Why do shotgunners insist on point shooting?

[Mannlicher]

Most guys at the range are gregarious, friendly, and like to chat. I listen to all and constantly learn more. When advise is offered that does seem good, I listen even then. I am not sure at all, that offered advise is 'out of line'.
The world is full enough of jerks that spout off, and yes full enough of jerks that snap at folks when spoken to.

 

[Nnobby45]

Not much difference

Your sight is very important as a reference and properly mounting your shotgun by bringing the gun firmly to your face and pivoting as you swing, in effect, makes your whole body the sight system. The sight is far enough away so that it isn't completely out of focus like a pistol.

When you think about it, the moving target and the sight tend to blend together rather nicely, but some of it is still instinct on really fast moving targets. After wingshooting for a number of decades, I had to get out the shotgun and actually check and see where I'd been focusing. It's the moving target, with the sight almost in focus. If you do it the opposite, you still see both pretty well.

Whoever gave you the advice to keep both eyes open and watch the target got it right.

The Board Commando who told you to be rude and disrespectful to someone who tried to help you did not!

With an opposite master eye, one may have to at least squint. Not a big deal.

 

[AStone]

shotgun v. pistol: focus on sight or target?

Howdy all,

I've missed reading the shotgun threads for a couple of weeks while I focused mostly on pistol issues. (Just bought a Kahr K9 while waiting to find the 870P i want, so have had lots of questions about pistols, pistol ammo, holsters, etc.)

Disclaimer: I've never been much of a pistol shooter before now, but am planning to move into it now. So I'm a total novice there. At least with shotguns & rifles, I've shot a lot of both.

But after reading this thread (twice to make sure I'm reading correctly), I'm a bit confused about how to use sights on shotguns & pistols. Admittedly, this question might be more appropriate for the pistol forum, but since part of my confusion about pistols has arisen in this shotgun thread, i hope it's ok if I post it here. Besides, regardless of whether pistols & shotguns are used the same or different, the comparison is relevant.

If I'm reading correctly, you folks are - pretty much by consensus, it seems - suggesting that with a shotgun, one should focus NOT on the front sight, but on the target. The front site is only a "reference" or an index. OK, I think I can understand that.

Further, I'm assuming that this applies to ALL shotgun shooting, not just trap/skeet, right? That is, same thing applies when shooting a BG?

OK, so then if I've got that part right, then here comes my confusion.

Here's what Nnobby45 wrote in one of the last posts:

Your sight is very important as a reference and properly mounting your shotgun by bringing the gun firmly to your face and pivoting as you swing, in effect, makes your whole body the sight system. The sight is far enough away so that it isn't completely out of focus like a pistol.[italics added]

But wait, says the handgun novice. I thought with pistols, the golden rule was specifically to focus on the front sight, with rear sight AND target blurred.

Here's where I'm getting that. In a thread in the Handguns: Autoloader forum called 25 Yard Accuracy, Powderman says in two different posts to focus on front sight. It's a long thread, and no one has countered with other advice.

As far as losing the target at 25 yards is concerned, you should not even be looking at the target. Your focus should be on the front sight.

Concentrate on that front sight--it should be clear, sharp and in focus. Let your eyes naturally center that front sight.

And later in the same thread:

Try focusing fully on the front sight. Practice presentations (first from the low ready, then from the draw--with an unloaded handgun, of course!) where your sole objective is to find that front sight and to focus on it.

So, i've been practicing this week with an unloaded pistol with first, target acquisition, then focusing on the front site and letting the target blur. (I can still see the bulls eye, or the sillouette, but I'm focusing on the front sight and putting it on the target.

So, which is correct with pistols? Focus on front sight or not?

And, if indeed one doesn't focus on the front sight of a shotgun, but only keeps it in the visual field as a reference, then I'm not sure that i any longer understand all the hoopla about ghost rings, especially for defense shotguns. (Surely for deer shooting it would be different.)

Can some of you please educate me? Show me the light?

Thanks,

NemA~

 

[Nnobby45]

Can some of you please educate me? Show me the light?

