I think I've had it wrong all these years

[Sigma 40 Blaster]

There's a great deal of difference between a precise sight picture, a flash sight picture, point shooting, and spray and pray.

I have been shooting IDPA for about a year now and my outlook on all four of those things has greatly changed. I am far from a pro shooter and don't present IDPA as tactical training or anything other than a good test of a variety of shooting and gun handling skills.

When I buy a new gun (or new ammo with an old gun) I will begin with precise sight pictures so I can get an idea of POI. I have never bought a gun that required any sight tweaking.

After I have an idea of how the gun "aims" I work from the holster, my goal is to obtain a good hit as fast as possible. I have a 3-6 inch target I consider a good hit depending on distance. 7 yards and closer I do well with a flash sight picture, basically just enough to see that the front sight is centered and the top is even with the rear sights. This is not a precise alignment...just a quick check to make sure I'm on target.

As the distance increases that "flash" sight picture gets a little bit longer because I know a deviation in my sight picture will affect my shot more @ 15 yards than at 7. At 20 yards or better I'm almost back to a "precise" sight picture but I'm still not striving for "one ragged hole".

I regard point shooting as a good tool for rapid fire at 3-5 yards with a completely clear backstop. I don't do this from the hip but with my gun indexed at my pectoral muscle, slightly canted to the side so the slide doesn't hit me during recoil.

I think being able to get good hits as fast as possible is the primary objective for competitive or defensive purposes. I can think of scenarios where precise aiming, flash aiming, and point shooting could all mean the difference between life and death (your own or someone other than the bad guy(s)). Understand the difference in the three techniques and what situations they would be applicable and get good at all three.

Working from the holster is very important during practice (or just at home doing dry work if you can't do it at the range) because in real life you do not have time to pick your gun off of a bench, slip a fresh mag in, rack the slide, loosen your shoulders up, get into your stance, and aim for an X. If a typical SD situation is only 3-5 seconds long and it takes you 3 seconds to clear leather and get off a good shot you're in trouble. Distance and movement (either you or the BG) are very important variables in that equation that dictate the type of shot you will take.

 

[stephen426]

Sigma 40 Blaster...

Thanks for your insight. That is pretty much what I was talking about. You summed up my mumble jumble thoughts nicely.

My problem was that I fell into the trap of competitiveness with a friend of mine. We would work on shooting pretty little groups rather than getting lead on the target quickly and accurately.

Thanks for the input and ideas so far. Please keep them coming.

 

[vox rationis]

I like shooting tight groups too, but for defensive fire, fire as fast as you can, while still keeping your shots in the A and B (and maybe the C) zones (using something like an IPSC target for reference)...there's no use in remaking the same hole over and over

 

[Frank Ettin]

There's a difference between target accuracy and self defense accuracy, and there's a difference between acceptable self defense accuracy and poking a whole lot of holes all over a big silhouette target.

In classes I took recently with both Louis Awerbuck and Massad Ayoob, they each stressed the need to be appropriately accurate. For one thing, the things you need to put the holes in to maximize the likelihood that you will stop the fight are grouped in a relatively small area. For another thing, your performance will deteriorate significantly under stress, so to stand a good chance of getting the hits you need when you need them, you need to do better at the range.

So you don't need everything in one ragged hole, but you also don't want holes all over the paper. You want pretty much all your shots in the A zone, and you want them there quickly. The good news is that you can learn to do it. That's what training and practice are all about.

BTW, it's a good idea to end each practice with some precision shooting. That's how you program and confirm good trigger control.

 

[Deaf Smith]

Spray and pray is not a good shooting technique. Learning target focused shooting (point shooting, instinctive shooting, etc.), on the other hand, is an excellent way to survive the usual CCW incident.

And so is learning a good sighted fire method.

But missing a B-27 target at 7 yards and thinking that's point shooting and the way to go isn't a good way to 'survive the usual CCW incident", although I'd remind people that the 'usual CCW incident' dosn't even involve firing the weapon.

And pray tell, david, what if it's not quite the 'usual CCW incident'. Not like you can pick what incident you encounter.

So you don't need everything in one ragged hole, but you also don't want holes all over the paper. You want pretty much all your shots in the A zone, and you want them there quickly. The good news is that you can learn to do it. That's what training and practice are all about.

