Importance of sights in self defense

[OhioGuy]

Originally Posted by TunnelRat

As I said above, from my limited experience I can't say there is a guaranteed distance at which reflexive is always better. I do know that at 3 yds shooting reflexively I can cut ~3" groups on the upper thoracic cavity shooting at full speed. Certainly well within the A zone. The farther I move out the more this obviously changes. Now at that same distance I do one hole drills with sighted slow fire and don't have any issue. How tight do the groups need to be? Given the limited effectiveness of handgun rounds getting that critical hit isn't a given. I think even if you do plan to start shooting reflexively you should be evaluating your effectiveness as the fight progresses. Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result is the definition of insanity, but I've seen people even in force on force freeze up and keep doing the same thing. Having the clarity of thought to change your tactics in a fight also isn't a given.

One training class had us running drills like these:

1. On the buzzer, draw from the holster and fire one shot "from the hip" at retention (target at arm's length)
2. Step back and come to full extension, fire one shot at the torso unsighted (target at about 5')
3. Retreat to a position of cover, fire an accurate sighted shot (target at 10')

Of course, drills like these are staged with "cover" being available when you need it, nothing to trip over while you retreat, only one attacker, no consequences of a miss, etc.

With a laser trainer at home, I often practice drawing and shooting from the hip at contact distance, 5', 10' and 15' trying to index my elbow at my hip joint for consistency. At contact distance I can't miss, at 5' it's still in the A zone, 10' it's still "pretty good," 15' is far less consistent, and even just bringing the gun to eye level results in more accuracy.

[TunnelRat]

Those are good drills and cover the type of progression I'm trying to get across. I'm just trying to convey that like most things it's not all one way or all the other. Ideally you'd mix the two as needed.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[Rangerrich99]

Good discussion.

There seems to be at least two question being debated here.

1) Is it necessary to use the sights for every shot to get good hits?

2) Should we shoot at all without using the sights?

As for myself, I'm no LEO or combat veteran; I'm just an average Joe, so to speak. And wherever possible, I try to use the sights on my gun. I won't try to get into the technicalities of "flash pictures" and so forth because I'm a rank amateur compared to many of you and it would sound ridiculous. I will say that I do at least try to find the front sight for most of my shooting. Anything longer than about 10 yards, and I pretty much have to get a decent sight picture to keep my hits inside the A-box.

However, I recently watched a few videos at my close quarters defensive handgun classes where the potential victims were ambushed at close range and had no choice but to draw and shoot one-handed, and in at least three cases, had to fire from a non-standard position, two of them were basically hip-shots. One of those was from the man's back on the ground.

We also were given an observation from a well-known gunfighter (sorry I can't remember his name right now, Ayoob, Hackathorn, someone). I'm paraphrasing here: 'there are three things you will never feel you have enough of in a gunfight: time, space, and bullets.'

The lesson was there are times when you just don't have the time to bring the gun up and shoot from a Weaver/modified Weaver/Isosceles/etc. stance. Sometimes the attack happens so quickly that you barely have time to draw and get the gun pointed in the right direction. Sometimes you don't even have that much time.

Did those point-shots in the videos stop the fight right then and there? Nope. Follow-up shots were necessary in each case. But they did get hits, and those hits and the attackers' subsequent reflexive reactions (flinching/pulling away) gave the defenders a split second to back away/fall away and get a better grip on the gun for their follow-up shots. In one of the incidents that one shot to the side was enough to effectively end the fight, as the attacker turned and ran out of the store.

Should they have waited until they could've gotten themselves into a more stable, two-handed technically perfect stance to fire a shot? Based on what we saw in the videos, the answer to that was a clear "no."

And the more I learn at those classes, the more of these types of video clips I watch, the more I realize that being able to stand there in a mechanically perfect stance and deliver rounds as if I were at the range punching paper is a fantastic luxury that many (not most, but many) times I will not have, should I become the subject of such an encounter.

In fact, it's seems fairly likely that I'll have to fire my gun one-handed, probably while trying to find cover or even just ducking, and from a body position that is not perfectly stable. And that might include having to point-shoot for my life.

So with that reality in mind, I think it's necessary to my overall training regimen to practice shooting one-handed (both right and left), from non-standard positions, such as kneeling, from the ground, peeking around cover, etc. And so that includes point-shooting, whether it's from the "hip," (I actually shoot more from the side of my ribs than the hip), or from the center of my chest, or whatever.

