Aiming with front sight?

[evan1293]

In general, almost everyone in those pics is reacting similarly.
Besides, we are not talking about baseball bats, are we?

They are? Looks to me like some are blading, some are squaring, some are extending their arms, while others are blocking their faces with their forearms. Baseball bat or not, you should be able to understand the comparison.

Here's a more complete picture...notice the individuals that I circled....

[tc556guy]

They are? Looks to me like some are blading, some are squaring, some are extending their arms and while others are blocking their faces with they're forearms. Baseball bat or not you should be able to understand the comparison.

Overthinking it, Evan. They are all basically shielding themselves, a similar action.

[evan1293]

They are all basically shielding themselves, a similar action

Right...I agree with that. The point Im making is not that individuals don't shield themselves from a theat. The point Im making is a response to the statement that most people shield themselves by crouching in an iso stance. While I agree that it may be true for some its not true for all. My own, limited experience has shown me that at times I do crouch and go to iso, particularly when the threat and I are opposing one another in a large open area, and the threat is beyond 10 yards in front of me. I found myself in most situations however, blading to a threat with my gun held close to my body.

I think training can alter a lot of our responses as well. I've trained a great deal with both ISO and CAR and I think thats why for me, I find my self using both at different times. Perhaps if I had never trained to shoot CAR I would always punch out in to an ISO type stance....?

[tc556guy]

The point Im making is a response to the statement that most people shield themselves by crouching in an iso stance. While I agree that it may be true for some its not true for all. My own, limited experience has shown me that at times I do crouch and go to iso, particularly when the threat and I are opposing one another in a large open area, and the threat is beyond 10 yards in front of me. I found myself in most situations however, blading to a threat with my gun held close to my body.

Most people, as part of the fight or flight response, will instinctively square off, face the target, and crouch. This is borne out in studies of numerous gunfights. Is it a 100% thing; no. Is it possible that you are an exception, yes. Ultimately, we wont know how you personally react in that situation til your are in it. We CAN describe what the normal behavior in general for individuals placed in that situation has been, and we should train ourselves and those training under us for what has been observed to be the typical behavior. To train ourselves to do things like utilize fine motor skills that we KNOW will be degraded, or to always utilize the front sight for very close-in targets that are a proximity threat to us......I believe that does everyone involved a disservice and puts us at risk for not surviving.

In those instances where you say you bladed off, I have to wonder if your body truly perceived that you were in danger. If not, you allowed yourself to take the less proactive response to whatever "threat" you were facing.

[David Armstrong]

The point Im making is a response to the statement that most people shield themselves by crouching in an iso stance. While I agree that it may be true for some its not true for all.

I almost hate to point out the obvious, but using a picture of people reacting while seated to support a concept of reaction while not seated is heavily flawed. Almost by definition the seated body cannot react the same as it would in a less restricted environment.

While I agree that it may be true for some its not true for all.

It is the common, hard-wired response in our species, and the one we resort to. That some can train themselves to respond in a different manner some of the time in no way negates that.

[bds32]

I dont think theres any problem with this method of practice because your still programming yourself to bring the gun into your line of sight. Whether you place your focus on the FS during a shooting exercise or on the threat during a fight, your gun is going to need to be in the same position ( in your line of sight) at 5-10 yards, most likely

I have to second this opinion as this has been my exact experience in numerous force on force training scenarios. I've been trained and have exclusively practiced to focus on the front sight. However, even with AR-15 Simunitions, I found myself focusing on the threat (not on the Aimpoint red dot) when the threat was shooting at me at ranges of less than 10 yards. Yet, on the range, I always went with the Aimpoint for the AR and with the front sight on the pistol.

Many police gunfight winners advise that they never saw the sights but yet we know that training to use the front sight has been standard in LE academies for a long time.

A SWAT commander and trainer by the name of Randy Watt reported an experiment in 2006 or 2007 that concluded that you should train to use your front sight even though it is very possible that you will not remember seeing it in a gunfight. In that experiment, front sight advocates shot faster and better than point shooters during realistic training scenarios using live firearms on targets with someone shooting Sims at them. Yet, none of them recall the use of the front sight.

