[Amish]

Does anyone here shoot well without using any form of sights on their handguns? After watching the movie Equilibrium, and thinking for a while, I realized that shooting accurately in variouse situations and conditions is really an artform, and being a slave to the sights is what prevents people from fully realizing their potentials. Why don't people train to shoot instinctively? It's like a musician that can recognize the notes to a song by ear and play it on their instrument Or any instrument player that don't need to see where their fingers are to play song. Heck I can type fast and accuately without looking down because i've been trained to do so. I am going the way of Gun-Kata and training myself to shoot instinctively. I suck with sights anyways. I think they are hurting my accuracy.

[telcom911]

the sights hurting your accuracy, but I do train to not use them in close quarters. Anything within ten yards, you should easily be able to hit a target center mass just about every time. I practice from off balnce positions, baracades, unstable arm positions- you name it. this is defensive pistol technique, not competioitn. I want to be able to put rounds down range fast and without worrying about stance or sights, only way to do that is train for it.

[caz223]

Wax bullets. ;)

[Alvin Hammer]

Once one starts to practice something it is no longer "instinctive" by definition. Tests have been run at different times and at different schools studying the accuracy and timing of putting rounds into a target. Sighted shooting always comes faster beyond arm's length. One can pull the trigger faster if not waiting for the front sight to get back on target, but if hitting the target is counted and not missed shots then "front sight-press" is the way to go. Of course, with practice one can become good at unsighted shooting. I have seen a shooter who could, on demand, consistantly hit a 2" target at 75 feet shooting from the hip with a 1911. He said it has taken decades of weekly practice to be able to do it. Nothing "instinctive" about that, but I think you all meant to say un-sighted shooting.

[Feanaro]

Just shootin', as I call it, actually works pretty well at close range without a lot of training. Point your arm, not the pistol. It's not very good for anything but very close range though.

[Alvin Hammer]

If one were to try to figure out what true instinctive shooting was I would think one would have to hand a gun to someone who had never fired one and never seen one fired. The idea would be to see what they instinctively did with the thing.

We need to find a six year old child who has never watched television and see what he does with a gun. That would be instinctive. No suggestions or training allowed. Me thinks the gun should be unloaded. Otherwise, it could get too interesting.

[Leaky Waders]

looking only at the target and not down the barrel.

It's a classic way to shoot a bow - especially a recurve ala Fred Bear.

It's instincitive because you're judging the distance, the arc of the arrow, the speed of the target etc w/o sights...you're target is a crisp picture the whole time.

It's an impressive way to shoot a bow.

And, wether you use sights or not...you'll need to practice to develop your instincts even more.

As for a pistol...you may want to read Ed Mcgivern's book - he did many things w/ a pistol that seemed like only Daredevil, The Green Hornet, or Batman had the reflexes to do. But the main difference is that Ed was real...although I do see a Bat signal shining on skyscrapers every now and again ;) .......

Ed's book is on sale at Amazon.com btw and the smith and wesson performance center has several pistols models currently made in his honor.

My two cents,
L.W.

PS On certain automatics eg a ruger mk2, one can place their index finger close to the barrel and pull the trigger w/ their middle finger, then you just point your finger at what you want to hit. Don't try it w/ a revolver (hot gases) or a slide framed auto though.

[TonyB]

I think you need to practice both sighted and un-sighted fire.For most civilian self defence situations drawing and firing w/out sights should be practiced.BUT,you also need to know how to shoot at some distance,and this requires sights.When I go to the range I ussually use my carry gun and practice close unsighted fire on sillouettes.Some times I'll goto the 25 yard range and shoot targets also.
Most importantly is being totally familiar w/ your gun.Like it's an extension of yourself.It take a long time(I'm working on it.)but it can be done.
All this is my OPINION and what I try to live by.:cool:
P.S. something like IDPA is a good combination of both kinds of shooting,and is lots of fun too:D

[Erik]

The best advise I have ever heard anyone give someone who "sucked" with sights was "practice more."

[Old Fuff]

Anyone who is interested in “unsighted” defensive handgun shooting should also read Bill Jordan’s book, “No Second Place Winner.” Bill was a U.S. Border Patrol officer who developed this kind of shooting into a fine art. I had the pleasure of knowing him, and he could do some things no one would believe if they hadn’t seen it.

Revolvers are better then automatics for this sort of thing because pistols can throw brass into your face when they’re fired below eye level. There is also a chance of “limp wrist” jams. On the plus side, you can get shots off quicker then going into a
Weaver Stance and picking up a flash sight picture, but as has been pointed out, unless you do a lot of practicing hitting the target is much more difficult.

Another trick you can try is to get an ordinary flashlight wit a spot beam and “push button” switch. While standing in a semi-dark room point the flashlight at some object on the wall and quickly hit the button. Notice how close the beam comes to the object. You may be surprised how quickly you can learn to do it, and this kind of training is completely safe.