Now someone stated earlier something to the effect of, 'you need better than a few A-box shots to stop an attacker.' And I would agree with that, but doesn't it also stand to reason that some hits are better than no hits (going with the hockey mantra, "you have to get shots on goal to score")?

Also, isn't there a chance that some of those 'A-box' hits will in fact hit something vital?

And don't the odds of getting a CNS/vital hit while point-shooting increase if you practice such shots? I mean, I'm not saying we can become the next Bob Munden, but take this video clip for example:

https://youtu.be/MXds-RgjOe4
(I made several mistakes during this drill, for bonus points maybe someone can figure out what they were)

The first three shots are all point shots, two from the side of the ribs, and the third is a chest indexed shot. Two of those rounds landed within 1.5 inches of each other, the other was about 6 inches below the other two. All shots were inside the 'A-box.' Two of those shots would've most likely impacted the spine had the bullets penetrated as advertised.

Yes, there was probably some luck in the POI of those shots, but I practice this type of shooting at least once a month, so my groups rarely print outside the A-box area.

Starting to digress. I was just trying to make the observation that sometimes one doesn't have the time or space to get into a technically perfect stance/position to take a shot in a defensive situation. Sometimes you have to work with whatever God/Fate gives you.

Anyway, I've enjoyed reading this thread and the varying opinions expressed here.

[Sharkbite]

I often practice drawing and shooting from the hip at contact distance, 5', 10' and 15' trying to index my elbow at my hip joint for consistency. At contact distance I can't miss, at 5' it's still in the A zone, 10' it's still "pretty good," 15' is far less consistent, and even just bringing the gun to eye level results in more accuracy.

And that sums it up nicely. Inside double arms reach, firing from a retention position or, at most, at compressed high ready results in good hits without sights. Beyond that distance hits fall off and sights increase the hit probability

I go so far as to have my students shoot from different levels of extension to see what the hits are like as the gun comes fully out. Beyond about 5-6 yards the gun at full extension and looking for the sights seems to yield the best results. Just Inside that looking over the gun works well. At Knife fighting distances, shoot from retention

[Brit]

Utilizing the Punch Draw. Where you utilize the draw stroke to orient the two, or one, handed combat grip, the sights are seen, as the first round is fired helps in first round effective hits. The sights kick, from where the gun was aimed.

The difference in seeing the sights, or not (looking over the gun) is a split second. A burst of rounds that hit, where you want them, is more likely to be effective (3 or 4 rounds) than point shot ones. Just saying.

[fastbolt]

If you were to treat each and every round fired as your only round, would you want each and every one to be accurate, or just pointed in the hopeful direction?

This sometimes reminds me of another instructor I knew when we'd first went from revolvers to hi-cap 9's.

One day the head instructor was checking and assessing the training staff using some drills involving pepper poppers. These were all guys who had spent their previous years as cops and trainers shooting revolvers (from .357 Magnum to .44 Magnum), and who typically had shooting skills superior to the "average" cop shooter. A couple had previously been on shooting teams.

Things were fine, as you might expect with a bunch of seasoned instructors, with everyone making nicely accurate and controlled hits ... until ...

When it was the turn of that guy, he drew and rapidly emptied his whole magazine, throwing up dirt and sand all around a pepper popper. He was "loosely aiming", but shooting faster than he could see the sights between shots. He hit the popper a couple of times, but low and not well enough to knock it over, and most of his shots were misses in the near vicinity of it.

The head instructor didn't care for that response, obviously. When asked why the hell the instructor had "sprayed and prayed", he was silly enough to give the answer that he thought that was why they gave him so many rounds in his hi-cap mags. (No, he'd not have acted that way if he'd been shooting a lo-cap revolver.)

Now, this was a long time ago, but it illustrates a point that some folks, even with some training and experience under their belt, might sometimes make the mistake of thinking having a greater number of rounds available before having to reload might mistake that for being able to "absorb" some misses.

Well, you're responsible for each round fired, so why not act as if you're responsible - and desire - to have each and every round hit the intended threat, in a solid manner?

Another peeve I had as younger instructor was the occasional guy who actually said that he considered his first DA shot, using a traditional double action pistol (DA/SA), to be a "throw away" shot.

I always looked at it as that first shot being absolutely critical, as it might turn out to be the only shot I had available to me. I'm ultimately going to be held responsible for where it goes, so I might as well make it hit where I want it to hit, right? Might just save my life, too.

