the use cases that really matter, you won't be taking well-aimed shots, you'll be trying to get rounds out of the weapon in the general direction of the threat as quickly as possible, in order to buy yourself some time and/or space. The front sight rule is not just the best aiming mechanism for the reasons of geometry described in the article, it's also the quickest way to acquire a basic sight picture under stressful conditions.
- Zak 9y ago
  While this is true in a sense, I suspect a great deal more pistol ammunition is expended in competitive shooting sports than is fired at people. People in speed-oriented pistol shooting competitions where optical sights are not allowed usually use a front sight containing a colored fiber optic that's easy to focus on quickly.
csours 9y ago
> "But optical sights small and robust enough to be mounted on a pistol slide are a recent development, and are costly; very few handguns have one mounted." This is still true, but pistol red dot sights are becoming more prevalent.
- TallGuyShort 9y ago
  Do be warned that there are jurisdictions that do not look favorably on self-defense shootings, and often page 1 in their playbook is to play up any modifications to the gun involved. The argument is that if you're interested in enhancing the performance of the gun, you must just be walking around itching to pop off a few rounds. Personally I'd feel like I'm in a weak position if a DA started telling a jury all about my high-tech "holographic reflex sight". So by all means mount a red dot sight for your 3-gun competition. Personally, after speaking to a few folks in the know in such places, my concealed carry / home defense gun is very conservative. I opted for the most popular handgun used by police with a very mainstream laser / flashlight combo instead. Hard to make me look like an extremist / survivalist gun nut if I ever had to use it. Something to think about, depending on where you live.
plazmatic 9y ago
Isn't this supposed to be a HACKERS NEWS blog? What in the hell does some article about pistol sights have to do with this? I literally only made an account to post about how absurd and out of place this article is. If I wanted some second amendment lovers blog (and I don't), I'd simply find one. Strike one, "hacker news". Strike one.
- squeaky-clean 9y ago
  It's not news about hackers, it's news for hackers (in the older usage of the word). And clearly lots of us find it interesting. You've got an account now, so you can click "hide", flag it if you feel it's inappropriate, and move on. If enough people agree, the flagging system should take it down.
- narrowrail 9y ago
  HN is a news aggregator. A blog is short for web-log: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blog https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blog These words have meaning, and your idea of a 'blog' is even worse than those people that don't know the difference between a blog post and a blog (a collection of posts).
plazmatic 9y ago
P.S. Thank god for the HIDE option, you second amendment freaks are everywhere. Back under the bridge you go, losers. #ImpeachTrump
OliverJones 9y ago
Interesting that the author didn't mention ambient light levels explicitly. A constricted pupil (from daylight) has a much greater depth of field than a dilated one (from darkness). So everything will appear sharper in the light of day. Do at least some practice in low light conditions.
- rkangel 9y ago
  He explicitly does: > That last number might be twice as large in the dimmest of light or half as large in bright light; and the blurriness from being out of focus scales in direct proportion to it. So if you’re shooting in full daylight, you might have only half as much blurriness as shown in the following images. But your enemies may not do you the courtesy of attacking in full daylight.
exabrial 9y ago
I prefer shooting iron sights under 150yds, but I use peep sites, which don't suffer as many problems. Fascinating analysis!
bawana 9y ago
Gun safety should be taught in school. Just like driver's ed. Why do we give no attention to these weapons which are real, commonly available and impossible to eliminate from our world? Showing teenagers 3 months of ballistic videos of various projectiles going through gelatin will give them a better appreciation for reality, rather than relying on games like call of duty to 'mis-educate' them. What can possibly be learned by an 18 year old in a single hour safety course prior to getting an FID ? And knowing when a gun is being handled safely will prevent many of the accidents that occur when the naive start handling a gun like they've seen done on television and film.
- Helmet 9y ago
  No, it really shouldn't be. Math, science, language arts, etc should be taught in schools, like, you know, every fucking first world country in the world.
  - cmbuck 9y ago
    > like, you know, every fucking first world country in the world I don't find this a very compelling argument and it comes off as a personal attack rather than composed intellectual rationale. Instead of saying why you think this is a poor idea, you essentially say this is a poor idea because no one else does it--which is the exact thought process that stifles innovation and new ideas. Regardless of whether teaching gun safety at that age is a good idea, your argument against it leaves much to be desired.
tahabi 9y ago
What are the rates of gun ownership among hackers? Conversations with old alumni from school indicate that back in the day, a lot of them were firearms enthusiasts, but it seems that trend died out near the turn of the century. I know MIT still has a rifle and pistol range, however.

