Handgunners: Preferred Aiming Method?

**jr urbina** · Posted On: 11/23/2010 10:03pm

Originally Posted by mad_malk

Ya you know what could some people be thinking. Should they go with some one who has trained people who have survived and won gun fights as well has been in them them selfs. Perspective and point of reference matter. A Solid LEO instructor Like Pat Rogers from EAG will have far more that is relevant to JOE civilian then Say Cris Costa from Magpul. That does not dimishe or mean Cris Costa doesn't have skills that Joe Civilian couldn't use.

a little point of reference.

Point shooting meaning not using any kind of sight picture is for contact range.

Flash front sight picture, flash frame picture, frame indexing and other forms of crude aiming are great for just out of contact to about 5-10 yards.

If you want to test your skill and shooting methods set up a bowling pin(s) for a target. Draw your weapon and shoot it down. do this 20 times on a timer then come back and tell me what worked consistently.

Good point. I would still say that Joe would benefit more from training in that close contact "kill zone" where crude aiming methods, h2h, and dynamic movement would be more applicable than trying to aquire a solid sight picture. Not saying that proper fundamentals and being able able to pull off a head shot at 25 yards is a worthless skill, because you never know, but Joe is not rolling up on a scene with his gun out and body armored up.
He is likely to be ambused and behind the reactionary curve. His assailant(s) would probably have the element of surprise and control of the environment.

Not disparaging anything taught by those "tier 1" trainers but their training seems more geared to the battlefield or from LEO proactive type situations.

I believe that point shooting, alternative sighting methods and precise sighted fire all have a place, but it will be dictated by the "fight" which method or combination of methods is needed. To think that one has to pick a certain sighting method and trash the rest is shortsighted.

As to testing gunfighting skills by "shooting bowling pins", marksmanship and accuracy are good things but they don't have much to do with a close range reactive gunfight but rather an engagement that has some relative distance where you can plant your feet and take the extra second or two to get a good sight picture.(under fire?) Perhaps a better test of skill would be dynamic simulation/force on force with sim guns/ammo in a controlled environment. Not as a shoot no shoot scenario but to see what works inside that close range envelope.

**wetware** · Posted On: 11/23/2010 10:36pm

Originally Posted by daddykata

The other day, I did a dry-firing drill with what I was able to approximate of C.A.R. It's way cool. Both eyes open, aiming with the weak eye, your nose prevents your dominant eye from catching the sights. Target acquisition was surprisingly easy, natural almost. I want to try it at the range, but I'm going to shop around for a local instructor, first.

Oh, yeah. I should have mentioned that. I do something similar but for different reasons. I'm (primarily, it can switch for me) left eye dominant but right handed, so I've always used a two eye shooting style with pistols. I dig having my peripheral vision a lot.

In reference to the above, I'd like to do some training with padding and a mask and one of those newer paintball guns for draw, retention and close quarters shooting. Something for the next Camp Skeletor?

**jr urbina** · Posted On: 11/24/2010 1:13am

Originally Posted by mad_malk

First off if your in a reactive gunfight then in most situations you missed something. With the exception of a robbery in a bank or equivalent i don't see how you let some one get that close. Home invasion why are you opening your doors to strangers with out a gun in your hand? why are you going down that dark street and not look to see who may be following you or watching for possible ambush locations were some one may pop out? Why are you parked down that dark street in the first place?

You can't pick if the other guy is going to fight. You can pick how prepared and ready you are if they decide there is going to be a fight.

Semantics. Proactive meaning you have your weapon out. Think LEO/military/engaging in a situation where you have the upper hand for whatever reason. Reactive meaning you have to rely on a cue or visual verafication of a life threatening assault about to occur before you go to guns. As far as all the color code awarness stuff, anything can happen at anytime. Why people may find themselves in iffy, dark places at odd times are infinately varible, and even the most switched on person could possibly miss something and find themself in a bad situation. You sound like you have all your bases coverd though.

**mad_malk** · Posted On: 11/24/2010 7:53am

Originally Posted by jr urbina

Semantics. Proactive meaning you have your weapon out. Think LEO/military/engaging in a situation where you have the upper hand for whatever reason. Reactive meaning you have to rely on a cue or visual verafication of a life threatening assault about to occur before you go to guns. As far as all the color code awarness stuff, anything can happen at anytime. Why people may find themselves in iffy, dark places at odd times are infinately varible, and even the most switched on person could possibly miss something and find themself in a bad situation. You sound like you have all your bases coverd though.