Sounds like a tall order.
Focus on the front sight on a pistol. A very simple and basic principle. If you aren't looking at it, you will not follow through and you will miss the target rather consistently. There are hundreds of sources of information where you can research the subject.

Ghost ring sights are rifle sights, essentially. They're called ghost rings because the rear aperature is large and thin--nearly invisible. You essentially ignore it as you look through it. The eye will automatically center the front sight. Their advantage is speed with reasonable accuracy--- They allow for some precision with the shotgun while shooting slugs, and increase the effective range. Focus on the target, as with a rifle.

I was attempting to communicate that the pistol sight will be way out of focus if you look at the target--the rifle sights will not. My rifle training, including military, says focus on the target. Rather sensible when in combat or shooting game.

When one focuses on the target when shooting the pistol, it's referred to as "Point shooting" (not to be confused with hip shooting), even though you still have the very blurry sight as a reference. It's used for close range (7yds or less) combat shooting only and the subject is controversial.

Pistol only: Some advocate using the sights at all ranges. Others "point shoot" at close range. ALL agree that the front sight must be focused on past 5 to 7 yds. At spittin' distance pointing the gun and shooting without sight focus makes sense. At longer range it's a guaranteed miss.

The subjects you brought up are vast, but there are, as mentioned above, many sources of information--books, tapes, the net, etc.

 

[45auto]

Advice shouldn't be given unless asked for, unless you know the person well enough.

But, keeping both eyes open is best, if you can and the proper eye is dominant.

Focusing on the target and not the sight is the 'way' to shoot moving targets.
That's not a "technique or style" issue, i.e. swing through, sustained lead, knees straight/bent, etc, etc, it's the 'way' to shoot moving targets and hit them most of the time.

The reason you can hit a fair percentage in American skeet is the targets are fairly slow and travel a predictable path and known speed/distance. If you applied the "rifle" technique to sportin clays, International skeet/trap, hunting quail, etc you would miss many, many(ton's) more. You just wouldn't have time to make all those adjustments in vision and lead.

If you can hit 19-20 the "rifle" way, you will be breaking 24-25's the right way...soon

 

[hompac]

Shotgun Fit

Could you please explain "shotgun fit" I have heard the term many times and would like to have it explained to me.
Thank You.

 

[Dave McCracken]

When shooting handguns, focus on the front sight.

When shooting shotguns, focus on the target, EXCEPT when shooting defensively. Then the shotgun's used like a rifle.

Note that in an actual emergency, we tend to focus on the threat, a survival mechanism built in our DNA for the last zillion years or so. It takes training and repetition to overcome that, which is why most folks are less than perfect markspersons in crisis times.

As for fit,hompac, there's a Fit 101 thread in the archives. But to briefly reprise...

Fit means the shotgun is formed to complement the shooter's physique, causing it to shoot where the shooter's looking, and to do so comfortably.

I wear a size 52 coat, 12 shoes, and a 7 7/8 hat. Imagine how well I'd walk or work if I wore a 44 coat, 15 shoes and 7 1/8 hat.

Factory shotguns are made to fit the average shooter, say a guy that's 5'9", weighs 175 and takes a 33" shirt sleeve. The further we differ from that, the more trouble we have shooting standard shotguns. Some of us still do OK, but we'll never reach our limits...

 

[dave3006]

"Note that in an actual emergency, we tend to focus on the threat, a survival mechanism built in our DNA for the last zillion years or so."

Slightly off topic:

I couldn't agree more about this statement. I have been to all the defensive shooting schools for handgun, shotgun, and rifle. When, my son and I play paintball and I turn the corner and am facing a "bad guy" at room distance - all you see is the opponent. You point shoot with one hand and start moving. It is human nature.

I will have to give this point shooting thing with shotguns a second chance. I can see how a person like me could do well on predictable targets yet not so well on sudden, fast targets with my current method.

 

[Dave McCracken]

Good!! Different techniques, different tools, different situations.....

I don't watch "Nam" flicks, but one had a line that fits here..

"The instant a shot's fired, ten thousand years of civilization sluffs off in microseconds".....

