Quote:
|
Deaf Smith, is that not the same as point shooting?
|
Dylan,
Yes but no!
Long time ago a guy named Jeff Cooper decided to use the SWCPL (South West Combat Pistol League) as a lab to see what shooting methods worked best.
He came up with this thing called the 'Modern Technique’. Well part of this MT was the 'presentation', a fancy word for drawing. He ended up with the Weaver Stance, 'flash sight picture', surprise break, big bore simi-auto, and other refinements.
Now we can argue about stances or ways of seeing the sights or 9mm .vs .45, but the concept that really stuck me was this:
He wrote that in darkness if you could not see the sights you brought the weapon up just as if you could see them! You trained to present the weapon on target so well with the sights you really didn't need them at the closer ranges!
Now with point shooting you start out by ignoring the sights and focusing on the target. That is what point shooting is all about. At the most you use your peripheral vision to see the weapon as a silhouette below the eye level.
Coopers idea was to use the sights, and 'stance', to build up ones ingrained habits till the 'stance' indexed right were you wanted the bullet to go, and thus the sights were used just to verify the alignment and not adjust the sight picture in any way. That is what the 'flash sight picture' does. No adjustment, but verifying you are on target.
If there was daylight and you could see the sights you then used them if at all possible AND YOU TRAINED THAT WAY! If for some reason you could not see the sights then the ingrained habits of drawing and firing with flash sight picture would give you the hits.
And that is really the big difference. Point shooting trains to not see the sights at all, the other to see the sights only briefly, and not adjusting them, and relying on the presentation to index on the target.