Proficient Enough to NOT use Iron Sights?

[Randy Harris]

If the top of the slide works for you in shootings, then whatever works consistently is great.

Also hitting in the chest and hitting a fist size area of the chest are two different things. Again, I am kind of a dick about this subject because I saw first hand in a shooting how fast a full facing chest could become a full side profile in the time it took from when I made the decision to shoot and started my trigger press to when I finished my trigger press. This was a 2 yard speed trigger press.

I noticed a trend with my people that once I started training them to use hands (palms) as shoot indicators, transfer focus to what they want to hit, and then block that point with their pistol I started getting some consistent reports back after shootings of seeing the entire back of the pistol that forced a focus shift away from the bad guy which was the goal. I continue to use the back of the slide reference because it was consistent in several shootings. Those officers that needed more precise sight focus used the same process of blocking their vision with the pistol and then shifting that focus to the front sight.....some with some very vivd detail of exactly what the sight looked like. I can tell you to this day what my front sight looked plastered on a felon in a shooting I was in over twenty years ago....it was that vivid and precise. Additionally, a side note, I have talked to several folks who have verified something else unique to hammer fired (DA or LEM type) guns is the ability to "visually see your trigger press". It is hard to truly get a great tactile feel of the trigger in these events as tactile input is not a priority. On the other hand visual acuity goes to the extreme and seeing that press is a great addition to the limited tactile feel. This extreme visual acuity is also why it is so critical to train to shift that visual focus.

Just so we can establish "tone" (it is net typing), I am not trying to be argumentative for the sake of argument. I am being detail oriented because it is important. One of the things we really emphasize in our training program is that it is non-theory based and was developed wholly on what we see work well in actual engagements. I FULLY understand the process of taking theory, testing it in a competitive or training environment to come up with a better means to an end. We are simply at a place where that is great, but until I see a solid, verifiable, documentable set of positive results, I will fall back to proven techniques and practices.

Fair enough. And agree tone is often hard to get in the written word. My capital letters are not yelling they are just emphasis. It just takes far longer to type than to say and a 1 minute conversation takes 3 pages on the web and can be frustrating.

As to my own personal experience, a guy was threatening me with a knife while I was seated in the passenger seat of a car with the door open. He was actually leaning into the car. I jammed the knife arm with my off hand as I shoved the muzzle of my pistol into his diaphragm backing him up...( I had already put my hand on the gun as he pulled the door open). I brought the gun up to eye level got a picture perfect sight picture on his chest and took up the slack....during this I had to stop looking at him so intently to be aware of the street behind traffic him and whether there were cars behind him or not. And I remember thinking "so THIS is what tunnel vision looks like". I gave him the option and he decided he was late for an appointment elsewhere and made his retreat. In this particular case , with background that was changing, a target backing away and me being only 20 years old at the time and not nearly as confident in my shooting ability as I probably would be now 21 years later a HARD front sight focus is what I used. SO I DO understand that and have experienced it for real.

Fast forward to more modern times when I was at NTI and much more confident in my shooting ability from years of practice, an IDPA Master ranking, multiple match wins in different disciplines and 100s of hours of FOF training. At NTI I scored a 100% hit ratio in the FOF evolutions and was not "killed" in any of them and I simply looked over the top of the gun for close up "reactive" problems.....one of which was 3 on 1 in low light. We were armed with J frames that were issued to us and not exactly "modern " pistols with good sights. So we might argue that if the sights are barely usable you probably won't use them? Who knows. All I know is that the rounds went where I directed them.

On the other hand I used a picture perfect sight picture in a more proactive situation at NTI where I took out 3 "terrorist" role players while armed only with a battlefield pickup J frame I took off a "wounded" security guard.. I used cover , architecture , surprise and precise trigger control and was able to prevail against them. So I do get it and I do know the difference in checkers and chess. And I'm not trying to beat a dead horse. I'm just saying that in CLOSE distance shooting where we are 4 yards and closer in a reactive "under immediate danger" situation I feel pretty confident in my own ability to get the gun up to just below my eye line but not have to have a picture perfect sight picture and still deliver accurate fire (think Point Shoulder). Is a solid sight picture BETTER???...OF COURSE it is... if you can get it. But it may not always possible due to distance and immediacy of the threat, low light etc.

So my answer to the OP remains...yes...with enough experience and confidence you can step away from picture perfect sight picture and still deliver accurate fire within the correct distance envelope. But it is not something that the TYPICAL CCW guy is going to be able to do without a LOT of work. They need to MASTER grip, trigger control AND using sights and only then step away from perfection as necessary. I do dry work and draw work every day and shoot every week and do FOF every month. So I'm not the typical gun carrier. ALL I can speak from is my experience and in my experience it is possible.

[Randy Harris]

This is WHY we train. Whether it is in competition, range training, or during an actual shooting we have "Learned" that those sights provide a TON of input as to what your trigger finger and grip are doing. They are the confirmation. The key is that top level competitors and during square range work we can take all the assessment work out of the equation and we have seen that people can train themselves to "read" those sights very quickly. We even have some folks who are reading through them. The key is that once we have gotten to the point of needing very little confirmation on the sights with training time, knowing how to work them when the problems intensify is what makes for winners in the end.

