Are Sights Really Necessary on a Concealed Carry Pistol?

[jmorris]

Yes you do. The sights are still in line with the target, even if your eye isn't in line with the sights. There are people who are very good with a pistol without using the sights.

So, yes you do, unless you don't?

There are firearms out there that don't even have a front or rear sight on them at all.

 

[trackskippy]

Yes you do. The sights are still in line with the target, even if your eye isn't in line with the sights. There are people who are very good with a pistol without using the sights. Those people are a tiny minority. The vast majority of pistol owners aren't good with a pistol while using the sights. Taking the sights off would not make them any better.

I dont think those people are really a minority, as much as a lot of people just don't realize that they already shoot that way, and just don't know it, because they are told they always have to use the sights and that's what they do. Assuming you can shoot with the sights, an afternoon with your sights taped over, and you will see the light.

And I don't disagree with the second part, many are very much lacking in their handgun skills, which is a pretty scary thing when you get to thinking about it. The "bad guys" arent necessarily the biggest threat.

 

[Jim Watson]

There are firearms out there that don't even have a front or rear sight on them at all.

As I recall, the SVI Tiki has tritium lamps imbedded in those ridges on the slide and there is a definite sight picture, just not a conventional notch and post.

I had a CZ45 with no sights and have a P32 with vestigial sights, but those are the modern equivalent of Yancy Derringer's armory.

I will point at a sufficiently close target but haven't pushed the point shooting range bracket nearly as far as the enthusiasts have. "Range brackets," I was reading Bill Jordan a long time ago and he had range brackets for hip, pointed, and aimed shooting. I think the expert shooter is flexible enough to do that and not be dogmatic about one technique.

I saw a guy kick the front sight off his pistol at a match and just keep shooting. His hits got a good bit wider spread but would have been adequate IRL.

I had an inadvertent "target focus" experience the other day. I was chronographing at the indoor range and wearing my bifocals to read the velocity. Under the dim light and blurred close vision, I was seeing the target better than anything, so I was hitting it kind of OK. Reassuring for the IRL scenarios but nothing I am going to do while score is kept.

 

[jmorris]

Even girls can do it...

How To Survive Without Sights On Your Gun | Pro Shooting Tips #1

Very few people know how to shoot a gun accurately without sights, but after watching this video you'll be one of the few! Its an important survival skill to...

www.youtube.com

 

[Jim Watson]

Yes, girls are very adaptable to unusual shooting methods.

 

[Alllen Bundy]

In most states it is the criminal that is responsible for any damage, injury, or death that occurs while law abiding citizens or police are stopping or arresting the criminal. So if I accidentally shoot an innocent bystander while trying to stop the criminal it's the criminal that is liable, not me. BUT your shooting must not be recklesss. What is being considered reckless can be a bit subjective.

Let's assume that there is a nubjob with a big scary looking rifle and lots of 30 round "clips" that starts shooting in a stadium full of people. Spraying the crowd with a machine gun and hitting lots of innocent bystanders while trying to shoot he bad guy would be reckless. But a carefully placed shot that kills the bad guy, but over-penetrates and hits an innocent person behind the bad guy would be considered acceptable collateral damage.

Whereas, the good guy that was shooting at a bad guy at distance, and WAS NOT LOOKING, would be guilty of reckless discharge and guilty of shooting any innocent person. And before you say this would never happen, IT DID! The guy was afraid to look when he shot at the bad guy! He actually told this to the police!!! Fortunately no innocent person was shot by the good guy.

 

[wayneinFL]

I dont think those people are really a minority, as much as a lot of people just don't realize that they already shoot that way, and just don't know it, because they are told they always have to use the sights and that's what they do. Assuming you can shoot with the sights, an afternoon with your sights taped over, and you will see the light.

And I don't disagree with the second part, many are very much lacking in their handgun skills, which is a pretty scary thing when you get to thinking about it. The "bad guys" arent necessarily the biggest threat.

As far as a minority or or majority of people being able to point shoot, everybody can point shoot. It's a matter of distance. Everybody can hit a target at arm's length. A lot of people can point shoot at 5 or 7 yards. Some people can probably reliably hit man sized targets at 15 yards point shooting (they practiced more than I care to).

 

[wayneinFL]

In most states it is the criminal that is responsible for any damage, injury, or death that occurs while law abiding citizens or police are stopping or arresting the criminal. So if I accidentally shoot an innocent bystander while trying to stop the criminal it's the criminal that is liable, not me. BUT your shooting must not be recklesss. What is being considered reckless can be a bit subjective.

Let's assume that there is a nubjob with a big scary looking rifle and lots of 30 round "clips" that starts shooting in a stadium full of people. Spraying the crowd with a machine gun and hitting lots of innocent bystanders while trying to shoot he bad guy would be reckless. But a carefully placed shot that kills the bad guy, but over-penetrates and hits an innocent person behind the bad guy would be considered acceptable collateral damage.

Whereas, the good guy that was shooting at a bad guy at distance, and WAS NOT LOOKING, would be guilty of reckless discharge and guilty of shooting any innocent person. And before you say this would never happen, IT DID! The guy was afraid to look when he shot at the bad guy! He actually told this to the police!!! Fortunately no innocent person was shot by the good guy.