372 points by luu 9y ago

Near the end of the article, he mentions that some people say that it's more difficult to aim a weapon that has a shorter sight radius. Actually, I think it's more accurate to say that having your sights out of alignment with shorter sight radius will have a more dramatic effect on your accuracy.

electrograv 9y ago
Or put another way, a shorter sight radius by a factor of X makes it X times harder to visually confirm your iron sights are correctly aligned. This makes the visual-mental-physical feedback loop of keeping them aligned as precisely as you possibly can, much more difficult. Shooting accurately is much more than just physically holding the barrel steady; it's a whole "symphony" of coordination, involving physical, visual and mental components.
- RUG3Y 9y ago
  That's a great way to explain it.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

cynicalbastard 9y ago

> I was told once by a proficient pistol shooter that he ignored where the front sight was on the target, and paid attention only to the alignment of the two sights relative to each other. Since he did in fact hit the target, is the "two sights" here the rear sight which has two posts, or the two sites as in front sight + rear sight? several pages of reading and then .. an ambiguously worded conclusion.

function_seven 9y ago
He means the sights. Like you said, the rear site is composed of two posts, the front sight has one post.
mgarfias 9y ago
He means the front sight and rear sight.

electrograv 9y ago

If you're interested in the science behind this, you may be even more interested in learning how peephole style rear iron sights almost eliminate the dual sight alignment problem of goal-post style rear sights (as commonly found on pistols). The rear peep sight on rifles take advantage of actual "optical effects", without any glass -- much like a pinhole camera can actually magnify images without any lenses or mirrors at all. By simply providing an arbitrarily small "aperature" you're looking through in the rear, the front-rear sight alignment problem is not only capped at an upper bound of error (defined by the peephole size and sight radius), but the actual error from front-rear sight misalignment is visually magnified and centered through a fixed viewing point, making it vastly easier to keep the actual error near zero. So generally, to achieve precision within the (small) upper bound of error with a peephole sight, all you need to do is place the front sight post on the target when looking through the rear peep sight. Even better precision is made much easier via a sort of "peephole camera" effect through the aperature of the rear sight.

arthur_trudeau 9y ago
Palma competitors routinely hit out to 1000 yards with iron sights (in reality, aperture sights). They are extremely effective.
- fivestar 9y ago
  Palma rifles don't have post front sights. They use adjustable front and rear apertures. You still generally focus on the front sight. All you do with the rear is center up the front in the rear and the target is blurry but centered in the front one. This is the same for really any distance from 50 feet up to 1000 yards. And yes, I have been involved in those competitions. The hard part is having a solid hold and body control, reading the wind, and having super consistent ammunition that you intimately know all the elevation adjustments for. The remainder is how much money you spent on your barrel and how many rounds it has down it. A tight shooting coat helps a great deal, too. I got bored with the whole thing when it occurred to me that I was just throwing money at barrels and other gear. Not to say that the game isn't highly competitive, but like auto racing, it's a money thing. Similar to many such pursuits, to take it to the max you will pretty much end up divorced.

xtreme 9y ago

I wonder if this is related to [Hyperfocal Distance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperfocal_distance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperfocal_distance), a concept familiar to many photographers. Roughly, if you focus on the background (infinity), the foreground would be blurry; and vice-versa. If you focus about ~1/3rd into the scene, you'd have everything in reasonably sharp focus. Unlike camera lenses, our eyes can't easily focus on an arbitrary distance without an object being present there. Perhaps the front sight is working as an approximation of the hyperfocal distance.

