Importance of sights in self defense

[K_Mac]

I agree a weapon mounted light can be used to effectively illuminate a potential attacker without pointing the weapon directly at that person. I also know that I am more comfortable with a handheld light. Either way a little training and a lot practice is needed for any low light situation.

I know there some who can achieve amazing accuracy without the use of sights. I also know some very well trained and skilled defensive handgun shooters who always use the front sight to verify alignment unless at hand to hand distance. Even on my second generation LCP, I use a brightly colored front sight to verify alignment. My answer is emphatically yes! Sights are necessary on a defensive handgun.

 

[fastbolt]

... I also know some very well trained and skilled defensive handgun shooters who always use the front sight to verify alignment unless at hand to hand distance. Even on my second generation LCP, I use a brightly colored front sight to verify alignment. My answer is emphatically yes! Sights are necessary on a defensive handgun.

I also dab some brightly colored nail polish on the front sight of my LCP's, as well as my assorted J-frames (except the pair of M&P 340's, which have the standard XS plastic ring/dot night sight). I tend to think that bit of bright color (under "normal" light conditions) tend to help align the little guns when it pops up in the lower edge of my vision, even when the guns are far below my sight plane.

Here's an informal experiment we once tried, on our range, which helped give us some small bit of insight into the potential value of such things.

Many years ago the former head instructor and I tried an experiment with the rest of the range instructor staff. We were wondering about the importance of peripheral vision and being able to visually index/align the handgun when it was held anywhere from just forward of the hip. The distance decided upon for the experiment was approx 3-4yds.

To start, we had each shooter stand and fire several rounds from the holster on a silhouette, 1-handed. Any grip technique with the gun held below chest level, and forward of their hip/holster, was fine for our test. Use what they thought was practical, but also gave them the most confidence to get solid hits at that close distance. As you might expect for some seasoned instructors, they did pretty well. Nicely clustered and contained hits.

Here's the important part, though. When questioned, all of the instructors said they'd been able to roughly see their guns in the lower edge of their peripheral vision, but none of them thought it had particularly aided them in getting their accurate hits.

Then, we added something to obstruct their peripheral vision. We used a large cardboard target backboard, held horizontal (flat) to the ground, positioned about chest height, in front of the shooters. It blocked their vision looking straight down, and for almost the whole way to the targets, but didn't obstruct seeing the whole target.

We repeated the test, allowing them to stand positioned to the threat target before we added the cardboard. Then we signaled each of them to shoot. (And they were all watching as each individual shooter did this, too.)

The first string resulted in some larger clusters of hits, and the presence of the obstruction bothered most of them, even though it didn't physically hinder their draw, presentation or firing. They admitted they were surprised that the presence of the obstruction (of the cardboard) prevented them from seeing their guns in the lower field of their vision. In other words, they didn't feel as comfortable when they couldn't see the outline of their pistol slides above their hands.

We tried it one more time, and this time we changed how we let them "prepare" to face the threat target. We had them stand facing off at an angle from the target, and then positioned the cardboard in front of them, and then we allowed them to turn and face the target. Then we signaled them to draw and shoot.

That next string showed some even looser clusters of his, including some surprising misses. After some discussion it was generally agreed that if they had to turn and face a threat, and then couldn't "see" their drawn guns in the edge of their vision, it was surprisingly harder to orient their guns on the targets and get solid hits.

They were all pretty surprised that when it came to shooting at threat targets out past "arm's reach", that they were apparently "visually indexing" their guns while orienting on the targets. More than they'd thought, at the beginning of the informal experiment, at any rate.

I've sometimes wondered how such an experiment might go if repeated nowadays, with some of the younger instructors who have installed some of the larger, brightly colored painted front sights or the brightly colored plastic tubes on their front sights. I wonder how much they're unconsciously relying on being able to pick up and "see" those things on their slides, when shooting from low positions where they don't think that they're "aiming", or "aligning" their guns in their peripheral vision on a threat.

Naturally, it's very difficult to induce the sort of "tunnel vision" sensory deficit that can occur in serious stress, outside the static/square range, so there's still the question of how much of their gun any particular person might actually see in a dynamic life threatening situation. Dunno.

In the meantime, though, I'll continue to add some dab of bright color to the front sights of some of my stubby revolvers and the LCP's, though. Can't hurt, might help.

 

[OhioGuy]

Good discussion! How about this summary?

Well this has turned into a pretty solid discussion! I especially appreciate the feedback from personal experience, as well as the research that people are familiar with. The "right" answer seems to fall between the extremes of overgeneralizing, whether "sights don't matter, you'll never see 'em in a gunfight" or "always take time to focus on the front sight and nothing else!"

Would anyone take issue with the following generalizations about the use of sights in rapid self defense scenarios?

0. Practice situational awareness, don't be stupid, and avoid the problem to begin with. Like Mr. Miyagi said, "Best way to not get hit, is don't be there!"