I ll also offer up an observation. X/S Big Dots......hated by good shooters. I had a very interesting observation in regards to these. I took them on a pistol to a class and found that I could not solve difficult shooting problems (hostage work specifically) at the level I normally could with conventional sights. When I returned home I went to a couple of range training days at my old department (to shoot their ammo....I was the retired guy who spent days "qualifying" for my CCW). I left that X/S sighted gun with some of the staff and had them let a bunch of officers shoot it. My observation was that a very high number (usually newer officers who had not had me for training) shot REALLY well with them on the closer range combat courses. I spent some time talking to them and concluded that the big giant front sight forced them to actually be using a front sight when they probably hadn't been before. For the "novice" (which many LEO's actually are) shooter who is not dedicated or well trained, they really don't know how to read sights or work them. They really shined on movers or when the officers were moving. Again, two scenarios where you need to read that front sight. Most good shooters (with the exception of eye issues) easily can out shoot the X/S's......that is when you have begun to figure it out. Top level guys simply are on remote control with their sights (probably to the point of not even doing anything with them consciously). Again, when you take out the change in focus needed on street shootings, it makes for amazing work that we see with top competitors on how fast that can run their guns and how little verification they need (it also helps that their grip and trigger press are also perfected at this point). The lesser or barely trained officers I noted above were actually using front sight focus correctly for the first time. It is really easy to tell them "focus on the front sight and squeeeeeeeeeezzzzzzz the trigger" like most of the training they get, but they really aren't understanding either. Good trainers use various means to show them exactly what "front sight, press, follow through" really means. Then apply that to whatever endeavor they are training for. I look at the X/S's as sort of training wheels in the process. The folks who get a gun, shoot 50 rounds and put it in the drawer for the next few years are probably best off leaving the training wheels on. Those who train and learn to run the gun will do well to take the training wheels off at some point.

Agree with regards to big dots. The BD covers up too much target. At the distance they would "theoretically" help I look over the slide...or over the rear at the front sight only . Past that they are an impediment to precise shooting and that is why I prefer a thinner front like the Warren. YMMV.

[Odin Bravo One]

So my answer to the OP remains...yes...with enough experience and confidence you can step away from picture perfect sight picture and still deliver accurate fire within the correct distance envelope. But it is not something that the TYPICAL CCW guy is going to be able to do without a LOT of work. They need to MASTER grip, trigger control AND using sights and only then step away from perfection as necessary. I do dry work and draw work every day and shoot every week and do FOF every month. So I'm not the typical gun carrier. ALL I can speak from is my experience and in my experience it is possible.

Also not being a typical gun carrier, and speaking only from my experience...........in my experience, my answer remains the same as well.

It is a bad idea to entertain. It is a worse idea to practice. And it is an even worse idea to employ when it is time to center punch someone between the running lights with a bullet.

[Chuck Whitlock]

This is WHY we train. Whether it is in competition, range training, or during an actual shooting we have "Learned" that those sights provide a TON of input as to what your trigger finger and grip are doing. They are the confirmation. The key is that top level competitors and during square range work we can take all the assessment work out of the equation and we have seen that people can train themselves to "read" those sights very quickly. We even have some folks who are reading through them. The key is that once we have gotten to the point of needing very little confirmation on the sights with training time, knowing how to work them when the problems intensify is what makes for winners in the end.

I ll also offer up an observation. X/S Big Dots......hated by good shooters. I had a very interesting observation in regards to these. I took them on a pistol to a class and found that I could not solve difficult shooting problems (hostage work specifically) at the level I normally could with conventional sights. When I returned home I went to a couple of range training days at my old department (to shoot their ammo....I was the retired guy who spent days "qualifying" for my CCW). I left that X/S sighted gun with some of the staff and had them let a bunch of officers shoot it. My observation was that a very high number (usually newer officers who had not had me for training) shot REALLY well with them on the closer range combat courses. I spent some time talking to them and concluded that the big giant front sight forced them to actually be using a front sight when they probably hadn't been before. For the "novice" (which many LEO's actually are) shooter who is not dedicated or well trained, they really don't know how to read sights or work them. They really shined on movers or when the officers were moving. Again, two scenarios where you need to read that front sight. Most good shooters (with the exception of eye issues) easily can out shoot the X/S's......that is when you have begun to figure it out. Top level guys simply are on remote control with their sights (probably to the point of not even doing anything with them consciously). Again, when you take out the change in focus needed on street shootings, it makes for amazing work that we see with top competitors on how fast that can run their guns and how little verification they need (it also helps that their grip and trigger press are also perfected at this point). The lesser or barely trained officers I noted above were actually using front sight focus correctly for the first time. It is really easy to tell them "focus on the front sight and squeeeeeeeeeezzzzzzz the trigger" like most of the training they get, but they really aren't understanding either. Good trainers use various means to show them exactly what "front sight, press, follow through" really means. Then apply that to whatever endeavor they are training for. I look at the X/S's as sort of training wheels in the process. The folks who get a gun, shoot 50 rounds and put it in the drawer for the next few years are probably best off leaving the training wheels on. Those who train and learn to run the gun will do well to take the training wheels off at some point.

Very interesting observations re: XS Big Dots. I became an advocate of them back in 2001 or so after having a hard time with the "bucket-n-ball" factory Glock setup on turning targets. I had no problems qualifying with them, even at 25 yds......on an unobstructed FBI Q or Transtar II target. I quickly found them wanting when I started doing dot torture. I think that "training wheels" is an apt analogy.

[TheTrevor]

Very interesting observations re: XS Big Dots. I became an advocate of them back in 2001 or so after having a hard time with the "bucket-n-ball" factory Glock setup on turning targets. I had no problems qualifying with them, even at 25 yds......on an unobstructed FBI Q or Transtar II target. I quickly found them wanting when I started doing dot torture. I think that "training wheels" is an apt analogy.

The OEM "adjustable" sights on my new G41 (which happens to be my first Grock) are the one thing I will not be able to leave stock for much longer. People talk about how bad various OEM sights are, but these are crap for precision shooting. Dot Torture is a perfect example.