Essentially, like Evan stated, you are programming yourself to put the pistol in the right position when you train to use the front sight. It is my belief that if forced into a close quarter gunfight, I will push the pistol into the position that it has gone many thousands of times in training, I believe I will focus exclusively on the threat if the threat is pointing or shooting a gun at me.

[mellow_c]

Dont get me wrong... But I think you guys are forgetting the best part about those pictures. They're absolutely HILARIOUS! lol I mean look at that little baby girl for heavens sake. It's like shes reaching out to the light. And then out of all the people, theres the one guys arm reaching into the picture trying to grab the bat. AHaha

Anyway. The bottom line is, not everyone will take the time to become an expert shooter. If you more comfortable with point shooting, then thats what you should practice. and if you feel it's worth the extra half second to bring the gun up so you can use your front sight for a precise shoot. Then you'll probably have great success in case of an attack. Shooting moving targets is also another story, but in most cases, the attacker will be moving towards you, and I doubt he'll be running back and forth trying to dodge your bullets that are coming from your gun that he probably hasn't even noticed you've drawn. Just be careful that if someone already has their gun on you, you dont go for your's... Cause they will probably shoot you first. Just tell them "please dont kill me, hears everything I have" and dont look at them to much.

I love point shooting. But I seriously should work on both my point and FS shooting.

[Frank Ettin]

I’m skeptical about leaning something a certain way because it’s “natural.” Sometimes one's instinctive reaction is not the correct response. In fact, it seems that one element of training and practice is to overcome instinctive reaction and to learn to automatically do instead what is appropriate.

For example, when driving a car, one's instinctive reaction in the event of a skid is to apply the brakes. We know that is the wrong thing to do; and so, if one is lucky enough to get some training in high speed driving, one learns to stay off the brake, turn into the skid and, under some circumstances, even gently apply some throttle. I remember my first time driving a Formula Ford through Turn 8 at Laguna Seca -- a left-right downhill "S" turn. When hitting the apex of the first half of the turn, you can't see the track. My "instinct" said to back off the throttle. But of course, backing off the throttle under side loading while going downhill is a good way to lose the back end.

In many ways, shooting is essentially unnatural and that to be good we need to develop physical and mental skills that are not innate or instinctive. 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."

There are two largely irreconcilable and firmly entrenched doctrines in combat shooting: point shooting and the modern technique employing the flash sight picture. I've trained and practiced the latter, and with proper training and practice one can put excellent, multiple hits on target very, very quickly. It's important to realize that the flash sight picture is not the same as the normal, precise sight picture one might want doing slow firing, marksmanship exercises at the range. It is a sight picture no more precise than reasonably appropriate to the range. (And of course, point shooting at appropriately close distances is an important skill.)

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
Many of the more complex tasks we come to do without conscious thought aren't really instinctive or intuitive; they are, rather, reflexive. They are not natural, innate responses we are born with. Rather, they are habitual responses developed and conditioned by training and practice

[David Armstrong]

There are two largely irreconcilable and firmly entrenched doctrines in combat shooting: point shooting and the modern technique employing the flash sight picture.

Actually most point shooting advocates also advocate getting a sight picture whenever possible, and using point shooting only when necessary.

I've trained and practiced the latter, and with proper training and practice one can put excellent, multiple hits on target very, very quickly.

Much the same can be said of the former (point shooting).

[bds32]

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

You are right on the money with that. And, no training is complete without some Force on Force Simunitions training to show what you're likely to do under fire. That sure made a believer out of me.

[Scattergun Bob]

David,

Yes, they are both effective if practiced. What I THINK we are talking about in this thread, like most of our threads is force multipliers, and it is not necessary for them to be mutually exclusive for them to maintain their effectiveness. For myself I wish to fill my survival tool belt with as many tools and techniques as possible. I coined a term "my response inventory" and after certifying that a tool works for me, I load it in regardless of who thought it up.



force multiplier= refers to a factor that dramatically increases (hence "multiplies") the effectiveness of our attack or defense.


Good Luck & Be Safe

[EastSideRich]

Those pictures are effin HILARIOUS!!

I can't not laugh out loud when I look at them.