Sights - or No Sights - which is best??

[Charles S]

brownie0486,

Is you method significantly different from Ayoob's stress fire sight point? That is what I learned from Michael Izumi. I find it very fast and very accurate.

I am curious about your technique. I appreciate your time and information.

BTW, you are correct about the Weaver stance. When I first started shooting, I learned Isosceles. I latter learned that technique was deficient and Weaver was better. I learned Weaver, even though I shot Isosceles better.

Izumi, Miculeck, and Ayoob all teach Isosceles. I really think it is best to know both techniques and evaluate them for your self.

Thanks for your time,

Charles

 

[brownie0486]

Charles,

Relative no light shooting, the following from one of my students:

Well, I guess I should weigh in on this thread. I spent a couple of days with Brownie recently, and, the bottom line is, if you do it by the numbers, this works. If you start to focus on one target or deviate from the instruction, you miss! I performed the techique in ambient light, in the desert, with two targets 10 feet apart, and I was 10 feet from the targets. I was told the secret only hours (and 6 hours of stick and H2H in 110 heat) before. Talk about a trial by fire. I hit doubles 5 out of 6 times when I followed the instruction and did not look directly at other target. Then, when I deviated from what worked, I would usually hit one target but not the other.

Keep in mind: it was DARK. I had a Glock 26, which I've never shot before, in one hand and a First Gen Glock 17 in the other hand.

This tells you that if you practice with the correct technique, you will gain proficiency.

BTW, Brownie hit 11 for 11.

When he says I hit 11 for 11 it was with double guns, one in each hand fired simultaneously at 10 feet, the steel plates 10 feet apart. This was 8 miles into the desert with only a sliver of moon, thats the ambient light he mentioned. No street lights, city lights, no other light sources for miles. The plates could not be seen at all at 12 feet, and at 10 feet you could barely see the shadow of them.

What one says they are trained in and use and the facts can be some worlds apart can't they?

Brownie

 

[Duach Laidir]

I've been reading this topic with a lot of interest, as I do all defence related threads.
I have a great interest in Self Defence as I live in a country where defence of one's person/family is NOT a valid reason to own a firearm.

My observation is that practice with ad without using the sights will pay off.

Let me tell a personal story (not much choice is there )

Many years ago in the Australian Army I was taught instinctive shooting, from the hip, using the Lee-Enfield.
A coulple of years ago I was out hunting rabbits with a friend who had been my Platoon Corporal when we were in Korea. We were talking about old times and I mentioned how we'd trained at hip shooting.
Just then a half grown rabbit (no sense) hopped out of a burrow and I fired off the hip. Dead rabbit.

Now was it that I was a fantastic 70 year old 'Dead Shot' or that training stays with one?

Or just plain lucky? I didn't try to repeat the performance

 

[Juna]

it's called 'shooting out of the notch' by Brian Enos

Mossad Ayoob calls this his Stress Fire sight point, it is the same concept by a similar name. It works and it is very, very fast.

Can you guys elaborate on this technique? Are you saying that you basically aim lower the closer that you are to the target (i.e. aim below the desired point of impact b/c the stress will cause you to fire higher)? I've read that under stress people typically shoot high, so that would make sense.

As a general rule of thumb, I agree with the original poster in that SHTF, in-your-face/bad breath distances you're just going to point and yank.

Also, FYI, I've read that Delta operators use "instinctive" (i.e. point) shooting. I've also seen some shooting schools online that claim to teach point shooting techniques that they claim are used by various police & SWAT teams.

I think for the vast majority of us who don't shoot or practice thousands of hours all the time, I could see the argument for leaning toward using the sights when possible in all but IYF SHTF scenarios. Most of us will likely never practice enough to use point shooting effectively at all distances, let alone with moving targets, shooters, etc. At close ranges, however, I think point shooting can be effective if you practice it a lot, which was basically what the original poster said.

Just my $.02. Use what works for the situation based on your own practice/experience. Theory won't help you if you can't execute it.

 

[brownie0486]

Charles,

Is you method significantly different from Ayoob's stress fire sight point? That is what I learned from Michael Izumi. I find it very fast and very accurate.

I would not say significantly different but different enough to be a seperate system altogether. I was trained by one Booby Lamar "Lucky" McDaniel personally in 81 in his "Instinct Shooting", later called Quick Kill by the military where the long gun technique is concerned, as well as the pistol skills.

