Sights or Target, Where to Focus?

[Hk Dan]

I didn't realize that we had so many Delta Force operators on this forum. Of course when the mind is innoculated to stress--like a Navy SEAL or a Delta operator like you guys, they are not subject to the instinctive reaction of normal human beings. Watch a dashcam video of a shooting. 90% of the time the cop does just what I described, and it probably saved his life. He may come back and do as he was trained, but the initial reaction is almost ubiquitous. That's what I'm talking about. Your initial reaction.

You may think you're going to stand there in a perfect Weaver, slowly controlling your breathing and watching the front sight serrations like Jim Cerillo, but you'll probably do just what I said, and that would be the prudent reaction. Get to cover, recover, and execute your plan knowing that your fine motor skills are shot, your sensory inputs will either be on overdrive or overridden, and with any luck the bad guy is in the same shape you are.

 

[Crusader103]

Here, I fixed it for you.

Shawn Dodson writes:

The things that protect you from being shot are movement, firepower, distance, cover/concealment, but foremost accuracy. If you’re out in the open then the first action you must perform to keep from being shot is to move dynamically while capably placing your weapon into action. You move while drawing and firing. Absent proper training and practice, when you’re moving dynamically there’s too much visual input to be able to focus on the front sight.

 

[9mmepiphany]

I didn't realize that we had so many Delta Force operators on this forum.

There is a big difference between this:

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.

and even this:

Get to cover, recover, and execute your plan knowing that your fine motor skills are shot, your sensory inputs will either be on overdrive or overridden,

I never thought of myself as other than a competent officer and didn't have the reaction you're describing when confronted by a shooter. I did analyze what was happening, stepped out of the line of fire, brought my weapon up (no, I don't use Weaver) and was about to return fire except they ducked out of sight. I didn't control my breathing, but then I don't remember drawing either...all I saw was my sights appear in front of my eyes as I applied pressure to the trigger

 

[Shawn Dodson]

The things that protect you from being shot are movement, firepower, distance, cover/concealment, but foremost accuracy. If you’re out in the open then the first action you must perform to keep from being shot is to move dynamically while capably placing your weapon into action. You move while drawing and firing. Absent proper training and practice, when you’re moving dynamically there’s too much visual input to be able to focus on the front sight.

Accuracy falls under firepower.

You can hit the target squarely and it may take several seconds for the hit(s) to have effect.

In the order of actions, your first priority is to step off the line of attack (keep from getting shot), draw and shoot second (this creates two tactical problems for the adversary – and puts him in a dilemma – he has to decide what to do – shoot or move or both – which slows his OODA Loop). Step first and then quickly draw and shoot. Otherwise you risk becoming preoccupied with getting your gun into action, which can slow your movement off the line of attack, which increases your vulnerability to getting shot – especially if you bobble your draw.

Even with proper training and practice there’s too much going on visually to acquire a front sight focus. The front sight is a small object to focus on. The gun arm is bouncing with each step, which means the front sight is bouncing. Dynamic movement is where one-handed point shooting really shines.

 

[NOLAEMT]

I didn't realize that we had so many Delta Force operators on this forum. Of course when the mind is innoculated to stress--like a Navy SEAL or a Delta operator like you guys, they are not subject to the instinctive reaction of normal human beings.

Once again, Just because you were unable to overcome your "instincts" in a time of stress does not mean that anyone who is not a "Delta Force operator" would behave the same way.

You may be right that the majority of cops do respond in a similar way, but that does not mean that everyone will. Most cops are not gun people, they don't shoot regularly, any more than they practice advanced driving techniques or martial arts. Many only shoot for their quals. The gun on their hip is just a required part of their job.

Once again, if you look you can find plenty of reports of people who were involved in a fight for their lives, and were able to implement their training, use sighted fire (which can and should be done while moving toward cover, by the way) and solved their problem. I'm sorry you were unable to, but perhaps you should seek further training so if it happens again you will be prepared.

There is a saying: In a time of crisis, you will not rise to the occasion, but will default to your level of training.

Those people who have trained in the use of sighed fire will have no choice, as 9mmephininy said, he didn't even notice his gun clear leather, but just his front sight come up into his line of sight.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Of course when the mind is innoculated to stress--like a Navy SEAL or a Delta operator like you guys, they are not subject to the instinctive reaction of normal human beings.

