Proficient Enough to NOT use Iron Sights?

[GardoneVT]

I very much fall in line with the points that OrigamiAK is making in post #55.

I will also make note that I am a firm believer in teaching sound fundamentals in a certain progression. This includes a lot of static flat range work where any base fundamental is mastered before it goes dynamic. There is not one single professional athlete that has made a diving catch while twisting backwards, or a diving catch with a reverse throw off of their back to first base, or a highly coordinated punching combination on the move, where they did not first learn basic catching, throwing, punching, footwork mastery on a controlled flat ball field, or ring environment. There is no way mastery of those basic fundamental skills could happen without heavy drilling on a flat, non-dynamic, controlled environment which eventually lead to these great improvised feats in a real game.

If we cannot teach individuals to master things such as basic explosive footwork on a static flat range, which may lead to trained platform stability throughout the movement, to include shooting on the move, how can we ever expect them to do it for real in a dynamic environment if these skills have not been well trained? This also includes kinesthetic body alignments / functions. Yes indeed kinesthetic alignment becomes much more challenging as dynamic scenarios are introduced, but who tends to perform better as the things get dynamic and kinetic? More than likely the individual who has mastered the skill in a static environment first, will have a greater success or a greater advantage in a dynamic scenario than someone who did not. I also feel that they are better equipped to improvise.

This is why I tell people to ignore anyone who says that stance is not important in a critical situation as you will never have a good stance since the chances are you will be in a situation where your stance is not perfect or you will be moving anyway. Which individual will more than likely perform better when their shooting platform is less than ideal? Someone who has never trained good stance and footwork, or the person who has? Less coordinated individuals definitely need to train it. Just like having two left feet. You are not going to suddenly show up for the cotillion and expect to ballroom dance like a pro. Same can be said in regards to the kinesthetic topic. Someone who has mastered and understands these concepts are more than likely going to have a good advantage over the individual who does not when things get kinetic.

One last thought is that IMO this type of mastery of various skill sets, the repetition and drive for excellence also has the net side effect of working on the individuals mindset and drive to want to come out on top at all costs. Perhaps this goes deep into my cultural, spiritual and perhaps martial arts training beliefs but I do recognize that this is not a 100% given as we cannot assume anything until the real deal happens, but I do stand behind this general training belief.

In your opinion, how many people possess mastery at the level being discussed here?

Not to toot my own horn, but I'm better then 90% of the shooters I encounter at the public range, and have outshot LEOS at the same square, basic range. And I objectively suck. (7.5~ FAST times). Where does this leave us when most people have a tough time hitting a B27 at five yards at a static range?

[John Hearne]

Where does this leave us when most people have a tough time hitting a B27 at five yards at a static range?

Hoping to suck less than their opponent?

[Surf]

In your opinion, how many people possess mastery at the level being discussed here?

Not to toot my own horn, but I'm better then 90% of the shooters I encounter at the public range, and have outshot LEOS at the same square, basic range. And I objectively suck. (7.5~ FAST times). Where does this leave us when most people have a tough time hitting a B27 at five yards at a static range?

Do you want the long or short answer? What follows is the short answer.

I think mastery was not a good term to use, but perhaps practical or very useful proficiency might be better. However in short, not many. Not many people as a whole receive what I consider to be very high quality training and that definitely includes LE. Can good levels of proficiency in the topics / techniques discussed in this thread be achieved in a short period of time? Yes, IMO it can be done and I am currently proving that point on a large scale. Of course once the training is done, correct and ongoing practice and any further progressive training lies on the shoulders of the individual and / or the agency.

I can give you the long answer with more detail if you want it.

Oh btw, with the skill to shoot a 7.5 FAST drill, I am pretty confident that in working with you, you could cut down your FAST time by a full second or more within an hour, probably less. These would not be gimmicks or just repetition of practicing just for this particular drill, but true techniques that could apply to all of your shooting skills and doing it cold and on demand.

[BaiHu]

So when do you teach open enrollment in the northeast or close?

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

[Odin Bravo One]

Can someone become proficient enough to not use sights? I suppose.

