Proficient Enough to NOT use Iron Sights?

[Mr_White]

Johnny Archer

The Scorpion!

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.

What if it did not take longer to shift focus to the front sight?

[Randy Harris]

If it in fact does not take longer then rock on and look at the sights.

But what if the hits are comparable without looking at the sights?

If the target is merely a target I am trying to score well on then there is little visual input I need from it. I simply draw the gun and drive the muzzle to the target visually picking up the sights as it goes from 3 to 3.5 to 4 as I'm taking up the slack. But if the target is not just a target and is trying to stab, bludgeon or shoot me at less than 5 yards then there is a bit of a different dynamic and I will trade a tiny bit of precision for the more visual input I get from the target from running the gun at chin level vs eye line. I'm most likely firing BEFORE it even gets to full extension and the sights would not be "available " yet to be seen in a "classic " sight picture. I'm also probably shooting that with my feet moving (and moving with a purpose not shuffle stepping) if it was a truly reactive situation which creates other issues with "classic" sight pictures.

I know you shoot IPSC....do you REALLY look at the sights on targets closer than 5 yards? I'm not being a smart ass, I'm seriously asking. I normally do not look at the sights at targets at that distance unless they are VERY small targets. I drive the gun , press the trigger and let my presentation do all the heavy lifting. Like what Brain Enos talks about in his different levels of focus.

[Mr_White]

Let me start by saying that I am largely in agreement with what you've written in your last few posts.

But what if the hits are comparable without looking at the sights?

That's a fair enough flipside to the question I asked. There is certainly an individual element to this stuff, and while there are many ways to aim the gun, an individual (certainly myself included) might have practiced and become confident with a few of the many ways to aim and rely on those for the variety of shooting problems they might face. So if a person's hits are actually comparable between using and not the sights, then I would also essentially say 'rock on.'

I personally find that I get the greatest precision, and certainty about that precision, from using a sharp and clear front sight focus. The deviations I make from that are due to proximity to threat, which may demand a compressed position where the sights aren't available, and when the target is easy enough that it allows me to fire accurately before the gun is stopped at full extension, in which case I often fire based on the coarse visual verification of seeing the slide streaking toward the target spot.

I know you shoot IPSC....do you REALLY look at the sights on target closer than 5 yards?

On an unobstructed target significantly closer than five yards, I may very well be firing before the gun is decelerated and at full extension, based on seeing the gun streaking toward the target spot. That is still less precise and certain than getting the gun decelerated at full extension. I still have my focal depth pulled back to front sight distance though, even if firing before the gun quite gets there.

That's really the dividing line for me personally - whether the gun is stopped at full extension when I am firing, which in turn is based on proximity to threat and ease of target. If stopped at extension, I am doing front-sight focused shooting. If not stopped at extension, then I am firing based on coarser visual awareness or kinesthetic awareness, but focal depth is still pulled back to front sight distance unless we are talking about shooting from position 2.

[JAD]

Front sight focus for me is confirmation at short distances. Confirmation seems ethically necessary in the context of defensive shooting, where misses have significant consequences.

[JeffJ]

I've made some really impressive misses at "can't miss" distances in competition which has led me to believe that it's equally possible during defensive use.

Even if you remove the errant shot problems (which are huge, but humor me) a miss isn't a hit. At 3 yards if I'm rocking on the trigger my split time is between .15 and .20 - If I'm not on the sights I can't call the shot so I've got to have some sort of target verification to know whether or not I hit it and then react if I miss - so let's say I'm really on top of things, we're probably looking at .25-.30 at the fast end of a make up shot on that target, realistically more like .50 (time taken from experience on the range)

So, how long does it take you to get acceptable visual verification at 3 yards once you've brought the pistol to extension? I really can't see how it could be more than .25, and really that's longer than it should be - ideally you should have picked up the gun on its way out and it shouldn't really take any longer.

At arms length shooting from retention is different but if the gun is going to extension I need to at least have some visual indication that the gun is aligned with the target.

[Randy Harris]

Let me start by saying that I am largely in agreement with what you've written in your last few posts.



That's a fair enough flipside to the question I asked. There is certainly an individual element to this stuff, and while there are many ways to aim the gun, an individual (certainly myself included) might have practiced and become confident with a few of the many ways to aim and rely on those for the variety of shooting problems they might face. So if a person's hits are actually comparable between using and not the sights, then I would also essentially say 'rock on.'

I personally find that I get the greatest precision, and certainty about that precision, from using a sharp and clear front sight focus. The deviations I make from that are due to proximity to threat, which may demand a compressed position where the sights aren't available, and when the target is easy enough that it allows me to fire accurately before the gun is stopped at full extension, in which case I often fire based on the coarse visual verification of seeing the slide streaking toward the target spot.