[VictorLouis]

I used to be of the 'sights-only' school save for all but arms-length or contact distance. Not any longer. I've come to see that I can get coarse hits to the vitals at up to 10yds. without taking the time to:

a) Attain a two-hand grasp
b) Raise the gun to eye-level
c) Acquire the front sight

If I add 'a' into the mix, I can do it up to 15yds. From 5yds. or less, I can do it while running, though I'm better if I'm traveling to my weak side.

Why does this matter? Two reasons. To twist an old axiom, I'm of the mind that a decent hit delivered fast beats a more precise hit getting there slower. Afterall, you don't know how fast the gremlin may be. Secondly, I don't know for sure that I may not revert to target fixation when I'm scared-to-death.

I do believe that good, solid training will hold for you in moments of stress, or duress, however you wish to term it. However, I'm convinced that many fights don't allow for that to develop. Startle-repsonse degenerates to true fear such that we don't have the time for the 'conditioned-reponse(s)' of training.

Mind you, I still practice sighted fire just as before. I just give more time to 'instintive' or 'point-fire' or what-have-you than I ever would've done before.

Oh, and my plinking still involves the use of sights!:D

[BigG]

I think there is an art to shooting and I've surprised others (and myself) by bringing the pistol up and firing instantaneously - connecting with a beverage or vegetable can at 50 or 100 yards. I've done it often enough to know it is a knack, not a fluke.

Wild Bill Hickok was quoted by Rex Applegate (who found an old letter to the editor from Bill) as explaining his shooting technique by saying "I raised my pistol to eye level, like pointing a finger, and fired." Rex felt as if he had struck the mother lode, finding shooting advice from the deadliest pistoleer who ever walked the West.

This part of your post reflects a mistake in your thinking, however, Amish: I am going the way of Gun-Kata and training myself to shoot instinctively. I suck with sights anyways. I think they are hurting my accuracy.
You really should learn to shoot with sights. Making a group proves you have mastered the weapon. The part where some go wrong is they get slavishly dedicated to that type of shooting, disparaging all else. Snap shooting is very important and fun! :)

[sanchezero]

I haven't gone back and checked but I was just wondering if using the term 'point shooting' was against the rules on this forum. I know it certainly has incited some lively discussions on other boards.

:D

Also, shooting isn't instinctive AT ALL. Instincts are packaged skill sets hardwired in the womb/egg.

If anything, shooting is anti-reflexive since one of our primary reflexes is the 'flinching' away from explosions near our faces.

:p

Oh, and that's a movie. You'll never shoot that way, just like you'll never fight like Jackie Chan does in his movies. Depressing, I know...

:(

[Rosco Benson]

Unsighted (point) shooting is necessary when shooting from a retention position and needs to be practiced to ingrain some degree of skill therein. If the pistol is raised to eye level, then better results can usually be had by using the sights. Depending on the degree of precision required, one's sight picture may be more or less refined. A close shot at a big target may not require anything more than seeing the "silhouette" of the rear view of the gun itself..."silhouetted" on the target. A high-precision shot may require a razor-sharp focus on the front sight. These represent the extremes. Most shots will require something in between the two. Shooting, under time pressure and using various realistic scenarios, is the best method of learning what is an "acceptable" sight picture for a given shot, for you.

Rosco

[zahc]

All I know is, that what archers call instinctive shooting, must be practiced. However, it is the purest way to shoot because you simply focus on what you are trying to hit. And you hit it. It's the scariest thing ever, in a good way. I used to smack necco wafers stuck on strings at 30 feet. I don't see how pistols coud be much different than bows cause they have a flatter trajectory.

[Rosco Benson]

The "purity" of a given technique has never been a factor for me. I prefer to concentrate on the effectiveness of a given technique.

While the "zen" archers can do some amazing tricks, they don't seem to show up and collect the prize money in archery competitions. Why is that?

We must also bear in mind, when evaluating a given technique, what a typical, reasonably motivated student can be taught to do with it. One can get pretty impressive with a bad technique if one makes it one's life's work and practices it to the exclusion of all else....especially if one starts with an exceptional natural ability.

Rosco

[BigG]

Jelly Bryce had a supernatural skill with a revolver. I believe he favored the S&W 357 Magnum. In any case, the FBI hired him as an agent to take out the ten most wanted men during the gangster heyday. After he did that, they made him an instructor of firearms. Jelly did a form of hip shooting where he claimed to be able to watch the bullets as they streaked toward their targets. He unfortunately could not teach his eagle-eye technique to any of the special agents, so as a teacher he was ineffective. However, he is remembered as the originator of the famed "FBI Crouch."

