I was talking to a fellow writer a while ago about this whole "point shooting" nonsense, and he finally figured out why it came into existence. Have you seen the sights on the pistols that were around during the Fairbairn/Sykes era? To call them "vestigial" would be overly complimentary; adjectives such as "abhorrent", "wretched", and "an insult to sighting systems" would be more appropriate. Which is why this whole "you don't need the sights thing" kind of makes more sense when you couch in the terms of the weapon systems that were around at the time. It was so much that you didn't need the sights, but rather that the sights on pistols of the period were just so ridiculously bad that they offered no advantage in their use.
The problem is that now that we have better, faster sights on our guns, instead of moving forward into the future people are still clinging to an technique designed for 80 year old guns.
Completely unrelated, this is probably one of the best examples of circular logic that I've seen in a while:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Matt Tempkin
But their greatest asset was the large scale training they provided to thousands of men/women who were going into military & police combat
|
By that reasoning, we should trust their training systems because they trained a lot of people with their training system. Awesome.
Editorial note: I have no dog in this fight. It's fun to watch Matt and Deaf spar over this though, but for my purposes (YMMV) point shooting is pretty much useless. You don't win matches if you don't use the sights.