Absolutly fiddletown, absolutly.


If you have time to fire a whole magazine you have time to aim. Learn to use a form of sighted fire first. Master it and a form of hip/retention. Then if you want to learn point/instinctive/target focused fireing methods, great.

Don't accept 'shotgun like groups' on a static target at 7 yards. Especially if you are forced to enguage a partialy exposed attacker, armored one, or one with a hostage.

 

[stephen426]

Hey! I get shotgun like groups at 7 yards... Maybe slugs fired out of a shotgun or buck shot fired out of a long barreled shotgun with a tight choke!

 

[Frank Ettin]

...Learn to use a form of sighted fire first....

+1

With the proper training and practice, it's amazing how fast one can acquire a flash sight picture and hit accurately. Learning those techniques and developing proficiency in the use of those techniques also gives you the flexibility to deal with targets at pretty much any distance. Yes, most gun fights are close range affairs. But what do you do if you've focused all your training on engaging targets 5 to 7 yard away; and the one time you really need to use your gun, it's the one in a hundred case in which you must engage an armed threat 10 to 12 yards away and partially behind cover?

The idea behind the flash sight picture is to focus on the front sight quickly and align the sights only as precisely as warranted under the circumstances. At distances on the order of 5 to 7 yards, when the target is the center of mass, a rough alignment will be sufficient to assure good hits (as long as you have good trigger control). As distances increase or the target shrinks, the alignment needs to be more precise. But with training and practice you can develop a good sense of how good is good enough.

And again, some precision shooting is important to maintain trigger control. Whether you use the sights or point shooting techniques to direct the muzzle of the gun in line with the particular part of the target you want to hit, if you don't have trigger control, your muzzle will not be in line with the part of the target you want to hit when the bullet leaves the barrel of your gun -- and you will miss. Most folks when shooting fast will start jerking the trigger. It takes a lot of good, focused practice to program in trigger control so that you will be able to sustain it at speed.

There is no target too close or too large to miss.

 

[T. O'Heir]

"...you don't rely on your sights..." Rubbish. Aimed fire is always better. Both legally and morally. If you don't use the sights and one bullet hits something or somebody, you're liable.
Stephen, while IDPA and IPSC are nothing but shooting games, it sounds like you need to make the time for recreation. Shooting either because it's fun and not worrying about placing will do that.

 

[fbrown333@suddenlink]

I use a plastic bullets from SPEER, They only use the primer to fire the projectile.It is a flat nose with a hollow base. I bet it hurts like hell if you were to get hit, any way I use these to allow me to draw and fire train in my basement with out the neighbors going ballistic and calling the cops. I just hang a blanket up with a target on it. The loose blanket allows it to stop the projectile (for reuse) with no damage to it.They won't cycle the action but other that that they work well for practice. Lets you find out what techniques work and what doesn't (catching on clothing) that type of thing.

 

[stephen426]

T. O'Heir,

Maybe I was using the wrong terminology in my initial posts. Nobody is talking about just firing wildly with total disregard for where your rounds land. I think most would agree that point shooting is indeed a form of aiming as is body indexing. The point is going for perfect sight picture and failing to work on speed will probably get you killed in a gun fight.

You can call IPSC and IDPA games, but I believe that people that play those games have a much better chance of survival compared to a bullseye shooter in an actual gun fight. First of all, there is a strong focus on speed and getting lead on your target. Second, they do focus on accuracy since the A zone is awarded more points. Besides, there are scenarios where targets or poppers are set further away. Finally, they practice shooting on the move. People that only shoot at stationary targets while standing still have a very hard time hitting anything while moving. The surprising thing for me was that I picked it up pretty quickly the one time I went. I also had some great coaching and was shooting some very nice guns. The more tricked out the gun though, the more it becomes a game.

Paint ball and airsoft are also games, but I believe people who play increase their odds in a gun fight. After all, not getting hit is as important as hitting your target. Of course you can't sling lead indiscriminately as you would paint balls! Regardless, I believe there is still skills that can be learned.

As the economy gets worse, crime usually increases. In my opinion, better to have the skill and not need them.

 

[Shane Tuttle]

stephen426,

I have to disagree with your thoughts on doing it wrong all these years. For one thing, I wouldn't use that person you saw as a litmus test on your methods of learning.

