Both eyes open

[Lohman446]

What we can do is resolve to be a dangerous target, and work to that end.

Then I failed to articulate my position because that is effectively the position I intended to take with "go down swinging"

[OldMarksman]

I know the limits of my ability. If multiple determined and competent attackers chose to ambush me the best I can hope for is to go down swinging.

Are your self-proclaimed limitations the result of physical shortcomings, lack of training and/or practice, or mindset?

[K_Mac]

Then I failed to articulate my position because that is effectively the position I intended to take with "go down swinging"

Not to pick nits, but resolving to go down fighting, and working on the skills to do that effectively in a multiple attacker situation are two different things. One says, I will do my best with what I have. The​ other says I will train to be effective against multiple attackers. One is defeatist, the other pragmatic in my opinion.

[Lohman446]

Are your self-proclaimed limitations the result of physical shortcomings, lack of training and/or practice, or mindset?

Pragmatism. I know, from training, there is a limit to what one can accomplish

Not to pick nits, but resolving to go down fighting, and working on the skills to do that effectively in a multiple attacker situation are two different things. One says, I will do my best with what I have. The​ other says I will train to be effective against multiple attackers. One is defeatist, the other pragmatic in my opinion.

If I make it out the other side then I have gotten lucky and that is wonderful. I will do my best with what is on hand but in a situation where I am faced with multiple attackers (ok 2 or maybe 3 I stand some chance) that is not likely going to result in coming out the other side.

For the record I assume competent and determined attackers to be armed. I'm not discussing a few wanna be "gangstas" at the mall that mommy dropped off.

[OldMarksman]

Pragmatism. I know, from training, there is a limit to what one can accomplish

What?

Many people who have availed themselves of high quality defensive pistol training have demonstrated objectively in FoF simulation that they can hope to survive an ambush by what you have described as "multiple determined and competent attackers".

Many others strive to be able to do so.

The likelihood of such an occurrence is in most cases far less than remote, but the potential consequences are severe indeed.

Furthermore, should one ever need to employ a firearm in self defense, that is the most likely situation that one would face.

That brings to mind the obvious question: if one believes that one cannot use the weapon effectively for its intended purpose, what would one carry it in the first place?

I will do my best with what is on hand but in a situation where I am faced with multiple attackers (ok 2 or maybe 3 I stand some chance) that is not likely going to result in coming out the other side.

Well, "two or "three" means" multiple".

I suggest that to believe that one would only "stand some chance" in a likely violent criminal attack is terribly pessimistic.

Has something somehow led you to believe that an attack by a single assailant is significantly more likely than attack by two or three?

[Lohman446]

Time is a commodity and we all have a limit on the time we are going to devote for training. If we devote training to situations we cannot reasonably expect to overcome we devote less training to situations we can reasonably expect to overcome.

I'll devote my time and resources into preparing for the situations I will have a likely chance of overcoming.

Back to the topic. Keep both eyes open. I still maintain the person who is the most able to keep his or her head in the game, be aware of the situation as much as possible as it develops, and think his or her way through it is the one most likely to reach his or her goals for that situation.

[OldMarksman]

Time is a commodity and we all have a limit on the time we are going to devote for training.

Yes indeed.

If we devote training to situations we cannot reasonably expect to overcome we devote less training to situations we can reasonably expect to overcome.

Training is among the most important mitigation stratifies to allow us to overcome violent situations....

I'll devote my time and resources into preparing for the situations I will have a likely chance of overcoming.

Even if they are not the most serious risks?

Let's see--you have said that you would likely not be able to survive an attack mede without prior notice by.....

• two or more attackers
• who have the capability of killing or seriously herming you
• and who intend to do so.

Do I have that right?

For what kind of attack do you train?

[Lohman446]

OldMarksman:

I make the assumption that anyone who would instigate and engage in violent force is at least as competent as I am. As such it becomes a number issue. Add in the element of ambush and the advantage is heightened.

I don't make a good target for anyone. I am in reasonable shape, wear store-bought denim jeans, and drive vehicles that are ten years old or more. I avoid crowds of people due to social issues and am generally unobtrusive.

I assume anyone who has taken the time to bother to attack me is doing it for a reason and is not just some wanna be tough guy(s) on the street. I'm not worried about the two or three clowns that are likely not competent and not determined who will disengage at any show of resistance. I can handle that. I cannot handle the two or three competent and determined people who have decided I am a valid target and have taken the time to set up an effective ambush. I expect that the people who can actually deal with that situation are in a very very small percentile. The good news is I cannot figure out why anyone would bother with me as that specific of a target.

[g.willikers]

If we devote training to situations we cannot reasonably expect to overcome we devote less training to situations we can reasonably expect to overcome.

How could we ever know what situations will arise?
Training and practicing for the situations we can only imagine will happen has to be misleading.
The real world doesn't really make accommodation for what we think, only for what is.
The better we can get, the better we can deal with what happens, whatever it is.
Will any adversaries you might come across behave according to your plan?
That might be expecting a bit much.

[Lohman446]

How could we ever know what situations will arise?
Training and practicing for the situations we can only imagine will happen has to be misleading.
The real world doesn't really make accommodation for what we think, only for what is.
The better we can get, the better we can deal with what happens, whatever it is.