True, and those who have never been in harm's way cannot conceive of the difference it makes.

Note, during Nam the military kept some records. HALF of all casualties occurred in the first thirty seconds of combat.

 

[Frandy]

Note, during Nam the military kept some records. HALF of all casualties occurred in the first thirty seconds of combat.

Makes sense to me (unless I am being totally ignorant here)...first fired rounds in many cases are probably aimed by those who have the upper hand. Then, all hell breaks loose with a lot of wild firing...

I knew of guys in Nam who told me they often raised their weapons above their heads from their position and just fired in the general direction of the enemy.

FWIW

 

[AStone]

pistol v. shotgun sighting

Nnobby45 & Dave McC,

Thanks for clarifying that. It makes sense.

I'll also seek out those archived threads & books you mentioned.

N~

 

[Nnobby45]

Advice shouldn't be given unless asked for, unless you know the person well enough.

Absolute bunk. I can't count the times that a stranger has contributed to the quality of my life or my safety because they were thoughtful enough to point something out at the risk of encountering someone like yourself who would have admonished them instead of thanking them.

I have given unsolicited advice intended as a contribution on lots of occasions down through the years--and that's how it is usually received. Not one time has anyone given me anything but a thank you when I took time to help an inexperienced shooter I didn't know with a safety issue, or basic gun handling instructions. Not once.

I admit to being a little judicious with respect to handing out advice, but your statement absolutely floors me. Maybe you can even think of a time or two when a well meaning stranger made a contribution to you by offering unsought advice.

 

[PJR]

Nnobby45

Fair enough but sometimes the advice gets out of hand. Safety or gun handling advice is welcome and encouraged but when you are shooting clay targets unwelcome advice relates to where you missed, your stance, gun hold, type of gun, shell, etc. If I'm asked for help I'm ready to offer it and fi I ask the advice is desired and welcome. What I don't appreciate is some clay shooters imposing their observations, criticisms, thoughtful insights, or opinions on anything while I'm shooting if I haven't asked for them.

 

[Nnobby45]

What I don't appreciate is some clay shooters imposing their observations, criticisms, thoughtful insights, or opinions on anything while I'm shooting if I haven't asked for them.

OK, I guess I wouldn't like those kind of comments either.

 

[moredes]

This is why i am no longer willing to help other men learn how to shoot. 90% of the guys i have taken to the range already "know everything" and wont respond favorably to any advice regardless of how much they need it. It is much easier just to let people continue screwing up than to actually try to help them.

Balls on; I NEVER give advice to anyone unless I've personally brought a self-admitted novice to the range. Pistol, rifle, shotgun, it doesn't matter.... on any firing line, one can find 'know-it-alls" and those whose egos are bigger than my urge to offer advice. The particular shooting discipline doesn't detemine the ratio of arrogant and insufferable shooters.

I've never ever scored below 18 with a trap or skeet gun, including my first times out on either range. I was fortunate enough to have somebody willing to explain the course of fire, rules, and leave it at that. No other advice was offered--maybe it was because of my initial scores. Then again, I suppose those folks advising me could've been burned enough, too. (dunno why, but I always found trap more appealing--and I couldn't explain why that is, if I had too)

With some good advice from years and years ago, stone cold after a 10yr layoff, I was 22+/25 at 16yd trap (and skeet, too--I was amazed), and 18-20 at 27yd on those rare long-range trap occasions, so my shooting proves there is "more than one way to do it right" if you're willing to listen. That is to say, I'd still be shooting 18-20 at the skeet or trap line if I didn't listen, and the proof that I got good advice is in my scores. I'm glad for the guys willing to help when they're asked.

If y'ain't lucky enough to find somebody who'll leave you alone when you want the solitude, just get up on your hind legs and ask'em to leave you alone. This ain't rocket science--even Dear Abby can figure this one out, gun-related and all---if you think you'll want advice later, your manners (or lack of them) in blowing off potential advisors will determine how willing they'll be to help you later.