I also think there are many, many ways of developing defensive techniques, not one or two. I would say that all you need to do is expand on different techniques.

For that reason, I think point shooting from the low ready position (basically bringing the gun up quickly from low ready) and rapid target reacquisition should have much more importance when practicing at the range. I'm not suggesting spray and pray by any means, but rather getting so used to your primary defensive gun that you don't rely on your sights.
What do you guys think?

I would say that point shooting techniques should be learned to become proficient. There are times when this may be needed. However, I believe that sighted fire techniques are extremely important as well.

I can't tell you what's best for you. For me, Randy Cain's methods worked. He teaches sighted fire. I'd be glad to expand further why by PM if you wish so that this thread doesn't veer to another point vs. sight grudge match.

 

[Threefeathers]

fiddletown, how are you this morning. I finally got a chance to take my sife to Rocky Point which is sort of the Mexican version of Monterey.
Like you I've been rethinking shooting since LFI and from personal experience I realize that sometimes a quick get the gun out and fire from point blank range is necessary. I remember a talk from an ole IRA member when I was in college about shooting a Black and Tan officer, his statement, "There ain't no poor shoot from 2 foot range." rings true.

Yet, from 7 yards there certainly are poor shots. (take an inexpereinced shooterplace them at 7 meters from a IDPA targer and have them raise and fire 6 rounds as fast as they can. I do this often to folks I teach and have never had all 6 shots hit the target.
Doing it as Mas taught is is superior.
On another site the fellow who teaches point shooting in Flagstaff put a nice comment about our LFI class and I replied to him that I'd like to take his class sometime. As Mas said, we learn daily.
That said, I'm going to drill on a quick rock back if at point blank and continue up for a Stresspoint sight as I can.
One of the most combat experienced NCO's I had as a Plt Sgt in the Army, 'Slick' Harrelson drilled one thing in me that I believe has saved my life, "Keep your eye on the front sight, dammit." It is ingrained in me and I'm still here.

 

[Frank Ettin]

As Clint Smith wrote in the January/February, 2008, American Handgunner:

"It's alway argued that in a fight shooters will not look at their sights. I strongly agree -- if no one has ever taught them otherwise. To say that people don't, or won't, look at their sights is wrong. People have, they will in the future, and they'll hit the...target too. The correct alignment of the sights is a learnable skill. Is a textbook perfect sight picture available in every fight? Of course not....In fairness, the sights are only part of the issue -- the jerked on trigger doesn't improve anything."

Even when one has been taught to look at the sights, how much has he actually practiced quickly seeing the adequate sight picture and acting reflexively, without conscious thought, on the rough sight picture? As another trainer, Bennie Cooley, once told me, "It's not that I shoot quicker than you do. It's that I see quicker."

I often wonder if the reason there are so many misses in fights has less to do with the particular technique that shooter has been taught, but the fact that he hasn't trained sufficiently for the technique to become truly reflexive.

 

[vox rationis]

OK how about we put it this way:

With slow, aimed, off hand fire, you should be able to put 5 rounds into 1 inch, or less, at 7 yards. If your shots are outside of this parameter, then slow down.

With controlled rapid fire you should be able to make a "shot gun" type pattern into the A zone at 7 yards (or more). If your shots are significantly tighter than this parameter, speed up; if they are outside of this parameter, slow down.

 

[stephen426]

Son Of Vlad Tepes,

The main goal is to get to the point where you are able to get lead on your target faster than your target can get lead on you. Even if the first hit is not in the A zone, it should hinder your advesary's ability to fight back. Your follow up shots can finish the fight. If you can't hit your target before he hits you, you might not be able shoot back.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...With slow, aimed, off hand fire, you should be able to put 5 rounds into 1 inch, or less, at 7 yards. If your shots are outside of this parameter, then slow down.

With controlled rapid fire you should be able to make a "shot gun" type pattern into the A zone at 7 yards (or more). If your shots are significantly tighter than this parameter, speed up; if they are outside of this parameter, slow down.

I agree. I would suggest, however, one amendment. One should be able to do this at any distance out to at least 15 yards. The point is to learn the proper speed and degree of precision of sight picture appropriate to the distance and problem.

The main goal is to get to the point where you are able to get lead on your target faster than your target can get lead on you. Even if the first hit is not in the A zone, it should hinder your advesary's ability to fight back....