QK is a more refined skill and hence can be taken to distances people would find very hard to believe without the use of sights. I actually use a gov45 with NO sights on it at all and can keep every shot on a humanoid target at 60 feet. Used to run the plate racks at 33 feet with a gun like it for 5 years.

If you are interested in what I train others in-you could go to the forum here and read reviews of the training, history on QK for both pistol and rifle, and if you have any questions, just pm me here or through that site.

Edited to add: Sorry I forgot to include the link:

http://www.threatfocused.com/forums/index.php

Brownie

 

[Charles S]

Also, FYI, I've read that Delta operators use "instinctive" (i.e. point) shooting. I've also seen some shooting schools online that claim to teach point shooting techniques that they claim are used by various police & SWAT teams.

I have on very good authority (Mr. Miculeck himself) that Mr. Miculeck has been am instructor for Delta on several occasions. Mr. Miculeck utilizes sights.

Can you guys elaborate on this technique?

I really don't belive I could do it justice online.

Read Stressfire, Ayoob. An excellent book and an excellent read.

Brownie,

Thank you for the information, I will do a little research. Look for me to PM you soon.

I am not really in a position to go to a training school now, but once I finish my Masters I will be once again.

Thank you again,

Charles

 

[brownie0486]

Looking forward to it Charles.

Edited to add: I also want it to be perfectly clear, I'm only now passing skills to others that were imparted to myself a long time ago by one of the true Instinct Shooting masters of all time, Mr. Booby Lamar "Lucky" McDaniel. I didn't develop this but good fortune has enable me to presently own the TM and registered copyright to the "Handgun or Pistol Quick Kill [ QK ] Shooting Technique © TM

Brownie

 

[JMusic]

I believe some of our better instructors don't preach instinctive shooting is two fold.
1. They do not want associated in a law suit that they may condone it due to unrelable hits.
2 They don't know how to do it. Making them ignorant of the capabilities.
Jim

 

[Deaf Smith]

Find one trained threat focused shooter who misses at 10 feet for me. Lets see, that would be people like Askins, Jordan, Bryce and a slew of others. They didn't miss.

Didn't miss Brownie? Hmmm. Unrepentant Sinner, by Askins, page 80, "This white man on the instant he saw me swung up the rifle, we were only 10 steps apart and I noted it was an old Winchester Model 95 lever gun. When I saw the rifle being fetched to shoulder, I dropped down on both knees and triggered off a couple of shots from my sixshooter. This sixgun deserves some description. It was a Colt New Service .45 caliber with a 2 inch barrel and with the front of the trigger guard cut away to further a fast draw (deaf note: a Fritz custom .45 snubby). Actually the gun wasn't mine but was on loan from George Parker. This hombre had been back at Camp Perry and had seen Fitzerald, the Colt Co. Shooting ace, with a pair of the worked over New Service fourth-fives so he came home and made up the one he had loaded to me.

The rifle shot fired at me by the gringo wento over mhy head and the two I banged off at him also went wild. I think we were both pretty scared."

[later on page 81 he writes] "To say that I took a ribbing was an understatement compared to the comments over fiing two shots at another feller at 30 feet, down a narrow ally, and missing him. It was a disgrace which took a long time to live down!"

Now that ain't 10 feet, but 30 feet ain't far. Unlike brownie, Askins is man enough to admit he could and did miss (he missed on other occasions as he wrote about in his book.) I have no doubt all the people brownie points out as never missing did in fact do so. There were humans, not gods as he seems to think.

That was easy to find brownie. You seem to live in a world where your gods don't miss. I know better, they miss and miss at close range.

 

[brownie0486]

Deaf,

Everyone can miss. Even I miss ocassionally. No one is perfect. You chose to take the statement literally in an attempt to make your point and continue to denigrate that which you have no formal training in.

"To say that I took a ribbing was an understatement compared to the comments over fiing two shots at another feller at 30 feet, down a narrow ally, and missing him. It was a disgrace which took a long time to live down!"

And why do you think it was a disgrace to him Deaf?

Because Askins could hit a gnats butt all day without the use of sights. Thats why. It was not the norm tfor him to miss and when you are trained in the methods he and others know well, you don't miss with any regularity as you want people to believe.

