|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
October 10, 2009, 07:59 PM | #76 |
Member
Join Date: February 7, 2009
Posts: 17
|
On the square range, where you know you are going to shoot, you might possibly be correct. But, you will see a difference if you need to identify a weapon prior to firing, because at that point, you will need to change your focus from the threat (weapon) to the sights and regardless of how fast you can do this, it is still a delay. That's just like telling people to aim center mass, that's great for qualification and has possibilities from behind cover. Remember, there needs to be a reason for shooting in the first place (I'm referring primarily to a close spontaneous attack here), and that reason will be verified through sight. Trying to shift your focus to the front sight and COM takes time, and anything that slows the shooting process beyond what's necessary is wasted time and perhaps deadly.
Stay Safe RB |
October 10, 2009, 08:17 PM | #77 | |
Junior member
Join Date: October 9, 2004
Location: Northeast Alabama
Posts: 2,580
|
Quote:
Good luck with that |
|
October 10, 2009, 08:57 PM | #78 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 31, 2000
Location: Texican!
Posts: 4,453
|
Quote:
If it's incoming fire, sure you can use the sights while moving. That is what flash sight picture is all about. You don't adjust a thing with the sights, you can even focus on the target and see the sights as a blur, as long as you do see the relationship of the sights and fire at that instant. Flash sight picture is not about adjusting ones sights. Your body does the index, the sights mearly verify there is enough rough alignment to get a good hit. And even if you can't see the sights (darkness, lost glasses, poor sights) then you still use the same technique AS IF YOU COULD SEE THE SIGHTS, and at close range you will get the hits. All this is above part of the Modern Technique (MT) Cooper came out with. While I'm not crazy about the Weaver Stance (I perfer a form of isosceles and managing the recoil instead of fighting it), I do find it is quite sound.
__________________
“To you who call yourselves ‘men of peace,’ I say, you are not safe without men of action by your side” Thucydides |
|
October 10, 2009, 09:43 PM | #79 |
Junior member
Join Date: June 7, 2002
Location: NYC
Posts: 363
|
If you can 'get on the sights' at 7 yards or less, while dodging the knife, club, fists, or incoming fire, my hat's off to you sir.
Good luck with that My feelings exactly, Smince. |
October 11, 2009, 06:16 AM | #80 | |
Junior member
Join Date: October 9, 2004
Location: Northeast Alabama
Posts: 2,580
|
Quote:
I posted in another thread about a co-worker of mine. His only gun training was what he got in the Army 10 years ago. He was in a gunfight recently. He had a Ruger LCP w/6 rounds. He says he never saw his sights, it was night, less than 10 FEET, both parties were moving around parked cars. My co-worker scored 1 shoulder and 3 upper stomach/lower chest hits. This is the reality of a gunfight. Do you really believe ISU Rapid Fire techniques would have worked in this situation? (BTW, the lowly .380 did the job) Last edited by smince; October 11, 2009 at 08:42 AM. |
|
October 11, 2009, 07:47 AM | #81 |
Junior member
Join Date: June 7, 2002
Location: NYC
Posts: 363
|
The fight that Smince describes is so typical of most handgun encounters.
Distance is, quite often, measured in a matter of feet (or even inches), low light, both parties in motion and the body going into life or death mode. For example, here is a report of a very recent police shooting that happened 4 miles from my home: http://www.newsday.com/long-island/n...park-1.1512708 Is there any competitive events which really simulate such conditions? Should we really be teaching competition proven techniques as opposed to combat proven techniques ( such as point shooting) to deal with such a situation? In fact, in such a close range fight the ability to shoot is just one factor to consider. Others, such as mental attitude, the will to survive and blending hand to hand with your shooting is probably more vital than the ability to shoot tight groups at long distances--distances that rarely occur in the real world, BTW. Just a thought..... Last edited by matthew temkin; October 11, 2009 at 11:24 AM. |
October 11, 2009, 07:16 PM | #82 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 31, 2000
Location: Texican!
Posts: 4,453
|
Quote:
Read my post above on how to use flash sight picture. It ain't ISU. If you need more info, try Tom Givens and Rangemaster in Memphis. His students have been in over 50 gunfights and all prevailed. What is more, he gives a power point presentiation of 10 of them in his classes and at the Rangemaster/Polite Society Tactical Conference at the United States Shooting Academy (USSA) Tulsa, Oklahoma. http://www.rangemaster.com/ All that they teach is a form of sighted fire using FSP and retention shooting.
__________________
“To you who call yourselves ‘men of peace,’ I say, you are not safe without men of action by your side” Thucydides |
|
October 11, 2009, 08:33 PM | #83 |
Junior member
Join Date: October 9, 2004
Location: Northeast Alabama
Posts: 2,580
|
My last post wasn't directed at you, Deaf.
