Training with no sights....

[Kyle Reese]

Amazing (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GoPnySsns0&feature=related)

Just goes to show not all "training" is equal. :rolleyes:

[JDM]

Wow...just...wow

[HeadHunter]

I noticed that there were no pictures of the "hits" on the paper targets.

[Slavex]

not even sure where to start

[Mitchell, Esq.]

not even sure where to start

Start at "I wouldn't kick her out of bed for eating crackers."

Then segue into the lack of eye protection, the fact she isn't wearing a holster, and her reloads suck.

[jetfire]

I actually talked about this very video on Gun Nuts last week (http://gunnuts.net/2011/08/01/beware-shady-kung-fu/); however if you'd like to get to the hilarious part scroll down to the most recent comments where the DOA Tactical fanboys discovered the post.

[JAD]

Start at "I wouldn't kick her out of bed for eating crackers."

Then segue into the lack of eye protection, the fact she isn't wearing a holster, and her reloads suck.
She isn't wearing eye protection because of the loss of fine motor skill.

[zml342]

What? You guys didn't know this is the way its done?! Just the other day an RO at my range was explaining to a new shooter that sights are only for beginners. Once you become more advance you stop using the sights and simply point shoot!

[TCinVA]

There are high-speed military units that teach using the sights to kill bad guys with a pistol and they seem to do fairly well at it. There are switched on law enforcement agencies that teach using sights to kill bad guys with a pistol and they seem to do fairly well at it. Seems to me that if you train to do something under stress you'll probably be able to do it. I mean, if that doesn't work then we're wasting a hell of a lot of money on efforts like training fighter pilots.


What? You guys didn't know this is the way its done?! Just the other day an RO at my range was explaining to a new shooter that sights are only for beginners. Once you become more advance you stop using the sights and simply point shoot!

I curve the bullet.

[peterb]

I actually talked about this very video on Gun Nuts last week (http://gunnuts.net/2011/08/01/beware-shady-kung-fu/); however if you'd like to get to the hilarious part scroll down to the most recent comments where the DOA Tactical fanboys discovered the post.

Wow. I hadn't read the most recent comments.

So if the whole focus is real-life combat shooting skills, why are they teaching her to shoot at the ground?

[ghettomedic]

And I thought some of my friends were dirt shooters...

[Kyle Reese]

Wow. I hadn't read the most recent comments.

So if the whole focus is real-life combat shooting skills, why are they teaching her to shoot at the ground?

Either she was "walking" the pistol up, or engaging small targets on the ground. Either way it's pretty stupid.

[TCinVA]

There appears to be small objects on the ground that she's supposed to hit as part of the strings of fire.

[JV_]

There appears to be small objects on the ground that she's supposed to hit as part of the strings of fire.

I thought I saw him throw a coin on the ground.

[jetfire]

Because shooting into the gravel at 10 feet with no eyepro is fun entertainment for the whole family!

What really bugs me about the whole thing isn't the concept of body index shooting. I use that all time; because it's fast. Like I've said, if I'm shooting a wide open paper target at three yards, I don't need to use my sights to get alfas. But preaching it as the solution for every shooting scenario at the exclusion of all others drives me batty.

[irishshooter]

But preaching it as the solution for every shooting scenario at the exclusion of all others drives me batty.

me too. try being "combat effective" out past 15, 20 yards with this technique. as said at 3 yards you can make the hits without being on your sights but out to greater distances the hits typically are few and far between.

[beltjones]

Because shooting into the gravel at 10 feet with no eyepro is fun entertainment for the whole family!

What really bugs me about the whole thing isn't the concept of body index shooting. I use that all time; because it's fast. Like I've said, if I'm shooting a wide open paper target at three yards, I don't need to use my sights to get alfas. But preaching it as the solution for every shooting scenario at the exclusion of all others drives me batty.

I like how the guy replied to my comment on the blog post about the eye pro by saying "She had to sign two waivers!"

As if the instructors led a thorough discussion about the merits of eye protection considering the danger of shooting gravel, and she was still like, "Hell na, no eye pro for me. I keep it real. Bring on the waiver(s)."

More like they said, "Hey, want some dorky glasses that will make you look less hot?" And she declined. Or they got fogged up and she took them off and no one said anything.

I've never, ever, in my life, ever been with a beginning shooter who turned down eye protection after I explained that they could possibly get blinded by debris or shrapnel. And I certainly have never seen one willing to sign TWO waivers in order to keep from wearing it. How ridiculous.

[TCinVA]

I've been through a little bit of training with literally dozens of instructors, including some of the best instructors in the world.

You know how many of them have had waivers for eyepro on the range?

Zero.

Clue.

[peterb]

There appears to be small objects on the ground that she's supposed to hit as part of the strings of fire.

Got that, but what's the training benefit ? Self-defense against crawling assailants? Killer rabbits? Even if you were trying to teach point shooting to a beginner, why waste time teaching them to miss?

[TCinVA]

Got that, but what's the training benefit ?

Abstracting to the general, teaching people to shoot very small targets teaches precision in aim and trigger manipulation. Small targets are useful for refining the fundamentals of shooting. Of course, this can be done without having the student fire into the ground a few feet in front of them while wearing no eyepro.



Even if you were trying to teach point shooting to a beginner, why waste time teaching them to miss?

If you're only going to have a couple of hours to train someone to use a handgun (and that's all they'll ever get) it makes some sense to teach them to present the gun and pull the trigger effectively to make an acceptable hit.

...but if you have even half a day you can (and should) do a lot more. SLG, for instance, only had a few hours with a group of relatively inexperienced shooters and had them doing very well in just a short period of time...a testament to real instructional talent. I've seen Larry Vickers do the same. I've learned over the years that there aren't many people out there teaching guns who live on the level that people like LAV, Ken H, and Todd occupy.

[peterb]

Sorry -- didn't make myself clear. I meant to say that if you're teaching beginners body index for self-defense shooting, learning to index on small targets at ankle height seems like a waste of time. Small targets at chest height would make more sense.

[Frank B]

Point shooting is just another tool in the so called tool box for me. It´s good for shooting at a hight percentage target inside 3-5 yards. Removing sights as a general rule seems plain stupid to me. All manufacturers put sights on pistols for the very same purpose, aiming!