4 ms·

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

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.

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.