First of all, the "like you guys" comment strikes me as both unnecessary and easily perceived as degrading. Your initial claim was that normal human beings could not be trained to overcome their instinctive reactions. That is clearly not true. I'm not clear from your latest post on what level of training you do believe is necessary to substitute useful trained responses for unhelpful instinctive responses; but I can show you several videos of shootings where normal people used their sights and made hits.

Here is an old one of a hotel robbery in Ohio. 3 shots fired by the clerk resulting in 3 hits. Both hands on the gun, using the sights, though he does duck and "ram the gun out there." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3AA_dgRdDhk

Since you've already acknowledged that it is possible to substitute trained responses for instinctive responses and you've had two self-defense encounters; I'd be more interested in hearing your ideas on what training best accomplishes that. Clearly you seem to think that the level of training is outside the reach of the normal guy, and maybe it is; but since you haven't really explained what kind of training you think is necessary to substitute useful trained responses for unhelpful instinctive responses, it is difficult to have that conversation with you.

Even with proper training and practice there’s too much going on visually to acquire a front sight focus. The front sight is a small object to focus on. The gun arm is bouncing with each step, which means the front sight is bouncing. Dynamic movement is where one-handed point shooting really shines.

You keep using the term dynamic movement and stating that you cannot focus on the front sight while doing it. I know I've witnessed people hit targets 90 degrees to their right or left while moving at a medium jog and they were using their sights. I've even managed it myself. Of course that's on a gravel range and not say, my living room which is littered with furniture, toys, and assorted hazards to navigation that would make a front sight focus while moving more problematic. But it leaves me unclear exactly what you mean when you say "dynamic movement." Did you just mean fast movement period; or did you have more limited conditions in mind?

The front sight is a small object to focus on. The gun arm is bouncing with each step, which means the front sight is bouncing.

My experience has been that training myself to always look for and focus on the front sight makes it easier to visually verify where the front sight is, particularly at closer ranges. Perhaps I am not seeing the same crisp outline of the front sight with random holster fuzz hanging off it clearly in focus; but I've got a good idea where my front sight is in relation to the target.

Training myself to look for that front sight yielded results, even when I didn't actually do a hard focus on the front sight. The flip side of that is that even with considerable good muscle memory built up, sloppy practice where I don't look for that front sight typically results in me shooting inconsistently. So my experience is basically "Practice using the front sight always and you can not use it easily. Practice not using the front sight and shooting gets worse."

Which of course, leads to the question raised earlier, if instinctive shooting is so instinctive, why does it need to be trained and why don't more untrained shooters make good hits?

 

[Shawn Dodson]

But it leaves me unclear exactly what you mean when you say "dynamic movement." Did you just mean fast movement period; or did you have more limited conditions in mind?

Abrupt displacement and movement with a purpose (e.g., running like your hair is on fire). The sights are impossible to visually acquire and track due to all the physical movement. I focus on the aim point of my target (torso) and drive my pistol directly to it. I look down my extended gun arm and use the profile of the slide as my “sight”. I’m not focused on the slide, I’m just visually aware of it as I focus on my aim point. It’s as natural as pointing my finger under the same circumstances. Consistent good hits require little effort. Extensive training is not required.

The technique is *similar* to this shooting, in which the suspect suddenly bolts from his location just off camera, *eventually* draws his pistol, and shoots two pursuing deputies while running. See video - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G97Nf9npim4&feature=player_embedded

Which of course, leads to the question raised earlier, if instinctive shooting is so instinctive, why does it need to be trained and why don't more untrained shooters make good hits?

What human is born with an “instinct” to shoot? The skill may be ingrained or a conditioned response, but it isn’t an “instinct”.

 

[MrBorland]

Drive the gun...

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

My interest in "fast and accurate" ramped up when I started shooting competitively (not very long ago), and a top shooter quickly advised me to "drive the gun". I thought he was referring to getting the gun on target decisively, but the more I thought about it, the more the metaphor seems very appropriate. So here's my .38epiphany , FWIW:

Picture yourself parking your large SUV in a very tight spot at the mall. How fast are you driving & where are you looking? With a need for great precision, you're going very slow while looking at your leading fender & bumper, simultaneously being very aware of the other car's fender, and the shoppers walking behind you.

