Chapter II: Aiming

ONE EYE AIMING. BINOCULAR SHOOTING. GUN POINTING

Wing-shooting is of comparatively modern origin. A hundred years ago very few birds were killed a-wing, and those with a long barreled old flintlock that usually had double sights and was fired with what we should consider a slow, pottering aim. Wing-shooting really dates from the invention of percussion caps in a practical form, about 1830, and the present style of shotgun shooting is of very modern origin.

Naturally the rifle method of aiming had its influence for a good many years, a full half century in fact, long after the invention of breechloading guns. The old manner of shooting a shotgun was to close one eye and squint low over the breech, theoretically never pulling trigger until the front bead was accurately aligned upon the target. Many an old veteran still speaks learnedly of “drawing a bead” on the game. The author’s wing-shooting career has been connected with the breechloader only, yet in his first lessons, given by his father, the necessity of closing one eye if any accuracy of aim were to be attained, was strongly emphasized. In truth the primer of gun firing was to learn to close one eye instantly and invariably preparatory to aiming, and the second principle was not to shut them both before pulling the trigger. If in those days any man had discovered that he could kill game by simply pointing his gun without closing his eye or seeing a sight, he would never have had courage enough openly to advocate such a system of gun aiming.

Doubtless the coming of nitro powder has had much to do with the development of our present slap-bang fashion of shotgun shooting, yet due credit should be given to Doctor Carver who is properly entitled to be called the father of modern wing-shooting. Probably no less wonderful shot than he could have had influence enough to have changed a style of shotgun aiming that was once universal.

The “one eye” method of sighting a shotgun is not altogether obsolete yet. Many a veteran sportsman has shot long and successfully in this way, and will not change; neither is there good reason why he should, for it is hard to teach an old dog new tricks, nor does he learn them quite so well as he knew the old. Nevertheless it is true that few or no expert shots ever close an eye in aiming to-day, though some of them in effect _sight_ exactly the same as though they did. The writer has followed the Carver scheme of _gun pointing_ more years than he can remember, and among all his friends who shoot well, especially in the uplands, there are none who have any other method of aiming.

Many who point a gun without regard to sight or rib do it unconsciously. As an example, a shooting companion of mine who found difficulty in connecting with crossing birds concluded that a patent sight with three beads would assist him greatly. With a bird passing to the left he would use the right bead, and he figured to a mathematical nicety just how far ahead that would throw his charge. After a shot of the kind that usually troubled him, which he missed exactly as before, I asked him where he had held that off bead. He admitted blankly that he never had seen it, and neither could he remember ever seeing one of those three beads afterward when making a quick shot though they were big enough to cover a balloon. He soon threw the patent sight aside as being theoretically fine but practically worthless.

ONE EYE SIGHTING

One eye sighting is distinctly slow, and is not adapted to killing game that in the nature of its flight is either imperfectly outlined or rapidly gets beyond range. One eye aiming implies that the instant the gun comes to the shoulder there shall be a pause in its movement while the eye adjusts itself to the sight, or, as it is called, finds it. This focusing the eye upon the sight necessarily dims the vision of the target, for there is no such thing as the human eye focusing perfectly both upon the gun sight and the game. Notwithstanding this the target can be seen, even though it appear shadowy, and the sight may be placed upon it accurately; indeed, if the game were not moving, or the shot was directed straight at it, with greater precision than any other way. But it occurs not infrequently that after you have paused to find the sight, the opportunity is gone, either the game cannot be seen again or not quickly enough to cover it before it escapes.

Further, the principle involved in the one eye use of gunsights is that if they do not perfectly align with the target on the first attempt, withhold your fire and never pull trigger until _sure_ of your aim. Naturally this theory of obtaining a second and surer sight when needful is rarely put in practice in wing-shooting, and if it were the result would be a pottering inefficiency that would last through life. The gun-pointing shot doesn’t do things that way, since nothing short of a house intervening would prevent his shooting exactly on time.

Finding the sights, whether with one or both eyes open, and putting the focused bead upon the target is beyond question the most accurate way of aiming a gun, as witness that it has been adopted by all riflemen who are obliged to do fine holding. The very finest sighting that I have ever seen done was accomplished with a telescope having a big leather blinder attached to the rear which entirely covered the left eye, thus permitting it to remain wide open without seeing anything. Using a sight of this kind shots can be called within one inch at two hundred yards. This means that at shotgun range of forty yards, a sighting error of one-fifth of an inch could be detected; the absurdity of such close sighting can be noted by recalling that a shotgun pattern covers at least thirty inches at the distance.

