Sighted v. Unsighted Fire

[StraitR]

Here: http://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?10210-Vision

Thank you

[psalms144.1]

I'll just throw this out there, as a FWIW input.

At my last assignment, I had the opportunity to attend a week long DT/small unit tactics/shooting course where most of a range day was devoted EXCLUSIVELY to unsighted fire. We shot unsighted A LOT, upwards of 1,500 rounds per shooter, using both rifle and pistol. I was CONSTANTLY being corrected by the instructors for using my sights, even though my sighted fire was NO slower, and, in fact frequently faster than team mates who were "hip shooting."

EVENTUALLY, after hundreds of rounds of practice, we all did achieve a level where, at moderate distances (inside 7 yards with pistol, inside 25 with rifle) we could consistently "point" shoot and hit discrete targets, to include moving discrete targets with the rifle.

About a month later, during a weekly range day, I had everyone try their hand at "point shooting" using 5" Shoot-N-Cs at 7 yards. Results - not a SINGLE hit first round, very few hits in the first magazine. After a couple of magazines, hits became "consistent" (on a static target, shooting flat footed). My take away - YES, you can truly "point shoot" with accuracy, IF YOU PRACTICE A LOT. For the overwhelming majority of us, ammunition and range restrictions are going to keep us from ever attaining AND MAINTAINING that level of proficiency for a "cold" shot.

Again, YMMV, and this is just one guy's opinion, worth precisely what you paid for it.

[Dagga Boy]

psalms, kind of funny related story.

I was at a instructor class by a LAPD D Platoon legend. Two of the students from neighboring agency were bragging that they just finished a school where they learned to point shoot their MP-5's off the slings and that is how they will be shooting now. The instructor was humoring them with lots of questions and feigned interest. He said "Wow, how many rounds did you guys shoot in that school to be able to do surgical hits without a stock or sights?". They puffed their chests out and enthusiastically answered "2000 rounds". The LAPD guy goes "wow, that is awesome. I am impressed that XXXXXX P.D. is giving you 2000 rounds a week to train and to maintain that skill. At LAPD, we don't have a huge ammo budget like that, so we just use our sights to hit things." Talk about a burst balloon. It was funny.

I'll just leave this. On all the shootings I investigated (over 75), 100 % of the officers who used visually verified fire outside of the range where they could touch their opponent, they hit the suspect. 100 % of the officers who did not use visually verified fire missed. I stopped teaching any kind of non visually verified fire outside of retention distance, and it paid off.

[DocGKR]

Nyeti--well said!

[Malamute]

Paper size should have said small paper plate but what ever. I guess I don't care if you don't think it at least practical to try to find out instead of arm chair quarter backing from a key board like comes from so many when they see something new to them. One post and done .

Its not new, and its not armchair quarterbacking that are driving the comments.

[1slow]

If you do not have a visual verification outside of retention there are problems.
Shooting: uphill/stairs, downhill stairs, after taking impact, moving.
If you have some visual reference you can correct problems and drive the pistol to the target.
If it is just memorization of body position and limb /joint angles if any thing is disturbed you will be off.

[ToddG]

visual verification

And that's a very important distinction when people start talking about sights vs no sights. Is visual verification using less than a traditional sight picture a "sights" or "no sights" vote? It can be either depending on exactly what degree of visual verification (what I've always called "visual control of the gun").

As I referenced earlier, Ken Hackathorn has an excellent drill in which he tapes over the shooters' sights and has them run past steel targets. People tend to be fairly good at hitting those steel targets even though they cannot get perfect sight pictures. In fact, I'd argue that trying to get a perfect sight picture would be a hindrance because it would just take too much time and be too difficult when moving at that fast pace. But that doesn't mean people are shooting from the hip. Folks use kinesthetic and visual reference of the gun on target to get their hits. No one is really point shooting, they're simply using a rougher visual cue to get those hits.

[rsa-otc]

As has been said multiple times previously; "see what you need to see to make your hits" , and when it is all said and done be able to reasonably articulate the why and how's of how you did what you did.

My opinion is that point shooting with modern firearms is a neat range trick. The problem tends to be if things are less than perfect targets are missed, also it takes a large amount of time and effort to learn and maintain the skills.

In a fight for your life things are very rarely perfect. We own whatever our bullets hit. If we hit an unintended target we are going to have to pay something. My thinking is that if we are point shooting and hit an innocent we are going to have a much harder time articulating to the judge or jury why firing a gun without some form of visual confirmation is reasonable. It may very well mean the difference between the insurance (if you have insurance) paying the bill or losing your home, savings, a payroll deduction for the rest of your life etc.

[MVS]

.
As I referenced earlier, Ken Hackathorn has an excellent drill in which he tapes over the shooters' sights and has them run past steel targets. People tend to be fairly good at hitting those steel targets even though they cannot get perfect sight pictures. In fact, I'd argue that trying to get a perfect sight picture would be a hindrance because it would just take too much time and be too difficult when moving at that fast pace. But that doesn't mean people are shooting from the hip. Folks use kinesthetic and visual reference of the gun on target to get their hits. No one is really point shooting, they're simply using a rougher visual cue to get those hits.

You wont remember this, but that is the way I was used to doing it when I took one of your classes in Indy a few years back. The second day was movement and what you taught was not what I was doing at the time. That day was very frustrating for me. In contrast to the first day which was very eye opening and inspirational and really started me on my journey of becoming a better shooter rather than being "combat accurate".

[David Armstrong]

And that's a very important distinction when people start talking about sights vs no sights. Is visual verification using less than a traditional sight picture a "sights" or "no sights" vote? It can be either depending on exactly what degree of visual verification (what I've always called "visual control of the gun").

As I referenced earlier, Ken Hackathorn has an excellent drill in which he tapes over the shooters' sights and has them run past steel targets. People tend to be fairly good at hitting those steel targets even though they cannot get perfect sight pictures. In fact, I'd argue that trying to get a perfect sight picture would be a hindrance because it would just take too much time and be too difficult when moving at that fast pace. But that doesn't mean people are shooting from the hip. Folks use kinesthetic and visual reference of the gun on target to get their hits. No one is really point shooting, they're simply using a rougher visual cue to get those hits.

Agree., which is why I've always preferred the terms "sight focus" and "target focus". Very few GOOD "point shooters" actually just point and shoot, their focus is on the target instead of the sights but there is still that visual or kiesthetic reference you point out. The target focus version of point shooting is taught and used a lot of places with great success as it relates to speed and accuracy. It is fast and easy to learn and works well for a lot if not most inter-personal shooting events of the CCW nature.