kbart 9y ago
To stay hyperfocused, you would have to keep your sight focused on a certain dot (probably between sights and target), so it would be extremely hard to align iron sights without focusing on them as our eyes/brain automatically focus on things of interested. Peripheral vision training might help, but I believe, it still would be much harder than aiming in traditional way (focused on front sight only). Actually, our vision is extremely adaptive and after few sessions of practice shooting you don't even notice blurring anymore as it becomes natural. "Perhaps the front sight is working as an approximation of the hyperfocal distance." I haven't seen such gun yet. It would not be practical as distance of a target and illumination (two key factors for hyperfocus of human eye) varies greatly.

chrissnell 9y ago

Going target shooting is incredibly relaxing and a great break from the workday. The focus required to sight in a target and control one's breathing, arm, and finger movement is a very powerful relaxant to me and melts stress away. I work from home and I live in the burbs so pistol or rifle shooting is not possible. However, I've gotten really hooked on shooting (of all things) my Red Ryder BB gun. It doesn't make a loud noise, it costs almost nothing to shoot, and it's surprisingly accurate for how inexpensive it is. These little BB guns have iron sights like the article discusses. My favorite thing to shoot is little plastic bottles--particularly the ones that over-the-counter medication comes in. They're durable and make a nice popping noise when you hit them. I put them on little stakes in the back yard at about 10-15 yards and shoot at them from my deck. As I got better, I made up little games, like shooting them in a sequence and trying to get 100% accuracy. I find it easy to get back to writing code after doing this for five or ten minutes.

solotronics 9y ago
shooting for me is incredibly therapeutic you can devote a large portion of your concentration to it and disconnect your brain for a while. I think some of the appeal is that you can see an immediate result of your effort and therefore can attempt to analyze and calibrate your performance. I really recommend shooting with advanced holographic optics because it brings you closer to your own reactions and can help hone your skill.
- JoeAltmaier 9y ago
  I have the same experience! Whatever is going on in my life, when I look down the sights my concentration becomes wholly focused on the moment. Its startling how centered I come out of a target shooting session.
gadders 9y ago
I think any hobby that requires a high level of concentration is relaxing as it makes you focus on that activity and forget other worries. I've had the same effect from lifting and fly fishing.

c517402 9y ago

Instead of using convolution to produce the imagery, I think it should be produced using fractional Fourier transforms. IIRC fractional Fourier transforms are mathematically equivalent to Fraunhofer and Fresnel diffraction integrals. Although, the convolutions look good.

wnkrshm 9y ago
I'm also not super up-to-date on my Fourier optics but I had to research again a bit, as I had something in the back of my brain telling me: Hey, there was something with simple convolutions in Fourier optics and I know spatial convolution with a response function is used extensively to gauge the resultion of your system's image due to diffraction in the system. Within the Fresnel approximation, the output field can either be formed in a frequency-domain approach with a spectrum of plane waves or as a spatial superposition of paraboloid waves (in which the transfer function is inverse-fourier transformed and then convolved with the input field). And the latter approach is simply a convolution of the input field (in position space) with an impulse-response function of the linear (and shift-invariant) optical system between. Shift invariance (i.e. the response function itself isn't position dependent) is an okay approximation for the central FOV of the human eye. So what he's doing, the formalism, is kinda correct within the Fresnel regime, only he uses an approximation for the impulse-response function itself. This impulse-response function is called the PSF or Point-Spread Function in imaging optics design, defined as the image (including diffraction effects of course) of a point source. His approximation as a disk is okay-ish, qualitatively (google "PSF of human eye defocus") but I didn't check the numbers for the size.

binarytransform 9y ago

Former JSOC dude here. Circumstances requiring engaging with pistols == bad day for everyone, so only a few things matter. Front sight focus (which implies maintaining equidistance from the rear sight posts), both eyes open, fast presentation, parallel grip, smooth trigger pull, reacquire, repeat as necessary. And optical sights = more things that can break / run out of batteries / fall off and make noise / etc etc.

