Sights for CCW

[K71BL]

If most gun fights last 3-6 rounds in roughly the same amount of time in seconds, why do we spend so much time laboring over which sight, what type of inserts, etc. when the sights more or less disappear in a stress fire situation and we "default" to point shooting ?

I realize sights are almost mandatory if you wish to have ANY enjoyment at the range, but if some of us (me) are obsessed with owning the ultimate slim, big bore CCW on the planet, then sights are one thing to eliminate/diminish or at least relegate to a trough-type channel on the top of your slide.

Am I so full of it that my eyes are brown?

What are your thoughts ? What am I missing ?

[garrettwc]

Out to about arms reach or just slightly beyond, you can probably get buy with point shooting. If the target is facing you squarely and standing still. The problem is that in a real fight the target is moving and may only present a small area for you to aim at.

Without some sort of index, you will likely miss your target. Read any article on police shootings and look at the number of misses, even at close range. You'll see this proven time and again.

[Frank]

...the sights more or less disappear in a stress fire situation and we "default" to point shooting ?...
Well that's not necessarily true.

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?

If you train at various distances to quickly use a flash sight picture, you will be able to deal with the usual cases as well as the one in a hundred and one in five hundred situation. Also as Garrett points out, your target may be moving. And, if you're doing it right, you will be moving too. In those situations, the ability to use the sights properly and quickly becomes pretty useful.

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 be able to make instantaneous judgments.

Consider that the top IPSC and IDPA shooters are very fast and accurate, and they use their sights. Now there's the perennial debate about whether they could do that in actual combat when someone is shooting back at them. I don't think we need to go there. It should be enough to note that the top IPSC and IDPA shooters, even with relatively stock guns, have mastered the skills of shooting very fast and accurately using sights, and the more that one practices those skills, the more likely one will be able to apply them naturally under even great stress.

There is a standard IPSC exercise called "El Presidente." Three standard IPSC targets are set up 1 meter (or yard) apart 10 meters (or yards) from the shooting position. The shooter starts facing up range (back to targets) with his hands held above his shoulders. His gun is loaded and in his holster (in condition 1 if it's a 1911 or BHP). On the audible start signal, the shooter turns and engages each target with two rounds, reloads, and engages each target again with two rounds. I've seen good shooters complete this exercise with 12 center hits, in the Limited Division, in 4 to 6 seconds; and I guarantee you that they were using their sights.

Now I would agree that some, perhaps many, folks will default to point shooting when confronted with an emergency. I'm suggesting that is neither necessary nor desirable. With good training and practice one can learn to use the sights appropriately and quickly and become much more effective in the event of a serious encounter.

DVC

[K71BL]

Frank,

Thank you for your detailed response. I have posted a couple questions as of late, and your responses have been informative, with a teachers heart. You truly are a mentor. I'm grateful.

[Rich-D]

K71BL, Frank does exert a lot of time and energy sharing the knowedge and experience that he has worked diligently to attain. The fact that the time he spends in here is completely voluntary and without compensation speaks volumes about his character.

You will find other good folks in here who perform in a simular manner, that is the reason why I am here.



Rich

[Frank]

Aw shucks guys.

And seriously, I think that we have quite a fine crew here -- a lot of experienced and knowledgeable members who freely share that experience and knowledge to the enrichment of all of us. And that includes you Rich.

DVC

[FIREARMZ]

I think Frank is dead on in his post. I do think we should always use sights when time and distance allows. Sights simply verify muzzle alignment and in order to hit small targets during dynamic movement sights are needed. The top shooters all use sights, hard sight focus or flash sight picture again depending on distance and time.

Not to say there is not a time for point shooting (oh I hate that term) or gun indexing if you prefer as I do. I always try to get the gun up and in my face as much as possible so that I can use my sights. As for the sights I prefer they are the 10-8 with the rear opened up to .150 and the front being a Novak white ringed tritium.

Regardless of sights, time and distance trigger control is more inportant.

[tonka]

I have twice looked at a potential assaiant over my gunsights, and in both instances, the only image I remember with any clarity was the lint on my front sight. Both incidents ocurred at just over contact distance, and I was still lining those sights up. Train, train, train!

