The use of sights in CQB combat situations

Status
Not open for further replies.
george burns:
This guy, "I read a lot of articles, and his name isn't important for this particular discussion. But he teaches a 3 or 4 day class on gun fighting where the sights are never used at all.

Ok for the sake of the discussion the writer of the article or the writer's students number of actual gun fights and the results? I think its a question that requires an answer to access the value of what is being taught. Even a limited sample may be of value.
 
I was reading an article the other day, as most of us do when one presents itself that we find interesting. This guy, "I read a lot of articles, and his name isn't important for this particular discussion. But he teaches a 3 or 4 day class on gun fighting where the sights are never used at all.
Reason being, "they take too long" to raise the gun up and put them into action.
Now some may just accept this as I do as strictly making sense, where others will insist that there is a way that allows you to use your sights and it doesn't take any more time than the other way around.
But actually if you have to shoot someone who is already shooting at you or is about to squeeze one off, there is no way you can shoot as fast as just clearing the holster and firing from the hip, like the gunfighters or even the cowboy single action shooters do now.
It's just impossible for a human to draw raise the gun to eye level line up the sights, "no matter how quick he is" rather than draw lean slightly back and fire two shots without ever seeing the gun.
Of course this takes practice and should only be done after months of careful baby steps.
But once achieved, at distances 10-20 feet, there is no way that a full draw and 2 handed hold can possibly win against a one handed fast fire gunfighter. The conversation awaits your input. I look forward to your exchange.
Quick shooting at close range from eye dominant side is surprisingly easy. My weapon of choice for this is the R9 pistol which has almost no sights at all. The so called CQB is for special forces commandos, anti-terrorist or SWAT type units that have to be concerned about hostages or bystanders therefore those folks must shoot quickly and pay attention to sights. Matter of fact in best units each member must sit in room full of dressed mannequins while unit buddies dispatch the mannequins with live ammo.
 
Ok for the sake of the discussion the writer of the article or the writer's students number of actual gun fights and the results? I think its a question that requires an answer to access the value of what is being taught. Even a limited sample may be of value.

You're going to base an instructors worth by how many gun battles his students get in and don't die?

I find that mildly amusing at best, to consider the number of gun battles won by any instructors students. I prefer NONE of my students ever get into a gun battle.
 
I doubt many instructors want their students to get in gunfights. Unfortunately it's not usually an elective. Since 'not dying' is the outcome I desire I'm interested in that metric.
 
You're going to base an instructors worth by how many gun battles his students get in and don't die? I find that mildly amusing at best, to consider the number of gun battles won by any instructors students. I prefer NONE of my students ever get into a gun battle.

Its not an amusing question to ask if what is being taught works!
 
I doubt many instructors want their students to get in gunfights. Unfortunately it's not usually an elective. Since 'not dying' is the outcome I desire I'm interested in that metric.
Yet Tom Givens students have had over 60, yes over SIXTY, students in gunfights.

And Tom keeps track of just what happened and what works (or don't work.)

And that is why I take serious consideration of what he says.

Deaf
 
Its not an amusing question to ask if what is being taught works!

Yes, it's an amusing question. If a skill is repeatable, it's the shooter that's the deciding factor along with a lot of variables.

Rob Leatham trains specops in his way of shooting. Mils use of a pistol is near nill in battle, so I doubt there's much of a database to look at there. Is what the national champion for 20 years trains specops in speculation because there's no street record?
 
Deaf Smith said:
Yet Tom Givens students have had over 60, yes over SIXTY, students in gunfights.

And Tom keeps track of just what happened and what works (or don't work.)

And that is why I take serious consideration of what he says.

Deaf[/url]

Yeah, I know. Tom Givens is at the top of my list of guys I hope to train with in the next year. I didn't read this whole thread but he was the one I was thinking of. What I meant is that no one wants their students in gun fights but that survival is the only useful measure IMO. Mr. Given's seems to have an outstanding record of preparing his students for real confrontations.

Long and the short, I agree with you 100%, Deaf!:cool:
 
IMHO teaching point shooting to someone is a disservice, if a person has properly learned a sighted draw stroke the ability to aim without sights will be ingraned in muscle memory. "learning" to shoot from retention shouldn't take much effort at that point.
 
IMHO teaching point shooting to someone is a disservice, if a person has properly learned a sighted draw stroke the ability to aim without sights will be ingraned in muscle memory. "learning" to shoot from retention shouldn't take much effort at that point.

Ever stood at a range and watched how 90+% of the shooting public doesn't have command of the basics of handhold, trigger control and sight alignment?

Ever had any formal threat focused training? If so, with who? If not, I'll take your reply as just another that doesn't know what he doesn't know, and that's not at all surprising.

Here's a quick question for the members who've responded in this thread----

How many have any formal training in threat focused skills that are making negative posts about this form of shooting ?

Everyone is aware that the border patrol agents have been trained in point shooting for over 30 years right? Another fellow border agent by the name of James Gregg has taught border agents his point shooting system for a very long time. He's got a book on it called The Gregg method of fire control.

Many agents have become members of an exclusive group of accomplished point shooters. The group they belong to, the "hole in one" club, sees members having to pass one test to belong. It's 5 rounds at 5 yrds into ONE HOLE without the use of sights. In the back of the book, he lists the names of agents who belong to that club, there's over 1000 leo's listed as belonging to that hole in one club.

Yes, point shooting is snake oil, yes point shooting is not accurate enough, yes point shooting can't be relied on---------------------------

My guess is negative remarks about point shooting are coming from the unenlightened untrained members who don't know what they don't know.
 
Last edited:
IMHO teaching point shooting to someone is a disservice, if a person has properly learned a sighted draw stroke the ability to aim without sights will be ingraned in muscle memory. "learning" to shoot from retention shouldn't take much effort at that point.
And that parallels Jeff Cooper 's writings. "If you cannot see the sights, just bring the gun up AS IF you could see the sights."

But Jeff preached 'to the classes' (that is those who would train to a high standard) and not to the 'masses', those who rarely practice.

Deaf
 
My guess is negative remarks about point shooting are coming from the unenlightened untrained members who don't know what they don't know.
So everybody that doesn't agree with you is just ignorant. LOL

Problem is there's a lot of folks that do awefully well for themselves on the other side of you're argument
 
Last edited:
So everybody that doesn't agree with you is just ignorant. LOL

If you care to call unenlightened ignorant, that's fine with me, but that's not what I suggested.

Problem is there's a lot of folks that do awefully well for themselves on the other side of you're argument

What problem is that again? Seems EVERY threat focused instructor is on record as needing both sighted and unsighted skills. Not as much equity from the front sight press crowd over the last 4 decades.

We profess one should have both in their possibles bag. In fact, I end every session with precision pistol fire at 50-100 yrds making full use of sights and maintaining the basics.

Biased as some are here against it, I've yet to see one who's had professional training in p/s that's poo poo it as not necessary. YMMV, depending on how "enlightened" one may be, or ignorant as you prefer apparently
 
What problem is that again?
Apparently it's an understanding of the english language.
I believe if you'll look in any dictionary or thesaurus you'll find ignorant and unenlightend are synonomous. Also if you'll reread my statement where do I say that point shooting shouldn't be a skill in your bag.
As a matter of fact can you find anywhere that Cooper said that a shooter shouldn't have the ability to point shoot in their bag.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top