[AK103K]

Another peeve I had as younger instructor was the occasional guy who actually said that he considered his first DA shot, using a traditional double action pistol (DA/SA), to be a "throw away" shot.

I believe this Jeff Coopers solution to the DA autos, due to his disdain of them?

I remember seeing him make that very comment a couple of times in print. Shoot the first DA round into the ground as you bring the "crunchenticker" up, to cock the hammer.


As far as speed and hi cap guns (or any gun for that matter), I never understood the whole "Spray and Pray" thing. Those who can shoot, dont seem to have the problem. More rounds to shoot, simply means more rounds on target. At least thats how I always looked at it. Its always going to be up to you to put them there though.

Shooting quickly, with control, takes some practice, but isnt difficult. Sighted or unsighted.

[OhioGuy]

Originally Posted by fastbolt

Another peeve I had as younger instructor was the occasional guy who actually said that he considered his first DA shot, using a traditional double action pistol (DA/SA), to be a "throw away" shot.

I always looked at it as that first shot being absolutely critical, as it might turn out to be the only shot I had available to me. I'm ultimately going to be held responsible for where it goes, so I might as well make it hit where I want it to hit, right? Might just save my life, too.

Another option would be to learn how to properly shoot a DA shot!

I'll admit I'm still more likely to jerk a heavier trigger, but by forcing myself to shoot DA frequently I've become pretty proficient with it. Especially with sights

[SIGSHR]

I have read that under stress most people shoot high. I read of one Union regimental commander who always ended his "just before the battle" speech with the exhortation "Shoot low!"

[fastbolt]

Originally Posted by OhioGuy

Another option would be to learn how to properly shoot a DA shot!

How can I phrase this and not risk violating forum rules? How about ...

Abso-freaking-lutely.

This is one of the reasons I've often observed that handgunners who properly learned their foundation handgunning skills on DA revolvers, were usually better able to adapt to other handgun designs & trigger modes, compared to the newer shooters who only learned their skills using one of the myriad DAO-ish plastic pistols.

Especially if we're talking about learning to properly and effectively run a Magnum DA revolver, using Magnum loads.

Of course, over time there's usually a "price" to be "paid", to one degree or another, after many years of being subjected to Magnum recoil. More's the pity.

[zincwarrior]

Things I have learned on the internet:
*In a gunfight you don't need sights.
*Competition shooting will get you killed.
*Chemtrails are real.

[Brit]

Why put sights on a defensive pistol? If they were not there for a purpose?

It would make for a cheaper weapon, leaving sights off.

I have never been in a gunfight (close, pointed guns at people in England, USA) Now fist fights (or whatever was handy) lots of those.

In my case, I always hit first! If the person or persons I was involved with were talking, they were not fighting and were vulnerable. In all but a couple of fights, this was whilst working. Working at the Cavern Club in Liverpool, 1960-1964.
I was stabbed twice, the last year 1965 prior to moving to Sydney, NSW Australia was at the Blue Angel Night Club on Seal St.

The human nose is a great target, done right. Pain, restricted breathing, when broken, involuntary closing of eyes (just long enough) to go some were else, shin, knee kicks.

Why introduce fistfights into a gunfight story, as in using sights? Very much relative. You have to instantly react! To get the average Joe to realize instant action is required? Is very difficult. The first thought, in many cases, seems to be disbelief. And not an instant movement. I worked with an ex SAS Trooper at both places, Larry Newport, I only found out he was Ex SAS after he died in 2007. I was living in Toronto at the time. He was a great fighter, a bit nuts.

In this day and age, here in the US of A, fist fighting will get you a record? Not a national pastime it seems (Put a uniform on, collect a few Buddies, and head to a waterfront Bar?) that changes things.

Gunfights? Same thing, not a lot of citizens have been in those, very few Police Officers even.

Wear the same gun, in the same place, always. Practice clearing that pistol, a lot (Unloaded gun!) In my case, a Glock 19 4th gen, TruGlow night sights, an extended slide release (I know Glock does not call it that) tight fit Kydex holster, off to the races. Love Florida.

[pete2]

The front sight is your friend whether 5 yards or 500 yards. I see the front sight even at 3 yards. A perfect sight picture isn't required at 3 yards but I see the front sight.

[jrothWA]

Shot a lot of table pins with a J-frame, sight make sure all hit happen.

When solidly hit, the pin slowly move back off table, off-center then it rolling on the table.
Still had good time, but ate a few pins.