[Soap]

Why not make sighted fire instinctive? Then you get the best of both worlds. Here is what I do to practice. Take your weapon, unload it, check it, check it, and check it again, holster it. Find a safe direction to dryfire in. Find an object in that direction. Close your eyes, then draw and point your gun at the object. Open your eyes. Are your sights aligned? If not, keep doing it until they are aligned. A seriously awesome shooter can get to the point where they find themselves opening their eyes to a perfect sight picture every single time. I'm still working on getting there.

[Bruegger]

L.W. - just to clarify on Ed McGivern's book (I assume we're talking about "Fast and Fancy Sixgun Shooting"): he doesn't teach "point shooting" if that means unsighted shooting. He's pretty much of the front sight school of thought and goes on at some lenght about the best types of sights, etc. Excellent book, though the writing style seems a bit pre-modern to the 21st century reader.

Un-sighted fire at contact-to-close ranges can be frighteningly accurate. But please, nobody use it instead of sighted fire in a hostage rescue situation. In my agency, the first stage of fire for qualifications is hipshots at 1.5 meters. I generally make little tiny groups dead center, and this is drawing and firing as fast as I can go. And I'm no Ninja.

For anything over let's say three to five meters I try to get a flash front sight picture.

[themic]

when playing pool, some players never look at their own stick and hardly look at the cue ball. the best players i've seen approach the table and take their shot without taking their eyes off the target ball and target ball's path.

when pitchers throw baseballs, do they look at their arms?

shotgunners are more used to this sort of system, but i think handguns can be elevated to a higher level.

imho, sighted fire is great... but instinctive fire, though harder, can bring you to higher levels.

we usually deny ourselves the opportunity to play with this type of fire because of all the advice and wisdom we receive, which is "FRONT SIGHT; SIGHT ALIGNMENT"

[RON in PA]

REX APPLEGATE! From his training film in WW2 to his death in 1998 Applegate was the major proponent of point shooting. His books and films are available from Paladin books.

[BigG]

In my mind, the sights are an alignment TOOL. Once you get used to aligning the weapon, the front sight can be placed on the target and the target will be hit. It's as simple as that.

The problem with people who eschew learning to shoot with the sights altogether is that many probably never learn to align the weapon in the first place. Once the weapon is aligned, whatever the muzzle is pointed at will be perforated.

I think proper alignment can be developed into a "feel thing," but I don't think that feel can be developed into proper alignment of the weapon. It takes both to make a good pistoleer, imho. :)

[MikeJ]

Although I have to admit that the great majority of my shooting practice is with the use of sights I firmly believe that it is important to be able to shoot relatively accurately without them for defensive situations. I feel that in many of these situations it might not be feasible to gain a good sight picture due to lighting conditions, movement, confusion etc. One of the best ways to accomplish this is to have a gun that is a natural pointer, a gun that feels like a natural extension of your arm.

[Brian D.]

Do whatever works. Just don't try to fool yourself into believing that anything less than a high percentage of good hits is adequete. What's just an "oops" on the range could be tragic out in the world. To sum up my philosophy in three words: 1)Practice 2)Practice 3)Practice.

[benEzra]

I'm with Rosco. The sighted fire vs. point shooting debate is not an either-or situation; there is a whole continuum between hip shooting (gun completely out of cone of vision) and a fine focus on the front sight.

I am a firm believer in bringing the gun up into the cone of vision at any distance over 1.5 meters or so, although I would be doing a highly compressed Weaver and looking over the gun at the target. Some would call that "point shooting," but I would call it coarsely sighted fire. BTW, Col. Applegate raised the gun nearly to eye level and looked over the gun at the target; he just didn't look at the sights. (He wasn't hip shooting!)

I tried "pure" point shooting a little (i.e., gun so low I couldn't see it, aiming by "feel" only, and shooting as fast as I possibly could), and managed to get clean misses at 3 yd on a B21-sized target. Using a very course visual index (i.e., see fuzzy gun over target), I can get A-zone hits with good speed.

As far as "instinctive shooting" goes--ANY technique you practice over and over and over will become instinctive, whether it's Israeli Instinctive Shooting or flash sight picture or Ayoob's 'Stresspoint' technique or Applegate's or Cirillo's or whatever. Just pick something that works for you and practice it a LOT, and it WILL work under pressure.

[TaxPhd]

All of this speculation and conjecture is interesting, but the empirical evidence is quite clear. Use of the sights is the best way to ensure hitting your target.

Anyone know of a competition shooter that consistently point shoots? And competes at a high level?

[Chris Rhines]

Don't know if this counts as 'point shooting,' but Rob Letham has stated that he frequently focuses on the target rather than the front sight while shooting IDPA. I understand that he is pretty good.

On the other hand, I am of the firm opinion that coarse hits, sighted or unsighted, won't cut it. However you do it, you should be getting 3-4" COM groups at whatever range, speed, and circumstances you train under. Anything more than about four inches may well be the difference between hitting and missing in a real fight.

- Chris

[ninenot]

I'm of the mind that a decent hit delivered fast beats a more precise hit getting there slower.