It was for Kraig I still maintain you have to solve the original attack problem before guns come into play at the ranges we are discussing (measured more in feet than yards). |
October 11, 2009, 09:55 PM | #84 |
Junior member
Join Date: June 7, 2002
Location: NYC
Posts: 363
|
Are some here actually suggesting that Smice's co worker would have done better had he used a front sight index/flash sight picture?
|
October 12, 2009, 07:51 PM | #85 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 31, 2000
Location: Texican!
Posts: 4,453
|
Quote:
Suggest it works just as good and cuts down what one needs to practice. That gives them more time to practice the essential. The more techniques you have to master the longer it takes and more ammo it takes as well as more 'decision' in the OODA. BUT, if you do have the ammo and time, sure learn point shooting to. The use of sighted fire and retention shooting is, to me, the essence. The core. Everything else is secondary. Once the core is mastered and the student wants to learn more, then I'm all for it. That's ok smince! My fault.
__________________
“To you who call yourselves ‘men of peace,’ I say, you are not safe without men of action by your side” Thucydides |
|
October 13, 2009, 08:28 PM | #86 |
Member
Join Date: February 7, 2009
Posts: 17
|
I guess maybe I should stop posting. Deaf, I viewed your short profile, sorry, you have your priorities bass ackwards. As someone with your background........Never mind, you have it backwards nuff said
Stay Safe RB |
October 13, 2009, 08:53 PM | #87 |
Junior member
Join Date: June 7, 2002
Location: NYC
Posts: 363
|
Deaf and I have been going around in this circle since GlockTalk in 2003.
He is entitled to his opinions but we are entitled to question the source and the validity of such opinions. 'Nuff said.." |
October 13, 2009, 10:26 PM | #88 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
|
Who was it that said...
... you can't miss fast enough to win a gun fight?
I'd say if you can practice point shooting, you should. However, many people will not be able to practice it, due to the limitations in place at the ranges available to them for practice. I'd also say that trying point shooting for the first time in an actual gunfight would probably not yield very high odds of success, and in such a case using flash sight technique is probably the safer overall bet. OTOH, if you are confident in your point shooting, and the ranges involved make it viable, that's a different story. |
October 14, 2009, 05:55 PM | #89 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 31, 2000
Location: Texican!
Posts: 4,453
|
Quote:
mddevildog, If you don't think using a form of sighted fire will work, then argue with Tom Givens of Rangemaster. He has had over 50 students in shootings and all have pervailed. His students have a way past 90 percent hit rate. All he teaches is sighed fire (flash sight picture) and a form of retention shooting. But do note, I did NOT get my ideas on this from his teachings, even though I've been to several of his classes. It just turned out Tom, as well as Paul Howe, pretty much say the same thing as I do. And yes, Matt and I have had this discussion for years. It's not all that different as long as we talk about bring the weapon up to eye level, since you index with the body.
__________________
“To you who call yourselves ‘men of peace,’ I say, you are not safe without men of action by your side” Thucydides |
|
October 14, 2009, 07:30 PM | #90 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
|
Deaf....
... where on earth did you get that idea? I actually like that quote, thanks.
Did you not read the rest of my post? Was it not obvious that my point was that speed is good only if you score hits? Are you just looking for people to argue with? |
October 14, 2009, 07:47 PM | #91 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 16, 2000
Location: In a state of flux
Posts: 7,520
|
Moderator Note
Hey guys,
A little less heat, please. It's a contentious topic, but that's no reason not to tread gently with each other. Thanks. pax |
October 14, 2009, 07:49 PM | #92 |
Member
Join Date: September 11, 2009
Posts: 90
|
With a slower than rapid rate of fire, the sights make allot of sense, and should be trained with. Rapid fire makes more sense without the struggle to regain sight picture. Pistol training is all about body geometry and muscle memory, which allows for precision at speed without the need for any visual reference but your target. I don't think that it works well to train solely in one discipline, each has it's strengths, and weaknesses, but most make perfect sense under the right circumstances.
|
October 14, 2009, 08:39 PM | #93 |
Member
Join Date: February 7, 2009
Posts: 17
|
OK guys, I certainly do not know everyones training, experience or background and I certainly do not have all the answers, but I do have some knowledge and experience on these topics. I'm also sure those who preach front sight under all circumstances have knowledge and experience as well, but sometimes it's hard for me believe that. I guess that's why arguing this point is pretty fruitless, non the less, here goes. Through the years, I've come to believe there are those who can find the front sight during a spontaneous real life threatening event, but I can assure you they are few and far between. I can also assure you, even if you were to train everyday for several years in using a flash sight picture on a square range, when the first real spontaneous life threatening event occurs, (I'm being conservative here) the very largest majority of those who train that way will point and shoot, and that will occur at distances greater than what we commonly refer to as CQB distances. I'm sure there are at least a few, who remain calm in a scenario such as this, but again, they are few and far between. Obviously our mental state plays a role here and we all like to think we fall into that category, but we don't. First and foremost, movement is absolutely critical during one of these events. Where and how far will be dictated by the environment. Whether to go hands on first will be dictated by distance and/or identification of a weapon. In order to identify a weapon, where are we focused? Hands! Where will we be trying to concentrate our fire, center mass? I happen to think time, regardless of the length is of extreme importance. It takes time to change two points of focus. One from the hands to center mass and then to the sight, even if the sight just appears between our eyes and where they are focused. It's not the square range, where you know center mass is going to be your aiming point, so that's where you start. Why do you think there are so many hand shots during FOF training and even real world shootings. Not because they are poor shooters, because that's where the focus is. There is so much more that needs to be said, but this is getting way to long for a forum post and I'm getting tired (I'm old). My best advice is to train to a competence level with point shooting and dynamic movement using one hand, equal to your skill level using your current preferred method. Then, evaluate them both during realistically scripted FOF scenarios. If you're not convinced by then, you at least evaluated both in hopefully an objective way. In the end, we have to train in and use what we believe in. I do, and I will continue to train myself and others the same way.