I'll keep using the sights until my mental telepathy skills exceed my shooting skills.

BRB, going on a breath hold until that happens.

[Surf]

So when do you teach open enrollment in the northeast or close?

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

I was last up in the Northeast about 18 months ago. I do have the ability to adjunct for a major manufacturer teaching armorer and shooting courses for them, I just don't have the time or desire to travel or do it while working full time. While there has been some good interest and a other offers coming in which range from small outfits to other major entities, I really don't want to relocate or do the traveling training circuit. It just isn't my thing. Who knows things may change and I am always entertaining ideas. There is some potential for opportunities in my area when I retire soon, however I am not sure if I really plan on doing the open enrollment type of courses. Mostly .gov, .mil or private stuff. The reality is I hope to retire, surf, fish, hunt, ski and start coaching my kids.

Can someone become proficient enough to not use sights? I suppose.

I'll keep using the sights until my mental telepathy skills exceed my shooting skills.

BRB, going on a breath hold until that happens.

Yep. I always like to say to always use your sights unless if you absolutely have no other choice, which is generally while being mauled at bad breath distances.

[Randy Harris]

Long time lurker first time poster....But I'd like to think I have some experience in this area....

I'm not terribly concerned with what people who don't train WILL do. I have always been more interested in what people who will train CAN do. Take a look at guys who do a hand eye coordinaton skill very well. Take Ray Allen shooting free throws for example. He does the exact same motion every time. Look at Phil Mickelson swinging a golf club or Johnny Archer addressing a pool cue ball. They all have something in common and that is very minimal movement that looks to be exactly the same every time.

Do we think that they take the exact same focus or even visual reference for a "pocket hanger" shot, a 2 foot layup, or a 6" putt as they do for longer shots? WHy? Because they don't HAVE to. Why? Because they have done it so many times they no longer NEED to apply that much mental effort or visual focus to make those " gimmies" happen. Look at your own training with a pistol. Everyone here probably spends an inordinately high amount of time working on drawstroke. After a while you do not have to see it to know it is right. In fact we can argue that anchoring that skill should be done a fair amount of time with your eyes closed.

So right now....look at the light switch. Paint a mental picture of it. Now close your eyes. Draw your pistol and drive it to where the picture in your mind says the switch is located. Now open your eyes and look for the sights. Are they pretty close to where you intended them to be? I'll bet some of you are dead on the switch. Why? You couldn't use the sights to align. You had ZERO visual input, yet you were pretty close or dead on an object across the room. It is all about doing the same thing over and over again the same way.

There are only so many ways to point your radius and ulna at something. If your grip aligns the pistol with them then when you extend your arm the muzzle points pretty close to where you wanted it to go. Right? Now this tells us that grip is somewhat critical.... right? Some argue it is not but from my experience those people rarely shoot well over a wide range of circumstances. They tend to get ....random...results. Yet people who have a firm grasp of grip (ha ha) can shoot well under any circumstances. So if we grip it in a uniform manner and lift and drive it to the target in a uniform manner than we will get uniform results. Now the choice is whether or not to take the time to verify it by looking at the sights.

What we get from lifting and driving the pistol to the same place every time and seeing the same correct sight alignment as a result time after time is the confidence in what our body is doing so that our brain does not NEED to look at the sights to check our work. At a target from 0 to 3 yards I'd argue that we do not need any sights at all to make high quality hits. Any one who has done much FOF with airsoft guns will eventually have sights fall off their gun. What do you do then? Throw it away? No, you simply keep on and just look over the top of the slide to aim it. Maybe not quite as precise as sights but still precise enough to make eye socket shots at close distances.

Once we are accustomed to seeing the sights come to where they need to be time after time eventually we develop the level of confidence that we can simply take the shot without narrowing our focus to the sights. There is some visual input. We can see the slide , or the corner of the slide if it is rolled inboard shooting 1 handed, or the front sight only, or the back of the slide, or the top of the slide. It is all a matter of what we choose to look for. The point is that if time and distance require that we give up a little visual verification we can still make high quality hits without having to see a picture perfect sight picture every time.