Happens to be exactly the thought of Jeff Cooper.

[ninenot]

However you do it, you should be getting 3-4" COM groups at whatever range, speed, and circumstances you train under

:) Back a couple of summers ago, I trained a 15-year-old on the 'point-shoot' method. He had never fired a semiauto pistol before. Using my H&K USP 9mm he placed four shots describing a 4" square in COM on a silhouette at about 7 yards. He was happy, and so was I.

[zahc]

"Anyone know of a competition shooter that consistently point shoots? And competes at a high level?"

I don't think that is totally relevant since point shooting is so much different than sighted fire. Differnt.

[zahc]

here is more:
"While the "zen" archers can do some amazing tricks, they don't seem to show up and collect the prize money in archery competitions. Why is that?"

Because competition favors sighted fire. One has time and brain space to actually aim. Where you will find instinctive archers is in the woods where they are sometimes far more effective at hitting what needs to be hit, at whatever range it is currently at, right now.

[sanchezero]

Anyone know of a competition shooter that consistently point shoots? And competes at a high level?

Pretty much all the top level shooters shoot via index (point shoot) at appropriate ranges. Very few people would argue that point shooting is best at 10meters and out, but alotta shooting (in and out of matches) is within 5meters where ignoring the sights isn't too detrimental.

[jc2]

Before anyone really attempts a serious discussion (pro or con) on point shooting versus aimed, they really need to have read (and digested) both Fairburn's and Applegate's books (Shooting to Live and Kill or Get Killed). It would reduce the number of remarks based on ignorance and false assumptions made by many of posters (mostly on the "con" side).

Point shooting requires both training and practice (though training time is relatively short compared to that required for other forms of shooting). Point shooting, as advocated by its two best known and most accomplished progenitors, is practice strictly at closer ranges (plus or minus seven yards)--anything over that distance requires sighted fire.

Point shooting is a combat-centered (born in combat) and reactive technique very well suited for the most common combat scenarios (close-range, fast, and poor visibility--sighted fire works best when you can see your sights). In most studies of gunfights (inteviews of LE survivors/winners), at close range, most to did not remember using their sights/getting a sight picture while at long ranges, most did use sights/obtain a sight picture before firing. (FWIW, long range fights are more winnable/survivable, but it is generally attributed to slightly greater reaction time available.)

Ideally, a combat shooter should be trained and competent in both point shooting (out to seven yards or so) and sighted beyond that.

For those of you who like to talk about target shooting, whether with a bow or handgun, I would suggest you come back when you realize there is a big, huge, tremendous, not even on the planet difference between combat and competition.

[Snaps]

It's actually kind of funny. I've been trying to teach myself this with the non-working free time;) luckily 9mm is cheap.

Before any really attempts a serious discussion (pro or con) on point shooting versus aimed, they really need to have read (and digested) both Fairburn's and Applegate's (Shooting to Live and Kill or Get Killed). It would reduce the number of remarks based on ignorance and false assumptions made by many of posters (mostly on the "con" side).
I'll have to look those up.

[benEzra]

Before any really attempts a serious discussion (pro or con) on point shooting versus aimed, they really need to have read (and digested) both Fairburn's and Applegate's (Shooting to Live and Kill or Get Killed). It would reduce the number of remarks based on ignorance and false assumptions made by many of posters (mostly on the "con" side).
If you look at Applegate's Kill or Get Killed, he does teach raising the gun to the line of sight, but the focus is on the target rather than the gun's sights. Most of us in the "aimed fire" camp consider this a coarse form of aimed fire, in that seeing the fuzzy silhouette of the gun over the target provides unconscious "on target" or "off target" info to your brain.

To me, "point shooting" is shooting in which the gun is out of the cone of vision (hip shooting, speed rock, etc.). But if you consider Applegate's style to be point shooting, then you and I are basically using very similar techniques, just different terminology.

[zahc]

I don't think it makes any difference what stance. True instinctive archery is done with the bow hand often right out there. The whole point is, that you make no note of the gun, are not even aware of the gun, only, only (only) on where you are going to hit. Having the gun up only makes recoil more controllable and and reduces the parallax factor.

[benEzra]

The whole point is, that you make no note of the gun, are not even aware of the gun, only, only (only) on where you are going to hit. Having the gun up only makes recoil more controllable and and reduces the parallax factor.
I understand what you're saying, just not all of us work that way. When the gun is out in front of me, I'm aware of it, and it helps me hit whether or not I'm looking directly at it.

I learned to shoot a bow and arrow "no sights," so that I was not consciously lining up anything with the target, and did OK. (I also took the "Robin Hood School" advice to heart and didn't hold the string for long; just pull it back and release almost immediately.) I guess you could call that instinctive shooting on some level. However, the arrow and bow were still in my field of vision, and if you could somehow have painted the bottom of my glasses black so I couldn't see the arrow in my peripheral vision, I wonder if I would have shot as well. (I don't know.)

