4 ms·

New technology makes for more accurate guns

23 points by edw519 17y ago

nas 17y ago
Not too much detail. I wonder how this compares to a peep hole sight. A circle seems just as simple as a triangle, perhaps simpler.
- icey 17y ago
  I think it's a similar concept, except this is much more conducive to mounting on a pistol since a peep sight would be kind of cumbersome.
icey 17y ago
This is definitely a pretty cool hack. It will be interesting to see how much (if any) impact it has on the less well trained shooters. For people who don't shoot a lot, accuracy is impacted much more by grip, posture and trigger control. Where this sort of thing would come in handy would be with people who are well trained, but need to be able to acquire targets quickly.
- bwhite 17y ago
  Spot on. At handgun distances (say under 20 meters) the issues of trigger control and grip are going to dominate the quality of the sights, as long as they are half decent. Since good shooting practice is to focus on the front sight, thus rendering the rear sight fuzzy, that rear sight has to be useful while out of focus. Consider the classic Novak sight. The front sight is a rectangular post that fills the gap that is the rectangular notch of the rear sight. Also, the front sight post and two rear sight posts have colored (white or glow-in-the-dark) dots that form a 3-dot line that is parallel to the ground when aligned. This type of sight leverages our ability to spot horizontal lines, something that our vision/brain is very good at doing: lining up the top of front sight such that it is flush with the top of the rear sight and forming a proper 3-dot line that is in line with the ground. This type of sight is pretty accurate and permits fast acquisition. It looks like the pointing-in of the rear sight to form the triangle is somewhat subtle. I am unconvinced that the headless triangle is sufficiently discernable whilst fuzzy. And it doesn't offer multiple cues like the Novak. And it seems like it would take longer to acquire a good sight picture. Still, I could see how this would be very useful at relative fixed distances in the hands of a trained shooter.
bonsaitree 17y ago
A good sight is not just about absolute accuracy & precision, but about speed of acquisition of a "reasonable" sight picture given the existing context and time-task window for making the decision to fire. In other words, a good optical 'combat' sight geometry tends to be very different from a good 'target' sight. Both ghost-ring, for shoulder-mounted, and 3-Dot for hand-mounted (e.g. pistol) sights have already been tested extensively (in the lab) and field-proven for close-quarters and near-field target acquisition under actual battlefield conditions. Some numbers please? A control please? FFS even a 1-sample comparison versus existing 22LR Olympic target pistol competition sight? None are to be found in this "article". Not to take anything away from Mr. Kraft's work, but optical ballistic sighting is a field where one size definitely does not fit all. Until then, this is nothing more than cheap 'pop sci' link-bait jurinalism from CNET. It must've been a slow news week for Mr. Matyszczyk--the "author" of the post.
- ramchip 17y ago
  A good sight is not just about absolute accuracy & precision, but about speed of acquisition of a "reasonable" sight picture given the existing context and time-task window for making the decision to fire. They talked precisely about that; according to the inventor, part of the reason he thinks it might be better is that filling in a shape is a natural and fast. Other than that, your point appears to be that if there are no tables and numbers, nobody should write an article about the invention, lest it becomes "cheap 'pop sci' link-bait jurinalism", and then you go on to insult the "author" of the "article" (do we really need the condescending quotes?). Not a big deal, this being the internet, trolls trolling trolls, etc., but I've been seeing this kind of ultra-negative comments get upvoted a lot recently. It used to be an honour reserved for Techcrunch and Coding Horror posts ;)
  - bonsaitree 17y ago
    Did you read the same article and view the same video? There were absolutely no mentions of "acquisition speed", nor precision of said sight picture relative to that speed, nor any trade-offs associated between these two critical variables in sight performance. A good sight tries to achieve the right balance between these values for the given application. As a competitive shooter, I'm sure that Mr. Kraft has made these conscious trade-offs in his design, but none of these fundamentals are mentioned in the article nor in the accompanying video. "No one has re-thought the basic principles of a pistol sight for a hundred years" Really? 3-Dot? L.E.D illuminated? Fiber Optic blade? Is even a basic Wikipedia search beyond this author's reach? http://tinyurl.com/y8p2sc6 http://tinyurl.com/y8p2sc6 IF the literal headline for an article is "New technology makes for more accurate guns", you had best back-up that claim with some credible evidence. No evidence was offered or were ANY comparisons made against alternative sight designs--either on a qualitative nor quantitative basis. This article was not authored. It is mere video stenography. Before you judge the merits of the insult, I urge to to examine other works by Mr. Matyszczyk. Is this the sort of journalistic standard to which a technology-centric site such as CNET wishes to give its imprimatur? Sadly, it appears so.
dustingetz 17y ago
pop culture hints that well practiced shooters sort of just feel their target, they aren't really deliberately aiming with the sights per se. seems intuitive to me that aiming becomes rote with practice. i wonder if this sight would make a difference to a rote shooter.

