Importance of sights in self defense

[AK103K]

Originally Posted by OhioGuy

Oh no! 70 shots and you completely missed the cigarette!

:-D

LOL. Must have had smoke in my eye. Ill have to work on that.

[AK103K]

Originally Posted by Constantine

Don't be lazy. Spray and pray isn't what armed citizens do.

This always seems to be the response, when people dont agree with things like point shooting, burst fire, etc.

If you arent doing what they think you should be doing, youre "spraying and praying".

If youre putting rounds on target, where they should be going, how does how they get there, matter?


I think probably the biggest point missed with things like this is, if all you ever practice is just "one" thing, thats all you're likely going to be reasonably proficient at. And from what Ive seen at the various ranges Ive been to, its not even a guarantee that you might be good at that.

A lot of people seem to think casual, slow fire bullseye target type shooting, is a good indication of your skills.

Unsighted shooting IS a valuable tool to have in your toolbox, and it should be regularly practiced along with everything else you practice.

The whole point, is to have the experience registered in your brain, and to the point you dont have to think about it, so that if needed, you dont have to think about the response. Your brain has already "been there", understands whats going on, and knows what to do, even if your conscious mind is focused elsewhere.

And dont get me wrong here, Im not advocating this type of shooting over sighted shooting, far from it. Its all part of the same thing. But each and every subset, has its place.

The only difference between shooters is, experience and knowledge. Some just have a more broader experience and skill set than others.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

I think probably the biggest point missed with things like this is, if all you ever practice is just "one" thing, thats all you're likely going to be reasonably proficient at.

Using sighted fire in practice (live fire and dry fire) teaches you the muscle memory to use unsighted fire. So by training sighted fire, you actually do develop solid skills to index the pistol without sights or with more rudimentary indexing. As a result, training sighted fire practices multiple skills. The opposite is not true though. Time spent on practicing unsighted fire doesn’t build any additional skillsets besides trigger control. With a speed rock or similar presentation, you don’t even get to practice elements of the draw stroke.

[AK103K]

Originally Posted by Bartholomew Roberts

Using sighted fire in practice (live fire and dry fire) teaches you the muscle memory to use unsighted fire.

To a point, but only in a "sighted" fire stance.

Shooting below line of sight, one handed "point" from the shoulder and other levels, etc, not so much.

You also need live fire with any of them, to confirm you have it down, and at various distances to know roughly what your limits are.

Originally Posted by Bartholomew Roberts

Time spent on practicing unsighted fire doesn’t build any additional skillsets besides trigger control. With a speed rock or similar presentation, you don’t even get to practice elements of the draw stroke.

It still builds the "pointing" skills needed for your brain to understand whats going on, and know the indexes that make things work.

Sighted fired doesnt teach "everything". You do need to try and realistically practice "everything" you can though if you want to be proficient and a bit broader in your skills.


"Everything" teaches you something. I guess you have to decide if what you learn is relevant to you, or if its worth the bother to expose yourself to as much as you can, and learn from it, or if what you already know, is all you need to know.

If you know who Bruce Lee was, and understand his thoughts on things relevant here, I think youll find, he was on to something, and a very smart fellow. A little younger than Applegate, and of a bit of a different discipline, but just as enlightening.

If you dont know who he was, there's something else new to learn.

[Kirosha]

AK103k, agreed. +1

[TunnelRat]

Originally Posted by Constantine

For those who are saying you don't need your sights. I recommend you take a class.

Yes, you are better off with your sights. Train to use them under the watchful eye of an instructor. Both eyes open, breaking tunnel vision, a full field of vision.

Don't be lazy. Spray and pray isn't what armed citizens do.

I've taken a few courses. I don't see anyone advocating spray and pray here.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[lefteye]

What is "SUL"?

[Bartholomew Roberts]

AK103K, speaking of trying and practicing “everything”, have you purchased a shot timer since we last had this conversation?

