sightless pistol


PDA






dashootist
December 3, 2012, 09:46 AM
Hi.
Met a gunsmith with a 1911 w/o sights. He build the gun and begin shooting it before he put the sights on. He liked to so much he decided to leave them off.

The amazing thing is that he was beating, like, 80% of the competitor at the match. We were shooting steel plates. Biggest plate was 6-inch diameter. Smallest plate was only 2-inch wide. From 15 yards away!

How does he do it without sights?

It just looks like the ultima no-snag pistol for CC. The slide is not even cut for sights. It looks very slick.

If you enjoyed reading about "sightless pistol" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
TAKtical
December 3, 2012, 10:17 AM
Practice. Reflex shooting can be very effective if you have enough experience with a specific platform.

2wheels
December 3, 2012, 10:34 AM
Practice practice practice.

You should try shooting a Colt New Agent sometime, it's surprising how accurate a gun with only a trench cut down the length of the slide to help you get more or less on target can be. I assume this guys 1911 didn't even have a trench though? Impressive shooting.

I like that slick sightless look, that's part of why I bought my New Agent.

jigglyjames29
December 3, 2012, 11:28 AM
I saw a video like this the other day, except it was out to like 10 yards shooting cans and stuff.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GoPnySsns0

Pretty interesting and cute girl. Haven't tried it yet.

bannockburn
December 3, 2012, 12:17 PM
When I looked at the New Agent without sights I just couldn't get any feel for the trench set-up. I did end up going with the model that had the XS sights on it. Quick and easy to aquire and get on target with.

oneounceload
December 3, 2012, 12:33 PM
Most of us who shoot shotguns at flying targets only use our hands and eyes to be successful. Looks like that girl in the video was doing the same

Skribs
December 3, 2012, 12:35 PM
Psh, I do this all the time in Call of Duty!

In all seriousness, there are actually some pistols (generally pocket pistols) that don't even come with sights. Seecamp is a good example of this.

creeper1956
December 3, 2012, 12:57 PM
The amazing thing is that he was beating, like, 80% of the competitor at the match. We were shooting steel plates
Although the alignment is somewhat course, it's still more than adequate for the distances and targets used.

People get so hung up with trying to get a perfect sight picture that it slows them down and/or causes them to stress out to the point that their hit/group quality is diminished. We all get hung up with this issue at some point, and many never get past it to realize that, for most handgun purposes, perfect sight alignment is simply not that critical.
Your gunsmith has, either by accident or on purpose, found out that the most rudimentary of sighting systems... meaning using the slide only as his point of reference, removes a great deal of stress from the task of aiming. His eye sees the slide, the target and their relationship... and based on previous success, if it looks about right, the brain says "OK... this is good enough, pull the trigger".

Years ago I had a surplus 1911 with no sights... that's the way it came to me for a whopping $40 (NRA "Fair"). It was loose as a goose but a good shooter, and with no sights to strain my brain, I could find, align and hit targets with boring regularity.

Seecamp is a good example of this.
I've had a Seecamp .32ACP since 1990 (for which I waited a year to get, as they were still substantially hand made and in very high demand)... and you're correct. Larry Seecamp correctly deduced that at the distances the little gun would be used, and considering the short sight radius, sights were not needed. I can empty a magazine rather quickly into a 3 inch circle at 15 feet or less... plenty accurate for the intended purpose.

dashootist, and anyone else if you'd like to test the theory... if you have a gun with easily removable sights... take 'em off and try shooting it some time. It's fun... and educational. :D

Ankeny
December 3, 2012, 01:20 PM
All that is required is to be able to determine the relationship of the pistol to the target. How that is accomplished is up to the individual. As a general rule, as shots become more difficult, more inputs (kinesthetic and/or visual) are required to make the hit. What do you suppose the 20% that beat the guy with the sightless pistol were doing?

As for sight picture vs. sight alignment, there is a big difference. ;)

mavracer
December 3, 2012, 01:24 PM
I see a lot of folks at the range that from the looks of their target that the sights on their guns are largly ornamental anyway.

Skribs
December 3, 2012, 01:51 PM
I see a lot of folks at the range that from the looks of their target that the sights on their guns are largly ornamental anyway.