Another thought--a bow is much more similar to a shoulder weapon than a handgun, in that the rear end of the arrow is anchored on your body (if you pull it to your cheek, like most archers do). A handgun, on the other hand, is more free to vary.

I've tried "instinctive pointing" a laser at objects without looking, and then looking to see if the laser was on the intended target. Usually, it was a foot or more off. (A flashlight beam is misleadingly wide.)

[TaxPhd]

"For those of you who like to talk about target shooting, whether with a bow or handgun, I would suggest you come back when you realize there is a big, huge, tremendous, not even on the planet difference between combat and competition."

I would disagree. The essence of "combat" shooting and a competition such as IPSC or IDPA is very similar. Place multiple shots on multiple targets as quickly and as accurately as possible from a variety of positions, using a sufficiently powerful gun.

True, "combat" shooting places your life on the line, but this cannot be practiced in a controlled environment. The pressures of competition offer a reduced level proxy for this.

Would it be herasy (sp?) to suggest that perhaps Applegate and his contemporaries, while on the cutting edge in their time, may be a bit outdated? Cooper was once an advocate of point and one handed shooting, until he (and everyone else) started getting trounced by Jack Weaver using a two-handed hold.

[jc2]

I would disagree. The essence of "combat" shooting and a competition such as IPSC or IDPA is very similar.
I don't know. I have been shot at (and have shot back), and I have shot matches. The experience ("essence") is just not the same.

[bigjim]

JC2 said:Before anyone really attempts a serious discussion (pro or con) on point shooting versus aimed, they really need to have read (and digested) both Fairburn's and Applegate's books (Shooting to Live and Kill or Get Killed). It would reduce the number of remarks based on ignorance and false assumptions made by many of posters (mostly on the "con" side).

Point shooting requires both training and practice (though training time is relatively short compared to that required for other forms of shooting). Point shooting, as advocated by its two best known and most accomplished progenitors, is practice strictly at closer ranges (plus or minus seven yards)--anything over that distance requires sighted fire.

Point shooting is a combat-centered (born in combat) and reactive technique very well suited for the most common combat scenarios (close-range, fast, and poor visibility--sighted fire works best when you can see your sights). In most studies of gunfights (inteviews of LE survivors/winners), at close range, most to did not remember using their sights/getting a sight picture while at long ranges, most did use sights/obtain a sight picture before firing. (FWIW, long range fights are more winnable/survivable, but it is generally attributed to slightly greater reaction time available.)

Ideally, a combat shooter should be trained and competent in both point shooting (out to seven yards or so) and sighted beyond that.

For those of you who like to talk about target shooting, whether with a bow or handgun, I would suggest you come back when you realize there is a big, huge, tremendous, not even on the planet difference between combat and competition..

Based on the tone of this reply I think I know what you think JC stands for.

[Double Naught Spy]

While a couple of you actually know what instinctive means, most of the posts I am seeing here indicates that most do not.

As noted, anything instinctive pertains to traits, abilities, and behaviors that are present when you are born. A newborn baby suckling his mother is performing an instinctive action. Fight or flight responses are instinctive. Handling a gun, even a 6 year old child handling one for the first time is NOT instinctive.

As noted, what most consider to be 'instinctive shooting' is nothing more developed and trained skills. Such actions may be performed at the subconscious level, but that is not instinct. Being able to perform in that way is more like what is called 'muscle memory' although muscles don't have memory. Muscle memory pertains to developed neurological pathways for a given task. Repeat the task enough times and the pathways become better, shorter, and the skill performed without conscious thought for most of the action. For example, when threatened, you may consciously decide to draw your gun. Unconsciously, you will be doing things like sweeping open your cover garment, getting the correct grip on the gun, drawing, bringing the gun to the off hand, thrusting forward, and then firing if needed.

Skilled gun handling is no more instinctive than riding a bike, driving a car, or writing your name.

With all that in mind, there are some people who have a propensity to perform some types of actions better than the general population. Often, such people are called a "natural" for the task at hand. Such folks will have hard wired aspects that might be instinctive, but the application of those aspects is not instinctive. For example, a new baseball player is found to be able to have a very high batting average the first season he ever plays. Being able to swing the bat and hit the ball is not instinctive. What makes the kid so good is that heapparently has proper eyesight, coordination, and ability to asses his environment and react to it accordingly.

[TaxPhd]

While the outcomes are different (as I previously acknowledged), how does the shooting differ between combat and a game?

Come on you guys that have "seen the elephant." Don't just tell me there is a difference. Tell me what the difference is.

[bigjim]

TAXPHD

I can think of two.

Shooting for your life in addition to the stress which is also there in shooting games boasts a major FEAR factor.

Also in games you have a plan. The stage is known or atleast understood. There are rules that must be followed. Known conventions designed to maximize success. None of that is true in a real life shooting encounter. It all goes to s**t the instant it starts.