Lefteye, Sul is Portugese for “south”. It is used to describe a specific ready position where the pistol is pointed down while held high in the chest: https://www.personaldefensenetwork.c...on-sul-015705/

[lefteye]

Thank you.

[sigxder]

Might I offer something to those of you that say "always use the sights". And yes I agree when time and distance allows use as much of a sight picture as time allows. Get a blue gun, air soft gun, or simunitions. Whatever you can get.
Then get some protective gear. such as is used in Martial Arts. Or if you can a "red man suit".
Put the training weapon in your holster as you would carry it in your day to day life. Most of us it would include a cover garment. Then not in a pre-planned manner. But in as many ways as you can imagine have your opponent (best you
be in protective gear) come at you from different distances in an aggressively, offensive manner. When they cover the distance very rapidly and start to beat you about the head and body. See if (without really fighting them off anyways) if you can get into your great shooting stance, line your sights up, and center punch them. Again unless you can knock them off of you, gain some distance, and move (which is good if you can pull it off) the chances of you getting the gun up and aligning sights is slim to none.
And of course have your opponent do the same with a training knife, and some type of training gun. With the training gun, hopefully one that throws out some sort of projectile that lets you know you are hit. Close up is where distance is not your friend. Right on top of you the other guy doesn't need to
be a very good shot. That's why bad guys try to get close. Either by surprise from out of no where. Getting you engaged in conversation while closing the distance. Or simply bum rush you. Some type of ploy is used to get close.
Fight with the gun against a thinking, moving, person. The gear we have now allows for it. Not standing still, with your hands at your side, waiting for a buzzer to go off. So you can shoot a non moving, non thinking, piece of paper that doesn't shoot back. And I am in no way saying you don't need to develop your skills through drills. Yes you do. But your skill set needs to include when someone is on top of you.
I wonder how much ego goes into not working with your students goes with the preset, timed drills. That let's you build skills based on a specific set of criteria that let's you use the techniques that validate your mindset as to how things should go. It is common sense to train from zero to x amount of feet with your weapon. Every possible situation you can.
Saying one specific methodology such as a two handed, sighted, specific stance is possible in every instance is insane! Drills that make what you do look good. And your one size fits all methodology just doesn't work. What don't you understand that you can't always get a nice stance and sight picture when things go bad? Point shooting, instinctive shooting whatever you want to call it should be part of your skill set.
So sighted fire when time and distance allow. Appropriate tool for the right job. Old idea but if all you have is a hammer everything begins to look like a nail applies. Point shooting, one handed shooting, weak handed shooting, sighted shooting should all be taught. Being in a chair, on your butt, fighting against a gun grab should all be worked into the plan. But some folks seem to want to say point shooting is not aimed shooting (it is aimed shooting by body indexing) is pray and spray are simply wrong. It shouldn't be point shooting vs. sighted fire. It should be point shooting and sighted fire. The situation determines the battle and tactics used. Pretty straight forward to me.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by sigxder

...Put the training weapon in your holster as you would carry it in your day to day life. Most of us it would include a cover garment. Then not in a pre-planned manner. But in as many ways as you can imagine have your opponent (best you be in protective gear) come at you from different distances in an aggressively, offensive manner....if you can get into your great shooting stance, line your sights up, and center punch them. Again unless you can knock them off of you, gain some distance, and move (which is good if you can pull it off) the chances of you getting the gun up and aligning sights is slim to none....

The answer is not necessarily.

No one is saying that one shouldn't be able to engage a very near threat without using he sights. At the same time, if you need to spend time finding and lining up your sights, you need a lot more practice. If one is proficient, his body knows his natural point of aim, and therefore his sights will be aligned immediately when the gun reaches eye level.