Two people can be charged with a homicide. Three people were charged with involuntary manslaughter in the Rust shooting. More than one person is being sued. And more than one person has to live with that death.

You really, really need to be careful about shooting innocent bystanders. With sights, without sights, whatever.

 

[kidneyboy]

Video with Daniel Horner talking about and demonstrating instinctive (point) shooting -

rundown. | instinctive shooting with daniel horner

In our third episode, we linked up with Daniel Horner - a world-class competition shooter, instructor, and all-around wizard. We appreciate Daniel taking the...

youtu.be

I dont think those people are really a minority, as much as a lot of people just don't realize that they already shoot that way, and just don't know it, because they are told they always have to use the sights and that's what they do. Assuming you can shoot with the sights, an afternoon with your sights taped over, and you will see the light.

I agree with this.

 

[DT Guy]

Years ago I was at an IDPA match that had a 'point shooting' stage, with three or four targets at about 12' that had to be engaged without using the sights.

There were a few folks who did passably well, but the majority of us (I was in this group) did abysmally. Under pressure and time, not using the sights handicaps most people a great deal.

Larry

 

[Zerodefect]

Practice more.

I luv those stages.

 

[trackskippy]

Years ago I was at an IDPA match that had a 'point shooting' stage, with three or four targets at about 12' that had to be engaged without using the sights.

There were a few folks who did passably well, but the majority of us (I was in this group) did abysmally. Under pressure and time, not using the sights handicaps most people a great deal.

Larry

Again, a lot of this goes to what you know and what you practice. At 12', I don't normally use the sights and I focus on quick, "hammer" type headshots. Close range (say, 5-7 yards and in) is the sweet spot for this type of shooting, and good hits are very easy, even while moving, with just a little practice.

But, if you never practice doing it, and then try to do it cold, with your brain going into vapor lock, because you've been told and convinced yourself that its not going to work, with your focus is on the gun, and not the target and just shooting it, its not likely going to go well.

 

[entropy]

I have one pistol (PT145) that I removed the sights from, because using them caused me to hit about 5" low every time. The front sight is the same one on the full sized 24/7 of that era, this causing low hits. After I took them off, I became more accurate out to 15 yards, as accurate from 15 to 25, then it started widening out.
I still practice using irons, red dot, and no sights, and while I'm not going to hit the spinal column at 50 yards sightlessness, the accuracy is acceptable. I might get hold of a lower sight and try one, but it's not a must do.
I shoot a lot of Trap, and some Sporting Clays, 5 stand, even the odd round of Skeet occasionally. While I have beads (usually two bead setups, except my Model 12) on them, I use them to check my mount only. As mentioned by track skippy and Zerodefect, the subconscious takes over once I call pull. If you are not 100 percent focused on a moving target, you'll most likely miss, and the grip or gun mount must be solid and repeatable, or you won't achieve consistent success.

 

[GEM]

What is being considered reckless can be a bit subjective.

That will be determined in court when you are sued by an innocent's family. Better check your state for liability on that one. Even if you win, might be very expensive. Better to have all the option available and train up. Arguing against having sights or not using them on purpose is just more Internet silliness - for the season - unchambered carried in another thread, what's new?

 

[Zerodefect]

Who's arguing that?

Point shooting is a staple technique of pistol shooting. Couldn't get my ccw without proficiency demonstrated, in it. Close up, much faster.

Had to demonstrate shooting from the retension position too.

Nobody is going to remove their sights.

Point Shooting!

Become a Member Here - https://bit.ly/MiculekMembersHelp support the channel by using the links below!Big Daddy Unlimited - https://lddy.no/fewij

youtu.be

Now, he's shooting half way between point and retension.

When I point shoot, my arms are straight out. Pistol level with my nips, or slightly higher. Icosoles stance.

 

[halfmoonclip]

Thought about this thread the other night; was taking some snap sight pictures with the BG and the TruGlo sights. This was in mediocre light.
That big, fat, white front sight (the night sight is beside the point a lot of the time) makes a snap index easy. You don't have to go looking for it, and the rear sight is only coincidental, there only if there's time.
For those of us who learned to shoot at a bullseye, staying away from too fussy a sight picture is a hard habit to break.
Moon

 

[qwert65]

I sometimes carry a SAS 365 or a colt new agent- to me it’s more about not snagging and different ways to carry - then not having sights

I’ve always thought carrying a gun like that is handy in parking garages, etc where bad guys have good hiding places/ good places for ambush

I normally carry an XDs , or j frame or both - but sometimes it’s nice to have a snag free gun handy as an option (and in my case sometimes I like the extra capacity of the 365)

 

[ParadiseDweller]

Lots of training tactical cool guys will tell you that if you are not seeing your sights you need to train more.

I think the reality is the vast majority of the time you will never pick up your sights. That's not to say that they are not necessary. To the contrary. There are plenty of circumstances where they are used. But go watch Active Self Protection you Youtube. He has hundreds of self defense videos and if you pay attention you will see that hardly any of them actually pick up a good sight picture before firing.

