Defensive shooting and sight picture discussion. - Page 3

OBIWAN · January 10, 2007, 08:11 AM

"you can only focus on one thing at a time"

Exactly...and yet you can somehow use the front/rear sights TOGETHER to aim a handgun at yet a third item....the target

So are we really arguing about which item is the least fuzzy in the process

If so then I would say it has always been the target and this new and improved approach is nothing more than semantics

"They expect you to 'point' the barrel by just focusing on the target and letting your finger point "

Fine.....if the sights are not in reference at all and if the pistol is not aligned in the visual plane then it is point shooting.

Being "less precise" with the use of your sights does not make it PS...not for me at least

But the speed rock (while not exactly my fav technique) is a great example of PS

The pistol is well out of the visual plane and indexed by body position

That...is PS

Deaf Smith · January 10, 2007, 08:13 AM

Carlo,

That is what I'm saying. I think Sweats expect a 'historical' definition going back to Doc Holliday or something. Strange, he wanted a 'historical' definition, which I did give going back to 1930s, then he wanted something closer in time, (and I gave to 1990's) now he wants something back farther in time. He just can't accept the fact that when one uses their sights, even in just peripheral vision, that is using the sights. One can focus on the target and still SEE the sights (just as you can focus on traffic and still see a red light turn green or a break light come on.) And that is what soft focus is about, same for shooting out of the notch.

I guess 40+ classes of 'The Modern Technique' didn't take.

Carlo · January 10, 2007, 09:00 AM

Actually, I shouldn't be pointing this out, in the US you have Pat Cascio, Chuck Klein, Bradley J. Steiner, William Cassidy, John Mc Sweeny...
However, one thing is point shooting, another hip shooting, the speed rock is hip shooting. Point shooting has to do with pointing something that is in your field of vision, you normally don't indicate an item you want someone to bring to you using your finger as in the speed rock, right? You'll likely point at the item, looking at the item with your finger within your field of vision, you'll likely not focus on the finger but on the item, yet you can tell wether the finger is pointing to the item or not.
As I said, this sort of thing should be discussed by trying them out with a free (from the definitions problem) mind, once got how it is done, everything becomes clear.
As to the definition dating back to prior 1930, I can't give you one. Besides, in Europe we have been using pistols for 500 years, for most of this time defensive and service pistols often didn't have sights, yet the illustrations we have show eye level pointing most of the time...guess what I'm meaning?

Carlo

January 10, 2007, 08:13 AM	#52
Deaf Smith Senior Member Join Date: October 31, 2000 Location: Texican! Posts: 4,453	Carlo, That is what I'm saying. I think Sweats expect a 'historical' definition going back to Doc Holliday or something. Strange, he wanted a 'historical' definition, which I did give going back to 1930s, then he wanted something closer in time, (and I gave to 1990's) now he wants something back farther in time. He just can't accept the fact that when one uses their sights, even in just peripheral vision, that is using the sights. One can focus on the target and still SEE the sights (just as you can focus on traffic and still see a red light turn green or a break light come on.) And that is what soft focus is about, same for shooting out of the notch. I guess 40+ classes of 'The Modern Technique' didn't take. __________________ “To you who call yourselves ‘men of peace,’ I say, you are not safe without men of action by your side” Thucydides

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

January 10, 2007, 08:11 AM	#51
OBIWAN Senior Member Join Date: March 16, 1999 Location: Colorado Posts: 2,340	"you can only focus on one thing at a time" Exactly...and yet you can somehow use the front/rear sights TOGETHER to aim a handgun at yet a third item....the target So are we really arguing about which item is the least fuzzy in the process If so then I would say it has always been the target and this new and improved approach is nothing more than semantics "They expect you to 'point' the barrel by just focusing on the target and letting your finger point " Fine.....if the sights are not in reference at all and if the pistol is not aligned in the visual plane then it is point shooting. Being "less precise" with the use of your sights does not make it PS...not for me at least But the speed rock (while not exactly my fav technique) is a great example of PS The pistol is well out of the visual plane and indexed by body position That...is PS

January 10, 2007, 09:00 AM	#53
Carlo Senior Member Join Date: September 3, 2006 Location: Italy Posts: 505	Actually, I shouldn't be pointing this out, in the US you have Pat Cascio, Chuck Klein, Bradley J. Steiner, William Cassidy, John Mc Sweeny... However, one thing is point shooting, another hip shooting, the speed rock is hip shooting. Point shooting has to do with pointing something that is in your field of vision, you normally don't indicate an item you want someone to bring to you using your finger as in the speed rock, right? You'll likely point at the item, looking at the item with your finger within your field of vision, you'll likely not focus on the finger but on the item, yet you can tell wether the finger is pointing to the item or not. As I said, this sort of thing should be discussed by trying them out with a free (from the definitions problem) mind, once got how it is done, everything becomes clear. As to the definition dating back to prior 1930, I can't give you one. Besides, in Europe we have been using pistols for 500 years, for most of this time defensive and service pistols often didn't have sights, yet the illustrations we have show eye level pointing most of the time...guess what I'm meaning? Carlo