This can be funny or arrogant depending on where you draw the line between useful and ornamental.

Fishbed77
December 3, 2012, 04:33 PM
This can be funny or arrogant depending on where you draw the line between useful and ornamental.

Sounds pretty funny to me.

9mmepiphany
December 3, 2012, 05:20 PM
I've learned that I can shoot pretty well without seeing my sights...although it wasn't voluntarily. Both were during firearms qualification periods; once I lost the front sight on a 1911 and another was when I put on the wrong pair of glasses and couldn't see the front sight at all.

What I learned is that extensive practice with sighted shooting allows one to learn correct index and to use the top of the slide as an aiming index...Ayoob called it the Stressfire Index in his book. This is the reason that I've never understood the usefulness of XS sights, as they offer no advantage over index shooting.

You could learn to shoot by just indexing a sightless pistol without sights, it just take a lot more ammunition...as it can't be learned through Dry Fire

Ankeny
December 3, 2012, 09:30 PM
Sounds pretty funny to me. Me too. ;)

tekarra
December 3, 2012, 09:39 PM
The late Jim Cirillo advocated learning to shoot a pistol without using the sights for quick aiming and for low light situations. It is surprising how accurate this method is with a bit of practice.

Droid noob
December 3, 2012, 09:46 PM
I had my front sight fall off during a class. The instructor saw it as a good opportunity for me to practice lol. I had to use the top right length of the slide as my "sight picture". Worked out surprisingly well.

Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk 2

M-Cameron
December 3, 2012, 10:01 PM
the bulk of my practice with my carry guns is point shooting......as i figure if i ever need to use my guns in a SD scenario, im not going to have time( or frame of mind) to line up sights and use them.

i look at my target, bring my pistol up to eye level ( not taking my focus off the target) and shoot....never once looking at the sights.

if you have a natural pointing pistol, you should have no problem hitting the target.

at self defense ranges (<20' or so), i can keep all my shots COM slowfire......and i can keep all my shots on an average sized torso shooting rapid fire.

Bobo
December 3, 2012, 10:12 PM
This is a video of D.R. Middlebrooks using a sightless gun, he is a trainer who is very strong on point shooting.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTQ2j4hezOQ
BTW his wife is almost as good with a sightless gun!

Bobo

M2 Carbine
December 4, 2012, 09:33 AM
If you have a "feel" for the gun you can do well without sights. You can even do well with your eyes closed.

I passed the Texas concealed carry qualification (just for practice) with my eyes closed.

http://i1183.photobucket.com/albums/x464/Bell-helicopter-407/eyesclosedJFrame7yards.jpg

http://i1183.photobucket.com/albums/x464/Bell-helicopter-407/CZ40P10ydseyesclosed.jpg

http://i1183.photobucket.com/albums/x464/Bell-helicopter-407/Taurus7yardseyesclosed.jpg

ku4hx
December 4, 2012, 09:59 AM
The flat surface of the slide's top is a sight of sorts very similar to that of a shotgun. As you acquire the proper "sight picture" (get the rear and forward edges of the slide top to come together) the slide plane disappears. A little practice with your pet load and "Kentucky Windage" will get you into the "kill" zone.

mavracer
December 4, 2012, 10:42 AM
This is the reason that I've never understood the usefulness of XS sights, as they offer no advantage over index shooting.
Speed when a more precise shot is needed. If your using the slide to index and need to make a longer shot you need to find the sights. If your using the big dot to index you mearly need to set it in the rear to make a more precise shot.
You could learn to shoot by just indexing a sightless pistol without sights, it just take a lot more ammunition...as it can't be learned through Dry Fire
This is IMHO one of the best uses for a laser it makes practicing point shooting without burning throug ammo possible.

The Lone Haranguer
December 4, 2012, 11:59 AM
How does he do it without sights?
Perhaps some alternative sighting technique. (There is no way he isn't aiming, i.e., a visual index of the gun upon the target, the gun.) For example, I like and use a "silhouette point"* where you line up the "silhouette" of the rear of the gun's slide with the target, not actually focusing on the sights themselves, which may be obscured for whatever reason. Not as far as 15 yards, though. :)

*Probably not invented by, but definitely taught by, the late Jim Cirillo. See his book Guns, Bullets and Gunfights for a complete description.

