Sights or Target, Where to Focus?

[9mmepiphany]

as 9mmepiphany says about how they learned to shoot from the hip, I'd rather not. I'm at least going to put the gun between me and my target

I would propose that you aren't really point shooting

The has been an on-going argument about what constitutes point shooting. The purest definition would be: If You See Your Gun, You're Not Point Shooting

A widely used definition is: If You Don't Align Your Sights, You're Point Shooting

I would suggest that anytime you (1) bring the gun up to shoulder height and/or (2) visually index your gun on target...that you are not point shooting. You are using what is commonly referred to as Index Shooting...known over the years as the FBI's Point Shoulder, the Ayoob's SightPoint and the Slide Index, That is how we shot in Reduced/Dim light in the days before Night Sights.

I'm actually quite good at it. During a quarterly Qualification period, I found that I couldn't see my sights (got old and too lazy to update my glasses) and I still shot 87% by looking down the top of my slide (the COF went out to 20 yards) and muscle memory from years of sighted fire. I certainly wouldn't call that Point Shooting, but it seems that a lot of people do.

As MrBorland posted, the goal of sighted practice is to train your subconscious to see the sights in alignment and allowing that perception to cue your trigger press...now that is an advanced technique to aspire to

 

[Shawn Dodson]

Out to about 15 yards I use a target focus. I look at the aim point - where I want my bullet to land on the target - then I drive my front sight to the aim point. I don't acquire a hard focus on my front sight. I'm simply visually "aware" of where it is. I've taught myself to "see" what I need to see to get the hits. (It's like pointing my finger - I don't need to acquire a hard focus on my finger to accurately point it at something. My hard focus is on what I want to point at and then I "drive" my finger directly to it.)

It also works very well during dynamic movement.

Beyond 15 yards I tend to use a classic front sight focus because my sight alignment and sight picture require greater precision - especially if the available target area is small.

 

[David E]

Y'know, a lot of people think they point their finger with pinpoint precision. So you ask them to show you, but as they "confirm" their finger point, they move it to their eye to "prove" it was accurately pointed the whole time.

And if you put a laser on their finger to verify, they'd complain the laser was off....

I focus on the front sight for just about all distances, but once your technique is consistent and you practice it, you can get by without sights out to 10 yds or more, depending on the size of the target.

I once shot a "In a Barber chair" stage where I didn't clear the "barbers sheet" completely and it landed on my gun, draping it completely. Not wanting to take the time to yank it away, I shot the 6 rd stage with no sights, even hitting the little popper at 10 yds with one centered shot before coming back for the drop-turner. I won the stage!

 

[KodiakBeer]

A lot of this becomes instinctual after you shoot for a while. Of course you can still hit the target at close range without specific focus on the front sight. Whether you call that a flash sight picture or indexing or something else is immaterial, the simple facts are that YOU ARE CLOSE TO THE TARGET which reduces the margin of error - it's just easier.

It would be a bad idea to train to shoot in this fashion from the beginning simply because shooting at longer ranges is not instinctual, no matter how much you practice at close range. The inverse is not true - if you can hit a bulls-eye at 25 yards with reliability, then hitting a target at close range becomes ridiculously easy and fast with almost no practice.

Use that front sight.

 

[Hk Dan]

Wow--another Enos reader??? LOL. And the deviation control is from Rob Pincus' Combat Focus Shooting classes. There just ain't one answer gang. To shoot and hit as quickly as possible, you have to be conversant with all five types of focus, the ability to use them, and knowing your limitations within them.

You "Front sight" guys? It ain't gonna happen. I've been through two defensive encounters and as much as you want to believe that your training or practice will make things happen for ya? It won't. You're human and you'll ram the gun out, duck, and run for cover just like anyone else, probably shooting the gun one handed at fulle xtension while pointing it in the general area of the bad guy.

Believing anything else is rubbish.