On an unobstructed target significantly closer than five yards, I may very well be firing before the gun is decelerated and at full extension, based on seeing the gun streaking toward the target spot. That is still less precise and certain than getting the gun decelerated at full extension. I still have my focal depth pulled back to front sight distance though, even if firing before the gun quite gets there.

That's really the dividing line for me personally - whether the gun is stopped at full extension when I am firing, which in turn is based on proximity to threat and ease of target. If stopped at extension, I am doing front-sight focused shooting. If not stopped at extension, then I am firing based on coarser visual awareness or kinesthetic awareness, but focal depth is still pulled back to front sight distance unless we are talking about shooting from position 2.

I think we are largely in agreement. And I'd say pretty much EVERYONE is going to get greatest precision and certainty about it with a picture perfect sight picture. We only step away from that if we need to or if the target is of sufficient size or proximity that we can in all confidence in our proven ability (not just hope and chance) make the shot without having to wait for the perfect sight picture.

Some people simply need more visual than others to feel comfortable enough to make the same hits. I'm of the opinion that the overlearned out there can do things that the beginner probably would not be comfy with if misses have a penalty. I think we can all agree on that no matter what level we are. And just so we are all clear I'm again not suggesting that a 35 yard 8" circle is fair game for target focused shooting...at least not by me. But at the same time I do not need a 15 YARD sight focus to make a 15 FOOT shot. And knowing about your shooting ability I KNOW that is the case for you too.

[Randy Harris]

I've made some really impressive misses at "can't miss" distances in competition which has led me to believe that it's equally possible during defensive use.

Even if you remove the errant shot problems (which are huge, but humor me) a miss isn't a hit. At 3 yards if I'm rocking on the trigger my split time is between .15 and .20 - If I'm not on the sights I can't call the shot so I've got to have some sort of target verification to know whether or not I hit it and then react if I miss - so let's say I'm really on top of things, we're probably looking at .25-.30 at the fast end of a make up shot on that target, realistically more like .50 (time taken from experience on the range)

So, how long does it take you to get acceptable visual verification at 3 yards once you've brought the pistol to extension? I really can't see how it could be more than .25, and really that's longer than it should be - ideally you should have picked up the gun on its way out and it shouldn't really take any longer.

At arms length shooting from retention is different but if the gun is going to extension I need to at least have some visual indication that the gun is aligned with the target.

Visual verification could be something as simple as seeing the gun in peripheral vision superimposed on the target as the arms extend. You just see what you need to see. If you need to see more ...look for more. And if your feet are moving (with a purpose, not baby steps like we shoot string 9 of the IDPA classifier) then even being able to get a picture perfect sight picture is probably...optimistic.

And for clarity I'm not talking about sprinting while shooting a plate rack at 10 yards....I'm talking about truly dynamic movement to evade a 3 yard and closer problem like a knife or impact weapon or a gun that is being drawn. Dynamic movement at that distance combined with solid grip (critical) good trigger control (very important) getting the gun up to at least shoulder level and into peripheral vision (critical) and driving the muzzle to the spot you are looking at on them can all be combined to be very effective....within the proper distance envelope. It is not effective across the street.....

[Randy Harris]

Front sight focus for me is confirmation at short distances. Confirmation seems ethically necessary in the context of defensive shooting, where misses have significant consequences.

Consequences...agree 100%. See what you NEED to see to guarantee the hit. Not everyone will NEED to see the exact same thing.

[shane45]

Randy, I think your detail has articulated the things I was trying to convey in my posts. Thanks for putting in the effort.

[Dagga Boy]

Consequences...agree 100%. See what you NEED to see to guarantee the hit. Not everyone will NEED to see the exact same thing.

Guarantee to hit what. The reality, hits need to be in the right place.....and those are small at any distance. That small target moves faster in perception the closer you are. It is why solid confirmation is so critical in fast moving dynamic problems, even in close. What many fail to realize is that a 2-5 yard problem with a dynamic target may require the same sight focus as a 15-25 yard problem. Many don't want to believe this until they have actually done it. Many of my interviews with those involved in righteous shootings are often amazed at how fast the problem changes in such short time periods. Luckily, the brain "fixes" much of this with an altered sense of that time. The key is to use that retardation of time to do the things necessary to hit that same small area as efficiently as possible. If we are training that we don't need it in close, you will have a difficult time working that problem out on the fly when faced with a real crisis. Everyone will need to see the same thing...it is the ability to task stack rapidly and remain disciplined in "multitasking" that is the key.