What is required in wing-shooting is no such hair splitting aim, but that we cover the target with the utmost dispatch and pull on the instant--not a hundredth of a second sooner or later. Indeed, pulling a hundredth of a second too soon or the hundredth of a second too late will make more difference as to where our shot charge lands than any variation that can occur with the finest sight or no sight at all.

While I am opposed on principle to the novice learning to sight a shotgun with one eye shut or both eyes open, in fact to _sighting_ the arm at all, believing that so taught he can never become a first rate performer on all sorts of game, yet I have seen so much excellent work in wildfowl shooting by men who closed one eye or who focused on the sight that I hesitate to say it is not an effective style of firing at ducks or any bird of large size that is habitually outlined against the sky. In shooting of this kind the game is often seen while approaching and allowance can be made for the time required to focus on the sights; neither is it requisite that the gun be handled with such rapidity as in upland work.

Success with wildfowl is more due to correct estimates of distance and speed of flight than to manner of aiming, and since there is never any question of being able to see the bird, even with half an eye, it is probable that any system of sighting or pointing the gun can be made about equally effective.

BINOCULAR SHOOTING--TWO-EYE AIMING

Two-eye aiming, or binocular shooting, has all the advantages of closing one eye even for rifle firing while a distinctly clearer view of the target is obtained, and distances can be estimated more positively. All of us who were taught to close one eye can well remember that the instant we blinded the left eye to find the sight, the bird at once appeared to be a great deal farther away. I can recall that more than once when a boy I have shut the left eye and then decided that the quail was out of range, after which I opened both eyes and found it still well within reach.

It is no doubt true that with only one eye a gunner could finally learn to judge distances as well as though he had the use of both, but when from birth to age he uses both eyes to see and estimate distances a million times to where he does once with an eye shut, it reasonably follows that he will do better work in the style in which he has been trained even though that training were not with a gun. Therefore we can take it as a simple statement of fact that with both eyes open we can the most accurately estimate the distance that game is from us, the speed of its flight, and the lead necessary in order to kill. Moreover we can secure equally as fine sight with both eyes open, either with shotgun or rifle, provided one eye alone governs the line of sight or is focused upon the sights. This eye is then said to be the master eye for the reason that the brain pays attention to what it is doing only. The other eye sees just the same, but of its vision the brain fails to keep any record.

Ordinarily it is supposed that the master eye has the stronger vision, which entitles it to govern, but this does not follow by any means. In shooting from the right shoulder the right eye controls, not because its strength is greater, but for the simple reason that the brain has been _trained_ to register only what this eye sees. It may be the stronger eye or it may not, and neither would this make much difference unless its vision were extremely defective while that of the other was normal. Ninety-nine times in a hundred one eye governs the line of sight entirely because it has been trained to do this and for no other reason.

The usual manner of testing the eyes for shooting is to hold up an object a proper distance from them and align it with a point beyond while keeping both eyes open. Now close the left eye and if the alignment doesn’t change, the right eye governs, but if on shutting the left eye the line of aim swings to the left the wrong optic has been in control, and the student will have to begin training the right eye to assume the mastery or learn to shoot from the left shoulder. Either can be done, but it is much simpler and easier as a rule to put the brain to making its records from the proper eye. It might be noted, in passing, that in case of an experienced shot no eye tests are necessary, for the one with which he has been accustomed to sighting is certain to govern.

The style of aiming with both eyes open may be exactly the same as with one closed; that is the gun is brought up and there is a slight pause long enough for the eye to find the front sight which is then placed upon the point of aim. The focusing of the eye upon the front sight, however, will probably not be so sharp as with the left eye shut, with the consequence that the vision of the game will be less dimmed. The man accustomed to aiming with one eye closed may find it best to teach himself to shoot with both eyes open while still focusing upon the sight after his acquired fashion. However, this is not the favorite or most effective mode of two-eye aiming. Modern wing-shots have pronounced in favor of the Carver method.

CARVER METHOD OF GUN POINTING

While this style of shotgun aiming is of modern origin, in fact originated with Doctor Carver, yet it is the oldest of all systems of directing a missile. It was used by the rock slingers, the spear throwers, the dart casters, and was brought to the greatest perfection by the long-bowmen. Shooting in this fashion an Indian will drive a penny from between a split stick with half his shots at fifty feet, or strike a running deer at three hundred, and doubtless the Anglo-Saxon bowmen were much better shots than any Indian.