23 points by edw519 17y ago

nas 17y ago

Not too much detail. I wonder how this compares to a peep hole sight. A circle seems just as simple as a triangle, perhaps simpler.

icey 17y ago
I think it's a similar concept, except this is much more conducive to mounting on a pistol since a peep sight would be kind of cumbersome.

icey 17y ago

This is definitely a pretty cool hack. It will be interesting to see how much (if any) impact it has on the less well trained shooters. For people who don't shoot a lot, accuracy is impacted much more by grip, posture and trigger control. Where this sort of thing would come in handy would be with people who are well trained, but need to be able to acquire targets quickly.

bwhite 17y ago
Spot on. At handgun distances (say under 20 meters) the issues of trigger control and grip are going to dominate the quality of the sights, as long as they are half decent. Since good shooting practice is to focus on the front sight, thus rendering the rear sight fuzzy, that rear sight has to be useful while out of focus. Consider the classic Novak sight. The front sight is a rectangular post that fills the gap that is the rectangular notch of the rear sight. Also, the front sight post and two rear sight posts have colored (white or glow-in-the-dark) dots that form a 3-dot line that is parallel to the ground when aligned. This type of sight leverages our ability to spot horizontal lines, something that our vision/brain is very good at doing: lining up the top of front sight such that it is flush with the top of the rear sight and forming a proper 3-dot line that is in line with the ground. This type of sight is pretty accurate and permits fast acquisition. It looks like the pointing-in of the rear sight to form the triangle is somewhat subtle. I am unconvinced that the headless triangle is sufficiently discernable whilst fuzzy. And it doesn't offer multiple cues like the Novak. And it seems like it would take longer to acquire a good sight picture. Still, I could see how this would be very useful at relative fixed distances in the hands of a trained shooter.

bonsaitree 17y ago

A good sight is not just about absolute accuracy & precision, but about speed of acquisition of a "reasonable" sight picture given the existing context and time-task window for making the decision to fire. In other words, a good optical 'combat' sight geometry tends to be very different from a good 'target' sight. Both ghost-ring, for shoulder-mounted, and 3-Dot for hand-mounted (e.g. pistol) sights have already been tested extensively (in the lab) and field-proven for close-quarters and near-field target acquisition under actual battlefield conditions. Some numbers please? A control please? FFS even a 1-sample comparison versus existing 22LR Olympic target pistol competition sight? None are to be found in this "article". Not to take anything away from Mr. Kraft's work, but optical ballistic sighting is a field where one size definitely does not fit all. Until then, this is nothing more than cheap 'pop sci' link-bait jurinalism from CNET. It must've been a slow news week for Mr. Matyszczyk--the "author" of the post.

ramchip 17y ago
A good sight is not just about absolute accuracy & precision, but about speed of acquisition of a "reasonable" sight picture given the existing context and time-task window for making the decision to fire. They talked precisely about that; according to the inventor, part of the reason he thinks it might be better is that filling in a shape is a natural and fast. Other than that, your point appears to be that if there are no tables and numbers, nobody should write an article about the invention, lest it becomes "cheap 'pop sci' link-bait jurinalism", and then you go on to insult the "author" of the "article" (do we really need the condescending quotes?). Not a big deal, this being the internet, trolls trolling trolls, etc., but I've been seeing this kind of ultra-negative comments get upvoted a lot recently. It used to be an honour reserved for Techcrunch and Coding Horror posts ;)
- bonsaitree 17y ago
  Did you read the same article and view the same video? There were absolutely no mentions of "acquisition speed", nor precision of said sight picture relative to that speed, nor any trade-offs associated between these two critical variables in sight performance. A good sight tries to achieve the right balance between these values for the given application. As a competitive shooter, I'm sure that Mr. Kraft has made these conscious trade-offs in his design, but none of these fundamentals are mentioned in the article nor in the accompanying video. "No one has re-thought the basic principles of a pistol sight for a hundred years" Really? 3-Dot? L.E.D illuminated? Fiber Optic blade? Is even a basic Wikipedia search beyond this author's reach? http://tinyurl.com/y8p2sc6 http://tinyurl.com/y8p2sc6 IF the literal headline for an article is "New technology makes for more accurate guns", you had best back-up that claim with some credible evidence. No evidence was offered or were ANY comparisons made against alternative sight designs--either on a qualitative nor quantitative basis. This article was not authored. It is mere video stenography. Before you judge the merits of the insult, I urge to to examine other works by Mr. Matyszczyk. Is this the sort of journalistic standard to which a technology-centric site such as CNET wishes to give its imprimatur? Sadly, it appears so.

dustingetz 17y ago

pop culture hints that well practiced shooters sort of just feel their target, they aren't really deliberately aiming with the sights per se. seems intuitive to me that aiming becomes rote with practice. i wonder if this sight would make a difference to a rote shooter.