As you drive home, though, you're driving down a 2-lane road at approx 35-40mph. Just to your left is opposing traffic (also at 35-40mph) and to your right, parked cars. Where are you looking now? If you drove home with your primary focus still on your fender, as when you were parking, it'd be a long drive home (with some very irritated people behind you), or one in which your insurance company would quickly dump you. Instead, you're consciously looking forward, to where you want to drive the car, but you're still very much aware of where your left and right fenders are.

Now, imagine driving home when opposing car suddenly jumped into your lane. You've spent much of your adult life "training" to be a good driver, so you might quickly do the one perfect thing that could avoid a collision. OTOH, it might happen so fast that despite all your training, you might just as easily swerve into a parked car, or even into the approaching car.

Learning to become a good driver or shooter is a worthy endeavor, and serves us well, but it seems the nature of rapidly-evolving & chaotic situations makes it difficult (& even moot) to speculate on what you would do or what you (or anyone else) should've done. I'm no SD expert, nor claim to be, so to those who've had to use their weapon, I must say that I realize that, no matter the solution or outcome, it must've been a difficult solution to a difficult problem.

 

[9mmepiphany]

My interest in "fast and accurate" ramped up when I started shooting competitively (not very long ago), and a top shooter quickly advised me to "drive the gun". I thought he was referring to getting the gun on target decisively, but the more I thought about it, the more the metaphor seems very appropriate. So here's my .38epiphany , FWIW:

I know is something of a segue, but folks who compete with revolvers have to drive their guns much harder than folks shooting semi-auto pistols...I was surprised at how different the technique was

 

[conw]

It strikes me that Hk Dan and Shawn Dodson (the latter of whom, by the way, is being far more respectful and reasonable) are not offering any support for their arguments, particularly in the way of science. When someone has to start using the vague, unscientific concept of "human nature" to prove a point while debating a serious matter, and it's the best he can do, that's pretty indicative that he really means "according to my opinion and biases."

The contention is whether it is possible and optimal to use the front sight and make good hits under stress for a civilian, with proper training. The answer is, yes, it's possible. Citing untrained or unprepared LEOs, getting personal with insults, and citing your own experience or opinion does not change this fact. It is possible, and optimal, to use the front sight under stress to make good hits. Period. No opinion needed there. All the wacky extrapolations that because some people screw up, we should all screw up, or try to train like the people who screwed up or got lucky while screwing up, are just that, wacky extrapolations.

It always amazes me when people who train others, or boldly share opinions publicly, analyze a phenomenon and conclude that because the majority of people do X under stress (in this case, those with insufficient, poor, or minimal training), it's inevitable and we should try to do that or train that way. Shawn I'm sure there is some utility to some of your methods, but your conceptual underpinning really seems suspect to me.

I'll end with a great quote from SouthNarc. "People always want to talk about 'what's natural' when it comes to training. Guess what? Swimming isn't natural, drowning is natural. Swimming is a learned behavior*."

*Yes some infants can swim but the analogy has strong relevance to this discussion

 

[Fred Fuller]

When the subject of human nature comes up, I always recall former Army shrink Dr. Scott Peck's comment: "Human nature is going to the bathroom in your pants." And human nature is overcome for most of us in that regard by toilet training .

Speaking of driving the gun (and operators), I found out today while hanging around on Bragg Boulevard that Kyle Lamb has a new (at least to me) book out, specifically on the pistol. Haven't had a chance to get a copy yet, but for anyone interested, see http://www.vikingtactics.com/books_stayinfight.html .

 

[GLOOB]

Wow! No wonder there's so much bad shooting out there...

You focus on the front sight, leaving the target and rear sight slightly blurred.

I think there's a disagreement on what "focus" means.

If you put your ATTENTION on the front sight, that's fine. If you FOCUS your eyes on the front sight, you will hardly be able to see your target. It won't be "slightly blurry." It'll be legally blind blurry. Moving target? Forget about it. And there'd be TWO out of focus blobs, since your eyes will be crossed. Focus on the target, and you'll see two front sights, but it's easy to block one out with body position/alignment. Even if they're fuzzy, you already know what they are, and how to line them up. Your target might not be as cooperative.

I always focus both eyes PRIMARILY on the target when shooting a pistol, unsupported. (In reality, we all switch back and forth a bit). Hunting/sniping at a stationary target from a rest, that's different. And when focusing on that front sight, I generally close or squint the off eye.