Gun pointing was the recognized manner of aiming of all our Western “bad men” and gun fighters whose gun play was entirely too rapid to be directed by any description of gun sights. In combined quickness and accuracy, from foot or horseback, the work of these men has never been equalled, but their system of shooting is now becoming a lost art because it was not found the best adapted to target practice. Perhaps in course of time gun pointing will hold sway in short range shooting with every variety of firearm, for the military tendency at present is to encourage rapidity of fire.

Probably it was from the Western gun-fighter that Doctor Carver, a Western man, got his idea of the correct way of sighting a shotgun. If the man with the sixshooter could hit nickels thrown into the air, rabbits running, a man on a galloping horse while himself mounted, or swing his weapon on a foe with such rapidity that the eye could not follow the movements, then why couldn’t a man with a shotgun place its thirty inch pattern upon a flying bird without glueing his eye to any sights? Carver believed that it could be done, and he showed the skeptical until everybody was ready to go away and do likewise.

Gun pointing has been miscalled instinctive aiming, though in reality there is nothing instinctive about it. There can be nothing instinctive in doing a thing that we have learned to accomplish through repeating a performance thousands of times. It is merely perfecting an art that we have been acquiring from babyhood, that of being able to point the finger or something else directly at an object toward which we are fixedly looking. We might as well say that we write instinctively, because we give no thought as to what the next stroke will be. In civilized human beings training takes the place of instinct which is a very imperfect factor, though it must be admitted that every man has inherited tendencies.

Shooting a pistol in the old Western way consisted simply in extending the hand quickly in the direction of the target and pulling on the instant. This one-hand gun pointing is the most natural method and the easiest to acquire because we have been at it a good many years before we ever gripped a gun. Shooting a shotgun differs from it only in that the _piece is pointed with both hands_ in place of one, and while the method is more difficult to acquire it is steadier and more reliable, because with the butt of the weapon at the shoulder and both hands holding it, we have a firmer control than if the piece were directed entirely with the one hand. Shooting a shotgun in the Carver fashion, in its primary principle, is merely training the two hands to point at the exact spot at which the eyes are looking or the brain directs, without any lost motion or focus upon sights.

Shooting a revolver in the Western manner, with movement of hand too fast for the eye to follow, is in reality juggling a pistol, and muscles and nerves must undergo the same training as those of a juggler who keeps half a dozen balls in the air with one hand. The wing-shot who aims by pointing also juggles his weapon in a way, though the training necessary to do this is not so severe because the movements are not especially rapid. Nevertheless he undergoes a degree of training that insures his weapon being aligned automatically or without conscious effort before he becomes an expert shot. When he has reached a stage where none of the movements of his piece require conscious supervision, then they are said to be instinctive, though, as we have seen, instinct has nothing whatever to do with it, but it is training pure and simple.

The advantages of pointing a shotgun in place of getting the eye close down to the barrels and aligning rib and sight are these: Point your finger at an object quickly, without any effort to sight or closing an eye, and you will find that while it is directed precisely, yet nevertheless you are glancing some distance above the finger. Now close one eye and you will note at once a tendency to drop the head and _sight_ the finger. The same optical principle applies to pointing and sighting a gun; under the former system you naturally keep the barrels well down out of the line of vision, but at the same time direct them at the object with exactly the same precision as in the other way.

Moreover in pointing a gun by means of a thorough training of the hands, you are in a measure independent of fit of gunstock. Indeed, in my own experience and that of others, any gun can be shot accurately so long as the drop of stock is not so great as to bring the barrels within the line of sight, or where they will interfere with a clear view of the target. Correct alignment is not nearly so dependent upon drop of stock, as it is upon the position of the two hands grasping grip and fore-end.

For instance, if you are accustomed to a gun that is grasped nearly in the line of fire, and you then attempt to shoot with one having a deep fore-end which places the left hand low, or a piece with grip set low behind the frame, you will at once note a feeling of uncertainty as to where you are pointing. I should therefore conclude that an accustomed grip and fore-stock were of as much importance as drop at comb and grip. Additionally it should be noted that if the hands are to do the pointing, unassisted by sights, they should grasp the piece well apart, that is with the left hand extended as far as possible without strain, and the places where they grip the arm should never vary an iota.

