handgun sights in a stress situation

What i was saying is that once you intro a flashlight into the setting the sights tend to be silhouetted against the white light of the beam. It makes those sights easier then the black sights on a dark shirt for instance

I never disparaged your revolver. As i said my first duty gun (and the first gun i had to use for real) was a S&W mdl 64. It did the job just fine. Center chest sight picture and down he went. NOTHING wrong with a revolver.
 
I know you didn't shark, I was commenting to Frank. His post came off as condescending towards revolvers.

I love this gun, cut my shooting teeth on it.

I just don't want to get a bottom feeder just to have a well lit sight. I cant stand looking for the brass from those annoying things..
 
Hahaha. Thats why you take your kids to the range. Little brass vacumes...

"You want cheeseburgers for lunch? Help pick up brass" :D
 
mordis said:
So why then frank do we see people recommending M10 revolvers to newbs for there first gun so frequently if the platform is sub optimal for self defense. By your definition most every revolver out there is inadequate...
Click to expand...
I have no idea why some people do things.

And I have several revolvers with very visible sights.

mordis said:
...What are you trying to say with your comments? That getting a revolver was foolish? That since I have been on hard times financially I had to get rid of ally my guns but the one my family member passed on to me?...
Click to expand...
What I said in my post is what I said. My post speaks for itself.

If your gun has sights that are difficult to see -- whether it's a revolver or an old GI 1911 with those tiny sights -- and if you don't want to do anything to modify the sights, that's what you'll have to use -- a gun with sights that are difficult to see.

I would not choose a gun with sights that are difficult to see, and I would not recommend at gun with sights that are difficult to see. Sights that are difficult to see are in fact, based on the way I've been trained in the Modern Technique of the Pistol, a disadvantage in a self defense gun.
 
What i was saying is that once you intro a flashlight into the setting the sights tend to be silhouetted against the white light of the beam.
Click to expand...

They will also be silhouetted against your first muzzle flash.
 
Well I don't have an oar in this water, but in reading the posts, I just keep shaking my head (or is it scratching it). I have watched too many u-tube videos of armed citizens point shooting it out with bad guys in gas stations, convenience stores and one even in a off track betting parlor where he fired off his 380 5 times and didn't hit a thing (thank God).

I shoot IDPA and some of the targets are 5 feet or less away, AND ALWAYs have the front sight on the target BEFORE the trigger is pulled, it only takes a half second to get your sights on target. But I am more concerned about hitting center of the target than shooting someone's kid standing in the background.

Here in Chicago we have a lot of point shooters, they are called gang-bangers. They love to point shoot, that is why so many 6 and 10 year old children sitting on their grandmothers porch never make it to their next birthday here.

You want to point shoot, hell go with it, I never will even if the assailant is only two feet away, my front sight will be in his face. (Period, end of story) I may break his nose first before the bullet goes into his brain.

Jim
 
Last edited:
Wow, Jason, you have said a bunch of things that are flat out wrong, but this was my favorite because it shows your use of logic in argument construction.

Some people are of the opinion that sights are useful at defensive ranges. I am not of that opinion and like i have said in my close combat experience sights were not useful. If you don't care for that opinion that's fine. You are free to have your opinion as well. I'm of the opinion that lasers on a defensive weapon are a crutch for the ill-prepared and a liability.
Click to expand...

First you say that sights are not useful for SD and then claim that they are a crutch for the ill-prepared and are a liability. So what you are saying is that for those people who need them, crutches are useless? Most people do not possess the apparent supreme skills of not ever needing sights that you have. Most people don't go to the range more than once a year, if at all. Most people are not prepared for an attack when it happens. So those people would need to use their sights and the sights would be useful to them for the purpose of hitting their target.

So how can you argue that sights are useless and then point out that sights are helpful to those who need them?

I do like the argument of categorizing something in an emotionally-charged negative manner to make your argument, in this case, calling sights a 'crutch' as if the person who must need them is crippled or feeble. :rolleyes: After all, nobody would want to admit to needing a "crutch" if they are not crippled or feeble, right? However, a crutch is just a tool to help overcome a situational parameter. Needing to use your gun is a crutch to self defense. That means that you are in a situation where you have to rely on it to get the job done for you because you think you can't do it without it.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

As to the OP, asking individuals if they used their sights in a stressful situation is a mixed bag for getting accurate answers. Under such stress, people often do NOT remember a lot of what goes on, especially specific details. This is commonly associated with the adrenaline dump, target fixation issues that correspond with factors such as auditory exclusion and tunnel vision. Some details are remember above others and some not remembered at all.

In this video, for example, the officer who did the shooting retreats and falls down. He gave the statement that he had no memory of falling down (watch video and see page 3).
http://www.news-leader.com/article/...-sheriff-deputy-fatal-shooting?nclick_check=1

So if folks claim that they didn't use their sights, it is going to be tough to determine (without video confirmation) whether they actually didn't use their sights or if it is simply not a memory that occurred from the situation. People people may not have. Others, as noted, certainly used them via flash sight picture or indexing which are both still sighting methods that are not simply muscle memory.
 
Frank im not blind. They work fine in just about every other situation. My issue Is only low light. I have been working on flashlight techniques but I just can not stand 1 handed shooting. No matter how much I practice 1 handed I just cant get the same rapidity of fire, with the same kind of accuracy that I can get 2 handed.

I have yet to meet or see anyone that can shoot as fast and as accurately 1 handed as they can 2.

Why on earth would I modify a classic gun? Can you give some examples from your collection of revolvers with very visible sights?
 
