Seeing things differently....

[5cary]

I thought that is was the reasoning behind using RDS for CQB. It is said that its impossible for a human, under the stress of being shot it, to focus on the front sight as you would normally.

I think you are correct. When I said "would default to it" I meant shooting with both eyes open, not necessarily focusing on the front sight. We trained for that. Most people don't. I also agree the purpose of the RDS was to make it easier.

I disagree that it would be "impossible" for a human under stress to focus on the front sight. Difficult, maybe. But if it's really impossible then I've been wasting many years of training.

[Zane1844]

I think you are correct. When I said "would default to it" I meant shooting with both eyes open, not necessarily focusing on the front sight. We trained for that. Most people don't. I also agree the purpose of the RDS was to make it easier.

I disagree that it would be "impossible" for a human under stress to focus on the front sight. Difficult, maybe. But if it's really impossible then I've been wasting many years of training.

You'd know better than I.

I think the "impossible" is more related to looking at the front sight instead of the target. I, however, do not know.

The telling situation would be when the optic fails as you walk through a doorway- as an example- and then have to transition to irons. I think naturally I would try to use Front sight as I look through the optic.

[JSantoro]

Search button in the header, keywords both eyes open, limited to thread titles only, limited to the Training and Tactics subforum: https://www.m4carbine.net/search.php?searchid=5774754

[rackham1]

You cannot shoot both eyes open with rifle iron sights when shooting at longer ranges, due to having to line up the front sight post with the rear aperture/dipoter in order to achieve POA/POI or acceptable accuracy. At least I find it easier to do this with one eye closed

I respectfully disagree. To me, shooting 2 eyes open with rifle irons is no different than 2 eyes open with pistol sights, within any "reasonable" range (couple hundred yards). Although I'll qualify that my perspective is that of a hunter/woodsman, not a professional gunfighter. Still, I'd ask anyone to explain why there would be a difference (in a longer range context, specifically).

[markm]

I don't close an eye with irons unless I'm taking a long range or slow fire precision shot.

[Arctic1]

I respectfully disagree. To me, shooting 2 eyes open with rifle irons is no different than 2 eyes open with pistol sights, within any "reasonable" range (couple hundred yards). Although I'll qualify that my perspective is that of a hunter/woodsman, not a professional gunfighter. Still, I'd ask anyone to explain why there would be a difference (in a longer range context, specifically).

Well, like I stated in the last sentence, I find it easier to do it this way when looking through an aperture or diopter.

It is easier to line up the sights precisely when I close one eye.

When using a notch type rear sight it is easier to shoot with both eyes open.

Although I see that my wording was a bit more absolute in nature than intended.

[Arctic1]

I don't close an eye with irons unless I'm taking a long range or slow fire precision shot.

Sort of my point....

I guess the big question is what is defined as long range, and what size target requires slow precision fire....

The black circle on the bullseye targets I shoot when zeroing or shooting precision fire/shooting for groups is:

6 cm on the 30 meter target
60 cm on the 200 meter target

Accepted groups are within a 4,5 cm circle on the 30 meter target and within a 40 cm circle @ 200 meters.

These will always be precision shots, in terms of the size of the black circle. I shoot better groups than these of course.

[rackham1]

Although I see that my wording was a bit more absolute in nature than intended.

No worries, Arctic. I respect your posts and I did catch the "this is what works for me" in your last sentence.

You're right of course, about the question being what defines "long range" and "precision shots". Another question is one's background... I recognize that many of the SMEs on the forum (whose shooting knowledge far exceed mine) are not hunters, but every now and then there are hunting skills which are valuable to the discussion but perhaps aren't given their due by the SMEs simply because it never comes up in their professional training.

For example, in the accuracy standards you mentioned I think you're saying these are precision shots that might drive closing one eye. But for me hitting a 6" target zone on a moving deer at 100 yards (which I think is within the MOA you mentioned) with both eyes open over open sights is relatively easy and far from a precision shot. Staying within 45cm at 200m (18" at ~220 yards, right?) on a moving deer is beyond my comfort level for an ethical kill, although I know I could do it. And I shoot turkeys in the neck/head at ~35 yards with both eyes open over a rimfire rifle (but with 3x magnification) pretty easily as well. Nothing special about any of that... most hunters could probably do better than me.

Now if I was bench shooting for score or at very long range (which for me is only 300+) I would definitely close my non-sighting eye but only to tune out the extra "situational awareness" that I'd normally want to retain while hunting. (And in this scenario you, markm, etc. would undoubtedly out-shoot me pretty easily)

Not trying to drag this out at all... I'm just saying that in just about any defensive situation I can think of (which is what I assume was the context of the OP), I don't see any reason to ever close the non-sighting eye. Just like anything else, it's a matter of training and practice. Thanks for the discussion.

[MistWolf]

I keep both eyes open regardless of the range or precision of the shot being taken. I find aperture sights much easier to use than notch type sights and post type front sight easier to use than a bead. As I grow older, I find I need a larger aperture than I did when younger.

PS- While many refer to the HK style sight as a diopter sight, it is incorrect. It is simply an aperture sight. A diopter is a measurement of optical correction. There is a company that offer diopter correction rear aperture sights for Service Rifle match shooters

[Failure2Stop]

I thought that is was the reasoning behind using RDS for CQB. It is said that its impossible for a human, under the stress of being shot it, to focus on the front sight as you would normally.


That is why the RDS have been used in the military. You will naturally focus on the target that is threatening you while you engage it, and then the red dot will just be there.

I disagree on point 1.
While it requires training, it is absolutely possible to achieve front sight focus under dire conditions.

I agree on point 2, in that it is easier to achieve the same general precision with a target focus with an RDS, especially under the conditions that most gunfights happen in, while being able to constantly maintain awareness and recognition of the threat.

Typos brought to you via Tapatalk and autocorrect.