I disagree. A peripheral hit on your assailant probably won't hinder his ability to fight, especially if he's intoxicated, high on drugs or under the influence of an adrenalin dump (which is almost a certainty). Bad hits will most likely not slow the BG down at all; he probably won't even notice them. Only good hits are likely to slow and stop the attack.

I’ve been taught that there were four ways in which shooting an assailant would stop the fight:

[1] psychological -- "I'm shot, it hurts, I don't want to get shot any more."

[2] massive blood loss depriving the muscles and brain of oxygen and thus significantly impairing their ability to function

[3] breaking major skeletal support structures

[4] damaging the central nervous system.

Of those, damage to the central nervous system is the quickest, surest and most likely to be fatal. And hoping the guy will stop because it hurts, is the least sure and most likely to be hazardous to your own health. People, both good and bad, have fought long and hard with serious, and often ultimately fatal wounds. And someone who has massive amounts of adrenalin in his system, like a bad guy under the stress of committing a violent crime might, may not feel much pain from even a serious wound.

Since adrenalin or drugs can blunt the effects of pain, and people have continued to fight when severely wounded, effectively stopping the fight usually requires causing sufficient damage to render the attacker physiologically incapable of continuing the fight, such as from massive blood loss depriving the muscles and brain of oxygen, major damage to important skeletal support structures or damage to the central nervous system.

We are generally taught, and practice, shooting for the center of mass of our attacker, i. e., his chest. It presents a bigger, and generally less mobile, target than the head. And the idea is that within that area of the body there are a lot of major organs that will bleed a lot when damaged. So the center of mass is the usual target of choice because it’s the one we’re most likely to be able to hit. And we thus rely on blood loss depriving the attacker’s muscles of oxygen to stop the fight. The rub is that the effects of blood loss and oxygen deprivation can take some time – during which our attacker will most likely continue to try to hurt us.

We indeed may not have either the time or bullets to waste on peripheral hits that will most likely have no effect on the assailant.

 

[David Armstrong]

But missing a B-27 target at 7 yards and thinking that's point shooting and the way to go isn't a good way to 'survive the usual CCW incident",

I would have thought it rather obvious that missing the target is not good point shooting, and that missing is not a good way to survive the usual CCW incident. Thus the "Spray and pray is not a good shooting technique. "

And so is learning a good sighted fire method.

No disagreement, and I don't think anyone has ever said otherwise. Everything in its place and everything at its time.

And pray tell, david, what if it's not quite the 'usual CCW incident'. Not like you can pick what incident you encounter.

I would think it pretty obvious that if it is not the usual CCW incident you might need something beyond the usual effective response. And while one can't pick what incident they encounter, they can have some control over the incidents they are likely to encounter.

 

[David Armstrong]

"...you don't rely on your sights..." Rubbish. Aimed fire is always better. Both legally and morally.

Yes. However, aimed fired (using the sights) is not always possible. Thus the importance of being able to utilize threat focused shooting.

If you don't use the sights and one bullet hits something or somebody, you're liable.

Whether you use the sights or not really doesn't effect the liability issue much. If you use the sights and hit something you shouldn't, you're not any more or less liable than if you used the threat focused shooting. If you don't use the sights and you hit your target, you aren't any more or less liable than if you used the sights.

 

[David Armstrong]

Only good hits are likely to slow and stop the attack.

While good hits are more likely to insure that the attack will be slowed or stopped, any hits are likely to slow and stop the attack. Most attacks stop without any actual physical requirement---in other words, the BG stops not because he has to, but because he wants to.

 

[Deaf Smith]

Yes. However, aimed fired (using the sights) is not always possible. Thus the importance of being able to utilize threat focused shooting.

No, this is why one trains to bring the weapon up to the same position every time. In doing so the sights ARE in rough alighment. If you still can't see them it won't matter as they are in alingment. This is from the FM of the "MT". The 'flash sight picture" is mearly to confirm the sights, not to adjust.

Even if you used point shooting/threat focused/whatever you would still have to align the weapon with whereever you wanted the bullet to go. The key is indexing. One can easly learn that with a good presentation and sighted fire.

any hits are likely to slow and stop the attack

Bull. Show us the stats that show 'any hits' are likely to slow or stop. I bet you have zero on that david.