I think I've had it wrong all these years

[stephen426]

Hey! I get shotgun like groups at 7 yards... Maybe slugs fired out of a shotgun or buck shot fired out of a long barreled shotgun with a tight choke!

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by Deaf Smith

...Learn to use a form of sighted fire first....

+1

With the proper training and practice, it's amazing how fast one can acquire a flash sight picture and hit accurately. Learning those techniques and developing proficiency in the use of those techniques also gives you the flexibility to deal with targets at pretty much any distance. Yes, most gun fights are close range affairs. But what do you do if you've focused all your training on engaging targets 5 to 7 yard away; and the one time you really need to use your gun, it's the one in a hundred case in which you must engage an armed threat 10 to 12 yards away and partially behind cover?

The idea behind the flash sight picture is to focus on the front sight quickly and align the sights only as precisely as warranted under the circumstances. At distances on the order of 5 to 7 yards, when the target is the center of mass, a rough alignment will be sufficient to assure good hits (as long as you have good trigger control). As distances increase or the target shrinks, the alignment needs to be more precise. But with training and practice you can develop a good sense of how good is good enough.

And again, some precision shooting is important to maintain trigger control. Whether you use the sights or point shooting techniques to direct the muzzle of the gun in line with the particular part of the target you want to hit, if you don't have trigger control, your muzzle will not be in line with the part of the target you want to hit when the bullet leaves the barrel of your gun -- and you will miss. Most folks when shooting fast will start jerking the trigger. It takes a lot of good, focused practice to program in trigger control so that you will be able to sustain it at speed.

There is no target too close or too large to miss.

[T. O'Heir]

"...you don't rely on your sights..." Rubbish. Aimed fire is always better. Both legally and morally. If you don't use the sights and one bullet hits something or somebody, you're liable.
Stephen, while IDPA and IPSC are nothing but shooting games, it sounds like you need to make the time for recreation. Shooting either because it's fun and not worrying about placing will do that.

[fbrown333@suddenlink]

I use a plastic bullets from SPEER, They only use the primer to fire the projectile.It is a flat nose with a hollow base. I bet it hurts like hell if you were to get hit, any way I use these to allow me to draw and fire train in my basement with out the neighbors going ballistic and calling the cops. I just hang a blanket up with a target on it. The loose blanket allows it to stop the projectile (for reuse) with no damage to it.They won't cycle the action but other that that they work well for practice. Lets you find out what techniques work and what doesn't (catching on clothing) that type of thing.

[stephen426]

T. O'Heir,

Maybe I was using the wrong terminology in my initial posts. Nobody is talking about just firing wildly with total disregard for where your rounds land. I think most would agree that point shooting is indeed a form of aiming as is body indexing. The point is going for perfect sight picture and failing to work on speed will probably get you killed in a gun fight.

You can call IPSC and IDPA games, but I believe that people that play those games have a much better chance of survival compared to a bullseye shooter in an actual gun fight. First of all, there is a strong focus on speed and getting lead on your target. Second, they do focus on accuracy since the A zone is awarded more points. Besides, there are scenarios where targets or poppers are set further away. Finally, they practice shooting on the move. People that only shoot at stationary targets while standing still have a very hard time hitting anything while moving. The surprising thing for me was that I picked it up pretty quickly the one time I went. I also had some great coaching and was shooting some very nice guns. The more tricked out the gun though, the more it becomes a game.

Paint ball and airsoft are also games, but I believe people who play increase their odds in a gun fight. After all, not getting hit is as important as hitting your target. Of course you can't sling lead indiscriminately as you would paint balls! Regardless, I believe there is still skills that can be learned.

As the economy gets worse, crime usually increases. In my opinion, better to have the skill and not need them.

[Shane Tuttle]

stephen426,

I have to disagree with your thoughts on doing it wrong all these years. For one thing, I wouldn't use that person you saw as a litmus test on your methods of learning.

I also think there are many, many ways of developing defensive techniques, not one or two. I would say that all you need to do is expand on different techniques.

For that reason, I think point shooting from the low ready position (basically bringing the gun up quickly from low ready) and rapid target reacquisition should have much more importance when practicing at the range. I'm not suggesting spray and pray by any means, but rather getting so used to your primary defensive gun that you don't rely on your sights.
What do you guys think?