Let's look again at what Greg Morrison says about the flash sight picture (Morrison, Gregory, The Modern Technique of the Pistol, Gunsite Press, 1991, pp 87 - 88, emphasis added):

...The flash sight-picture involves a glimpse of the sight-picture sufficient to confirm alignment....The target shooter’s gaze at the front sight has proven inappropriate for the bulk of pistol fighting. However, the practical shooter must start at this level and work up to the flash, which becomes reflexive as motor skills are refined. With practice, a consistent firing platform and firing stroke align the sights effortlessly. This index to the target eventually becomes an instantaneous confirmation of the sight-picture.

...Using the flash sight-picture programs the reflex of aligning the weapon’s sights with the target instantly....There is good reason for sights: one needs them to align the barrel with the target reliably....

Furthermore, it's not a "one-or-the-other" matter. If a threat is too close to be able to use your sights, you need to be recognize that and be able to deal with the problem accordingly. If circumstances would permit the use of your sights, you need to be able to use them reflexively and quickly

[sigxder]

I believe I made it clear that I agree that the use of the sights when time and distance allows is an essential skill. Rather it be the "flash sight picture" at closer ranges. Or although rare for a civilian the full use of sights and as stable a platform (two hands) as possible in appropriate ranges and time frame allow, hopefully behind cover is optimal. Sir we are in fact agreeing. But when it polarizes down to either one or the other it becomes foolish. Knowing how to respond at whatever distance is necessary.
But my point is it often seems to break down to the either/or type of mentality.
That is not a logical statement of the totality of employment of a gun. Why did you seem to think we disagree? I am simply saying in the extremes the truth almost always lies somewhere in the middle.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by sigxder

....Why did you seem to think we disagree?...

Sorry if I misunderstood you, but candidly I find your posts extremely difficult to follow -- and I've a lot of experience making sense of some of the most difficult to follow writing there is, statutes and court decisions.

It would help if you organized your thoughts somewhat more coherently.

And what would be an even greater help would be to work on how you break up paragraphs -- try to avoid long paragraphs and mixing themes within a paragraph, and double space between paragraphs.

[Brit]

The average adults in the areas that I travel in have never been in a Fist Fight, as an adult, never mind in a gunfight.

How do we ever think the aggressive gene is going to respond, by actually firing hollow point bullets into a human being, with all the accompanying loud gunshots (Very LOUD especially indoors) also let us also not forget the screams and shouts that aggressive conflict brings forth. It is absolute mayhem! Not forgetting the person, or persons with you. That you are trying to direct, and protect. No, I have not been in a gunfight, pointed pistols at people on more than one occasion, but did not find it necessary to shoot.

Fist fights, lots of them.

My Dad kept a Pub in Liverpool UK? I went to one of them as a two-week-old baby. Bought my own house at 25 years of age.

My second Wife of 25 years has accompanied me all around the US of A, me armed were I can be. She is quite cool and controlled if violence erupts.
We met and married in Canada.

We have flown to the UK and Ireland. Had great fun there as well.

Love Florida.

[Kirosha]

Originally Posted by Brit

The average adults in the areas that I travel in have never been in a Fist Fight, as an adult, never mind in a gunfight.

How do we ever think the aggressive gene is going to respond, by actually firing hollow point bullets into a human being, with all the accompanying loud gunshots (Very LOUD especially indoors) also let us also not forget the screams and shouts that aggressive conflict brings forth. It is absolute mayhem! Not forgetting the person, or persons with you. That you are trying to direct, and protect. No, I have not been in a gunfight, pointed pistols at people on more than one occasion, but did not find it necessary to shoot.

Fist fights, lots of them.

My Dad kept a Pub in Liverpool UK? I went to one of them as a two-week-old baby. Bought my own house at 25 years of age.

My second Wife of 25 years has accompanied me all around the US of A, me armed were I can be. She is quite cool and controlled if violence erupts.
We met and married in Canada.

We have flown to the UK and Ireland. Had great fun there as well.

Love Florida.

I'm confused at what you are trying to say, but in my admittedly limited visits to Florida...you sure live in a great part of the state.