NG VI
December 4, 2012, 12:14 PM
Anyone ever try using just a front sight, no rear on the pistol, for a point of reference for basically point shooting?

The Lone Haranguer
December 4, 2012, 12:29 PM
In the book I cited, Cirillo would tape over the rear sight, simulating the "sightless" pistol. By reducing the tendency to "hunt" for a perfect sight picture and snapping off the shot when the perfect picture happened to "wobble" into the right spot, groups tightened.

None of this means that I advocate taking sights off all handguns. They're still necessary, IMO. In fact, I want them as big and bold as possible without being unwieldy. But it is not always possible or desirable to depend on them.

Bovice
December 4, 2012, 01:01 PM
I see a lot of folks at the range that from the looks of their target that the sights on their guns are largly ornamental anyway.
Lol that's pretty funny.... I second the statement about sights being ornamental on most people's guns. On the rare occasion I shoot at a public per hour range, the sights are about as important as a hood emblem on an old Cadillac.

Barely keeping shots on a 3 foot by 2 foot sheet of paper 15 feet away in a casual environment does not show any proficiency or usefulness. What it shows is an acute need for practice.

9mmepiphany
December 4, 2012, 01:31 PM
Speed when a more precise shot is needed. If your using the slide to index and need to make a longer shot you need to find the sights. If your using the big dot to index you mearly need to set it in the rear to make a more precise shot.
You'd have better results with regular sights due to more lateral feedback from the rear notch.

That is my objection. Not enough advantage up close (within 15 yards) and giving up too much as the range increases. I understand the principle of XS sights, I just don't think they transferred well from long guns.

Anyone ever try using just a front sight, no rear on the pistol, for a point of reference for basically point shooting?
That is part of index sighting I was referring to in using the top of the slide.

The definition of Point Shooting has changed a lot over the years. It originally referred to pointing the gun without look at it for a reference/index point...hip shooting or cowboy fastdraw would be good examples. Somehow this has come to include bringing the gun up into your line of sight. The obvious question would be, if you are bringing it up that far anyway, why not look at the sights as it takes no more time?

What it shows is an acute need for practice.
That might be a bit harsh. I'd think they'd really need some instruction

mavracer
December 4, 2012, 01:35 PM
You'd have better results with regular sights due to more lateral feedback from the rear notch.
true enough I agree the XS rear sight is worthless which is why I used a U notch rear sight.

aarondhgraham
December 4, 2012, 01:38 PM
Way back in time,,,
When dinosaurs ruled the earth,,,
And the Gun Control Act of 1968 hadn't been invented:

I bought an RG revolver in .22 short for $5.00,,,
Somewhere in the first box of cartridges,,,
The front sight fell off the barrel.

A few years later when my Poppa saw me carrying the gun,,,
He asked me where the front sight was.

I told him I took it off so it would clear my pocket faster,,,
He said that he agreed with my decision.

Because when I got all froggy and pulled the gun on someone,,,
When they took it away from me and shoved it up my @$$,,,
It wouldn't hurt nearly so bad coming back out. :what:

But seriously folks,,,
Many trainers tout snap-shooting,,,
But it does take quite a good bit of practice.

For me ammo cost is the limiting factor,,,
Since my carry gun is most often a S&W Model 36,,,
I scrounged around and found a S&W Model 34 snubbie in .22 LR.

Now it's one of the guns that always goes to the range with me,,,
I'm getting pretty good at hitting center mass at 15 yards,,,
It's cheap to practice at 24 cents per full cylinder.

Aarond

.

Ankeny
December 5, 2012, 01:06 PM
Somehow this has come to include bringing the gun up into your line of sight. The obvious question would be, if you are bringing it up that far anyway, why not look at the sights as it takes no more time?
I agree. It takes no more time to look at the sight picture. It does take more time to refine the alignment though. That's why it is so vital to be able to read the realionship of the bore to the target face with less than "perfect" sight alignment.

If you enjoyed reading about "sightless pistol" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!