Stay Safe, RB |
October 14, 2009, 10:34 PM | #94 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 7, 2007
Location: Fort Worth, Texas
Posts: 151
|
Everything I carry is equipped with a laser. It's on automatically when I grip the gun and works for both methods.
__________________
A couple of DT 158 GDs will do it! |
October 15, 2009, 03:23 AM | #95 |
Junior member
Join Date: October 9, 2004
Location: Northeast Alabama
Posts: 2,580
|
Here is my experience on the subject. I'm former USAF, former NRA instructor, shot IDPA-type matches. I've shot literally thousands of rounds downrange in a Weaver stance with a perfect sight picture.
In Feb 2007, Gabe Suarez came to a town 45 miles from me teaching Extreme Close-Range Gunfighting. I couldn't pass up the chance to take a class so close to home. By the afternoon of the first day, we were drawing, shooting, and moving (all at the same time). Then came the Force-on-Force part. Using gas blow-back AirSoft for training, we did actual gun-on-knife/club and gun vs gun. Not one of the students ever said they saw the sights in the less than 7 yard attacks, yet we were moving off-line of attack and getting good COM hits. Indeed, if these FoF drills are a realistic simulation of what happens in a fight (and I believe it is as close as we can get), you don't have time to get on your sights in that short amount of time. When in APR 2009 I took his 0-5 Feet Gunfighting, the same lessons were shown again, at even closer range. What I found for me was, that at close range, under pressure, I didn't use the sights and still got good hits quickly. If the pressure wasn't on, or as the distance got back out to 7 yds or greater, I would revert back to sights. Another observation (again, somewhat controversial, and maybe off-topic) is the draw. I carried at the 4 o'clock position for decades. But, even with thousands of draws, I was slow getting out my gun from this position while moving and evading the knife/gun attacks. He asked us to try Appendix IWB. I started experimenting with this carry method. It took me a few weeks to get used to it, but I carry there exclusively now. And this year, in 0-5 class and in another instructors class, my speed of draw and my hits were even quicker because I didn't have to reach around so far for my draw. Everything is centerline now, and much faster to get to. I know it's not for everybody, but I'm 5'10, 220 pounds (was 238lbs when I first started carrying AIWB) and it works for me. These are just my experiences. As usual, your mileage may vary. |
October 15, 2009, 10:21 AM | #96 |
Member
Join Date: February 7, 2009
Posts: 17
|
Smince, you just made my point. These types of things cannot be objectively evaluated through just the mental process. You're not the first person to see the light, so to speak. Just because something does not "feel" right, or you don't gain a personally acceptable skill level in the time frame you think it should happen, does not mean it may not be a better choice or better technique in a given situation. We are all guilty of being impatient from time to time, especially me. I won't say nothing comes easy, but certainly all things do not.
Stay Safe RB |
October 15, 2009, 07:07 PM | #97 |
Member
Join Date: February 7, 2009
Posts: 17
|
the357plan,
If for some reason your laser were to malfuncton and you did not see the dot on your intended target, would you still shoot as soon as your weapon was on target, or would you hesitate, even ever so slightly while trying to see where the dot is, or verify alignment with the sight? RB |
October 15, 2009, 07:21 PM | #98 |
Junior member
Join Date: June 7, 2002
Location: NYC
Posts: 363
|
I don't think many understand just how accurate point shooting can be out to 50 feet or so.
And with minimal practice/training/ammo. No need to trade off accuracy for speed when you can have both. As to a laser...Applegate felt that the dot was just another thing to look for that could slow you down. |
October 16, 2009, 06:00 AM | #100 |
Junior member
Join Date: June 7, 2002
Location: NYC
Posts: 363
|
Very few of his gunfights were documented.
It was a different world back then. And he was not a man to talk much about his past. A very common feature in the been and done men who I have met in the past 40 years. His most famous is what led to the development of the S&W Model 40. In private he told me of a few more that he was in. But his instructors, Fairbairn and Sykes, were in over 200 personal gunfights. But their greatest asset was the large scale training they provided to thousands of men/women who were going into military & police combat, as well as the feedback they observed/obtained from AARs. Such experience will probably never be obtained again and for those who want to dismiss this wealth of knowledge are welcome to do so. |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|