Oh yeah I forgot....its ok to not win a game. Even second place in a game has value.

[TheMariner]

Anyone know of a competition shooter that consistently point shoots? And competes at a high level?


Ummm yeah, we call it women's sport pistol and the 3rd round of men's standard.... it happens to be where I excel... I point shoot all the time in air pistol...pisses coach off but I'm consistently the second best shooter on the team so he really can't complain...

I point shoot all the time with air guns... that is, when I bother to use the sights at all... I know the flight profile of a .22 wadcutter coming from a S&W 78G at any level of CO2 pressure in my head... the weapon will come up everytime, no matter how fast, in a perfectly lined up picture without even looking...

An instinctive ability to shoot without sights is possible, even without ever training on sights... Hey, you can't even blame the recoil for a missed shot then.

[Z_Infidel]

Eric Haney's book "Inside Delta Force" has a brief but interesting description of the shooting methods used by operators in the unit. Of course, I would guess the pure skill of the men along with the amount of practice they put in has a lot to do with their shooting ability. It would make a good read for anyone really interested in the topic of this thread, even if the methods described are not practical for everyone.

[TaxPhd]

Mariner,

Thanks, I never knew that about air pistol. I would have thought that that kind of precision event would be all about sights. Is your method the norm, or are you kind of an anomoly?

bigjim,

I agree with your points, and alluded to the first one. Fear and fighting for your life are very important factors, which really can't be practiced. The stress of competition can help, but it is certainly not as significant.

Yes, in games you will have a plan, and in real life, the plan is either non-existent, or will go to s**t. However, training and skill will still be there when the plan goes bad. It is my contention that competition is a very good forum for obtaining and honing that skill.

So, when we get past the differences in the end result, and the ability to have and to stick to a plan, we are left with the shooting. And the essence of shooting in combat or in competition is as I described previously.

[Mikul]

When polled about what they were focused on while shooting, police officers consistently answer that they were focusing on the threat. THAT is an instinctive action. In fact, you're likely to go into tunnel vision in a life and death situation. Working with that instead of against it is a worthy pursuit.

Accurate shot placement with sights can be learned quickly. It is a beginner's technique. The amount of familiarity with shooting required to hit center of mass without even seeing the sights at 30 feet is substantial, but it can be done by a lot of shooters.

Brian Enos has several different sight pictures that he uses dependant upon the distance and difficulty of the shot that he needs to make. Up to 10 yards, he doesn't even see the sights.

The fact is that the sights exist for us to double-check where we are pointing the gun. We all draw a gun and aim it as accurately as possible at the target before the sights come into our line-of-sight. No mentally competent person pulls a gun an finds himself aiming directly to his right. The question becomes, how much double checking do you need? Like a good typist, who can type without looking at the keyboard, you shouldn't need to stare at the gun every time you pull the trigger. Your skill level will indicate when you should double-check your aim.

There is no question that it takes time once the gun enters your line of sight for your eyes to focus, transmit to your brain, process, send a signal to your arms to move and finally pull the trigger. I'll hasten to say it takes at least 1/4 second and 1/2 second wouldn't surprise me. It also takes time to raise a gun from your hip to your eyes. Why move more than you need to?

[Leibster]

I've been researching this stuff for a long time, and have developed a handgun sight specifically for the task of being "aimable" when the primary focus of the eye is on the target, not the gun.

As part of my research, I've discovered objective medical data that indicates that our bodies don't function under stress the way they function when we're not stressed. Some of these changes can heavily affect vision, and therefore the feasibility of using our sights under stress.

That people suffer biological changes under life-threatening stress is not in dispute. While it certainly doesn't happen to everyone in every situation, there are some extremely common human responses to danger that we're all at risk of experiencing during a fight.

Tunnel vision has already been mentioned, and it's basically a radical reduction in peripheral vision. This means that if the gun isn't held up inside the "cone of vision", the gun and it's sights will be invisible to us.

Another, more serious symptom of the "fight or flight" reflex is something called "distance-only eyesight". This phenomenon explains why the vast majority of shootout survivors recall focusing on the threat, and not on their sights. Distance only eyesight means our eyes involuntarily focus for distance, as a survival mechanism. Often during the "fight or flight" response, our adreanaline-filled bodies are literally incapable of close vision, since focusing close is a function of the Parasympathetic Nervous System, which is not as accessible to us during the "fight or flight" reflex.

How severely we'll be affected by the "fight or flight" reflex depends on many factors--i.e. how surprised we are, how confident we feel in our ability to overcome, how imminent the threat is, etc. But it's a safe bet that the majority of people under the majority of circumstances will experience distance only eyesight. Research with gunfight survivors bears this out.

Even if we aren't that heavily affected by the fear response, it takes about a full second to switch the focal length of our eyes, like from the target to our sights. A full second is one hell of a long time in a fight.