ALso use the "ready" period to load cylinder with speadloader without looking, keep your eyes of the pins!

[FireForged]

wherever possible, I try to use the sights on my gun

common sense rules the day!


sometimes you cant or simply do not have time to use your sights in the tradition sense... and that's fine. If circumstances reasonably allow for the use of sights, I will certainly use them. Its not really deeper than that, they put sights on a gun for a reason.

[fastbolt]

Originally Posted by FireForged

common sense rules the day!


sometimes you cant or simply do not have time to use your sights in the tradition sense... and that's fine. If circumstances reasonably allow for the use of sights, I will certainly use them. Its not really deeper than that, they put sights on a gun for a reason.

Technically ... Duh.

[sigxder]

You know this really gets a bit silly. If someone is right on top of you then you are lucky to clear leather and fire. Trying to bring your gun up when someone is right on top of you will not work. That's why short barreled revolvers used to be called "Belly Guns". The only thing you had time to do was bring your pistol up into the person when they were that close and fire.
Like "9mm vs. .45" and all the stupid arguments that go on all the time on line. So many seem to polarize to one thing or another. Either/or, "all or nothing thinking" tends to dominate most of these discussions. Look in the classic "Kill or Get Killed" if you really read the book and study it you will find the author states that point shooting is for short distances. The book if you look through it
clearly shows one handed point shooting. And two handed versions of what we now call the "Weaver" or "Isosceles" stance.
The two handed holds are usually behind cover. And often braced to make them as stable as possible. Applegate says that you should learn aimed fire as it is a necessary skill. And if you have the time use it. He said the problem was in up close shooting you don't usually get the chance to. Read the book. His instructors were rotated out to Europe and other areas of battle at regular intervals to test the effectiveness of the things he taught. And if it didn't work in battle it was eliminated.
What do you not get that his techniques were used who knows how many times in actual gunfights with armed opponents. It's not a question of it they work. They are proven. From page 137 entitled two handed shooting he shows various shooting position using two hands. On page 138 he talks about using the two handed positions when "long, deliberate, sighted shots are required". Usually on top of two hands braced, and behind cover. Page 145 clearly shows what we call the Isosceles, two handed, shooting stance.
On the page entitled Two-Handed grip he states "The average shooter can shoot much more accurately with aimed fire, when under combat conditions,
by using a two handed steady grip on the weapon"! He also talks about training with your weak hand, and on page 146 shows using the weapon as a striking tool. Also each time you draw to visualize and opponent. And to train until it becomes reflexive. He also advocates the use of wax bullets for training force on force (page 141). Simunitions from a different time?
He also recommends at one point of using one of the old dart shooting guns with suction cup ends for training. The "air soft" of the time. Duelists centuries ago practiced with wax bullets loaded into their muzzle loading dueling pistols to simulate combat. In other parts of the book he has a model for "shoot house" using various sounds, lighting, and shoot/no shoot situations with life like targets. Setting up combat simulations. Scenario training. educate yourself on the history of gunfighting.
As it says somewhere "their is nothing new under the sun". They new their were times when things would be close and no time for bringing the gun to full shooting position. Time, circumstances, distances would all determine what technique you used. And the Modern Technique does include the "Speed Rock" which is point shooting from the holster when someone is on top of you. The modern technique includes the "Flash Sight picture". Which is the hand(s) fully extended but just a rough sight picture. All you have time for at that distance. Then at greater distances two handed aimed fire.
Perpetuating the myth that Applegate only taught point shooting at all ranges is simply not backed up by his Master Text on the subject. It is disingenuous to act like this is the case either through lack of knowledge. Or pushing a certain agenda or technique. Bill Jordan taught point shooting up close. Yet he recounts how one time on the Border an agent was ambushed by someone with a Winchester. And he only had a .38.
The bad guy had all the advantages except he did something stupid. He kept popping up from the same position to fire. It took three shots from the .38 if I remember right to get the exact spot where the bad guy popped up his head. Forth time he caught one in the head. The guy with the .38 and good tactics, mindset, and training won. Look at modern Martial Arts.
Used to be that some styles look at kicking at long range to be sufficient to defeat someone. You could keep them out of range. Others said hand techniques were the thing used at middle ranges. Others said elbows, knees,
headbutts and the like at closer ranges. And really close grappling. Well it turns out that through MMA we've found out you better know all the above for the appropriate use based on distance. Point or body indexing up close in feet. Looking over the pistols sights for a bit longer distance (Flash Sight Picture). Both hands, aimed, hopefully behind cover when time allows. It is not one or the other. It's being well versed in any distance, time, or situation that will save you.
And many of the older guys that used point shooting were also champion competitive marksmen. And read Jim Cirillo's book for goodness sakes. He taught what he called a "nose point" for up close. It was a two handed form of body indexing(point shooting) for up close. You want to pick and choose to validate your system by quoting an instance in which it worked and the one you don't like failed. The truth is all the Master Gunfighthers in there books show both techniques. Both work in the environment they were designed to be used in. Anything else simply is not the truth.