[Hawkmoon]

What are your thoughts ? What am I missing ?
You are missing the fact that not everyone defaults to point shooting. Many of the advanced tactical trainers stress focusing on the front sight. That's difficult to do under stress if you can't see it.

[Hawkmoon]

Now I would agree that some, perhaps many, folks will default to point shooting when confronted with an emergency. I'm suggesting that is neither necessary nor desirable. With good training and practice one can learn to use the sights appropriately and quickly and become much more effective in the event of a serious encounter.
That's an excellent reason to consider entering some form of competition, even if they are small, informal events such as my range hosts on Thursday evenings. So far I have been doing an excellent job of pushing all the other shooters up a notch in the standings, holding down last place with a fierce tenacity. My shooting isn't that bad, but I have an aversion to dropping $40 magazines on a concrete floor and my times take a real hit because I pocket the empties during magazine swaps. But it is comforting to know that I don't need a full minute to line up the sights for each shot.

It's also comforting to know that, although my times may not be great, I kill a lot fewer hostages than the top shooters.

[Frank]

...Regardless of sights, time and distance trigger control is more inportant.
Absolutely. Trigger control is the most important single component of good shooting.

BTW, Hawkmoon, IME magazines with welded bases and bumpers will stand up quite well to repeated drops on concrete.

DVC

[Tom]

So far I have been doing an excellent job of pushing all the other shooters up a notch in the standings, holding down last place with a fierce tenacity.
Never let it be said that you're not a team player, Hawkmoon.
It's also comforting to know that, although my times may not be great, I kill a lot fewer hostages than the top shooters.
Amen to that! And while they're accuracy and target determination may or may not improve, your speed certainly will!

[Rob Pincus]

K71,

Your questions is a common one and people have a lot of practiced answers for it..... (here's mine ;)) Getting rid of the sights is not a great idea, but the original point is well taken. I teach the that we have to rely on the "Balance of Speed & Precision" to determine how much deviation control to put into any given shot. As noted above, things like Trigger Control are very important... Alignment of the sights, a good grip, good trigger control, etc.. are all ways that we control deviation. The key to efficiency is to only limit deveiation as much as you need to in order to be effective... not training to do one specific thing all the time. Frequent and Realistic training that tests ones abilities is the key to determining your personal Balance of Speed & Precision under a variety of plausible circumstances (ie- training for the headshot at 30 yards while moving is probably not a good use of your time).

Garret,

Your point is not well taken.... as most LEOs are trained dogmatically to use their sights at all but contact distances, your point about their misses actually speaks to the necessity of a different training paradigm that is more in line with reality. See Above for what that should be. There is huge body of evidence for reasonable accuracy without dependence on sight alignment.... having to bring this up so frequently is why I tend to get lumped in with the "point shooting" crowd... unfortunately, it still needs to get brought up.

Frank,

Your experience and interests are obvious and you make many good points, but be careful about confusing sport shooting with the defensive use of a firearm. Quick Sight Pictures of various kinds are one thing against a pre-memorized string of metal and paper targets... the cognitive process of finding the sights when your brain is putting your eyes on the threat is a little different. Understanding that combat accurate hits can be made more efficiently without the sights under certain conditions is both necessary and desirable. Frequent and realistic practice allows one to determine the limits of their abilities: sighted, unsighted, one handed, weak handed, sitting down, standing up, etc, etc.... limiting yourself to only one set of responses (in this case, some version of "Front sight, Press") could cost you the 1/2 second that gets you killed when its not a game and your brain is reacting to a real shocking, scary, lethal threat.
(and, let me add that I know we are going to be good friends as you are a Front Sight Advocate, IPSC Shooter, Gunsite Disciple, Lawyer, you live in CA and you probably are or have been an ATA Member :-) ).

-RJP

[Frank]

Rob, I may need to visit Valhalla some time.

What you say is very interesting, and I don't think that anything you've said is fundamentally inconsistent with my understanding. Of course sport shooing is limited and is not the place to learn self defense shooting. It is a way to practice certain useful basic skills, like gun handling, moving with a loaded weapon, shooting from unconventional postures, shooting while moving, shooting fast and accurately, etc.

