The Firing Line Forums - View Single Post

Jeff Gonzales · October 26, 2004, 06:57 PM

Pat, I love you like the angry Irish step father I never had, but I dislike the snag free sights for the reasons explained regarding strong/weak hand only manipulations. While I know that folks can do it, it is my experience that they don't seem to do it consistently. I look at gear that enhances combat efficiency and not reduces it. If I can make the snag free sights snag on everything possible while maintaining the same attributes of a good sight then it is a win/win.

We have worked with Novak sights to produce our version of a snag sight, it is made from the Low Mount sight where the top is cut back and under up to the tritium vials. It provides an excellent surface to grip just about any surface space available.

I am not about to dispute the ability of the Marines to manipulate the handguns with the snag free sights, but I will contest that in their case concealability is less of an issue than combat effectiveness. That being the case, I would request how well they can do the clearance techniques on the move.

Here is the reason why I ask. Our Strong Hand Only program came from me and a few other having to create a program for team mates who were injured in training accidents and lost extremities. Together we learned more about Strong Hand Only shooting. It was then that I created the program we have currently. In the process these guys wouldn't settle for anything less than realistic techniques. Our barometer for success was can we consistently do the techniques while on the move. Our rational for this concept was we were already injured any technique that grounds or limits mobility is immediately discarded. Once injured the best weapon available is the ability to move. We were able to really see what works and what seems to work. When working with snag free sights it was agreed they were not sufficient for their usage. So, if the argument centered around using them in a strong/weak hand only format they really performed poorly.

To summarize, our thinking is can we consistently do the technique and then can we consistently do the technique while on the move. I am sure that folks can replicate the technique on a square range, but have them move and try to fix it. I think anything that can enhance the effectiveness is worth pursuing. The cut-back sights definitely do it and I have been carrying mine for over a year concealed and haven’t had any problems regarding the shreding of my garments.

The only issue that has not been addressed is the damaged caused during training. Like Pat, I have seen lots of folks bandaged up during class. This is a real issue, but the wounds obtained in training heal and while that is not much consolation I think it is better than the alternative.

V/R,

October 26, 2004, 06:57 PM	#6
Jeff Gonzales Senior Member Join Date: June 9, 2004 Location: Prescott, AZ Posts: 126	Good points Pat, I love you like the angry Irish step father I never had, but I dislike the snag free sights for the reasons explained regarding strong/weak hand only manipulations. While I know that folks can do it, it is my experience that they don't seem to do it consistently. I look at gear that enhances combat efficiency and not reduces it. If I can make the snag free sights snag on everything possible while maintaining the same attributes of a good sight then it is a win/win. We have worked with Novak sights to produce our version of a snag sight, it is made from the Low Mount sight where the top is cut back and under up to the tritium vials. It provides an excellent surface to grip just about any surface space available. I am not about to dispute the ability of the Marines to manipulate the handguns with the snag free sights, but I will contest that in their case concealability is less of an issue than combat effectiveness. That being the case, I would request how well they can do the clearance techniques on the move. Here is the reason why I ask. Our Strong Hand Only program came from me and a few other having to create a program for team mates who were injured in training accidents and lost extremities. Together we learned more about Strong Hand Only shooting. It was then that I created the program we have currently. In the process these guys wouldn't settle for anything less than realistic techniques. Our barometer for success was can we consistently do the techniques while on the move. Our rational for this concept was we were already injured any technique that grounds or limits mobility is immediately discarded. Once injured the best weapon available is the ability to move. We were able to really see what works and what seems to work. When working with snag free sights it was agreed they were not sufficient for their usage. So, if the argument centered around using them in a strong/weak hand only format they really performed poorly. To summarize, our thinking is can we consistently do the technique and then can we consistently do the technique while on the move. I am sure that folks can replicate the technique on a square range, but have them move and try to fix it. I think anything that can enhance the effectiveness is worth pursuing. The cut-back sights definitely do it and I have been carrying mine for over a year concealed and haven’t had any problems regarding the shreding of my garments. The only issue that has not been addressed is the damaged caused during training. Like Pat, I have seen lots of folks bandaged up during class. This is a real issue, but the wounds obtained in training heal and while that is not much consolation I think it is better than the alternative. V/R, __________________ Jeff Gonzales Director of Training Trident Concepts, LLC.