For those who think sighted fire won't work at close range

[Skyguy]

Wait, I know I'm not cute, but I am confused - am I supposed to be crouching, then moving, or moving while crouching

NRAhab, I kinda figured you as a hard learner. :)
I'll take instinctive reaction training a bit slower and step by step....just as I did with Brownie a few years back.

Crouch:

The brain needs to decide in an instant between fight or flight, therefore the body will be squared to the threat, enabling both eyes and both ears and both nostrils to gather as much intelligence as possible to assist the brain to make the correct decision.

The squared position also gives a choice of four weapons (two arms and two legs). The arms will tend to be held out in front of the upper body, which will be leaning slightly forward with the lower back flattened. There is no better position to be in at this instant.

The instinctive crouch reflex is part of the classical fight-or-flight response and a perfect body posture that is consistently reproducible during threat of physical violence.

Your next lesson would have been threat focus. But you've surrendered....so, checkmate.

:)

[pax]

Just once, I would like to see a pointshooting/target focus/sighted fire thread die a natural death of old age, instead of needing to be closed early for excessive rudeness among the participants.

Just an observation!

(Think twice, then think again, before posting any personal comments in this type of thread. Please...)

pax

[7677]

NRAhab,
I have to agree with you about Grossman. However, I have done the research on this subject and I discovered that LEOs are losing close quarters gunfights. I looked at what caused the officer's deaths and compared it those that survived to what the suspect did and didn't do.

Not surprising, a large number of LEO deaths were caused by the same age old mistakes and the simple fact that action beats reaction. However, the theme that I saw kept reoccurring in majority of cases is that close quarter gunfights usually started as simple fights/attacks that escalated. The knowledge of defensive/offensive h2h tactics and point shooting are needed to deal with this type of fighting.

Notice, I didn't say retention shooting. Retention shooting is something you go to if your weapon is already drawn and a unarmed threat approaches within lunging distance. The weapon should not be drawn until the person have their opponent in a position of disadvantage and where it can be drawn and immediately used. Drawing a weapon to a retention position without having your opponent in a position of disadvantage is just asking to have the gun grabbed and/or diverted before the shot can be made.

From reading this thread you seem more turned off by the messenger then the message itself. I offer this to you, the only way you will know if "it" works is to experience it yourself because seeing is believing and "it" is not as hard as you have been made to think it is by certain trainers.

[NRAhab]

The knowledge of defensive/offensive h2h tactics and point shooting are needed to deal with this (extreme close quarters - ed) type of fighting.

I'd submit that this is and should be the fundamental precept of advocacy of "target-focused" shooting, because in that sentence I find no argument. Gunfighting is a martial art, and all too often it's viewed without the component of hand-to-hand combat, and the applications on what to do when the gunfight reaches "phone booth" distances.

[7677]

The other useful component of threat focused shooting is being able to move dynamically off the line of attack and still be able to engage targets out to seven yards with fist sized groups. IMHO this is why threat focused shooting techniques so valuable to learn as it fills in the gaps that are not covered by sighted shooting techniques.

[David Armstrong]

I'm still waiting for somebody to identify these mysterious "those who think sighted fire won't work at close range" people someone has claimed are out there.

[NRAhab]

I'm still waiting for somebody to identify these mysterious "those who think sighted fire won't work at close range" people someone has claimed are out there.

Don't look at me, all I was debating were some of the somewhat specious claims of speed and accuracy, and then after that it was pretty much all a semantic debate about quality of message and training.

[David Armstrong]

Don't look at me,

I'm not.

[Shane Tuttle]

I'm still waiting for somebody to identify these mysterious "those who think sighted fire won't work at close range" people someone has claimed are out there.

I'll take the bait, but you'll only reel in a hook with nothing on it but seaweed...

If pragmatic is your game, I'm your Huckleberry.
Maybe the individuals that don't believe in it has seen the urinating contest and decided it isn't worth their time to post their viewpoint. Maybe they aren't a member of this board. But to really think there isn't anybody out there that may believe otherwise is, well, silly.

[Deaf Smith]

I'm still waiting for somebody to identify these mysterious "those who think sighted fire won't work at close range" people someone has claimed are out there.

Well goodie david. If everyone now knows sighted fire can work at any range, then just add retention shooting and you have your core. That is it's all that is needed for defense for most people*.

One method for everything from long range to very short, and a second one for extreme close range. And the two overlap in distance.



*There are those with eye sight problems and other handicaps that will make point shooting their only real alternative. But for most of use, those two methods are the core one needs to master.

[David Armstrong]

Maybe the individuals that don't believe in it has seen the urinating contest and decided it isn't worth their time to post their viewpoint. Maybe they aren't a member of this board. But to really think there isn't anybody out there that may believe otherwise is, well, silly.

Not really. I've been in this game for a long time, in a lot of venues, and I have never found anybody, live or in print, who suggests that sighted fire won't work at close range. Some point out, rightly, that there is an alternative that may be better, but nobody says sighted fire won't work.

[David Armstrong]

Well goodie david. If everyone now knows sighted fire can work at any range, then just add retention shooting and you have your core. That is it's all that is needed for defense for most people*.

OK, not sure what that has to do with the issue, so I will take that as an admission you cannot identify anyone who thinks sighted fire won't work at close range.

[pax]

David ~

Here are two, from this board. There are probably more -- it was a cursory search.

http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/...6&postcount=12

http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/...3&postcount=27

pax

[skydiver3346]

Awsome report on how and what to do when someone kicks down your door and comes straight at you.... You hanled that perfectly in my opinion, as what else could you do? Surely not ask him why he just kicked in your door, etc. By then you might be severely wounded and/or killed.