But I do recognize that self defense/combat training is another matter. I know that I've only scratched the surface, and us old, short, fat retired lawyers with lousy hearing and old eyes have our limits. But it is worthwhile to test those limits from time to time. And I have on occasion successfully engaged targets on an IPSC course of fire without the use of my sights.

And I am indeed an ATA member (and have shot at Vandalia).

DVC

[Rob Pincus]

Frank,

You're a true gentleman.... normally, when I show up with my new-fangled ide'ers after being a member for all of 30 days I get stomped on no matter how nice I try to be.

I am a passionate advocate for training skills and responses in the context that they are meant to be used. I'm taking a graduate level course through UofAz right now through the Center for Consciousness studies with an extreme interest in the differences between what we can articulate to percieving and what our brains are actually reacting to, especially under stress.

Our training at Valhalla is aimed towards raising awareness so that students are more likely to recognize situations and appropriate responses. Part of that awareness includes education about what the body wil do naturally in response to being scared/startled. We try to get shooters to work efficiently with those things first, then refine their mechanical/marksmanship abilities.
As you noted in your post, with practice you can learn to make intuitive judgements about how much deviation control is needed. I'm advocating that you not prejudge that situation by assuming the necessity to use sights or even that you'd be "better off" if you did.

We're getting great response from the LE and military organizations that are integrating Combat Focus principles or the entire program and interest continues to grow. Part of that developing interest is the recognition that dogma should not dictate doctrine....as your sig line suggests, there can always be a better way. I spend a lot of time continuing to look for it.

-RJP
(....and I shoot trap with a pistol grip Benelli.....shot my hat many years ago with it ;) )

[K71BL]

Rob,

Thank you for the information. I believe that I'll be purchasing your book/dvd combo soon.

Thanks for the insight.


Frank,

You, too, are a gentleman and a scholar and I look forward to learning more from you, Rob, and those I have not met yet.


Mark

[Rich-D]

I do believe that you will enjoy your stay here. This is a great group of gun owners. They may not always agree, however differences are handled in a gentlemanly and ladylike manner at least 99.99% of the time. The remaining .001% are usually corrected or banned.

I look forward to your posts!
Rich

BTW. Your company should look into a banner ad on this site. It is a very reasonable and effective method to reach many thousands of members and an even a higher percentage of guests.

[garrettwc]

After reading my hurriedly typed (no excuse, I know) original response, I realize that I stated what I thought very poorly. Rob called me out on it, and rightly so. My comment on LEO training was poorly cited as well.

I'm going to try again to state my case and address some of Rob's comments.

What I had hoped to convey in my first statement is that you have to judge the appropriate time to use either technique. I think the "point" vs. "sighted" debates are a waste of bandwith just like "9mm vs 45ACP". Both can work well if the shooter is doing what he needs to do. I have no doubt that someone can be "combat accurate" point shooting. I have seen D.R. Middlebrooks hit the 50yd gong with no sights using his techniques. But I contend there are times when a more precise shot is called for as well, and that requires the use of sights. We should be able to do either.

Reality Based Fighting
Training has come a long way from the days of 60 rounds slow fire at 25 yards on a B27, but it still has a way to go.

This is a relatively new area, and one that admittedly I have just begun to learn about. There are only a handful of instructors that I know of that are teaching reality based shooting, and Force on Force. The one thing I have learned is that things like stance, grip, etc. go out the window when you are trying to move off the X, and the bad guy is moving as well. You may find yourself firing one handed over your shoulder while steering your child towards cover, rather than standing in your favorite stance with your preferred grip. To quote an accquaintance of mine on training, "be careful of your dogma, it may get run over by your karma" ;)

The way I phrased my comments about police shootings makes it out of context to what I actually meant. I stand by my comment that you need some sort of index to get the gun on the target. Otherwise you are just spraying or praying. The way I stated it sounded like I felt the sights were the only index, they are not. The problem lies in deciding which index to use, and how to employ it. That becomes even more of a challenge if you are in a dynamic movement.

normally, when I show up with my new-fangled ide'ers after being a member for all of 30 days I get stomped on no matter how nice I try to be.
Not from me. I am a perpetual student and believe that you must continue learning or you start going backwards. I think everyone has something to bring to the table. I may not agree with everything someone presents, but I will find something useful to add to the toolbox.

