Bill Wilson and Ken Hackathon's Crystal Ball Predictions

[El Cid]

[/B]

That’s the best explanation of that I think I have seen.

If you don’t mind I’d like to draw a couple of examples from another “accuracy sport”.

The guys who shoot bows at the Olympics are shooting at a target where the bulls eye is the size of a CD at 70 yards. I’ve yet to see an Archer from the Olympics promote focusing on the sight rather than the target.

I competed at what would be USPSA Master level in Barebow 3D archery. We shoot at a 10 ring that is the same size as the black of a B8 bullseye out to thirty yards on non-contrasting targets. We use the arrow as our sight in that discipline. I’ve been lucky enough to shoot with some of the best archers in the country.

The other interesting thing is that the coaches who know tell beginners to focus on and practice every other part of the shot besides the sight while they’re learning. The idea is that if all the other parts of your shot are executed correctly as long as you have decent sight float your going to hit what you’re shooting at.

It was my understanding the front sight focus was just because of the Mk1 eyeball. We can only focus on one thing at a time, so pick the one in the middle (target/threat, front sight, rear sight). This also comes from a time when sights were mostly just black. Using a target or threat focus on all black sights would be closer to point shooting for many folks. The first time I heard an instructor talk about a threat focus with pistol iron sights was in a Frank Proctor class in 2013. It worked well, but most of us had iron sights like the Trijicon HD or Ameriglos with brightly colored front sights. We also didn't do it past 15 or 25 yards if I recall.

[Caballoflaco]

I competed at what would be USPSA Master level in Barebow 3D archery. We shoot at a 10 ring that is the same size as the black of a B8 bullseye out to thirty yards on non-contrasting targets. We use the arrow as our sight in that discipline. I’ve been lucky enough to shoot with some of the best archers in the country.

I’ll quote myself because I forgot to finish that thought since I’m posting at work.

And pick those guys (top archers) brains and they all shoot with a target focus. It’s really hard to get the precision you need to hit a target that looks like this at 25 yards without target focus




When your actual scoring zone is this

[David S.]

Exactly and I agree with you that the majority of dot shooters are probably using the dot like a traditional front sight.

It's interesting to me that the top shooters in the world almost to a man say that they target focus....the best practice for utilizing the dot is target focus and a lot of people either don't realize or have forgotten that Jeff Cooper said a LONG time ago that sights confirm stroke.

With all that said where did the idea of hard front sight focus originate from in pistol marksmanship and how did it become so prevalent? I actually had a long conversation recently with Andy Stanford about this very issue.

@jlw. I see podcast content opportunity.

[TGS]

It was my understanding the front sight focus was just because of the Mk1 eyeball. We can only focus on one thing at a time, so pick the one in the middle (target/threat, front sight, rear sight). This also comes from a time when sights were mostly just black. Using a target or threat focus on all black sights would be closer to point shooting for many folks. The first time I heard an instructor talk about a threat focus with pistol iron sights was in a Frank Proctor class in 2013. It worked well, but most of us had iron sights like the Trijicon HD or Ameriglos with brightly colored front sights. We also didn't do it past 15 or 25 yards if I recall.

To that end, we saw a noticeable aggregate decrease in agent firearms qualification scores when we switched from the SIG P229 to the G19M, and its common for agents to have better scores with the Glock 26.

Our 19Ms have the Ameriglo Agent sight which is so attention grabbing that you can basically shoot it target focus like a RDS, and I'm convinced many agents seem to have trouble focusing on the front sight post because of this.....hence them dropping shots at 25 yards, as groups absolutely open up in dispersion when not focusing on the front sight. And, to double down, why it's common to see our agents shoot just as well or better with the Glock 26 (within the parameters of the qualification), as they were bought off a DOD contract and have Trijicon sights, same as the old P229s, and easier for the middle of the bell curve shooter to focus on the front sight.

Personally I love the 19M's Ameriglo Agent sight, as for rapid/close range stuff it allows me to drop significant time by using a target focus and using it akin to an RDS...it drops almost a quarter second off my shots to COM at 7 yards from concealment (best consistent time on paper being a 1.06s), while I still have the proficiency with front sight focus to exploit the Glock Marksmen Barrel well at distance and have had no trouble making torso hits at 100 yards, and consistently some of the highest 25 yard 200-Drill scores I've recorded with a semi-auto (neck and neck with my Beretta 92, only a couple points lower than my S&W Model 19).