Nope i wish i did but no one really ever does.. But then even said LEO's no matter how switched on can find them self's in the same situations as Joe civilian. To make matters worse some of the those LEO's may have had the opportunity to see more signs then Joe civilian yet they end up in the same kind of reactive gun fight. In fact the last two years Ambushing of LEO's has been one of the top causes of death. Said situations are reactive.

**mad_malk** · Posted On: 11/24/2010 8:01am

Originally Posted by jr urbina

As to testing gunfighting skills by "shooting bowling pins", marksmanship and accuracy are good things but they don't have much to do with a close range reactive gunfight but rather an engagement that has some relative distance where you can plant your feet and take the extra second or two to get a good sight picture.(under fire?) Perhaps a better test of skill would be dynamic simulation/force on force with sim guns/ammo in a controlled environment. Not as a shoot no shoot scenario but to see what works inside that close range envelope.

Bowling pins are of a very close shape to the key vital areas of a human. If you can hit one of those in 2-4 shots off of a draw then you are put rounds in the lungs,heart, throat and brain. Just like people sometimes they stay standing even after they have been hit. So there a very good reactive target to test your shooting on.

Force on force is only as good as the skill level of your opponent.:violent1:

**tgace** · Posted On: 11/24/2010 8:55am

Eh. My opinion on the matter is that you train to use your sights and then let the situation dictate how long you take to use them. You may take the time to line up your sights for a long distance shot. You may just get a "flash sight picture" for a mid range shot, or you may just put the front sight post (if you remember doing it or not) on the target at short range. Of course this doesn't include situations where you are shooting from retention positions where you won't be able to use sights at all.

YouTube - Pistol Sight Alignment

This is an interesting little video that illustrates the relationship between range, sight alignment and bullet strike. It reinforces the point that at combat ranges, if you are able to achieve front sight focus, all that is really necessary is to get that front sight somewhere inside your rear sight in order to get hits. Of course training and practice will allow you to get faster and more consistent shot placement. It’s all about balance.

**tgace** · Posted On: 11/24/2010 9:05am

I am also of the opinion that training for "flash sighted" fire trains in the body mechanics that will allow hits even if you don't use your sights and has the added advantage of more accuracy if you have the time/distance to "get into your sights" for those longer shots.

While point shooting also trains in body mechanics for faster "combat effective" shots at close range I don't think that it has as much "bang for the buck" in regards to varying ranges.

Of course it also begs the question as to why we have to train only one or the other. mix them both in...

**Team Python** · Posted On: 1/01/2011 10:13pm

I use sights for distances over 40 feet or I if am taking cover. For close ranges 0-40 feet I will not use not sights.

**Wounded Ronin** · Posted On: 1/02/2011 9:56am

Originally Posted by mad_malk

Force on force is only as good as the skill level of your opponent.:violent1:

Wow, so true, when I think about martial arts sports combat.

I always use the sights when I shoot. That being said I don't really do a lot of tactical training. Instead, I shoot in steel matches, and once in a while in USPSA. The main thing I work on is good form on my draw and acquiring my front sight as quickly as possible. This is because when I shoot, I need to hit a plate, or else I just waste ammo/time. If I were shooting at a person in self defense maybe I wouldn't need as much precision, since a person is huge compared to a plate, but since I must hit a plate, I really must use the sights at all times for the most part.

EDIT: What's interesting for me, though, is that I have signed up for simunitions training later this month. I will see how often I end up using the sights during the force on force training.

**Team Python** · Posted On: 1/02/2011 6:12pm

Originally Posted by Wounded Ronin

Wow, so true, when I think about martial arts sports combat.

I always use the sights when I shoot. That being said I don't really do a lot of tactical training. Instead, I shoot in steel matches, and once in a while in USPSA. The main thing I work on is good form on my draw and acquiring my front sight as quickly as possible. This is because when I shoot, I need to hit a plate, or else I just waste ammo/time. If I were shooting at a person in self defense maybe I wouldn't need as much precision, since a person is huge compared to a plate, but since I must hit a plate, I really must use the sights at all times for the most part.

EDIT: What's interesting for me, though, is that I have signed up for simunitions training later this month. I will see how often I end up using the sights during the force on force training.

Steel plates don't shoot back so there is not stress on the body. The body reacts different when it is under stress. There is a good book on it written by Rob Pincus that gets in detail on the subject. The book is called Combat Focus Shooting I recommend everybody read it.