You will never be able to account for all the variables of a dynamic situation. Even martial arts training ends up being somewhat scripted and predictable based on the limitations of what training will allow. Want to train against a scenario involving a dozen delta force level attackers armed with rifles? Go ahead. Its probably a "worst case" scenario for an individual. I'm not certain how much that training will actually help you when something goes wrong.

To draw my pistol, engage two separate targets center of mass, and then reengage if needed is going to take in the 5-7 second range (granted I have not actually had it timed lately). I am much better off attempting to be better at this then I am adding a third target. If those targets are competent and armed at least one has likely returned fire. Given the benefit of surprise (and likely drawn weapons) it is likely both have.

[K_Mac]

How does adding a third target during training that requires some movement reduce your ability to engage two? We are not talking about being targeted by a team of special forces assassins. We are talking about the very real possibility that in any self-defense situation where lethal force is involved there will be multiple attackers. You cannot bet your life that the "wannabe tough guys" on the street are not all going to be armed and dangerous. Being able to move while engaging multiple attackers is not ninja level training. It will make you better at effectively targeting one or two. It is certainly​ not an either/or equation.

[OldMarksman]

I make the assumption that anyone who would instigate and engage in violent force is at least as competent as I am.

Good.

As such it becomes a number issue. Add in the element of ambush and the advantage is heightened.

Okay.

I don't make a good target for anyone. I am in reasonable shape, wear store-bought denim jeans, and drive vehicles that are ten years old or more. I avoid crowds of people due to social issues and am generally unobtrusive.

All good, but if you are attacked, none of that will matter.

I assume anyone who has taken the time to bother to attack me is doing it for a reason....

Well, sure.

I cannot handle the two or three competent and determined people who have decided I am a valid target and have taken the time to set up an effective ambush.

You seem to be concluding in advance that you "cannot handle" the most likely violent crime scenario.

The good news is I cannot figure out why anyone would bother with me as that specific of a target.

How many victims can?

[OhioGuy]

To the original question, I've been shooting with both eyes open for a while now, and I've not found any particular strategy for such training, other than to simply do it. I have a laser trainer that is especially helpful for this, whether at home or at the range. I find that the closer the target, the better I'm able to see the front sight "ghosted" in front of it, and I can kind of tell when it's level. And of course, I'm more accurate at the short range (duh!).

I've been able to hit inside an 8" circular target out to about 30 feet while focusing on the target. Having a bright front sight helps a lot.

At 15' I can come up on target and get a group of shots quickly into the torso area of a silhouette, and much more quickly than I can if stop to aim first.

I always try to mix a bit of target-focused shooting into my range routine. I never intend to go target shooting that way, so my routine usually just aims (forgive the pun) to land 2-3 quick shots into the correct area of the target without looking away from the target. I figure that's roughly realistic-ish.

[Snyper]

Pax,
Talking to the spotter while zipping down the race track and shifting gears should qualify as a convincing example of doing multiple things at once.

If you were doing all those with your eyes you'd be correct.
The point here is you cannot focus on multiple objects at one time.
You can see things in your peripheral vision, but they won't be clear.

Try shifting gears while scratching your head and holding the steering wheel.

The way to learn to shoot with both eyes open is to go out and shoot while keeping both eyes open.

It doesn't require special techniques or training beyond being self-aware

[Reader850]

This is certainly an interesting point.
=========
Quote:
PAX said "you cannot simultaneously pay strict attention to getting your hits and see what's going on to the sides of you at the same time. Brains are just not wired that way."
vs other comment:
"Being involved with motor sports, I personally can account that focusing on what's ahead and still being aware of what's going on all around is essential."
=========

I believe you are both right. People can THINK about (pay strict attention to) only one thing at a time. They can simultaneously MONITOR (be aware of) other scenes/sensory input, such as driving and monitoring the highway and mirrors if they have the motor memory for doing so without thinking. I read an article recently about a study of multitasking, and it described how people can think through or solve only one problem at a time, that true multitasking is a myth, and excessive shifting of thought from one task to another actually impedes efficiency. But of course while thinking of where to next stop for gas, if our monitoring of what's going on around us alerts us of some other issue of a higher priority (a deer on the side of the highway), we shift our thinking to that new problem.

[shafter]

Take up traditional archery. When you learn instinctive shooting with a bow you can apply the same principles to pistol shooting. Look where you're shooting and let the gun just become a blur in the sight picture. It goes against front sight focus doctrine but it's fast and it works.

[mete]

Shotgun also is more instinctive , focusing on the bird ! I took some serious coaching in shotgun to break me of the habit of the rifle shooters front sight system ! A properly fitting shotgun also helps.

[Reader850]

In my youth we didn't have any hand guns, but we had lots of shotgun bird hunting and playing with bows. Possibly that is why I never thought twice of keeping both eyes open when I finally shot handguns. It was normal for me already. And/or as PAX says, I may be strongly right eye dominant, making it easy.

[SauerGrapes]

I spend a fair amount of time shooting shotgun. Helped me with pistol shooting. Now it seems weird to close an eye. Your focus is off the bead and on the target.

[FireForged]

I don't understand the problem... aim with your dominant eye ( both eyes open) and everything else just happens.

[A J]

I tend to shoot one eye closed most of the time. Why? Just lazy, I suppose. Plus, I get better accuracy using the one-eye method. Go figure.