[El Cid]

To that end, we saw a noticeable aggregate decrease in agent firearms qualification scores when we switched from the SIG P229 to the G19M, and its common for agents to have better scores with the Glock 26.

Our 19Ms have the Ameriglo Agent sight which is so attention grabbing that you can basically shoot it target focus like a RDS, and I'm convinced many agents seem to have trouble focusing on the front sight post because of this.....hence them dropping shots at 25 yards, as groups absolutely open up in dispersion when not focusing on the front sight. And, to double down, why it's common to see our agents shoot just as well or better with the Glock 26 (within the parameters of the qualification), as they were bought off a DOD contract and have Trijicon sights, same as the old P229s, and easier for the middle of the bell curve shooter to focus on the front sight.

Personally I love the 19M's Ameriglo Agent sight, as for rapid/close range stuff it allows me to drop significant time by using a target focus and using it akin to an RDS...it drops almost a quarter second off my shots to COM at 7 yards from concealment (best consistent time on paper being a 1.06s), while I still have the proficiency with front sight focus to exploit the Glock Marksmen Barrel well at distance and have had no trouble making torso hits at 100 yards, and consistently some of the highest 25 yard 200-Drill scores I've recorded with a semi-auto (neck and neck with my Beretta 92, only a couple points lower than my S&W Model 19).

Amen! And I noticed steel match times decrease after I started using Trijicon HD’s and Ameriglos. Before that my favorite was a gold or brass bead front and U notch rear.

The rear is another aspect I find can help. Lining up 3 dots took me longer. The all black rear and U notch works for me. The eye centering something in a circle works even with just the lower half of a circle for me.

[jlw]

The technology of the dot is fairly uninteresting to me as is the equipment. I'm dot ambivalent.

What's more interesting is the conversation the dot has forced on the community of "three focal plane" shooting versus "single focal" plane shooting and the implications that has for congruency in training regardless of the sighting system.

Sure.

There are still a TON of agencies and private sector businesses that are teaching traditional sight alignment and sight picture with "hard front sight focus" language. As the dot becomes more and more common...and we see more people beginning their education on shooting with a dot....will we see a shift in orthodox iron sight marksmanship pedagogy? A mainstream shift that facilitates greater congruency across sighting systems?

Exactly and I agree with you that the majority of dot shooters are probably using the dot like a traditional front sight.

It's interesting to me that the top shooters in the world almost to a man say that they target focus....the best practice for utilizing the dot is target focus and a lot of people either don't realize or have forgotten that Jeff Cooper said a LONG time ago that sights confirm stroke.

With all that said where did the idea of hard front sight focus originate from in pistol marksmanship and how did it become so prevalent? I actually had a long conversation recently with Andy Stanford about this very issue.

And a bit more information from a different source with the FSRC "gaze pattern" study.

https://www.forcescience.org/2009/10...nfight-part-1/

https://www.forcescience.org/2009/10...aining-part-2/

@jlw. I see podcast content opportunity.

I take note that the first few paragraphs of part two of the Force Science articles referenced above were dedicated to "clarifying" an inaccurate conclusion among some readers that FSI was endorsing point shooting. Nothing in the first article made any such endorsement.

As I read through this thread today, I am struck by the fact that opinions are being assigned to Mr. Hackathorn that he did not express in the video. They are opinions that he most certainly did not express to me when he and I discussed the video, among other things.

"We" on this forum and others like it are super-consumers. If we were/are golfers, we would try every new driver or ball to hit the market. We're the same people who buy every accessory for a Jeep and then rip it apart the very next month to install something else. It's natural that "we" would gravitate toward the dot just like we have tried every trigger system to hit the market.

"We" would price a prospective gun purchaser right out of the market. There was a time when we'd take a friend or someone seeking help to a gun store and pick out a trade-in wheelgun and a decent holster. That old Model 10 became a third generation Glock.

Now, those people can't buy that trade-in Glock. They must add another $500 or so to the price of admission even though that Glock would meet their needs. Their needs; not "our" needs.

If we were all to gather on the range for a "loser buys lunch" match, I'd run my CZ P10 C topped with an SRO, but when we leave the range, I'd be packing my iron sighted Glock. I can post a higher score with the dot gun, but I have yet to take it through low light work, and I have not run a dot in a force on force setting, and I am not willing to give up the known for speculation.