[Kirosha]

I prefer to use my sights in every shot, however I do try to practice point blank draw and fire. I like a red dot for the ease of PoA and PoI, no need to make sure you are aligning the front post correctly. I like the laser more for intimidation than aiming, everyone knows what a red dot on their chest means if they don't back off but the wife prefers the laser over anything.

[AK103K]

For those who seem to think you cant make good, or at least, decent hits, without using the sights, much beyond contact distance, anyway. I shot this target this morning, with a Glock 19, at 10 yards (yards, not feet). That target has around 70 rounds in it, and all were fired at that distance. About 2 mags worth in the head were "aimed" double/triple taps. The rest were shot without using the sights, and most were at least a double tap. All were shot/started from a SUL ready.

Basically, for all the "unaimed" shots, I pushed the gun straight out from SUL, at about nipple height, maybe a little higher, and my focus was on the target, where I wanted the rounds to go. I didnt consciously see the gun or the sights while I was shooting.




Im in no way saying you shouldnt use your sights, and I normally do, especially once Im past 10 yards or so. What I am saying is, its not at all hard to make "good" hits, where your looking, with no sights, and even while moving, if you make it part of your regular practice. I practice both, every time Im out.

If you dont/havent/never practice it, well, yea, I guess your results will probably not be all that great. Then again, same can be said for your "aimed" fire.

[Rangerrich99]

sigxder;

Thanks for the post; very informative. Just ordered a copy of Applegate's book. Should make for some interesting reading.

[Brit]

Something from Rex Applegate's book, that I read many moons ago, that stuck.

He described an attack on an Opium Den, at 0-dark thirty, or thereabouts.
In which part of the approach had a squad of his mixed Constables, American, Brits, Chinese, in Shanghai. Creeping down a narrow alleyway.

Coming back, after a Succesful conclusion to this raid, now in full daylight, the medium to tall Constables walked into cloth lines, wire ones, strung across this same ally. "When did they put these up?"

They were up always. But the natural crouch that the body of the stressful man adopts, put them below these clotheslines. In fact, the one-handed mid belly crouch was a position taught by Rex.

Nothing is new seems like a good statement, yes?

[OhioGuy]

Originally Posted by AK103K

For those who seem to think you cant make good, or at least, decent hits, without using the sights, much beyond contact distance, anyway. I shot this target this morning, with a Glock 19, at 10 yards (yards, not feet). That target has around 70 rounds in it, and all were fired at that distance. About 2 mags worth in the head were "aimed" double/triple taps. The rest were shot without using the sights, and most were at least a double tap. All were shot/started from a SUL ready.

Basically, for all the "unaimed" shots, I pushed the gun straight out from SUL, at about nipple height, maybe a little higher, and my focus was on the target, where I wanted the rounds to go. I didnt consciously see the gun or the sights while I was shooting.




Im in no way saying you shouldnt use your sights, and I normally do, especially once Im past 10 yards or so. What I am saying is, its not at all hard to make "good" hits, where your looking, with no sights, and even while moving, if you make it part of your regular practice. I practice both, every time Im out.

If you dont/havent/never practice it, well, yea, I guess your results will probably not be all that great. Then again, same can be said for your "aimed" fire.

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

:-D

[ammo.crafter]

Distance does make difference.

Within arm's reach, obviously sights are not used; the gun is pulled from holster, there is NO arm extension and the pistol is turned sightly away from the body if an automatic.

As distance increases sights begin to enter the picture, especially the front sight.

[Tactical Jackalope]

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.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Within arm's reach, obviously sights are not used; the gun is pulled from holster, there is NO arm extension and the pistol is turned sightly away from the body if an automatic.

I don’t believe the target picture was meant to be illustrative of proper form for indexing the pistol without sights.