I just watched a police report on TV special recently and the detective was interviewing a burglar/rapist. He asked the bad guy what was the one thing that burglars/home invasion perps feared the most when they enter someone's home? First words out of his mouth were "armed home owners, someone with a gun who is willing to defend his property and himself".

[Deaf Smith]

Here are two, from this board. There are probably more -- it was a cursory search.

Well david? Any uh.. comment?

[David Armstrong]

Here are two, from this board.

Not quite. Don't see anybody saying that sighted fire won't work at close range. I see two folks saying that under certain conditions sighted fire might not work at close range.
The first one says:
"you wont be able to use your sights under extreme stress".
I would submit that is very different from "sighted fire won't work at close range". If you are at close range and not under extreme stress, one can use the sights. Stress is the defining factor here, not distance.
And the second one says:
"The reason one should learn and practice point shooting is that in many situations you will not be able to se or use your sights. In many situations you will be able to use your sights and far enough away from your opponent that you can safely use your sights and then you should use your sights."
Again, nothing there that says "sighted fire won't work at close range." The writer specifically uses the phrase "in many situations", thus indicating there are situations where the statement is not applicable. Further, the writer indicates that sighted fire can work at close range, but it might not be safe to use it.
So what we have is pretty standard...sometimes sighted fire will work at close range and sometimes it won't, depending on various factors.

[David Armstrong]

Well david? Any uh.. comment?

Yawn. I suppose I could comment that you still haven't offered up anyone that says they think sighted fire won't work at close range, but that would be a bit redundant.

[matthew temkin]

Explain to me how one can use sighted fire when lighting conditions make it impossible to see the sights?
Would this qualify as a flaw in the "sighted fire for all situations" theory?

[NRAhab]

Matt, that's what night sights are for. Or if you're like me, night sights and Crimson Trace laser grips.

[matthew temkin]

You are kidding, are you not?
Is it your claim that you, under any circumstances, will always be able to use the sights and or lasers no matter what?
Unless you have been in a few dozen gunfights, say yes, and I am so out of this discussion.
Which is probably a good thing.

[Deaf Smith]

Explain to me how one can use sighted fire when lighting conditions make it impossible to see the sights?
Would this qualify as a flaw in the "sighted fire for all situations" theory?

Matt,

You bring the weapon up to the same position as IF YOU COULD SEE THE SIGHTS (in other words the same index you have developed from presentations... i.e. drawing and shooting with your sights.)

Every time you practice using your sights you build an ingrained response to indexing the weapon the same way. At close range the sights (and index) do not have to be in perfect alignment to score a good hit. So when the light is so bad you still use the same presentation and index to make good hits.

This is what I teach my students. From the very first time they hold their weapon and fire a shot I let them know to memorize the hold and duplicate it each time they draw the weapon (I'm a big believer in presentation practice.) I also have them find the grip they need to have the sights in alignment the instant the weapon is at eye level. No adjustment of the sights should be necessary (especially at close range.)

In this way, one technique covers a very wide spectrum. The only part missing is an extreme close range technique. And that's what hip/retention covers.

[Blue Duck]

Of course sighted fire will work, and for many years I though it was the only way to shoot, which is it is, when it comes to winning an IPSC Match or even an IDPA shoot, but I now believe that under actual gunfight conditions, espacally if one ends up behind the curve, wheather or not sighted fire will always work or not, doesn't matter, because many people will be so focused on the threat that they won't see their sights, and instinctly revert to point shooting.

Call it poor training, or whatever, it happens, so I think it is smart to practice point shooting in addition to aimed fire. Besides not all guns have night sights or lasers, most of mine don't. So for the last several years I have practiced point shooting, even speed rocks, because I still think they have a place.

[matthew temkin]

So it appears that Deaf and NRA are in disagreement?
Deaf...what you describe is exactly what I teach.
For example, if you saw me using aimed fire from the MI or point shooting from the same position you would be unable to tell--especially when examining the target--which aiming method that I used.
So how do we differ--except perhaps in semantics--with what we are teaching/doing?
Blue Duck..you have hit the nail on the head.
For many years it was assumed by the "powers that be" that point shooting was,

1) Inaccurate.

2) Hard to learn and demanded thousands of rounds and decades of practice.

3) Would fall apart under stress.

None of which is true, BTW.
All I am saying is there is a place for both, at least IMHO.

[NRAhab]

Oh Matt, I thought David and I had ended the discussion, but then you asked:

Explain to me how one can use sighted fire when lighting conditions make it impossible to see the sights?

So I said, "use night sights or a laser", which you somehow interpreted to mean that I thought you'd always be able to use those in any circumstances. Which I never said, but it's cool. The point I was making was that for people who prefer the "sights" method, that there are technological options for them to practice their methods in low light to no light.

As for laser though, I figured any point shooting advocate would be a HUGE fan of lasers. They allow you to maintain a "target focused" presentation, and to be quite frank I can't imagine a situation where you'd be shooting someone using a point shooting technique where you wouldn't want to have a laser on your gun. Rob Pincus, someone whose opinions on point shooting I respect and take seriously advocates for the use of Crimson Trace laser grips.

[Skyguy]

You bring the weapon up to the same position as IF YOU COULD SEE THE SIGHTS

That's called point shooting - or metal on meat shooting - or silhouette shooting - or instinctive shooting - or threat focused shooting - or peripheral vision shooting - or indexed shooting, etc.
.