Given the facts, the ability to hit our target while focused upon it, and not our sights, would seem a worthwhile pursuit.

--Leibster

[sanchezero]

bigjim,

I think tax's point, and the point I've often tried to make, is that the shooting skills needed in a gunfight (fast and accurate shot placement) are the same skills needed in IDPA/IPSC competition.

While we can't (legally) practice our gunfighting, we can develop the same skills with regular practice in competitive arenas. Of course, there are aspects of violent conflict that aren't developed in a competitive forum, but I feel its best to do what you can to stack the deck. That includes competition.

:)

[sanchezero]

Even if we aren't that heavily affected by the fear response, it takes about a full second to switch the focal length of our eyes, like from the target to our sights.

Leib,

I'm curious about that statement. I do visual short-long focus drills and I've never felt that I needed anywhere near a second to shift my focus. Probably more like 1/4 sec or less. This is shifting from about an 18-24" focus to anywhere from 10' to 10yds.

I was just wondering where you came up with 1 second; if you'd read about it somewhere or if it was a number you came up with yourself.

Thanks.

[Leibster]

sanchezero,

You can check any readily available medical resource. Guyton’s Medical Textbook is one source where I've seen it. I've also consulted with vision specialists about this, and they've concurred.

Even if you're really fast with shifting focus, 1/4 of a second is still a substantial amount of time in a gunfight. It's long enough for the average person to fire at least one round at you with a relatively slow double action revolver. (See Massad Ayoob in his Cop Talk column, American Handgunner, September/October, 1998, page 28 for details. He claims there that in one full second a double action revolver can be fired 4 times on average.)

Hope that helps.

--Leibster

[Ryder]

Learned relexes are not instict but it is instinct to depend on that learned ability.

I think this is why you see a majority of people resorting to unaimed fire when tacychardia syndrome sets in. This happens to even highly trained people. No matter no matter how much target shooting they've been trained to do with sights you almost never see it happen in real life in up close situations. They don't consciously decide to experiment with unaimed fire at such a crucial time, it just happens because of their survival instinct and an imperative need for speed.

IF that is going to happen anyway whether you want it to or not because of instinct taking over then wouldn't it be better to have practiced that style previously with an eye towards assessing the results and improvement of that performance over time? In other words head down that road to make it a learned reflex.

I've been experimenting with unaimed fire a recently as regards SD techniques. I do this this from arm's length to 3 steps further back and have progressed to moving to either put distance between myself and the target or traversing to one side. About half of my life threatening incidents have occurred with multiple attackers at these ranges. The other half were at those ranges with single attackers.

Any further away and I'd hope to be using sights. Sights work just fine for me. Aimed fire puts the gun out at arm's length and I feel a need to minimize a grab or a rush to get behind my muzzle. I don't perceive that as a problem beyond 10-12 feet. Unaimed fire is darn fast if nothing else.

Using unaimed shots I have found no problem hitting the target. What I can not do (yet?) is place my bullet exactly where I want it on that target. For instance I may hit 6 inches low of my desired placement with one magazine and 3 inches left the next. Sometimes it's in the bull but I can't attribute that to anything but random luck at this point in my training.

What's encouraging to me is that I do get groups. Aimed fire at that range should have anyone getting a ragged hole and obviously I am not talking about those kind of groups but 3-5 inch unaimed groups are a pleasant suprise which I can only attribute to my first sentence.

[TheMariner]

TaxPhd,

With air pistol, whether I am an anomoly or not, I don't know. I've been using them for nearly 12 years and competition air pistols are flat shooters out to about 10m or so... the competition distance... Makes it alot easier to just put the weapon up and pull. Where its poitned is where it'll go since the distance is always the same...

I guess my anomoly/not anomoly status depends on how many people out there trained on combat shooting with a air pistol before moving to weapons with recoil... I know just about EVERY time I round out a two or three shot string, thanks to all those single shot air pistols I used, the first shot is right on the money, with the others trailing in elsewhere around the center.

I would say most focus on their sights... I use them only to tell me during competition that I'm pointed in the area, them teh sights just go blurry and all I see is the target... then pop! off goes a round... for a nice 10.9, as the scoring computers tell you at nationals..

[GitSome45]

I know that this is gonna bring some "fire" down on me, but I think that one should bring the weapon atleast into the "cone of view" and AGGRESS (move towards) the target/hobgoblin with determination and conviction... (Point / Semi-Aimed Shooting...but close the distance)

REMEMBER, You WILL BE SHOT!

Accept it and prepare for it, OVERCOME YOUR OPPONENT "Improvise Adapt Overcome, BUT ABOVE ALL, SUCCEED..."

Entering into a gunfight with the expectation that you will go "UN-SHOT" is like entering into a Fistfight with the expectation that you will go "UN-TOUCHED"...