 

[KodiakBeer]

You're human and you'll ram the gun out, duck, and run for cover just like anyone else, probably shooting the gun one handed at fulle xtension while pointing it in the general area of the bad guy.

Believing anything else is rubbish.

So, that's how you train? I have been in defensive encounters with a rifle. I did not run while holding the rifle at full extension, shooting in the general area of the threat. I turned and swung the rifle up, cheek welded to the stock and used the sights, exactly as I had shot a rifle for many years. I have no doubt I'd use a handgun exactly as I've trained.

 

[NOLAEMT]

You're welcome to belive that but there are plenty of reports of leo, military and civilian shootings where sights were used to debunk that claim.

In a stressfull situation you will do as you have trained, if you have trained extensivly enough, and trained correctly.

And to say that aimed fire is not fast enough I also have to doubt. Like Texasrifleman, I have recently been to gunsite for a week long pistol class, and I learned just how fast using the sights can be.

They do something at gunsite called the dozier drill, which involves 5 steel "pepper poppers" at 10 yards. You start facing away from them, turn and engage all 5 targets as quickly as possible. I am far from an expert shooter, and I was able to turn 180 degrees, and shoot all 5 targets, seeing my front sight each time, in under 3.4 seconds. Plenty fast. And that was the first time I had ever shot that drill.

There is a reason that any decent combat pistol instructor will drill "front sight, press" into your head, IT WORKS!

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Believing anything else is rubbish. You "Front sight" guys? It ain't gonna happen. I've been through two defensive encounters and as much as you want to believe that your training or practice will make things happen for ya? It won't. You're human and you'll ram the gun out, duck, and run for cover just like anyone else, probably shooting the gun one handed at fulle xtension while pointing it in the general area of the bad guy.

If it were impossible to train to overcome instinctive reactions, the Air Force and Army would own a lot of fancy lawn darts in the form of jets and helos, both of which require fine motor control responses in life-or-death situations and focus on things other than the threat.

Whether you look at pilots, special operations, or other areas, the military appears to be very successful at substituting trained response for instinctive response. So I don't accept your premise that doing that is impossible.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Focus on the front sight. Let the target be a blur.

Now, I'm lucky -- as I got older I became far-sighted in my right (master) eye and near-sighted in the left. I had to re-train myself, but now I shoot both eyes open and see both the target and the front sight clearly -- the brain superimposes the image.

 

[Al Thompson]

You're human and you'll ram the gun out, duck, and run for cover just like anyone else.

Disagree. IME, most will default to their level of training. Mindset helps bunches.

 

[TexasRifleman]

You're human and you'll ram the gun out, duck, and run for cover just like anyone else, probably shooting the gun one handed at fulle xtension while pointing it in the general area of the bad guy.

All that proves is that the person wasn't as well trained as they thought. There are plenty of documented shootings involving truly well trained people and those people defaulted to their training, not panic.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Quote:
Originally Posted by HK Dan
You're human and you'll ram the gun out, duck, and run for cover just like anyone else, probably shooting the gun one handed at fulle xtension while pointing it in the general area of the bad guy.

I'm a soldier, not a cop. I've only used a handgun twice in combat -- but both times I used the sights. On the second occasion the guy I was entertaining was using a Browning Hi Power, made by Inglis of Canada, and he was shooting just like you say.

 

[ChCx2744]

I've, personally, found that it is faster to focus on your target first before putting a bead on it; the sights naturally line up with whatever I'm looking at. If I focus on putting my sight on target, it takes a little bit longer to stabilize my line of sight, as opposed to already being focused on my target.

 

[9mmepiphany]

Now, I'm lucky -- as I got older I became far-sighted in my right (master) eye and near-sighted in the left. I had to re-train myself, but now I shoot both eyes open and see both the target and the front sight clearly -- the brain superimposes the image.