If you think you need to focus your eyes on the front sight to get combat accuracy, you're mistaken. I can shoot 4" groups at 25 yards with a 1911 this way, unsupported. The sights are slightly fuzzy, but you can still line them up properly. As well as you can hold the gun still, anyway.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...If you put your ATTENTION on the front sight, that's fine. If you FOCUS your eyes on the front sight, you will hardly be able to see your target. And there'll be two of them. You'll also be horribly, and painfully cross-eyed....

That has certainly not been my experience.

I shoot with both eyes open. Shooting a pistol, or a rifle with iron sights, I do, in fact, focus on the front sight and see it clearly. When shooting a scoped rifle, I focus on the reticle (as I was taught at Gunsite). But of course when wingshooting with a shotgun, I do focus on the target.

Works fine for me. And seems to work fine for a lot of folks I've shot with, trained with and taught with.

 

[GLOOB]

There are a lot of serious gun guys that advocate using the front sight, only. Completely ignoring the rear sights in a close up SD situation. If you don't even need the rear sights, I can't imagine why you'd need to see your front sight in microscopic clarity to put a bullet on target.

Funny you mention shot gun. I shoot my pistols a bit like a shotgun when doing rapid target acquisition and moving targets. I use the top of the gun like a sighting rib and shoot with an elevated front sight (think bead).

 

[Frank Ettin]

There are a lot of serious gun guys that advocate using the front sight, only. Completely ignoring the rear sights in a close up SD situation. If you don't even need the rear sights,...

Well some fairly serious "gun guys" have taught me -- guys like Jeff Cooper, Ed Head, Ed Stock, Dave Harris and others at Gunsite, for example. And I've had training with Massad Ayoob, Louis Awerbuck and others as well. None of them taught ignoring the rear sight. But when shooting close and fast we did use the flash sight picture I described in an earlier post. And if the target is really close, there's always shooting from retention.

...Funny you mention shot gun. I shoot my pistols a bit like a shotgun when doing rapid target acquisition and moving targets. I use the top of the gun like a sighting rib and shoot with an elevated front sight (think bead).

Except that's not how a good wingshooter uses his shotgun. A good wingshooter's gun is fitted and set up so that when properly mounted it shoots where he is looking. So he ignores the gun and focuses on the target -- being vaguely aware of the gun in relation to the target with his peripheral vision. He absolutely does not sight down the rib and shoot with the bead.

 

[GLOOB]

So he ignores the gun and focuses on the target -- being vaguely aware of the gun in relation to the target with his peripheral vision.

If you're good enough to shoot a flying bird out of the sky without even looking at your gun, why can't you shoot a man sized target at less than 21 feet with a less than perfectly focused front sight?

When I'm shooting a shotgun or a pistol at a moving target, I'm acutely aware of the rail and front sight/bead in my near central vision. Maybe I'm not a great wingshooter. But if it was all about fit and where you look, cross eye dominant shotgunners wouldn't
switch sides.

A good wingshooter's gun is fitted and set up so that when properly mounted it shoots where he is looking.

It would also be hella hard to see the bird in the first place, if your gun always shot wherever you looked; and conversely, your eyes could only move as fast as the gun. Obviously, this statement is complete fiction, since your eyes can and do move in their sockets as they track the target, which has exactly zero relation to the fit of the shotgun.

 

[9mmepiphany]

If you're good enough to shoot a flying bird out of the sky without even looking at your gun, why can't you shoot a man sized target at less than 21 feet with a less than perfectly focused front sight?

Comparing how you shoot a handgun vs. a long gun, be it rifle or shotgun is comparing apples and oranges.

The long gun has a fixed point...the shoulder/buttstock interface...that the gun pivots on. You are only moving the front sight in relation to the pivot. With the handgun, everything floats, the shoulders float, the elbows float and the head swivels. The rear sight is the pivot point that the front sight moves in relation to.