I would say that point shooting techniques should be learned to become proficient. There are times when this may be needed. However, I believe that sighted fire techniques are extremely important as well.

I can't tell you what's best for you. For me, Randy Cain's methods worked. He teaches sighted fire. I'd be glad to expand further why by PM if you wish so that this thread doesn't veer to another point vs. sight grudge match.

[Threefeathers]

fiddletown, how are you this morning. I finally got a chance to take my sife to Rocky Point which is sort of the Mexican version of Monterey.
Like you I've been rethinking shooting since LFI and from personal experience I realize that sometimes a quick get the gun out and fire from point blank range is necessary. I remember a talk from an ole IRA member when I was in college about shooting a Black and Tan officer, his statement, "There ain't no poor shoot from 2 foot range." rings true.

Yet, from 7 yards there certainly are poor shots. (take an inexpereinced shooterplace them at 7 meters from a IDPA targer and have them raise and fire 6 rounds as fast as they can. I do this often to folks I teach and have never had all 6 shots hit the target.
Doing it as Mas taught is is superior.
On another site the fellow who teaches point shooting in Flagstaff put a nice comment about our LFI class and I replied to him that I'd like to take his class sometime. As Mas said, we learn daily.
That said, I'm going to drill on a quick rock back if at point blank and continue up for a Stresspoint sight as I can.
One of the most combat experienced NCO's I had as a Plt Sgt in the Army, 'Slick' Harrelson drilled one thing in me that I believe has saved my life, "Keep your eye on the front sight, dammit." It is ingrained in me and I'm still here.

[Frank Ettin]

As Clint Smith wrote in the January/February, 2008, American Handgunner:

"It's alway argued that in a fight shooters will not look at their sights. I strongly agree -- if no one has ever taught them otherwise. To say that people don't, or won't, look at their sights is wrong. People have, they will in the future, and they'll hit the...target too. The correct alignment of the sights is a learnable skill. Is a textbook perfect sight picture available in every fight? Of course not....In fairness, the sights are only part of the issue -- the jerked on trigger doesn't improve anything."

Even when one has been taught to look at the sights, how much has he actually practiced quickly seeing the adequate sight picture and acting reflexively, without conscious thought, on the rough sight picture? As another trainer, Bennie Cooley, once told me, "It's not that I shoot quicker than you do. It's that I see quicker."

I often wonder if the reason there are so many misses in fights has less to do with the particular technique that shooter has been taught, but the fact that he hasn't trained sufficiently for the technique to become truly reflexive.

[vox rationis]

OK how about we put it this way:

With slow, aimed, off hand fire, you should be able to put 5 rounds into 1 inch, or less, at 7 yards. If your shots are outside of this parameter, then slow down.

With controlled rapid fire you should be able to make a "shot gun" type pattern into the A zone at 7 yards (or more). If your shots are significantly tighter than this parameter, speed up; if they are outside of this parameter, slow down.

[stephen426]

Son Of Vlad Tepes,

The main goal is to get to the point where you are able to get lead on your target faster than your target can get lead on you. Even if the first hit is not in the A zone, it should hinder your advesary's ability to fight back. Your follow up shots can finish the fight. If you can't hit your target before he hits you, you might not be able shoot back.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by Son Of Vlad Tepes

...With slow, aimed, off hand fire, you should be able to put 5 rounds into 1 inch, or less, at 7 yards. If your shots are outside of this parameter, then slow down.

With controlled rapid fire you should be able to make a "shot gun" type pattern into the A zone at 7 yards (or more). If your shots are significantly tighter than this parameter, speed up; if they are outside of this parameter, slow down.

I agree. I would suggest, however, one amendment. One should be able to do this at any distance out to at least 15 yards. The point is to learn the proper speed and degree of precision of sight picture appropriate to the distance and problem.

Originally Posted by stephen426

The main goal is to get to the point where you are able to get lead on your target faster than your target can get lead on you. Even if the first hit is not in the A zone, it should hinder your advesary's ability to fight back....

I disagree. A peripheral hit on your assailant probably won't hinder his ability to fight, especially if he's intoxicated, high on drugs or under the influence of an adrenalin dump (which is almost a certainty). Bad hits will most likely not slow the BG down at all; he probably won't even notice them. Only good hits are likely to slow and stop the attack.