gadders 9y ago
You may be former JSOC, but I've played Call of Duty.
- binarytransform 9y ago
  Did we just become best friends? Someone fire up the GoldenEye. Slappers only!
  - gadders 9y ago
    TBH, I was lying for comedic effect. I mostly play Borderlands 2 now. I don't like anything with too much strategy. //edit// Sorry if that sounds too rude. Email in my profile if you want my Steam ID.
    - pc86 9y ago
      > Call of Duty > strategy You've outed yourself, I'm afraid.
      - gadders 9y ago
        Maybe strategy isn't the right word. Maybe stealth would have been better.
    - gkya 9y ago
      CoD became so complex... CoD2 is the only game I ever liked. Maybe I'm too stupidbut I don't know, I can't play any other fps.

euroclydon 9y ago

I have this little drill I do, with a iron sighted handgun or rifle. I give myself no more than 2 seconds to bring the weapon up, acquire the target a shoot. I can pay attention to the rear sights, but then I never hit anything. In this drill, I've found that maintaining a consistent body position, and only paying attention to the front sight yields the best results. I just put the front sight on the target and pull the trigger. Distance about 10-15 yards. Target is soda can.

madengr 9y ago
I shoot the small size paper plates. If you are missing those, you are shooting too fast. If you are consistently hitting center, you are shooting too slow. 2-3x diameter of the paper plate is about center of mass for a person, so that 3x spread in shot during stress should still result in a hit.

baby 9y ago

Kind of off-topic. But I had a thought the other day: without the US we wouldn't have action movies like James Bond or FPS and other shooters video games. It's interesting to see that guns are rare in other countries' movies/discussions. Maybe FPS would all be like Nintendo's octopus thing.

tim333 9y ago
Dunno - James Bond is kind of English. Not just the character but the writer and the film production. The character was actually fairly closely based on the author http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/jamesbond/11026227/Ian-Fleming-the-real-James-Bond.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/jamesbond/11026227/I...
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- baby 9y ago
  Good point, but the James Bond of nowadays (Jack Reacher, john wick, etc...) are all American movies now.
thristian 9y ago
You may be interested in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=os3lWIuGsXE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=os3lWIuGsXE
rkangel 9y ago
James Bond comes from a time before handgun control in the UK (the films are based on books written in the 50s and 60s). Gun culture existed in the UK then in a way that it doesn't now. That doesn't mean we can't and don't produce creative works involving it these days. Plenty of gunplay in prime time British drama.
- baby 9y ago
  1. Examples of gunplay in prime time british drama? 2. this might still be because we're influence by the movies in the US

danielvf 9y ago

I lucked into learning to shoot with a small weekly local group that included a future many time US National Champion, and another person who was in the top five nationwide. Competitive pistol shooters actually use several different sight picture styles. In the speed styles of competitive shooting, the goal is to hit targets as fast as possible, so you want to make each shot in the "worst" way that will give you about a 95% chance of a hit. So for a close, low risk target, a shooter may look only at the target and ignore the sights, for a tiniest fraction more speed. For most targets, the looking at the front sight is correct. Shooters tend to lock their upper body into one shape, then pivot it from target to target while shooting a string. This locks the rear sight in just the right place behind the front one. When the front sight is put on target, the rear sight is automatically in the right place. It's true that the target does become blurred a little when you do this. Then for really far targets, you do have to bring your focus back a little farther, and see and care about both sights. The sight picture is not the only thing that changes from target to target. You usually budget the amount of time spent for each shot. Surprisingly, many pros know where their round will hit before it reaches the target. The time penalty for missing a shot is so high that it's almost always better to take a second shot in case of a miss. However, it takes a while for a pistol shot to reach the target, and for your eyes to see where it landed (plus you'd have to change your focus to look for it, then back again to your sights). To get around that, with practice, you can know in the moment you pull the trigger where the round went, and follow it up in about a twentieth of a second with another round. In most competitive pistol matches, the sequence of targets to be shot on a given stage is not rigidly defined. There are often plenty of constraints (this group must be shot before these) or timing related constraints in some sports (shooting this target will cause a pair of targets to pop up in 1.2 seconds). Given this, there's a surprising amount of planning that goes into discovering the optimum run. The details of each shot are then worked out and mentally rehearsed.