Now wasn't that easy Deaf? Nice try, it doesn't fly, but only supports the idea that it would be a disgrace to miss for atrained pointshooter at that range, not the norm.

Brownie

 

[Juna]

Charles, maybe they do it differently now, but I read about the Delta training in "Inside Delta Force" by Eric L. Haney (a former Delta operator, founding member, & trainer of Delta operators). It's a good book and an easy read.

He doesn't go into specifics of the instinctive shooting techniques, but he talks about basically how they started out using sights, and then they progressed to keeping their eyes on the targets at all times & not looking at the sights. He also mentions how they started out with rifles using the iron sights before they moved on to scopes, etc.

So from that I gathered that using the sights is what most people need to do, but that with more advanced training (and a lot of practice) one could be just as effective (at combat distances) using instinctive shooting. Granted, most of us haven't trained enough to do this. At 50+ yards, I'm sure that using the sights is probably more accurate, but it's unlikely you'll need or want to be shooting at someone 50 yards away. At that point you might as well just flee and not risk hitting innocent bystanders.

 

[Deaf Smith]

Sorry brownie, but in another chapter of his book he MISSES AGAIN. Yea, that was easy.

 

[Deaf Smith]

Charles,

I do know how to point shoot. When I demo while the CHL class is getting fingerprinted, I shoot from hip, I guess 1/2 hip, and using sights (out of the notch, per Enos, I guess type 2 focus.) Getting good hits from the hip past 5 yards. 7 yard 1/2 hip is not hard, one handed.

See I don't think point shooting is junk (as I've posted a million times at Glocktalk and others) but I feel a core basic of retention/hip shooting and a form of sighted fire is the MINIMUM and must be mastered first. That core can stand alone and be sufficent. The retention/hip can be a speed rock, or south narc #2, or whatever, and the sighted fire can be one of many mixes of Iso/Weaver/Chapman and types of focus. That all depends on what the shooter feels most comfortable with.

Then, and only then, can such techniques as point shooting be explored (as I've said before, the skys the limit on what one wants to learn. You can master fanning a six shooter for all I care.. as McGivern did.) You can learn reverse Weaver, CAR, south narcs methods, etc... and just have a ball. But they are not the absolute necessity that the core is all about.

Many civilians and police simply don't have the desire or time or bucks to master 15 different ways of shooting. That is why I feel sighted fire and retention shooting are the core and if you master the core you really don't need much else.

 

[Charles S]

Deaf,

(the name may be appropriate)

You obviously have not chosen to read my previous post. You are arguing, albeit in a much less articulate manner, the very same idea's I have previously espoused.

As stated before, please go re-read carefully this time, in my previous post that I do not advocate point shooting as a primary method.

Try reading my post carefully before you argue against me. You might find that we are advocates of the same idea.

I feel a core basic of retention/hip shooting and a form of sighted fire is the MINIMUM and must be mastered first. That core can stand alone and be sufficent.

I agree as my previous post assert.

Charles

 

[brownie0486]

Sorry brownie, but in another chapter of his book he MISSES AGAIN. Yea, that was easy.

That still does not negate the fact it was a disgrace for him to miss, which extrapolates very nicely to the point he wasn't accustomed to missing as a pointshooter.

In other words Deaf, pointshooting was reliable for him and others and missing was NOT the norm for one trained in the how to use the skills.

Everyone needs core skills, the point? I don't train people in core skills usually but very specific techniques that are threat focused oriented. If you don't have core skills, go get them.

Threat focus skills are adjunct to core skills, if they aren't you might end up not being able to call on them reliably when the need arises. It's likely then you'll be spraying and praying. As such, they are at least as important to anyones other skills and should be part of eveyones core skills, thats where you and I disagree.

When the time is short and the distances allow it, threat focused skills can make the difference in staying above ground, it's as important as sighted fire skills. ANY skill that will save you time when time is short in life and death encounters are important skills.

I shoot from hip, I guess 1/2 hip, and using sights (out of the notch, per Enos, I guess type 2 focus.)

You guess? That sounds right for one never formally trained in threat foucsed skills to me. I prefer to not guess what I'm doing, and prefer to KNOW exactly how to use skills others have been using for decades. I suppose that would explain another difference with us Deaf, I have the formal training and you do not.