Given a gun that I have grown to with use, I find that I can shoot as effectively when holding my face several inches from the gunstock, really not inclining the head toward the stock in the least, but holding it perfectly erect, some inches above the line of the barrels and well to one side. I have further dropped my head toward the left shoulder in place of the right and struck my bird with the same facility, proving that the hands were accomplishing their work automatically without regard to the position of the sighting eye with reference to the line of sight. Dropping the stock low on the shoulder, or jamming the comb tight against the cheek made not a particle of difference so long as the automatic action of the hands was not interfered with by trying to govern them directly by means of the sight.

In gun pointing the sight should never be seen, nor rib, nor barrel, neither should they be even thought of, for if the eye is permitted to interfere with the calculation of the brain two bosses of equal authority are installed with the obvious result that nothing will be accomplished. In this style of aiming the gun should be swung methodically, with mechanical uniformity of movement, and the trigger pressed the moment you _feel_ that the aim is correct. No mystery need be made of this feeling of being right, for it is merely the signal of the brain to the nerves that the work has been well accomplished. The same feeling is in evidence when a baseball pitcher has released a ball which he _knows_ will split the pan, or when the billiardist or golf player has made a true stroke.

In gun pointing, long and short barrels can be shot with much less variation in the holding than when the eye governs the line of sight, for with the latter method a long sighting plane is a positive advantage. The hands will do their work with the same facility, be the barrels long or short, since these are never seen, but length of tubes is to be preferred for other than sighting reasons, as balance of the arm, steadiness in swinging to a given point, with reduced recoil, etc.

Relative to the rapidity of shooting under the two systems, when a rifle is fired the two sights are first placed exactly in a line which is then directed to the point of aim. Should this line of sight not cover the target precisely the piece is not discharged but the sights are swung on again and again before the trigger is pulled; it may take the rifleman from fifteen to sixty seconds to secure a satisfactory aim and pull. This sort of aiming is absolutely impracticable in shotgun shooting for obvious reasons, in fifteen seconds the target might be two or three hundred yards away.

In some descriptions of wing-shooting, as quail or ruffed grouse in the woods, the gun is discharged within three-quarters of a second after the brain has realized that the bird is on the wing; during this length of time the shooter takes position, brings his gun to his shoulder, selects the point of aim, directs his piece there, and presses the trigger. No “second sight” can be obtained under such circumstances, whatever error the eye may detect at the instant of firing, and accuracy is absolutely dependent upon the mechanical training of the hands which direct the gun. By putting the eye and mind upon the gunsights these can be noted very clearly, but while doing this _the bird is lost_.

The one advantage in “sighting,” among all its disadvantages, is that the novice can more readily detect errors in holding. He cannot prevent the shot he is firing from going wrong, but he may be able to analyze every movement of his piece and to discover which particular feature needs correction; for he might be making some mistake with mechanical regularity and certainty, just as in writing he may produce some ill formed letter and be quite unable to alter its form except with deliberate care. Perhaps it is true that a high degree of skill in gun pointing is the result of a post graduate course in wing-shooting rather than the A. B. C. of the art.

Now there may be doubt in the mind of the beginner or others as to whether a shotgun can be pointed accurately enough invariably to place the pattern upon the target, for it is not claimed that sufficient precision can be developed for deliberate rifle shooting. With a view to settling this question the writer made a series of experiments at twenty yards with a 22 rifle in which the sights had been removed.

With a well balanced rifle, handling like a shotgun, ball after ball could be placed in a six inch circle, the majority of them going into four inch. No attempt was made to level or even see the barrel and the arm was fired with the same rapidity as a shotgun at quail.

In order to be sure that the barrel was not being leveled or sighted, a blinder was built up on the barrel over the position of the ordinary rear sight; any attempt to sight over this would have thrown the bullets two feet high. After a few shots the results were just the same as before, and so long as the target could be seen the gun could be pointed there with ample accuracy to kill every bird with a shotgun. Diagrams are here presented of ten-shot targets made in this fashion both with the naked barrel and the blinder attached. Of course such shooting is dependent somewhat upon the skill of the marksman, and so is any other kind of shooting for the matter of that.

In some measure every man must be a law unto himself in his work with a gun. While I use the pointing system of aiming for all game, yet some of my shooting acquaintances tell me that whereas they can point very accurately at anything flying near the ground, at birds passing overhead they have a feeling of uncertainty as to where they are holding that leads them to prefer aligning the barrels by direct sight of eye in such work. Doubtless it is all much a matter of training and habit.