I've had issues there when I visit PCB, but that might be just fellow out of state touristy types.

But considering I have two friends who live in Pensacola and Jacksonville and they both carry due to concerns about fellow residents..

[Bartholomew Roberts]

I don’t think anybody disagrees that if it is practical to use the sights in a self-defense situation, you should use them.

Where the conversation seems to break down is in how much time and effort should be dedicated to training/practicing something that is supposedly instinctive and that everybody agrees happens at distances where a very coarse index to target is sufficient?

Some have suggested practice is necessary to be able to learn how to point the index finger alongside the receiver at a target less than 5yds away (using Applegate as a reference for application distance).

I would suggest that at this distance, practically anyone can make good hits and the biggest issue is not index but trigger control so that you don’t gank the round into the dirt trying to be fast. However, the typical four count draw lets you practice all of these elements, including trigger control and produces much better return on your training time investment. And I bet you at the end of all that sight using time, you’ll find your instinctive skills have improved rather than degraded.

I’d note that even the OSS Operational Groups trained on Applegate’s methods received 4 hours of instruction on the 1911 out of a 152 hour course.

If we heed sigxder’s warning about doing what makes us feel proficient instead of actually being proficient, then where does hip shooting a torso sized target from 3’ away put us? What useful skills is that developing?

[TunnelRat]

Originally Posted by Bartholomew Roberts

I’d note that even the OSS Operational Groups trained on Applegate’s methods received 4 hours of instruction on the 1911 out of a 152 hour course.

Were those people using pistols as their primary weapons? A lot of comparisons get made to military units when talking about concealed carry. While OSS certainly did clandestine operations, hiding a SMG under a coat or similar was also a thing. As a civilian I'm not doing that. My pistol is typically all I have. I therefore devote more time to it than someone that might use another weapon more often.

As for what practicing it gets us, what does any practice get us by that logic? In courses I've done people often find they need to adjust where on their bodies they have to index the pistol for shooting from retention in close proximity. This is to make sure the impact of their shots is actually going where they intend. Most of us already have a rough body index (even a baby can point), but practice allows you to find that index repeatedly and reliably. There's also the point of learning to build speed with it, as if you're shooting from that position then you're likely doing so because you don't have the time or space to do otherwise. Most people feel more comfortable starting off slow and building speed over time.

I could go to the range today and put a bullseye target at 10 yds and go to work. I've done it so many times now that it's practically automatic. That's the point, to build a skill to a point where it can be repeated that easily. The point of practicing isn't to build my ego, but to get my skill to that level. As far as building proficiency with other skills, of course that's important too. The point isn't to practice the same thing forever, but periodic practice has its uses.


Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[Bartholomew Roberts]

The OSS Operational Groups worked as “commandos” in teams behind enemy lines as opposed to single agents. They were more military-oriented. As for training, their entire weapons training was 12 hours out of 152 hours - 4 for 1911, 4 for subguns, and 4 for rifles.

As far as practicing, sighted fire with a four count draw develops all the same skills. Retention position #1 is count two with the pistol indexed on the side of the chest. Position #2 is before the pistol is pressed out and count three. Working from the holster towards quick sighted fire trains you on everything you need to successfully shoot instinctively. And as a bonus, you can also use the most reliable method of indexing a pistol to the target under stress and at speed.

[TunnelRat]

Originally Posted by Bartholomew Roberts

The OSS Operational Groups worked as “commandos” in teams behind enemy lines as opposed to single agents. They were more military-oriented. As for training, their entire weapons training was 12 hours out of 152 hours - 4 for 1911, 4 for subguns, and 4 for rifles.

As far as practicing, sighted fire with a four count draw develops all the same skills. Retention position #1 is count two with the pistol indexed on the side of the chest. Position #2 is before the pistol is pressed out and count three. Working from the holster towards quick sighted fire trains you on everything you need to successfully shoot instinctively. And as a bonus, you can also use the most reliable method of indexing a pistol to the target under stress and at speed.