My vision went the other way...and it's a pain having to tilt my head up on my tri-focals to focus on the front sight. I'm thinking about getting a set of shooting glasses made with my master eye focus set for the front sight and the other lens set for distance

 

[conw]

Hk Dan, your post just baffles me. There will be some person who read this - this site has a HUGE following, and for this reason among others now only logged in members can see S&T - and your erroneous statement will go into their "software."

I took a class this weekend (in which numerous cases refuting your statement were presented, which is not my point here) and the instructor made a statement to the effect that semantics create a contextual underpinning that affect our training habits, our actions and therefore our outcomes in a deadly encounter. True to his point, he took care to explain things in ways that led us (students) to think in ways that are proven to ensure positive outcomes. Let's just say that his students have a very good track record and the man knows what is talking about.

So when you come on a serious forum, about a serious subject, where people who are concerned, aware, and diligent enough to research these serious facets of reality, and shoot your mouth off, I don't appreciate it. There are many, many ways that people could interpret your statement and then make a poor decision. This is mostly because your statement is wrong, and goes against the grain of reality. It is demonstrably untrue. We talk a lot here about mindset and sometimes it is referred to as if you consciously decide what mindset to have. Unfortunately reading fallacious statements on the internet can lead people to develop a very poor mindset that can get them killed.

What I'm getting at is this is a deadly serious subject. This is not the place to come to offer unqualified opinions and shoot off your mouth or share your devil-may-care view of how to defend yourself or save a life.

I did a username search on you and I'm surprised you even posted what you did, because your other posts seem to be quite rational and you don't seem to be new to the game. I will not keep quiet out of courtesy though; I hope anyone who read what you wrote and somehow internalized it also reads this.

I've been through two defensive encounters and as much as you want to believe that your training or practice will make things happen for ya? It won't. You're human and you'll ram the gun out, duck, and run for cover just like anyone else, probably shooting the gun one handed at fulle xtension while pointing it in the general area of the bad guy.

I'm human but I'm not you, and neither is anyone else reading what you wrote. You =/ all humans. Your experiences do not generalize to everyone else. Larger population groups, when studied, contradict your experience.

 

[Deaf Smith]

Dan,

If you read any of Jim Cirillos works you will see he didn't run for cover shooting one handed (in fact he wrote he SAW his front sight, including the serrations on his S&W .38, as he shot down three robbers.) He was only in about 17 gunfights.

And Charles Askins, in his book, wrote about a few of his gunfights. Didn't do that either.

Yes one might very well do as you did, but that is not always done. Even on Youtube some of the shootings the good guys stand there firing.

Deaf

 

[DrewBegley]

Wow, well everyone has their own opinion as to what will happen when the time comes for them to have to use their weapon in self defense. Personally, I'm sure I'd back away from the threat to find cover while using both hands on the firearm to put my sights over the target and touch, press. Unfortunately, without extensive training (which I don't have because of my young age and exposure to tactical shooting) I probably will do what many LEOs on "COPS" who are caught by surprise by Mr. Stranger Danger during a traffic stop. That is to draw my weapon, aim in the general direction of the threat and shoot until the threat is no more.

I know there are many many highly trained individuals out there who will find their sights if even for only a split second and will easily eliminate the threat. Watching and hearing about or reading about so many police officers firing countless round during these situations and not hitting anything at all does not surprise me because they were probably mainly the officers who do not get training outside the department and let's face it, departments are not training their LEOs as they should for these instances. I think that is what HK DAN means, but wasn't able to explain himself.

 

[9mmepiphany]

Unfortunately, without extensive training (which I don't have because of my young age and exposure to tactical shooting)...

... does not surprise me because they were probably mainly the officers who do not get training outside the department and let's face it, departments are not training their LEOs as they should for these instances.

If you admit to not having the training or experience, what would lead you to believe that LE departments are not providing appropriate training?

I think that is what HK DAN means, but wasn't able to explain himself.

I thought Hk Dan was pretty clear that he believed other folks will react to danger as he did...it's called projection.