I’ve been taught that there were four ways in which shooting an assailant would stop the fight:

[1] psychological -- "I'm shot, it hurts, I don't want to get shot any more."

[2] massive blood loss depriving the muscles and brain of oxygen and thus significantly impairing their ability to function

[3] breaking major skeletal support structures

[4] damaging the central nervous system.

Of those, damage to the central nervous system is the quickest, surest and most likely to be fatal. And hoping the guy will stop because it hurts, is the least sure and most likely to be hazardous to your own health. People, both good and bad, have fought long and hard with serious, and often ultimately fatal wounds. And someone who has massive amounts of adrenalin in his system, like a bad guy under the stress of committing a violent crime might, may not feel much pain from even a serious wound.

Since adrenalin or drugs can blunt the effects of pain, and people have continued to fight when severely wounded, effectively stopping the fight usually requires causing sufficient damage to render the attacker physiologically incapable of continuing the fight, such as from massive blood loss depriving the muscles and brain of oxygen, major damage to important skeletal support structures or damage to the central nervous system.

We are generally taught, and practice, shooting for the center of mass of our attacker, i. e., his chest. It presents a bigger, and generally less mobile, target than the head. And the idea is that within that area of the body there are a lot of major organs that will bleed a lot when damaged. So the center of mass is the usual target of choice because it’s the one we’re most likely to be able to hit. And we thus rely on blood loss depriving the attacker’s muscles of oxygen to stop the fight. The rub is that the effects of blood loss and oxygen deprivation can take some time – during which our attacker will most likely continue to try to hurt us.

We indeed may not have either the time or bullets to waste on peripheral hits that will most likely have no effect on the assailant.

[David Armstrong]

But missing a B-27 target at 7 yards and thinking that's point shooting and the way to go isn't a good way to 'survive the usual CCW incident",

I would have thought it rather obvious that missing the target is not good point shooting, and that missing is not a good way to survive the usual CCW incident. Thus the "Spray and pray is not a good shooting technique. "

And so is learning a good sighted fire method.

No disagreement, and I don't think anyone has ever said otherwise. Everything in its place and everything at its time.

And pray tell, david, what if it's not quite the 'usual CCW incident'. Not like you can pick what incident you encounter.

I would think it pretty obvious that if it is not the usual CCW incident you might need something beyond the usual effective response. And while one can't pick what incident they encounter, they can have some control over the incidents they are likely to encounter.

[David Armstrong]

"...you don't rely on your sights..." Rubbish. Aimed fire is always better. Both legally and morally.

Yes. However, aimed fired (using the sights) is not always possible. Thus the importance of being able to utilize threat focused shooting.

If you don't use the sights and one bullet hits something or somebody, you're liable.

Whether you use the sights or not really doesn't effect the liability issue much. If you use the sights and hit something you shouldn't, you're not any more or less liable than if you used the threat focused shooting. If you don't use the sights and you hit your target, you aren't any more or less liable than if you used the sights.

[David Armstrong]

Only good hits are likely to slow and stop the attack.

While good hits are more likely to insure that the attack will be slowed or stopped, any hits are likely to slow and stop the attack. Most attacks stop without any actual physical requirement---in other words, the BG stops not because he has to, but because he wants to.

[Deaf Smith]

Yes. However, aimed fired (using the sights) is not always possible. Thus the importance of being able to utilize threat focused shooting.

No, this is why one trains to bring the weapon up to the same position every time. In doing so the sights ARE in rough alighment. If you still can't see them it won't matter as they are in alingment. This is from the FM of the "MT". The 'flash sight picture" is mearly to confirm the sights, not to adjust.

Even if you used point shooting/threat focused/whatever you would still have to align the weapon with whereever you wanted the bullet to go. The key is indexing. One can easly learn that with a good presentation and sighted fire.

any hits are likely to slow and stop the attack

Bull. Show us the stats that show 'any hits' are likely to slow or stop. I bet you have zero on that david.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by David Armstrong

...any hits are likely to slow and stop the attack...