As to your being a pointshooter, well, we'll just have to take your word for it won't we?

Brownie

 

[Deaf Smith]

Uh Charles, I wasn't arguing with you.

When I said "When one says 'if they miss, it's cause they ain't pointshooting' would be like saying 'if they miss, they wern't using sighted fire'. Amusing, no?" That was pointing out THEY were saying point shooters never miss, but everone else does. And that if a point shooter misses, then they don't know point shooting. Now you see the amusement?

And then, here is Askins saying he missed on two different occasions. Now if a great shooter like Askins can miss TWICE, then I would think us mear mortals could to.

 

[brownie0486]

That was pointing out THEY were saying point shooters never miss, but everone else does.

Don't start putting the bolded words in my mouth Deaf, you know better than that. Stick to the facts, you started this with

"When one says 'if they miss, it's cause they ain't pointshooting' would be like saying 'if they miss, they wern't using sighted fire'. Amusing, no?"

and that was your thought process, not mine.

Brownie

 

[Deaf Smith]

If they missed at 10 feet they were not pointshooting Charles. They were likely spraying and praying, not anywhere what a trained pointshooter/threat focused student would be doing at 10 feet.

Sounds like a point shooter just won't miss at close range to me.

brownie, you forget people are human. Even a very experienced shooter of any disipline can miss if rattled or supprised or just makes a slight mistake. To pass off someone missing has 'spraying and praying' cuase a trained pointshooter/threat focused student just would never ever make that mistake is just wrong.

Anyone can miss, Askens, Jordan, Bryce, Cooper, Weaver, etc... And I bet they all did at times.

 

[brownie0486]

If they missed at 10 feet they were not pointshooting Charles. They were likely spraying and praying, not anywhere what a trained pointshooter/threat focused student would be doing at 10 feet.

"Likely" in that sentence states a probablility, not an absolute in statement Deaf.

likely spraying and praying, not anywhere what a trained pointshooter/threat focused student would be doing at 10 feet

The above states no point shooter would be spraying and praying, put it in the correct context and not what you read into it to fit your own spin on what you hoped or thought I said Deaf.

Brownie

 

[SkyGuy]

Charles S

I think there are situations that call for point shooting and for utilization of the front sight. I am in the school that feels that the majority of the time the front sight is the best option.
There are situations where point shooting is essential.

That is correct Charles, because self defense shooting technique depends on the distance to the threat and the ability to see the threat in low light and darkness....where most deadly encounters occur.

Point shooting rules in close quarters and degrades as the distance increases. Sight shooting excels with distance and is a poor performer in close quarters.

I like the combative style of IDPA. It hones skills. But most folks interested in self defense don't participate. They just want to be able to hit a threat at realistic distances when under extreme stress and fear.........point shooting does that. Sight shooting doesn't.

Understand that in a sudden, stressed out situation where you are the target.....you will have only tunnel vision, muscle memory and your gross motor skills.
.

 

[Matthew Temkin]

IMHO the ability to make a close range accurate hit--from any angle and from any position----is a skill well worth mastering.
I have been trained in the WW2 point shooting system and can impart this ability within a few hours of training.
Once learned, minimal practice is needed to keep it sharp.
Nothing in these two paragraphs state that aimed shooting should be cast aside, since both are needed and should be practiced as much as the shooter wishes.
In other words, none are best.
Just different tools needed for certain situations.

 

[Geno]

Here's the test:

If you don't know if you're a sight-shooter or a point-shooter, tape over your sights.

If you shoot as well with them taped, you're a point shooter. If you go to pieces, well, you might be a sight shooter. Most people are both, to some degree, depending on the conditions and type of shooting in which they are engaged. Personally, I can use all three types, point, front, or both front and rear sights. I prefer point shooting.

The question that I would like to add to this conversation is, how many of you, if you were to order a custom-built defensive carry upper for your "CCW" pistol, would dare to order the slide with no sights? No cut-outs for sights? Not only would such a design be excellent for point shooting, it would be virtually impossible to "snag the sights"!

Doc2005

 

[brownie0486]

Doc2005;

Like this one?

Brownie

 

[JMusic]

I would order small tritium front sight only.
Jim

 

[brownie0486]

I would order small tritium front sight only.

I wonder why?

Brownie