Does anyone really think that one of the most accomplished trainers in the history of training forged an opinion without putting in the work to form a basis for that opinion. Do you really think that a guy who has trained special forces and the like all over the world has an insignificant amount of time on a dot gun?

I don't know Bill Wilson, and I have never had an interaction with him, but I doubt that his company is selling dot capable pistols and he hasn't grabbed a sample, walked outside to his range, and put in work with one. It's not like Wilson Combat operates on the same scale of production as Glock, Sig, or S&W. Not continuing to innovate? He built his name on custom building a design that's 100 years old but has also come out with a grip module and custom options for the hottest design to come out in the last decade.

Now, as for the Force Science gaze study, @Erick Gelhaus, @John Hearne, and I are all graduates of Force Science. We are trying to align our schedules this week to discuss the study and related topics for an episode. @SouthNarc, if you are free and wish to play along, you are cordially invited. Hit me up on Messenger or give me a call/text.

[Erick Gelhaus]

"We" would price a prospective gun purchaser right out of the market. There was a time when we'd take a friend or someone seeking help to a gun store and pick out a trade-in wheelgun and a decent holster. That old Model 10 became a third generation Glock.

Now, those people can't buy that trade-in Glock. They must add another $500 or so to the price of admission even though that Glock would meet their needs. Their needs; not "our" needs.

The above reminded me about the need to get my hands on a S&W SDVE because of the sub-$500 retail pricing.

@jlw's interview with Jerry McCown hit on when, year-wise, he picked up on the doctrinal change to hard front sight focus rather than "just using the sights." It might be interesting to hear from PPC shooters what their visual attention was on by decade from post-WWII to the eighties.

[GJM]

I take note that the first few paragraphs of part two of the Force Science articles referenced above were dedicated to "clarifying" an inaccurate conclusion among some readers that FSI was endorsing point shooting. Nothing in the first article made any such endorsement.

As I read through this thread today, I am struck by the fact that opinions are being assigned to Mr. Hackathorn that he did not express in the video. They are opinions that he most certainly did not express to me when he and I discussed the video, among other things.

"We" on this forum and others like it are super-consumers. If we were/are golfers, we would try every new driver or ball to hit the market. We're the same people who buy every accessory for a Jeep and then rip it apart the very next month to install something else. It's natural that "we" would gravitate toward the dot just like we have tried every trigger system to hit the market.

"We" would price a prospective gun purchaser right out of the market. There was a time when we'd take a friend or someone seeking help to a gun store and pick out a trade-in wheelgun and a decent holster. That old Model 10 became a third generation Glock.

Now, those people can't buy that trade-in Glock. They must add another $500 or so to the price of admission even though that Glock would meet their needs. Their needs; not "our" needs.

If we were all to gather on the range for a "loser buys lunch" match, I'd run my CZ P10 C topped with an SRO, but when we leave the range, I'd be packing my iron sighted Glock. I can post a higher score with the dot gun, but I have yet to take it through low light work, and I have not run a dot in a force on force setting, and I am not willing to give up the known for speculation.

Does anyone really think that one of the most accomplished trainers in the history of training forged an opinion without putting in the work to form a basis for that opinion. Do you really think that a guy who has trained special forces and the like all over the world has an insignificant amount of time on a dot gun?

I don't know Bill Wilson, and I have never had an interaction with him, but I doubt that his company is selling dot capable pistols and he hasn't grabbed a sample, walked outside to his range, and put in work with one. It's not like Wilson Combat operates on the same scale of production as Glock, Sig, or S&W. Not continuing to innovate? He built his name on custom building a design that's 100 years old but has also come out with a grip module and custom options for the hottest design to come out in the last decade.

Now, as for the Force Science gaze study, @Erick Gelhaus, @John Hearne, and I are all graduates of Force Science. We are trying to align our schedules this week to discuss the study and related topics for an episode. @SouthNarc, if you are free and wish to play along, you are cordially invited. Hit me up on Messenger or give me a call/text.

Can someone post the exact time in the video where they discuss red dots?

[JHC]

Can someone post the exact time in the video where they discuss red dots?

10:36 mark should do it.

I just got to it. I'm finding it quite an enjoyable discussion so far and really like Hack's candid opinions style.

ETA - completed and enjoyed it thoroughly. Who cares if I like Glocks and resent the M17 contract?

[jlw]

I should also ask if the EDC X9 and the SFX 9 are innovations or yelling at clouds?

The AR line from Wilson sure screams, "Get off my lawn!!", doesn't it....