Feel free to pick apart my ideas any time. That's how we learn.

[Frank]

...I stand by my comment that you need some sort of index to get the gun on the target. ... The problem lies in deciding which index to use, and how to employ it...
I agree. There must be an index, and it doesn't necessarily have to be the sights. When I shoot a shotgun at flying targets, I don't look at the gun. I focus on the target. The index is my gun fit and gun mount, so I know that if my eyes are right, I will hit the target, without direct visual confirmation of the orientation of the gun.

It's just that, with proper training and practice, the sights, especially the front sight, can be a very useful and effective basis for your index in many circumstances. With practice, acquisition of the front sight can be very fast.

I find that if I move my gun to eye level, the front sight naturally falls in the center of my vision. If I'm am looking at the target as I move my gun to the target, the front sight naturally falls in the center of my vision.

One thing that I've been mulling over is that it seems that focusing on the front sight also promotes trigger control. I notice when helping new shooters who are having difficulty with a tendency to jerk the trigger, getting them to keep their focus on the front sight will significantly reduce trigger jerk.

I also noticed this when I took rifle training at Gunsite. They teach focusing on the reticle if you're using a scope, and I have to say that I'd never thought of that. But I concentrated on doing so, and it worked very well even for snap shooting.

DVC

[airbornerangerboogie]

I'm not in the same league "or even close" as most of you are, so the only thing I could bring to the discussion is an old soldiers memory. In the late 60's the US Army was teaching a method of combat shooting called "quick kill" to prepare Infantry soldiers for Vietnam. It was as I now know it a modified Col. Rex Applegate training regime. The idea was to engage a moving target using "point shooting" techniques. Its sounds silly now, but we were issued BB guns, flack-jackets, and face protection. The next 3 days consisted of lectures and demonstrations with us firing at differing sized aluminum plates launched from every angle imaginable. "Think of skeet shooting with a rifle or a pistol" The simple goal, acquire the target and hit it, some of us got pretty good at it and some didn't. The problem was there was little or no time to actually aim, but after awhile you began to get a sense of "right/wrong" sight picture when firing and shooting became instinctive, making micro adjustments to your mental sight picture as the target moved. In Vietnam I found that when I had time to aim I did so, but under stress I tended to fallback on the "quick-kill" methods instead of "spray-n-pray".
Sorry I babble on....

[Rob Pincus]

Phil,

Thanks for your input... Quickkill is still being taught by some instructors and it is an early version of codified reactive shooting based on empirical evidence.

Frank,

All your points are spot on for isolated shooting, but again the missing link is the behavioral reaction of the survival system that instinctively focuses our eyes on the threat (without that, we can't recognize it, react, respond, etc...). Fighting that focus to re-focus on the sights takes cognitive processing and time.. regardless of how "quick" it can be done.. it is still some amount of time.

-RJP

[DSgt31]

Sights should be used, and we should all force ourselves to use them. When under stress, we will default to our training, and if you are being shot at, thinking about to use the sights or not could be detrimental, if not fatal.

Use the sights. If you do not want to, buy a Kimber RCPII. However, be ready to 'splain if you shoot someone at some distance farther than what bad breath carries.

Plaintiff's attorneys will just love to see a pistol without sights. They will drool and soil themselves to have a crack at you in court. Not to say it will happen, but why take the chance?

A good compromise would be XS Big Dot night sights for up close work. I highly recommend them. Taking responsibility for our own protection deserves hard work. Looking at the sights when faced with deadly force takes concentration on the task at hand. Rise to the challenge and meet it.
We surely do not want to direct our bullets into unintended targets. Practice, and perfect practice is the edge we have over the thugs that fire the "to whom it may concern" rounds willy nilly.

[Rob Pincus]

D,

Your points are interesting, traditional and misleading at best.