seibelj 9y ago

Anyone who is diehard anti-gun for personal use, I recommend taking a pistol class from a reputable organization, and keep an open mind. No one is telling you to get a license or buy a gun, just go take a class. They will teach you all about safety, how to shoot, gun cleaning and maintenance, and all of the basic skills needed to properly own a gun. Then if you are still diehard anti-gun, great! But if you have no experience, then taking a day to learn more might help you understand how the other side thinks.

uberchet 9y ago
This is good advice. I grew up hunting and shooting, but in adulthood have come to agree that reasonable gun control is really something we have to do. However, the gun vs. anti-gun divide in the US is as pure a split as exists on any policy position. Few on one side know or understand the thinking or positions of any on the other. People who don't shoot often don't know even the most basic things, like what differentiates a rifle from a shotgun, or what happens when a modern pistol runs out of bullets. They don't get the vast difference between a .22 and a 9mm on any level (size of projectile, powder load, etc.). And they certainly don't understand why pursuing something like a quote-unquote assault weapon ban is legislatively and logically difficult.
- hansthehorse 9y ago
  I believe this pure split you refer to is the fault of the gun control advocates. In the mind of the 2nd amendment folks every compromise they have made has led to that being the new normal to build the next compromise, thus sliding down the slope. Both political parties would do well to soften their purity tests.
  - ythn 9y ago
    Well if one side only ever pushes in one direction and the other side only ever "compromises" to keep from being pushed too far, eventually the one side has everything they want (total gun control) and the other side has nothing. I'd like to see some compromise in the other direction too. Like "Ok, we'll relax CCP regulations or 'assault weapons' regulations so that normal citizens can have them, but in return we need to ramp up background checks in X and Y ways". That's how compromise should work, but instead with gun control it's very one-sided compromise.

ajmarsh 9y ago

There are improvements to be had in pistol sites that don't involve battery powered gimmicks. The trapezoid sights on Steyr M pistols for example. I rented one from my local range and it works well for new shooters.

mtreis86 9y ago
I found the length of the channel in between the rear sights makes a large difference for me in accuracy - compare [1] and [2]. The longer sight nearly eliminates (or at least makes the errors more obvious) the issues being discussed at the end of the article. By having a long sight you are forced to align the front closer to the center - there is almost no gaps between the left-gap-front-gap-right because the length of the sight occludes the front entirely if not aligned. Some stock sights are now being shipped with long rear aperture. This may make target acquisition take longer - I would be curious how professional and competition shooters feel about the difference. 1 http://cockedandlockedguns.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/IMG_28981.jpg http://cockedandlockedguns.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/IM... 2 http://assets.suredone.com/1928/media-photos/truglo131gt1y-1-truglo-131gt1y-tfo-tritium-fiber-optic-sight-glock-17-19-22-34-brite-yellow-rear.jpg http://assets.suredone.com/1928/media-photos/truglo131gt1y-1...
ianamartin 9y ago
Came here to say this. The Steyr Triangle front sight/Trapezoid rear sight is a really great improvement. Actually, the weapon itself is pretty much a work of art. I've had the 9mm and the .40 S&W versions, and they are my favorite shooting pistols of all time. Very low bore axis helps with aiming and recoil. It's technically a double action firing mechanism, but the trigger is crisp with a travel almost as short as a single action. Not at all spongy like cough some other striker fired polymer handguns.un-cough I know this discussion is really about sites, but after all the off-tpoic-ness we've had so far, I don't really feel bad derailing a little to talk about how much better this handgun is than pretty much any other. For reasons including the sights.

leroy_masochist 9y ago

It's also important to note for broader context that pistols, despite the number of people who take pistol accuracy seriously, are not really designed for precision marksmanship. For the use cases that really matter, you won't be taking well-aimed shots, you'll be trying to get rounds out of the weapon in the general direction of the threat as quickly as possible, in order to buy yourself some time and/or space. The front sight rule is not just the best aiming mechanism for the reasons of geometry described in the article, it's also the quickest way to acquire a basic sight picture under stressful conditions.

