For those who think sighted fire won't work at close range

I'm still waiting for somebody to identify these mysterious "those who think sighted fire won't work at close range" people someone has claimed are out there.
 
I'm still waiting for somebody to identify these mysterious "those who think sighted fire won't work at close range" people someone has claimed are out there.
Click to expand...

Don't look at me, all I was debating were some of the somewhat specious claims of speed and accuracy, and then after that it was pretty much all a semantic debate about quality of message and training.
 
I'm still waiting for somebody to identify these mysterious "those who think sighted fire won't work at close range" people someone has claimed are out there.
Click to expand...

I'll take the bait, but you'll only reel in a hook with nothing on it but seaweed...

If pragmatic is your game, I'm your Huckleberry.
Maybe the individuals that don't believe in it has seen the urinating contest and decided it isn't worth their time to post their viewpoint. Maybe they aren't a member of this board. But to really think there isn't anybody out there that may believe otherwise is, well, silly.
 
I'm still waiting for somebody to identify these mysterious "those who think sighted fire won't work at close range" people someone has claimed are out there.
Click to expand...

Well goodie david. If everyone now knows sighted fire can work at any range, then just add retention shooting and you have your core. That is it's all that is needed for defense for most people*.

One method for everything from long range to very short, and a second one for extreme close range. And the two overlap in distance.



*There are those with eye sight problems and other handicaps that will make point shooting their only real alternative. But for most of use, those two methods are the core one needs to master.
 
Maybe the individuals that don't believe in it has seen the urinating contest and decided it isn't worth their time to post their viewpoint. Maybe they aren't a member of this board. But to really think there isn't anybody out there that may believe otherwise is, well, silly.
Click to expand...
Not really. I've been in this game for a long time, in a lot of venues, and I have never found anybody, live or in print, who suggests that sighted fire won't work at close range. Some point out, rightly, that there is an alternative that may be better, but nobody says sighted fire won't work.
 
Well goodie david. If everyone now knows sighted fire can work at any range, then just add retention shooting and you have your core. That is it's all that is needed for defense for most people*.
Click to expand...
OK, not sure what that has to do with the issue, so I will take that as an admission you cannot identify anyone who thinks sighted fire won't work at close range.
 
DeafSmith situation:

Awsome report on how and what to do when someone kicks down your door and comes straight at you.... You hanled that perfectly in my opinion, as what else could you do? Surely not ask him why he just kicked in your door, etc. By then you might be severely wounded and/or killed.

I just watched a police report on TV special recently and the detective was interviewing a burglar/rapist. He asked the bad guy what was the one thing that burglars/home invasion perps feared the most when they enter someone's home? First words out of his mouth were "armed home owners, someone with a gun who is willing to defend his property and himself".
 
Here are two, from this board.
Click to expand...
Not quite. Don't see anybody saying that sighted fire won't work at close range. I see two folks saying that under certain conditions sighted fire might not work at close range.
The first one says:
"you wont be able to use your sights under extreme stress".
I would submit that is very different from "sighted fire won't work at close range". If you are at close range and not under extreme stress, one can use the sights. Stress is the defining factor here, not distance.
And the second one says:
"The reason one should learn and practice point shooting is that in many situations you will not be able to se or use your sights. In many situations you will be able to use your sights and far enough away from your opponent that you can safely use your sights and then you should use your sights."
Again, nothing there that says "sighted fire won't work at close range." The writer specifically uses the phrase "in many situations", thus indicating there are situations where the statement is not applicable. Further, the writer indicates that sighted fire can work at close range, but it might not be safe to use it.
So what we have is pretty standard...sometimes sighted fire will work at close range and sometimes it won't, depending on various factors.
 
Last edited:
Well david? Any uh.. comment?
Click to expand...
Yawn. I suppose I could comment that you still haven't offered up anyone that says they think sighted fire won't work at close range, but that would be a bit redundant.
 
Last edited:
Explain to me how one can use sighted fire when lighting conditions make it impossible to see the sights?
Would this qualify as a flaw in the "sighted fire for all situations" theory?
 
You are kidding, are you not?
Is it your claim that you, under any circumstances, will always be able to use the sights and or lasers no matter what?
Unless you have been in a few dozen gunfights, say yes, and I am so out of this discussion.
Which is probably a good thing.
 
Explain to me how one can use sighted fire when lighting conditions make it impossible to see the sights?
Would this qualify as a flaw in the "sighted fire for all situations" theory?
Click to expand...

Matt,

You bring the weapon up to the same position as IF YOU COULD SEE THE SIGHTS (in other words the same index you have developed from presentations... i.e. drawing and shooting with your sights.)

Every time you practice using your sights you build an ingrained response to indexing the weapon the same way. At close range the sights (and index) do not have to be in perfect alignment to score a good hit. So when the light is so bad you still use the same presentation and index to make good hits.

This is what I teach my students. From the very first time they hold their weapon and fire a shot I let them know to memorize the hold and duplicate it each time they draw the weapon (I'm a big believer in presentation practice.) I also have them find the grip they need to have the sights in alignment the instant the weapon is at eye level. No adjustment of the sights should be necessary (especially at close range.)

In this way, one technique covers a very wide spectrum. The only part missing is an extreme close range technique. And that's what hip/retention covers.
 
Of course sighted fire will work, and for many years I though it was the only way to shoot, which is it is, when it comes to winning an IPSC Match or even an IDPA shoot, but I now believe that under actual gunfight conditions, espacally if one ends up behind the curve, wheather or not sighted fire will always work or not, doesn't matter, because many people will be so focused on the threat that they won't see their sights, and instinctly revert to point shooting.

Call it poor training, or whatever, it happens, so I think it is smart to practice point shooting in addition to aimed fire. Besides not all guns have night sights or lasers, most of mine don't. So for the last several years I have practiced point shooting, even speed rocks, because I still think they have a place.
 
So it appears that Deaf and NRA are in disagreement?
Deaf...what you describe is exactly what I teach.
For example, if you saw me using aimed fire from the MI or point shooting from the same position you would be unable to tell--especially when examining the target--which aiming method that I used.
So how do we differ--except perhaps in semantics--with what we are teaching/doing?
Blue Duck..you have hit the nail on the head.
For many years it was assumed by the "powers that be" that point shooting was,

1) Inaccurate.

2) Hard to learn and demanded thousands of rounds and decades of practice.

3) Would fall apart under stress.

None of which is true, BTW.
All I am saying is there is a place for both, at least IMHO.
 
Oh Matt, I thought David and I had ended the discussion, but then you asked:
Explain to me how one can use sighted fire when lighting conditions make it impossible to see the sights?
Click to expand...

So I said, "use night sights or a laser", which you somehow interpreted to mean that I thought you'd always be able to use those in any circumstances. Which I never said, but it's cool. The point I was making was that for people who prefer the "sights" method, that there are technological options for them to practice their methods in low light to no light.

As for laser though, I figured any point shooting advocate would be a HUGE fan of lasers. They allow you to maintain a "target focused" presentation, and to be quite frank I can't imagine a situation where you'd be shooting someone using a point shooting technique where you wouldn't want to have a laser on your gun. Rob Pincus, someone whose opinions on point shooting I respect and take seriously advocates for the use of Crimson Trace laser grips.
 
You bring the weapon up to the same position as IF YOU COULD SEE THE SIGHTS
Click to expand...

That's called point shooting - or metal on meat shooting - or silhouette shooting - or instinctive shooting - or threat focused shooting - or peripheral vision shooting - or indexed shooting, etc.
.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top