And, to your point, I am usually pretty surprised how accurate I can shoot without using the sights. Out to 15 yards at least.

I agree. Some dude in your home in the dark at 10' sights don't seem like they would do much? I have laser on my 9 but its just sits in nightstand. And I hope it always does......but chance favors the prepared.

 

[entropy]

....as does fortune.

 

[Bcwitt]

As an experiment, put your back to the target. Turn and draw, never rising above your chest. Just eye the target & shoot as fast as you can. You might be surprised how easy it is. Definitely wear eye & ear protection when you practice this, as the muzzle blast is substantial in this position.

 

[Anchorite]

I sometimes carry a SAS 365 or a colt new agent- to me it’s more about not snagging and different ways to carry - then not having sights

I’ve always thought carrying a gun like that is handy in parking garages, etc where bad guys have good hiding places/ good places for ambush

I normally carry an XDs , or j frame or both - but sometimes it’s nice to have a snag free gun handy as an option (and in my case sometimes I like the extra capacity of the 365)

I wish I could find a SAS 365 to handle in the wilds near me. I am enamored with the concept. Internet reviews just don’t do it justice. I could rationalize plunking down some cash for one.

How do you like yours? Any ammo/sights/point of impact sensitivities??

 

[trackskippy]

Old school stuff, but all based on and proven in actual combat. Not the super cool high-speed stuff rethunk today, but it is simple and effective and does work if you apply it.

Handgun stuff starts at pg. 117

https://ia801309.us.archive.org/20/items/Kill_or_Get_Killed_1943_Rex_Applegate/Kill_or_Get_Killed_1943_Rex_Applegate_text.pdf

Pretty good read here too....

Point Shooting: The Untold Story

All the sighted-fire pundits out there are conditioned to grunt, roll their eyes, and dismiss point shooting as nothing more than spray-and-pray, un-aimed hip s

gunsmagazine.com

 

[qwert65]

I wish I could find a SAS 365 to handle in the wilds near me. I am enamored with the concept. Internet reviews just don’t do it justice. I could rationalize plunking down some cash for one.

How do you like yours? Any ammo/sights/point of impact sensitivities??

I like mine a lot, the sights didn’t take long to get used to (they have a dot embedded in the slide) Mines accurate for me - though being honest about ten yards is the furthest I shoot with it - as I stated before I carry it for a specific purpose

 

[Rexster]

Some thoughts:

We cannot choose the distance at which our next critical incident will occur. If I my wife are out in a park, an urban/suburban “greenway,” or wild area, doing our “citizen scientist” thing, we may some distance apart, and there may be a steep-banked ditch or creek between us. I may not feel obligated to defend a total stranger, at extended distances, largely because it can be difficult to assess the truth, at distance, but, if my wife, son, or grandson is being attacked, at any distance, I will know who the bad guy is. (My wife is a Texas Master Naturalist, affiliated with the Texas Parks and Wildlife department, and also on the Environmental Services Board of the city in which we reside. I am often her pack mule and assistant photographer.)

Some attackers, especially if they have pre-self-medicated, will not be impressed by the mere presence of random holes being made in their bodies. It can, then, become necessary to hit specific very parts of their anatomies. Aiming can become important, even at close range.

In my one lethal force incident, I was looking over the top of the gun, but, the sights were visible, in the lower area of my field of vision. The hit was exactly where I wanted it to be, for both windage and elevation, but, I wonder if that would have been so, had there been no sights, whatsoever, on my GP100, and if the distance had been farther than two to three yards. Notably, nothing on this planet points better, in my hands, than a 4” or longer-barreled Ruger GP100. (Some few others point about as well, for me, but none better.)

I worked for a big-city PD for about 34 years. The first target position, of each duty pistol qual, was “hip shooting” at two yards. 20% of my shots were fired without sighting. My groups were always decently centered, left-to-right, but the hits were vertically strung, especially if I was firing a shorter-barreled weapon. Vertical stringing may be OK, if an opponent is standing erect, but, not all opponents are so cooperative.

During one qual, the front sight went flying, from my Colt Stainless Combat Commander, a not-uncommon event when sights were staked. I finished the qual, with no misses, out to 25 yards. I looked over the top of the slide, to make sure the front sight hole was in alignment with the rear notch. My group was larger than would have been desirable, had I been able to use the sights. Had I not been able to align that nicely center front sight hole, and the rear sight notch, as references, I wonder whether I would have done as well. Notably, a full-sized Government Model points much better, in my hands, than a Commander-sized 1911. That extra steel provides a farther-forward balance point, which helps me to “feel” where the muzzle is.

I do not claim to be an expert, or to have all of the answers.

 

[Iggy]

I spent an afternoon drawing and shooting with Bill Jordan. With what I learned and a lot of practice, I became faster and more accurate.
Two fatal encounters during traffic stops, all I saw was their guns coming to bear on me and the need to beat them.
I never saw my sights or gun. Thanks to Bill I got to go home at the end of my shift.
That was 60 years ago. I’m only half fast now.