I'm not sure how you learned to wing shoot, but I was taught, if I wanted to hit the target consistently, that the eyes and gun move together. They should not be tracking the target independent of the gun. I have to admit that I'm not a great wing shooter, I'm not even a great fan of the shotgun as a defensive weapon...I have ghost ring sights on my HD shotgun

 

[Matthew Temkin]

Just thought I would mention this--there is no instinct in shooting a gun.
The "instinct" the old timers were talking about was the "instinct' to point one's finger at an object and be on target.
Now wheither or not that is a true instinct is open to debate, since none of my two children came out pointing at me, saying, "Who's my daddy.."
But the use of the term instinct in instinct shooting has been misrepresented for years.
Which is why I prefer the term Target Focused as opposed to instinct, point, or other misleading terms.
Also for the record--there are quite a few credible instructors --Mike Conti of the Mass. State Police, Lou Choido to CHP, Bob Talburt--former FBI HRT--of the Sig Academy, Akron Ohio PD, various instructors at FLETC, the US Army (close range rifle and reflexive fire) Rob Pincus of Combat focus, Hocking College of Ohio, Dave Spaulding, Rance Deware--and many more---who teach both sighted and target focused shooting.
Also for the record--target focused shooting also has a very long, proven record of working in actual combat.
Does this mean we should rip the sights off out firearms?
Of course not, since there is a time and a place for both.
My advice--should one be so inclined-- is to do your own research and come up with your own opinion of the value of learning both sighted and target focused shooting.
Just IMHO.

 

[mavracer]

Comparing how you shoot a handgun vs. a long gun, be it rifle or shotgun is comparing apples and oranges.

I disagree to the point that flash sighting with a handgun is very much like shooting a shotgun. And accurate shooting at distance is much the same weather a rifle or pistol is used.
But when "training" for wingshooting you must first train to mount the gun properly for this the bead must be focused once this skill is mastered then comes movement. Where the bbody learns to move the gun with the eye again for this the bead must be in focus. Once these skills are ingrained in musccle memory then wingshooting becomes a flash sight picture proposition and is much easier. Pistol shooting is much the same. If you first train to draw bringing the sights in perfect focused alignment everything else becomes easier.

 

[Loosedhorse]

Force on force training

For those who have done FOF (I expect that most here have, and that some teach it), it is illuminating. There are a lot of instances (among those new to FOF) of of paint rounds impacting the legs, pelvis and lower abdomen, even though the participant was "aiming" COM.

What typically happens to cause the low shots:

1. Defender looks at target, decides to shoot.
2. Defender draws, begins firing.
3. Defender may or may not raise pistol to eye level, as he continues to look at target (who is also moving and shooting).

Getting into the habit of looking at the front sight will confirm that you have in fact aimed COM as you press the trigger. Unless you're a trained point-shooter, you will get much better hits by "looking at the sights" (in a FOF, you might continue to look at the threat but with this habit engrained, you will have at least confirmed that the front sight is on target).

Perhaps we have all heard the apocryphal story of Cooper debating the ethics of SD with a critic. He received a question along the lines of "What would be running though your mind as you draw down on and prepare to kill a fellow human being?"

He answered, "I hope it will be 'Front sight, front sight, front sight!'"

(Reference, anyone?}

there is no instinct in shooting a gun.

But there is an instinct to point. No one needs to teach a pre-toddler to point with her index finger. Later, no one needs to teach a young boy how to point with a stick.

To me, therefore, saying that a certain pistol "points instinctively" (for an individual user) makes sense.

 

[sKunkT]

I focus on the front sight, and my eyes naturally want to put that front sight so there is equal amount of light on either side between the rear blades. Especially at close range, the target is a really big fuzzy and still decipherable. I care enough to make sure my hits count.

I think everybody that shoots should spend enough time at the range to take in all the things they have learned in training, plus personal experience, and come up with their own personally tailored strategy for what works for them. For me, front sight focus means good hits down range. It fits my style of shooting.

 

[Frank Ettin]

So he ignores the gun and focuses on the target -- being vaguely aware of the gun in relation to the target with his peripheral vision.

If you're good enough to shoot a flying bird out of the sky without even looking at your gun, why can't you shoot a man sized target at less than 21 feet with a less than perfectly focused front sight?

As 9mmepiphany has already pointed out, a long gun is anchored and located at four points on the body: shoulder, cheek, shooting hand, support hand. The relation between bore axis and eye (looking straight forward) is fixed.

...When I'm shooting a shotgun ... a moving target, I'm acutely aware of the rail and front sight/bead in my near central vision. Maybe I'm not a great wingshooter....

And thus being aware of the rib and bead is a primary reason why you're not a great wingshooter. When teaching people wingshooting, we find that experienced rifle and pistol shooters have the most trouble. It's extremely difficult for experienced rifle and pistol shooters to break the habit of aiming. But as Michael McIntosh had put it, "Shooting a shotgun at a flying target is an act of faith."