I doubt it. I don't doubt that there have been times when peripheral hits have stopped an attack. But I'm not prepared to accept the proposition that they would be likely to stop the attack, at least without some solid evidence. Do you have any? And if a peripheral hit doesn't stop the guy who's attacking you, you have just wasted some time and ammunition that may have been better applied to getting a better first hit.

There's also the question of training approach. Am I going to train to get good hits fast, or am I going to train to get bad hits fast? If I train to get good hits fast, well maybe my first shot under stress will be a poor hit -- and if so, so be it. But if I'm training to get bad hits fast, there's a real good chance that my first shot (or two or three) under stress will be misses -- and that won't help at all.

[Brit]

stephen426,

To find out what to train for, try to gather case history for shootings that have happened, real incidents. Up to 100 miles radius of your home location.

There are more of the drug dealer shooting drug dealer shootings than BG being shot by GG! The starter normally wins!

Reason? they start with gun in hand, lots of times they are more effective weapons, long guns are used by drive by artists as well, a 7.62X39 from twenty feet is an effective way of ending a territorial argument.

Definitely shoot IDPA, use your carry gear, gun/holster/mag pouch, and same cover type garment. Have gun and gear fail on a stage, not behind some building at O-dark thirty. Sights on a pistol tell you where the shot went, not where it is going, it verifies, scopes are a call the shot device.
From the holster, Punch gun forward, shot breaks as hands/arms stop forward punch, eyes behind the gun, sights kick from where the shot broke, "verification" and quick.

[stephen426]

The thing that caught my attention about the other guy's shooting was his unloading into the target. Inall honesty, he kind of looked like a hoodlum and I was thinking that I certainly wouldn't want to be on the business end of the barrell. I could certainly shoot much better groups than him, but how well would I be able to shoot if I was hit by 10 out of 12 round fired in about 4 seconds? Don't forget I mentioned his shots looked like a shotgun pattern which included good hits as well as bad hits. You can claim that "bad hits" won't stop a fight, but I can't see how someone could take 10 hits to the torso and still be able to fight back effectively. The first person to score a critical hit should win the fight, but I'm certain my ability to fight back would be diminished. Further more, if I took the time to get a perfect sight picture, I would probably be dead. Even if all 10 hits were non-critical, the blood loss would be very significant and the ability to control the bleeding from 10 places (possibly more if there are exit wounds) is slim to none.

In all honesty, I don't expect everyone to understand this "lightbulb moment" since they didn't see it first hand. I have been shooting for almost 15 years and I would say I am a decent shot. On the other hand, if I was facing that guy next to me, my failure to practice quick sight acquisition and rapid firing would probably end up with me loosing the fight. Try to find a range that allows rapid fire and see how well you can control your weapon. It might be harder than you think.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by stephen426

...but I can't see how someone could take 10 hits to the torso and still be able to fight back effectively....

Read accounts of actual gun fights. Read the Ayoob Files, the book and read his articles about actual gun fights in American Handgunner magazine. Read the account of the Miami FBI shoot out in which a mortally wounded BG was able to continue to fight and kill a number of FBI agents until he was finally stopped by a critically wounded agent. People can fight long and hard with serious, let alone peripheral, wounds.

Originally Posted by stephen426

...if I took the time to get a perfect sight picture,...

Reread some of my and others posts. No one is talking about a perfect sight picture. One of the keys to good, fast shooting is the flash sight picture -- only as good as warranted by conditions. (Another key is trigger control.)

Originally Posted by stephen426

...if I was facing that guy next to me, my failure to practice quick sight acquisition and rapid firing would probably end up with me loosing the fight....

Yes you probably would. But the answer to that problem is NOT practicing bad, fast shooting. The answer is learning and practicing good, fast shooting.

Originally Posted by stephen426

...Try to find a range that allows rapid fire and see how well you can control your weapon. It might be harder than you think....

It may be harder than one thinks, but it is possible. I've learned shoot quickly and accurately -- by competing in USPSA (Limited Division), training at Gunsite and other schools and practicing regularly.

[big_bang]

I practice emptying my 340PD with Speer .357 short-barrel loads into a 10" circle at 25 feet. I strive for one shot per second.

[David Armstrong]

No, this is why one trains to bring the weapon up to the same position every time. In doing so the sights ARE in rough alighment.

