[JohnKSa]

On a stationary paper target, and me not moving off the X....about 30ft.- a car length.

The range to target for this test was 50% farther than that. In spite of that, in light too dark to see normal sights (dusk), all of the shooters were able to hit the target with the same level of accuracy using night sights that they demonstrated in normal light.

One could argue that 45 feet is way too far away to be practicing self-defense shooting--that may or may not be true, but it doesn't change the facts. The facts are that the "next to useless" night sights allowed the shooters, under conditions where they couldn't see normal sights, to perform better than you claim your point-shooting technique works for you.

So it's a great shooting technique, but not necessarily useful for some specific and predictable non-shooting preludes.

I didn't really mean to defend the Harries technique as an all-purpose technique, but rather was pointing out the advantage that it offered in terms of additional support to the shooting hand compared to a technique that leaves the gun hand to do all the work of supporting/steadying the pistol.

Your points are well taken, for those situations where the Harries is problematic one could transition to a one-handed shooting technique (such as the FBI technique) that allows more flexible positioning of the handgun & flashlight.

I suspect you may feel different after a little practice with both methods.

I have shot with both hands, one hand and the Harries technique. The Harries technique is definitely more steady than one hand shooting but not as steady as being able to use two hands with no flashlight involved. It clearly has some limitations, such as the ones pax mentioned, but for the situations where it doesn't tie one in knots it offers an advantage over any technique that leaves you shooting completely one handed.

...it was invented by Ken J. Good...

That's what I figured, but I couldn't find any reference to the technique by that name.