I don't do a four count draw. If I'm drawing to full extension I make as much of a straight line to extension with the muzzle as I can.

Drawing to the retention position is still not the same as delivering rounds from the retention position or learning your POI at that position. Yes you're very close and likely the rounds will hit but as someone that earlier pointed out the importance of hit location and the weakness of handgun rounds I think you understand that trying to maximize your shot placement has merit.

I feel like you're arguing against practice for no practical reason. If it's something you see yourself potentially employing then practicing it makes sense. Both I and AK103K have pointed out reasons why sighted fire isn't the same in this case and why you'd want to practice it. To my knowledge neither of us have stated it should be practiced in place of sighted fire. I get plenty of practice with sighted fire and can afford the time and ammo to additionally practice shooting from retention.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[sigxder]

I will make my statement as simple as I can. Maybe I am not presenting it well. I feel you should practice shooting at every distance possible. And from every position possible. Including short, medium, and long range. In my
decades of shooting I have seen a lot of changes in teaching styles with the handgun.
And to the gentleman who seemed to imply that I was saying only practice at 3 feet I don't know where that came from. What I am saying is that most of the shooting I see being practiced anymore is in some two handed position with a specific stance. Which at greater distances again if you have the time and distance Is the proper way to address that situation.
What I am not seeing practiced very often is the type of close up shooting which is what so often happens in civilian self defense situations. I don't think I can make this any more clear.
What I am saying is balance out your time by including up close, from the the holster, type shooting. Bad things often happen very close. And a lot of the classes I see are nothing but squatting, in a two handed grip, at distances greater than 21 feet.
But this is a simple fact. If you can shoot with two hands well. It doesn't mean that you can shoot with one hand well. If you can shoot with one hand well. Shooting with two makes it that much easier. Since the last statistics I saw say in about 70% of gunfights you will use one hand. And it will be close. Should you not give equal time to one handed, close up shooting?
And thinking because you can hit well at 25 yards that transfers well to 3-5 feet is simply wrong. Different animals requiring different tactics. Read up on the increase in hit ratios when the California Highway Patrol went from two handed, squat style shooting. To Lou Chido adding point shooting along with the two handed shooting style. Their hit ratios sky rocketed. Proper technique for the proper distance. Yes practice from every distance.
I just see too many people I work with who shoot two handed all the time. Then I have them try shooting one handed and they can't hit a thing.
Because they have not practiced little or at all with one hand. Be a well rounded shooter. That is all I am saying.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by sigxder

I will make my statement as simple as I can. Maybe I am not presenting it well. I feel you should practice shooting at every distance possible. And from every position possible. Including short, medium, and long range. In my decades of shooting I have seen a lot of changes in teaching styles with the handgun....

Well done. And you make some good points -- especially about the need to practice shooting with one hand (and don't forget to practice shooting with your non-dominant hand).

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Well, I’ll make my point as simple as possible. Training time is limited. Practicing things that incorporate as many elements as possible maximizes training time. Two targets engaged with more than one round each lets you practice each stage of a four-count draw (which in any kind of cohesive program is going to contain the basic elements of your retention draw as well), it let’s you practice flash sight picture, sight acquisition, press-out, trigger control, rapid fire and target transitions. Just like squats, presses, or rows in weight lifting, this works many “muscle groups” at once.

Point shooting is the equivalent of bicep curls. A highly targeted exercise that works a single area.

[armednfree]

These things can happen with so many different variables that holding fast to some rule is not practical.

[TunnelRat]

And I'd argue there is nothing wrong with targeted exercise. The point, which has been repeated close to ad nauseum now, isn't to only do that one exercise. Sometimes rotating your workout to focus on different muscles at a time is better than one exercise that only somewhat uses a number of muscle groups simultaneously.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Well, I’ve been as clear as I can be that I don’t agree and why. Feel free to keep repeating yourself ad nauseam though.