But deaf, once you get off the range and into real fights you'll find that you CAN'T always bring the weapon to the same position every time, along with assorted other issues we've been over dozens of times. Of course, as we've also seen, target-focus allows one to achieve that goal with less training, which is also a good thing.

Bull. Show us the stats that show 'any hits' are likely to slow or stop. I bet you have zero on that david.

Once again, deaf, your inability to understand basic issues in actual gunfights is showing. Most gunfights are over without any shots. Where shots are fired the usual response is for the fight to stop without any CNS hits. Perhaps you are Superman and being shot doesn't effect you at all, but for most folks it seems to have a detrimental effect to varying degrees..

[David Armstrong]

But I'm not prepared to accept the proposition that they would be likely to stop the attack, at least without some solid evidence. Do you have any?

Sure. Just look at the data concerning gunshots. You'll find that few of them are CNS hits, yet you will see great success at stopping the fight. The overwhelming number of "stops" in CCW gunfights appear to be psychological rather than physical (I want to as opposed to I have to).

Am I going to train to get good hits fast, or am I going to train to get bad hits fast?

I would hope one would not ever train to get bad hits. However, what one chooses to consider a bad hit is certainly open to definition.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by David Armstrong

...The overwhelming number of "stops" in CCW gunfights appear to be psychological rather than physical (I want to as opposed to I have to).

So far you have stated this as fact several times in several ways. But you have not produced one shred of evidence to support this contention. I guess we'll just need to assume that you have no such evidence and that your statement is merely your unsubstantiated opinion.

In any case, if some such encounters thus end happily, some must not and require more definitive hits to settle.

[garryc]

Sure. Just look at the data concerning gunshots. You'll find that few of them are CNS hits, yet you will see great success at stopping the fight. The overwhelming number of "stops" in CCW gunfights appear to be psychological rather than physical (I want to as opposed to I have to).

He's right. Put it this way, I shoot a deer with a rifle and take out both lungs, he runs until the oxygen in his muscles runs out. I do the same to a human and he falls down. What's the difference? The difference is that the human knows he's been shot and the deer doesn't. The deer knows something happened, but can't comprehend it. So take a limb hit, the deer just goes "Ouch" the human "Oh my God, I've been shot!!"

Take a perp that's doped up. He might have an altered sense of reality. He keeps going because he doesn't fully comprehend what happened to him.

[stephen426]

Quote:
Originally Posted by stephen426
...but I can't see how someone could take 10 hits to the torso and still be able to fight back effectively....

Read accounts of actual gun fights. Read the Ayoob Files, the book and read his articles about actual gun fights in American Handgunner magazine. Read the account of the Miami FBI shoot out in which a mortally wounded BG was able to continue to fight and kill a number of FBI agents until he was finally stopped by a critically wounded agent. People can fight long and hard with serious, let alone peripheral, wounds.


Quote:
Originally Posted by stephen426
...if I took the time to get a perfect sight picture,...

Reread some of my and others posts. No one is talking about a perfect sight picture. One of the keys to good, fast shooting is the flash sight picture -- only as good as warranted by conditions. (Another key is trigger control.)


Quote:
Originally Posted by stephen426
...if I was facing that guy next to me, my failure to practice quick sight acquisition and rapid firing would probably end up with me loosing the fight....

Yes you probably would. But the answer to that problem is NOT practicing bad, fast shooting. The answer is learning and practicing good, fast shooting.


Quote:
Originally Posted by stephen426
...Try to find a range that allows rapid fire and see how well you can control your weapon. It might be harder than you think....

It may be harder than one thinks, but it is possible. I've learned shoot quickly and accurately -- by competing in USPSA (Limited Division), training at Gunsite and other schools and practicing regularly.

Fiddletown,

I think we are basically agreeing with each other here. Who the heck would want to make bad hits? I want to practice making good hits fast. I guess the whoe idea behind the thread is to convince poeple to move on from the typical "shoot for pretty little groups with slow aimed fire" mentality and to practice drawing quickly and getting lead on their target quickly. Without this practice, I feel most would be ill prepared for an actual gun fight. I know none of us ever intend on getting into a gun fight,, but then again don't we carry and practice just in case it might happen? Might as well practice skills that will greatly improve your ability to survive an attack.