Distance will be the determining factor. I am talking about civilian USA pistol fighting distance. At 4 yards and less a solid drawstroke and good trigger finesse will do most of the work for you. Getting out past that we will need to have an increasing amount of visual verification out to the distance that our sight completely cover over the target making it impossible to guarantee hits. I assure you I do use the sights when I need to. I just do not when I DON'T need to.

Now I am NOT advocating shooting from the hip. I am talking about the "standard" 4 count inverted L "lift and drive" drawstroke. As John Hearne mentioned (Hi John!) when shooting from the #3 out to full extension we will not see a picture perfect sight picture until just before full extension, yet assuming grip is solid and trigger is controlled (and it can still be CONTROLLED at 5 shot per second speed) you can still score rapid fist sized bursts on targets that are 3 to 4 yards away. The key is for everything to be uniform- the same every time as much as possible. In fact, if you drive it to the same place every time you can score alarmingly good hits in alarmingly small groups with you eyes CLOSED. And John knows what I'm talking about.

The issue as I see it is that this IS possible assuming you put in the work. As a fellow smarter than me once said ..."Define the problem and do the work". If you do not have an understanding of grip, sight alignment and trigger control and then get out and practice then all you will ever get is random results...no matter whether you look through the sights or not....

[JeffJ]

Randy,
I'm not really tracking you. Are you asserting that you can consistently make tight shots at full extension without any visual verification once solid fundamentals are ingrained?

[Randy Harris]

Yes....assuming we are talking about the appropriate distance envelope for that type of shooting. Unfortunately this subject does not lend itself to bumper sticker sized answers....

If we are talking about shooting people between nipples and neck at less than 5 yards then looking over the top of the gun without looking at the sights works fine...IF....the shooters are solid with their grip and trigger. Like Nyeti (IIRC) mentioned earlier...grip can make up for other ills and trigger can make up for other ills. Grip and trigger together can make up for there not even being sights on the gun at "realistic" pistol distance.

Now lets define realistic pistol distance. I'm talking about from a "gunfighting" context not a match shooting context. The CLOSEST target in the IDPA classifier is 7 yards. That is however a long way in the typical civilian defensive encounter. Next time you are at Walmart look at how far 7 yards really is. Bad guys typically will try to get much closer than that before making their intentions clear. So if we are thinking 15 yards is realistic pistol distance then I sound like a kook telling you unsighted fire can be effective....but if we narrow it down to the 4 yard and closer distance then suddenly it makes more sense.

And AGAIN I am NOT talking about hip shooting...I am talking about doing EVERYTHING else identical to what you do when you DO use the sights at full extension, just not shifting focus from the target to the sights before you press off the shots.

[Randy Harris]

Kind of in the same vein as what Hearne said earlier....again based on modern inverted L drawstroke....

#2 works out to arms length. NO sights can be even seen. All indexed off the pectoral muscle. Yet you can guarantee hits once you get the kinesthetics down. Now these hits will NOT be nipple to neck because if the are going there your own arm is probably between you and them fending and no matter how big a bad ass you are you will not fight better after you shoot yourself in the other elbow. These are "anchoring shots " to break contact to get the gun to extension and punch holes in more important structures.

#3 Works from 2 arms length out to (depending on the shooters skill) 5 yards or so. Again, gun not in foveal cone, just visible in periphery yet you can make excellent hits from here at 4 yards and in.

#3.5 (nebulous area between 3 and full extension) Works from 3 arms length out to ???? (7 or so yards we'll say). Again, no "classic" sight picture just visual index of SOME kind.

#4. Works from 3 arms length to as far as you can see, control trigger and understand the trajectory of your cartridge assuming the target is big enough that the sights do not completely obscure the target. Here is where the sights are used. But even if I do go out to full extension at 3 arms length I'm not actively looking for sights because you don't HAVE to at that distance. But at 15 yards I'm looking through the rear sight at the front sight if trying to punch holes in nipple to neck triangle.

But all is based on grip aligning the bore with the bones in your arm and you not snatching the trigger hard enough to pull the gun off target.