 

[AStone]

skeet v. trap

I was 22+/25 at 16yd trap (and skeet, too--I was amazed)

A brief tangent: is there a difference between "skeet" & "trap", both in terms of what it is, how to shoot, etc?

The definitions I find of both on the web seem similar and don't clarify the difference.

 

[moredes]

I've always been stumped to come up with a short description of the differences. Lemme see....

The clay birds are thrown from a 'house' (bunker). In trap, the bird is thrown at the same speed all the time, within an horizontal arc of ~90 degrees. One house is used in front of the shooter; the shooter rotates through 5 stations in a slightly convex arc 16yds (up to 27yards) behind the house. This scheme means that no matter the station, the shooter's perspective is that the bird is always traveling away from the shooter at its' predictable arc (within ~90 degrees).

In skeet, there are two houses, one high, one low, set at opposite ends of a severe convex arc of stations like a half-circle (as if at 9 and 3 on a clock). The two stations throw their birds exactly at the same speed and line of flight all the time. Roughly, the 9 O'clock high house will throw towards 2 O'clock, and the 3 O'clock low house throws at ~10 O'clock. Station #8 is almost "directly" between the two houses (like the stem of a clock's hands). Some stations are shot as "doubles"--two birds flying at once. No matter your position in skeet, only one bird at most is traveling away; some stations don't have birds traveling away at all, and these birds can be traveling towards you. It's your position (or station) in the arc that determines the "visual" line of flight, because remember, in skeet the house throws the same bird all the time. From the 'middle' stations of the arc, the shooter's perspective is that the birds are crossing in front from L to R and R to L at the same time (albeit, possibly at an angle of deflection, depending on the station). At station #8, it's possible to "be late" and blast the bird as it's almost directly overhead; then ya gotta duck the clay fragments.

Ah, here ya go: http://iweb.tntech.edu/cpardue/skeet-trap.html

 

[redneck2]

Seems kinda simple to me

If I shot 16/25 and the guy that was giving me advice shot 50 straight, I'd listen to whatever he had to say.

A little advice for the guys that want to "help"...by giving advice. Real simple. First, ask the person if they'd like a few pointers. If they say "no", keep your yap shut. If they say "yes", be kind and helpful

A wise man knows he can learn from most anyone, particularly someone who performs a task better than they do. They also don't need to be constantly told how they're screwing up.

I've got a wife for that.

 

[AStone]

Moredes, thanks. Nice job describing a pretty complex scene. The images on the link you provided really help, too.

Both sound more complex than I'd imagined. I can see the challenges, now.

 

[benEzra]

Quote:
No one should offer unsolicited advice or coaching. If you didn't ask for it, he should have kept his mouth shut.


but WHY?

Why is advice considered to be insulting? As long as a person knows what they are talking about i have always been *thankfull* of unsolicited help. What could possibly be wrong with well thought out advice for a person who clearly could benefit from it? Is it insulting to their manhood or something? Are people supposed to be able to instinctively know how to do everything?

The spirit with which it's given is important. I've received and profited by unsolicited advice over the years, but it is still a little demeaning when someone is pushy about it. And no, it's not a "manhood" thing, since my wife is much more sensitive about it than I am.

There's a difference between offering advice and imposing advice...and realize that you may be telling the person something they already know, i.e. dispense any advice with a dose of humility. If I'm shooting a handgun in a Weaver stance, and someone asked if I'd like some advice and then mentioned some advantages of isosceles, I'd be OK with that (even though I've probably heard all that before). But if I'm shooting Weaver and somebody breezes up and tells me I'm "doing it wrong," and if I "really wanted to shoot well I'd be shooting isosceles like the pros do," then the advice would be less well received.

 

[nico]

I think benEzra hit the nail on the head. It's not just what is said, it's how it's said.

In response to the original topic, it's hard to tell if the puller or the original poster was out of line (it depends on the attitudes of the people at the time, which can't be determined here). Personally, I've had good and bad advice offered to and imposed on me. I appreciate the former and don't care enough about the latter to let it bother me. As to why shotgunners insist on point shooting, it's for the same reason pistol shooters "insist" on focusing on the front site; it works.