While we agree that you shouldn't remove the sights from a gun, there is absolutely no basis for the concept that you can train yourself to automatically look at you sights under real stress. Your brain will be focused on the threat and it will take cognitive processes to shift focus to the sights. To lead people to believe otherwise is much more wreckless than appropriate unsighted fire.

To lump all unsighted fire into the category of "willy nillly" is negligent. Plenty of sighted fire trained shooters have missed their targets unders stress. Changing the training model is the answer, not preaching tired dogma that is based on square range mechanics and not empirical obervation, human behavior and bio-mechanics.

Sometimes, the balance of speed & precision dictates the need for sights, but many defensive situations can be resolved efficiently and responsibily without them. Knowing when is a matter, as you note, of good training. Training to depend on the sights for every shot regardless of the circumstances is not in that category.

-RJP

[Frank]

I still disagree, at least in part. I don't disagree with the proposition that there are times the use of the sights in unnecessary or even inappropriate. I understand and accept the concept of balancing speed and precision.

However, I first believe that initial, basic handgun training in the fundamentals should involve focus on the front sight. Among other things, learning to focus on the front sight also helps teach and program proper trigger control. Without trigger control, it's hard to hit anything, no matter what you're looking at. There is no target too close or too big to miss if you jerk the trigger.

And I'm still not convinced that persons well trained and practiced in the modern technique won't reflexively focus on the front sight even under stress.

And by the way, it's really not right to charge someone with whom you disagree with recklessness or negligence. That's not how we debate here.

DVC

[Rich-D]

Frank & Rob, IMHO, I agree in part with both of your positions. Frank debating skills are excellent and above reproach. Robs posts are less diplomatic and can be viewed as an attempt to demean a party who does not agree with his position. On that point I agree with Frank. However Rob's position is more in keeping with what I have experienced in gunfights. At close range, point blank to ten yards I have fired a total of 14 rounds at armed suspects hitting the suspects 13 times without utilizing the sights. A manner of target acquisition I refer to as point shooting. However I would not go so far as to say that Frank's position is wrong or reckless.

It is my firm belief that self confidence plays a major role in a gun battle. If one is more confident with the skills that they utilize effectively when training and competition shooting, then they should utilize those skills in a conflict. If one in close quarter combat can hit their mark effectively without sighting then that is the best method for them. I train in both methods, and do what comes naturally in a conflict.

Rich

[DSgt31]

To clarify:

My comment about "willy nilly" was definitely not directed at someone who has had a modicum of training, and concentrates on breaking a fast, precise shot.

Apparently not reading the sentence fully when the term "thugs" is used along with the term "willy nilly" is an interpretation issue. My blunt meaning was the street criminals don't shoot straight because they generally don't use their sights either, and use the "spray and pray" technique. Spray and pray is what gets innocent parties hurt and/or dead. In my 25 yrs as a police officer and detective and seeing the results of spray and pray occasionally up close, and having the "thugs" occasionally describe how they shot someone, and knowing that most of these thugs pay no attention to sights, let alone spell the word is the meaning I was attempting to attain.

No self respecting citizen carrying a weapon for defense would probably use a weapon in such a manner. If someone can "point shoot" to their satisfaction, so be it. Biomechanics and other nether terms set aside, the reason that sights are put on weapons are so that they are used.

'Nuff said

[DSgt31]

Oh, and by the by,

"square range tactics" and
"tired dogma"
have kept me alive in more than one instance.

There is something to say about "old school", not to demean the "new school".

Keeping an open mind requires accepting "old school" and incorporating those ideas in "new school."

Of course, we all may be trying to reinvent the wheel here.

[airbornerangerboogie]

Actually I think both parties have a good position here. If you're inexperienced and just starting out dogma has it's place, we all need to learn the fundamentals "the basics", sights, grip, trigger-control, etc..., at some point though it becomes necessary to move beyond the basics and that's where point shooting and other training methods come in. IMO, without a good grounding in the basics, there a very thin line between spray-n-pray and point shooting. Anyone with the intent can pick up a pistol and point it, but to know "and have confidence" that what you're pointing at is the target and you will hit it, requires the the shooter to have graduated from both "old-school and new"