...But if it was all about fit and where you look, cross eye dominant shotgunners wouldn't switch sides....

Cross dominant folks have a lot of trouble with wingshooting. We can usually get them to do well by shooting with one [the non-dominant] eye, and we do this mostly by putting a small patch on the dominant eye side lens on their shooting glasses that will prevent them from being able to see the bead and rib, and thus the target, so the non-dominant eye must do all the real work. But sometimes they will need to learn to shoot off their non-dominant shoulder.

A good wingshooter's gun is fitted and set up so that when properly mounted it shoots where he is looking.

It would also be hella hard to see the bird in the first place, if your gun always shot wherever you looked; and conversely, your eyes could only move as fast as the gun. Obviously, this statement is complete fiction, since your eyes can and do move in their sockets as they track the target, which has exactly zero relation to the fit of the shotgun.

As 9mmepiphany has already pointed out, the eye and the gun move together. Once the target is identified, it is tracked with the body. The eye is on the target with the the eye, gun and body all moving together as a unit to track the target.

BTW, I've shot many tens of thousands of clay targets, in practice and in trapshooting competition (including ATA and PITA registered trapshooting competitions, our State championships and one year at the Grand American). I've won a few buckles. I've also coached our club's youth team that competes in the NSSF sponsored Scholastic Clay Target Program and was one of the coaches of the squad that one year won our SCTP State championship. I also manage to put into the freezer all the pheasants we need each year.

 

[Steve in PA]

Whether or not you focus on the front sight is dependant upon how far you are from your threat.

If you are in the danger close position, or as they like to refer to it now as "bad breath distance", then no, you are not going to be focusing on your front sight.

However, as the distance increases, then your focus needs to be on the front sight.

Well, what is this distance? Thats up to you to decide. I know as a police officer and firearms instructor, I will definitely try and pick up the front sight whenever I can. I just got back from a LEO/Firearms Instructor training seminar where the emphasis was on CQB (Close Quarters Battle) shooting. We worked from 0-distance out to 10 yards for the majority of our training. At that distance I was using the flash sight picture. basically looking through my handgun, knowing it was pointed directly at my target and firing.

We did do some shooting from 10+ out to 15 yards and as we moved back I was concentrating on picking up the front sight and breaking the shot.

 

[Hk Dan]

Okay, let me clear a few things up. 1) I'm being disrespectful? fellas, re-read your own posts directed at me. My response was nothing but respectful given the names and intimations levelled at me.

2) My views are the product of Lt Col Dave Grossman's analasys, Rob Pincus, Mas Ayoob and Gabe Suarez. Take a force on force class for Christ's sake! With rubber knives and airsoft guns, THIS IS WHAT PEOPLE DO. Gabe talks about one guy from Front Sight who stood there and went to Weaver in the face of a knife attack, and who died a grisly death every time. Finally, easperated, Gabe took the gun away. The guy broke and ran. Gabe said "Great! Now do that with the gun in your hand"

3) I am not saying that you can't train past human instinct to some degree. In fact, if the bad guy walks up and calmly says "Pardon me sir. Would you please kindly give me your wallet?" You may be right. If, onl the other hand he starts with sudden violence--by ramming his .22 Lorcin into your snot locker for instance--I will most certainly be right. You'll flinch, high tail it, and shoot as best you can. Doesn't mean you won't hit him, and it doesn't mean that it's unhelpful to do so. It probably saved your life! Face it, 20,000 years of specialized evolution must work sometimes.

For those of you who are still unswayed, I pray for you to never prove me right. I hope you never, ever find an instance in your life to need this information.

Dan

Ps--I never said what I did or didn't do in my SD encounters. Let's leave it at "This is not projection", both of mine were successful and the bad guys are in jail as we speak, and probably will be long after we're done arguing about who's right (that could be some time) <g> While every encounter is different, we have to plan on what is plausible not what is possible. It is plausible that you will flinch and need to recover beofre your Delta Force level training can or will take effect.

 

[9mmepiphany]

Gabe talks about one guy from Front Sight who stood there and went to Weaver in the face of a knife attack,

I don't think having attended instruction at that school is a glowing endorsement as to the level of skill of that shooter I've made good money, correcting the shooting habits of other attendees