It is part of the reason many of us train to react otherwise...it is called taking responsibility for our own actions

 

[NOLAEMT]

Yep...

I have noticed a similar reaction to driving in the snow here in the south. People don't know how, and assume that no one does, and that it is impossible to learn. Growing up, "up north", I learned from an early age that if you want to be able to control a car in icy conditions you need to practice.

If you want to be able to use your sights when you "really" need them, You need to practice drawing from your holster, and using the sights to make accurate and fast hits on target.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Very often instinct will lead us astray. One important aspect of training is developing the ability to overcome instinct and instead reflexively (without conscious thought) do what's best.

 

[mavracer]

Front sight press. Front sight press. Front sight press.
AFAIK there's no rule that says you have to panic.

 

[Crusader103]

You're human and you'll ram the gun out, duck, and run for cover just like anyone else, probably shooting the gun one handed at fulle xtension while pointing it in the general area of the bad guy.

Believing anything else is rubbish.

Dang it. Now that I've already used my sights and proper technique to prevail you tell me this. If I had known sooner I would have just sprayed and prayed while tucking my tail and running.

 

[Shawn Dodson]

HK Dan writes:

You're human and you'll ram the gun out, duck, and run for cover just like anyone else, probably shooting the gun one handed at fulle xtension while pointing it in the general area of the bad guy.

For the most part I agree with you.

Your focus will be on the dangerous person or his/her weapon, not your front sight. That’s human nature. When out in the open, the closer the danger the greater the instinct to focus on it. I know, I’ve been there several times – drawing down on gang members and other violent suspects on the street as an LEO. It’s also been my experience in FoF training. In addition, after certain FoF training encounters everyone who was debriefed stated that they didn’t look at their sights – they looked at the adversary.

It doesn’t take much training to learn to accurately land good hits on the bad guy while looking at him, shooting one-handed, while moving dynamically off the line of attack. (Those who haven’t trained will probably “point [their handgun] in the general area of the bad guy”.)

The first rule of a gunfight is to keep from being shot. The things that protect you from being shot are movement, firepower, distance, and cover/concealment. If you’re out in the open then the first action you must perform to keep from being shot is to move dynamically. You move FIRST, then draw and fire. When you’re moving dynamically there’s too much visual input to be able to focus on the front sight. It just isn’t going to happen.

 

[Al Thompson]

That is to draw my weapon, aim in the general direction of the threat and shoot until the threat is no more.

Why would you calibrate your mind for failure? I see this in one of my family members all the time. If you assume you'll act poorly, you will. If you think through possible scenarios with success in mind, you will be much better equipped mentally to succeed.

A good read on some of the mental aspects of gunfighting is by Jim Cirillo:

http://www.amazon.com/Guns-Bullets-Gunfights-Modern-Day-Gunfighter/dp/0873648773

 

[TexasRifleman]

Here's an interesting read, and a good bit of research, on the subject. This paper seems to come to the conclusion that it's all about laser sights and he does advocate some "point shooting", but the research info is very interesting by itself.

One paragraph that gives a pretty fair view of the back and forth between sighted and unsighted shooting.

What we might loosely construe from the limited NYPD data is that officers (70% of the time) are in fact already “point-shooting” in a very real sense, and that it could be the reason why hit probabilities appear so dismal. Point-shooters would undoubtedly respond that any such interpretation would be tenuous, since NYPD didn’t formally train its officers to point-shoot. In response, advocates of sighted shooting might counter that if point-shooting does in fact require substantive training, it isn’t as “instinctive” as its proponents claim it is.

http://www.theppsc.org/Staff_Views/Aveni/OIS.pdf

An off topic statement, but one I found very interesting, was:

After 10 years of attempting to do so, nothing has been obtained to document a single case of an officer being shot because he was using his flashlight. Yes, the flashlight may well become a “bullet magnet” if used improperly, but no statistical evidence has been found to support this ever happening.

That might be worthy of a thread itself.