Some people are of the opinion that sights are useful at defensive ranges. I am not of that opinion and like i have said in my close combat experience sights were not useful.
Click to expand...

Whoa...

Now I am sure you have had some situations where the sights, for YOU, were not adequate, but there is quite a base of experience where the sights were useful (example: Jim Cirillo did use his sights, on a S&W M10, and hit three robbers at close range.)

Why do people use inadequate sights? Go look at the sights of the original 1911 .45. Small thumbnail sights. Same for Colt .32s, Remington pocket autos, S&W hand ejector .32s and .38s, etc... all a carry over from the early 1900s.

Small fixed sights where the normal and I am sure encouraged alot of people to use point shooting as in anything but broad daylight and 20/20 vision they are very hard to see.

Yes even the latest M10 .38s and Colt Official Police had smaller sights (but I could see them ok myself.)

But now days you can get many a serious defensive gun with very good sights.

That is why Jeff Cooper pointed out you needed a good set of sights and a good trigger on you defensive pistol. Most else was just bells & whistles.

Revolvers with good sights? Any S&W adjustable sighted gun, like these below (both are mine.)

attachment.php


and two of these in this picture that also have adjustable sights that are excellent: And the third one, my old 640 Centennial, I had a red insert put in so I could see them better.

attachment.php


Deaf
 
Last edited:
Depends on many variables. If time and distance allow use of sights yes I have used them. Upclose out of the holster and point shoot. Different tool for different applications.
 
So in most close combat situations we're talking very short ranges if you can't draw, point, fire and hit vitals on a man sized target at 21ft with out sights you NEED more range time.
Click to expand...

You don't need more range time
You need to learn to use your sights

You're just advocating a "spray and pray" technique
 
Actually everyone needs more range time, sights or no sights.

I was at the indoor range yesterday. The guys there always stick me at the far end cause I do alot of drawing and that sometimes scares newbie shooters.

I came in with my carry Glock, swapped for my practice Glock, and used it for the whole thing.

Well next to me was a guy teaching three hot chicks (lucky me) and so I went through my repertory of speed shooting at 10 yards.

Target has 5 black bullseyes, each 4 inches in diameter. 95 percent of my shots from my Glock 26 were all in the bulls, even when transitioning from target to target.

Now the guy had same targets at 3 yards for the girls and all were doing awful, even at that range. So I shamelessly moved my target to 3 yards and hip shot the lower bull. All 9 rounds in the lower bull. I use the lower bull cause if I aim for the high ones the bullets will hit the ceiling and the owners of the range will not be amused.

Yes, no sights used at 3 yards. But then I would do one hip shot then raise to a 2 handed Isosceles and brain shoot the upper bull (with perfect placement at such range WITH MY SIGHTS.) All at speed. All with a Glock 26 with 3.5/NY-1 setup.

And at 7 yards, using just my right, I would draw and snap shoot one of the bulls (flash sight picture). A few landed outside the bulls but not many.

Ok... I have an ego, especially if hot chicks are around but the point is if you practice alot, and practice CORRECTLY, you will be able to shoot all kinds of ways.

But if you don't have that time, but can shot maybe once a month, learn to use sights as they will give you the hits.

If you don't shot but once a year... as apparently the girls at the range didn't, and the guy wasn't much better, then I guess point shooting would be their only option, and not a good one at that.

It's the fundamentals that count. Index and trigger control. And that has to be drilled and drilled to become second nature.

Do the fundamentals right, no fancy stuff, and you will do well. Point shooting is more of a secondary technique learn AFTER you master the fundamentals.

Deaf
 
Use of sights

While I personally believe that sights should always be used if the situation permits, I have interpreted Jason Iowa's comments as not necessarily negating all use of sights in all circumstances, and would not be highly critical of his opinion.
It is not always possible to employ the sights. The NYPD SOP study published in 2010 noted:
"Utilizing a two‐handed grip, standing, and lining up a target using the firearm’s sights is the preferred method of discharging a firearm,
but it is not always practical during an adversarial conflict. Of officers reporting their shooting techniques, 62 percent gripped the firearm with two hands, 59 percent state that they were standing, and 31 percent stated that they were able to utilize the sights on their firearms." The report also noted that in shootings of dangerous animals only 9% used their sights.
Jim Cirillo may have always seen his sights but I'm sure we would all agree that his experiences and skills were very unusual.
 
Carrier fighter pilots, when under stressful situations, have to do ALOT of focusing on their task at hand and not on where they want to land. They even hooked them up to machines in Vietnam and recorded their stress levels.

The highest level? Landing on the carrier. Combat over Hanoi was not as bad as landing as for stress. And back then, they didn't have all the gizmos they have today to assist (and think about WW2 pilots who just had this guy with two ping-pong paddles for help!)

Like I posted before, in his books Jim Cirollo pointed out he did see his sights.

Many firearms trainers (Cooper, Chuck Taylor, Clint Smith, Tom Givens, John Hearne, Paul Howe, etc..) all have plenty of students that say they saw their sights under self defense situations.

Does that mean everyone sees their sights? No.

Does that mean every situation one can see their sights? No.

But as Jeff Cooper wrote in his field manual (Gunsight manual), "and if you cannot see your sights, bring the gun up as IF you could see your sights".

What he was saying is, produce the same index as you would do if you could see your sights and at close range you still get the hits.

So as I have posted many a time... index and trigger control are the keys. Just how you achieve the index is up to you.

Deaf
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top