Kinda UNREALISTIC ! :scrutiny:

PLUS, it sets up the shooters mind to fail, (disbelief and shock) at the crucial time and moment when you need to "DRIVE ON"- "MAKE IT HAPPEN" & "SUCCEED", You need to be as "mentally ready" for a gunfight as you do "physically ready"...

JMHO,

Howard

[TheMariner]

interesting thought.... must ponder a while... certainly taeks more of the view of the soldier than the civilian...

[VictorLouis]

First of all, the same gunfight footage in which see 'point-fire' from otherwise trained LEOs, we also see them RETREATING from the threat. Why on earth you would want to train against this is beyond me!

In the absence of hard cover, distance is your friend. It gives the bad-guy a harder time hitting you. It allows you to catch your breath, and maybe allow your sighted-fire training to kick-in.

As to accepting you WILL BE shot, no Sir! My mental conditioning was always this.
"I will NOT be shot or stabbed. IF I am shot/stabbed, I will NOT die. I WILL stop my attacker."

[themic]

if you haven't, i seriously recommend trying paintball once. it's relatively cheap, easy, safe, and you can do it almost anywhere. go out as a walk-on on a course. pick a course that has both urban and woodsy settings. you will learn a variety of things the first time,

1) it's easy to get shot.
2) it's easy to get shot quickly.
3) when you round a tight corner and stumble upon some dude, "coarse aiming" isn't really accurate. I have to say you really are pointing the entire marker, but it's likely held within the cone of vision, somewhere round head level.
4) it's easy to shoot where you want it to go, even when under stress.
5) it is HARD to hit anyone, even if you're shooting where you want it to go. people move, they move fast, and they move well.

and of course a variety of other things that are probably individual. anyways, i recommend everyone try it out, cause it's different from competition shooting, and IDPA, and IPSC, because there are people out there, who don't want to be shot, but who want to shoot you.

[caz223]

In the paintball arena, when you're playing your first game, the first thing you learn is how quickly you get shot.
Later, you learn how to not get shot, and how to get shot at and not get hit.
Also, recognizing good cover, and moving to cover without attracting attention are good skills, too.
If you haven't tried it yet, the money you spend may be your cheapest education.
As for dodging, avoiding a 275 FPS .68 cal projectile is pretty easy.
Evading a .355 projectile at better than 1100 FPS is not gonna happen without some religion...

[TheMariner]

So, if God is with us, than who can be against us?

[E357]

For point shooting, I don't think you can get better than practicing with a GOOD QUALITY Airsoft gas blowback pistol that exactly matches your carry weapon. You can shoot in the house, throw cans up in the air, shoot and hit dragon flys, Palmetto bugs in the garage. These guns won't last a lifetime, but they are realistic, recoil and noise are at a muted 22 short level.

Elliot

[Navy joe]

Something that isn't said enough is the need for sameness of equipment. I am a fairly new competitor and am pretty much mid level in IPSC and what little IDPA I've tried. The past year of competing markedly improved my competition skills. I own a good number of pistols, but about 8 months ago I switched from my 1911s in competition to a pair of Glocks. I also switched to them for carry. Other guns go to the range now only because I feel sorry for them. I have found out that I can still target shoot my 1911s just fine, but fast and fancy is out, the Glock feel, point, and shot reaction are too wired into my head. In that time I've seen over 10K rounds of 9mm go bye-bye and managed to maintain a fairly active match schedule thru trying winter weather.

The results are that at closer ranges out to 7-10 yds I find myself looking overtop of my gun after all shots are fired. I hold it in a centered isosceles stance, just not quite at eye level. Sights? What sights? I get good hits, and any points I do drop are from too fast a cadence if anything. I certainly don't miss. The thing is I certainly don't mean to do it, I could probably scream "Front Sight!" out loud and still do it. I figure that means if I'm ever prompted for close range speedy action that's how I'll end up shooting. Definitely target focused shooting. Sometimes I am watching the front sight, but looking from overtop of it. The alignment I see there is the whole slide, front sight to the point of impact on the target, I usually see the hits. So basically laterally aligning while focusing on the target. Darn weird.

I could not do it if the Glock did not point well for me. As a point ;) of interest, I use the G34 mainly for 25 yd plinking and the G17 for everything else. The difference is the 17 is second Gen with no stupid finger grooves. I have grip taped it to death and it suits my hand. I could not do it if I switched guns from match to match. When I decide to play with the G34 again it will be exclusive. When I go back to 1911s same thing, both Glocks will take a season off. Heaven help me if I decide I need to shoot BHPs in IDPA, then I can have more moneypit guns.

[355sigfan]

The only time you should not be using the sights is at contact range where you can literally touch your target. Past that sights rule.

Now at close range you don't need a great sight picture in fact being able to just see the front sight and the target blurred around it is usually close enough.
PAT

[TheMariner]

Whatever trips your trigger man... everybody is different.