Zak 9y ago
While this is true in a sense, I suspect a great deal more pistol ammunition is expended in competitive shooting sports than is fired at people. People in speed-oriented pistol shooting competitions where optical sights are not allowed usually use a front sight containing a colored fiber optic that's easy to focus on quickly.

csours 9y ago

> "But optical sights small and robust enough to be mounted on a pistol slide are a recent development, and are costly; very few handguns have one mounted." This is still true, but pistol red dot sights are becoming more prevalent.

TallGuyShort 9y ago
Do be warned that there are jurisdictions that do not look favorably on self-defense shootings, and often page 1 in their playbook is to play up any modifications to the gun involved. The argument is that if you're interested in enhancing the performance of the gun, you must just be walking around itching to pop off a few rounds. Personally I'd feel like I'm in a weak position if a DA started telling a jury all about my high-tech "holographic reflex sight". So by all means mount a red dot sight for your 3-gun competition. Personally, after speaking to a few folks in the know in such places, my concealed carry / home defense gun is very conservative. I opted for the most popular handgun used by police with a very mainstream laser / flashlight combo instead. Hard to make me look like an extremist / survivalist gun nut if I ever had to use it. Something to think about, depending on where you live.

plazmatic 9y ago

Isn't this supposed to be a HACKERS NEWS blog? What in the hell does some article about pistol sights have to do with this? I literally only made an account to post about how absurd and out of place this article is. If I wanted some second amendment lovers blog (and I don't), I'd simply find one. Strike one, "hacker news". Strike one.

squeaky-clean 9y ago
It's not news about hackers, it's news for hackers (in the older usage of the word). And clearly lots of us find it interesting. You've got an account now, so you can click "hide", flag it if you feel it's inappropriate, and move on. If enough people agree, the flagging system should take it down.
narrowrail 9y ago
HN is a news aggregator. A blog is short for web-log: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blog https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blog These words have meaning, and your idea of a 'blog' is even worse than those people that don't know the difference between a blog post and a blog (a collection of posts).

plazmatic 9y ago

P.S. Thank god for the HIDE option, you second amendment freaks are everywhere. Back under the bridge you go, losers. #ImpeachTrump

OliverJones 9y ago

Interesting that the author didn't mention ambient light levels explicitly. A constricted pupil (from daylight) has a much greater depth of field than a dilated one (from darkness). So everything will appear sharper in the light of day. Do at least some practice in low light conditions.

rkangel 9y ago
He explicitly does: > That last number might be twice as large in the dimmest of light or half as large in bright light; and the blurriness from being out of focus scales in direct proportion to it. So if you’re shooting in full daylight, you might have only half as much blurriness as shown in the following images. But your enemies may not do you the courtesy of attacking in full daylight.

exabrial 9y ago

I prefer shooting iron sights under 150yds, but I use peep sites, which don't suffer as many problems. Fascinating analysis!

bawana 9y ago

Gun safety should be taught in school. Just like driver's ed. Why do we give no attention to these weapons which are real, commonly available and impossible to eliminate from our world? Showing teenagers 3 months of ballistic videos of various projectiles going through gelatin will give them a better appreciation for reality, rather than relying on games like call of duty to 'mis-educate' them. What can possibly be learned by an 18 year old in a single hour safety course prior to getting an FID ? And knowing when a gun is being handled safely will prevent many of the accidents that occur when the naive start handling a gun like they've seen done on television and film.

Helmet 9y ago
No, it really shouldn't be. Math, science, language arts, etc should be taught in schools, like, you know, every fucking first world country in the world.
- cmbuck 9y ago
  > like, you know, every fucking first world country in the world I don't find this a very compelling argument and it comes off as a personal attack rather than composed intellectual rationale. Instead of saying why you think this is a poor idea, you essentially say this is a poor idea because no one else does it--which is the exact thought process that stifles innovation and new ideas. Regardless of whether teaching gun safety at that age is a good idea, your argument against it leaves much to be desired.

tahabi 9y ago

What are the rates of gun ownership among hackers? Conversations with old alumni from school indicate that back in the day, a lot of them were firearms enthusiasts, but it seems that trend died out near the turn of the century. I know MIT still has a rifle and pistol range, however.