1. Within a relatively close distance, maybe 0-15' where margins for error are much greater, speed rules and the best defensive tactic is to either point-shoot or use some other unsighted technique to get hits on target as quickly as possible.

2. Within a midrange, maybe 15'-45' (greatly depending upon the shooter's eyesight, level of skill, etc.) a sight picture is required, but a "flash" sight picture may be good enough to land hits for the sake of speed.

3. Beyond that distance, careful sight alignment and aiming are necessary.

4. Optical sighting systems, including red dots or lasers, *can* present an advantage at all distances by placing the visual cue on the same plane as the target itself.

5. In all cases, trigger control is key -- no amount of aiming or technological wizardry will compensate for sloppy trigger slapping.

6. In all cases, regular training must include these scenarios. Any shooters hoping to defend themselves must be well-practiced in rapid point shooting, mid-range shooting and longer range precision shooting.

Is that a fair summary?

 

[OhioGuy]

I agree a weapon mounted light can be used to effectively illuminate a potential attacker without pointing the weapon directly at that person. I also know that I am more comfortable with a handheld light. Either way a little training and a lot practice is needed for any low light situation.

I know there some who can achieve amazing accuracy without the use of sights. I also know some very well trained and skilled defensive handgun shooters who always use the front sight to verify alignment unless at hand to hand distance. Even on my second generation LCP, I use a brightly colored front sight to verify alignment. My answer is emphatically yes! Sights are necessary on a defensive handgun.

Someone told me that his home defense setup includes a pair of electronic earmuffs (not just for hearing protection, but so he can better hear whether anyone is approaching) and a head lamp, so his hands are free, the light shines where he looks and he never has to illuminate anything with his gun.

Certainly not fashionable, but it did seem to be tactically well thought-out

 

[OhioGuy]

I consider this post to substantially unrealistic in the way it is currently presented. I would recommend that the OP at least qualify each of these "proclamations" with some conceptual commentary and perhaps explain how he managed to develop these rather naïve sounding opinions.

First of all, these were not my statements. They're near-verbatim quotes I've heard from other shooters at ranges, including two people who were (or claimed to be) NRA certified instructors. I never said whether I did or didn't agree with the statements, I was just presenting them for consideration. Idle chatter at gun stores and public ranges may not count for much, but they probably reflect the thinking and therefore practice of a huge number of shooters who believe they're prepared to defend themselves. Especially newbies who may tend to follow whatever the experienced-sounding guy told them.

My commentary on the rationale behind these people's statements, as best I can theorize:

Nobody uses sights in a gunfight."

Probably a loose over-generalization along the lines of "these things happen so fast, and usually at such close ranges, that you probably won't have time to get your gun to a position in which you can align your sights...so just point and shoot the bastard."

"You won't have time to see your sights; looking at them could get you killed."

Same as above -- going to full extension and indexing your sights could cost the split second you have before the other guy lands a lucky shot on you, or stabs, clubs or tackles you.

"If he's far enough away that you need sights, then it'll never hold up in court."

This one really threw me, but as the source was not someone I'd generally consider naive or stupid, I think its more like this: (1) most defensive encounters, at which someone is a real and imminent threat, are at distances where sight alignment isn't necessary to land the hits needed to stop the attack and/or escape. (2) If this person was assuming that sights only become necessary beyond a certain distance, say 10-15 yards, then someone's lawyer might make the case that the threat was far enough away that you could have run or otherwise escaped. That's my best guess as to what he was getting at.

He'd also once commented separately that if someone is aiming a gun at you from a distance, the worst thing you can do is remain stationary while you line up your sights. "Get the hell out of there" was the recommended solution, and I'd presume that sight alignment at a full sprint isn't going to happen.

So I think there was some rationale behind these otherwise naive sounding statements.

The "law" of "3 shots, 3 seconds, 3 yards" is often cited. So the usual conclusion given is that sights don't matter, night sights are a waste of money, and lasers or red dots are just gimmicky party tricks.

One thing held in common was this: everyone who made these comments did seem to think that the most likely -- if not ONLY -- scenario that a civilian would ever encounter in CCW would be contact-distance, Your-Wallet-Or-Your-Life robberies or muggings. That premise may very well be flawed, but that seemed to be an overarching premise anyway.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

I have seen videos where people involved in real life self defense shootings have no recollection of using their sights, yet it is obvious that they are using their sights, bringing the sights up to eye level before firing.

Most of what I see when people are instinctively or reflexively shooting is indexing their guns. They are still very much using visual clues to orient the gun properly.

"Nobody uses sights in a gunfight."

"You won't have time to see your sights; looking at them could get you killed."

In terms of the things that you have heard, OhioGuy about what will or will not happen in a fight, don't believe any such predictions, or demand to know what the outcome will be because obviously these folks are psychic and if they are psychic, they can tell you the whole story, right? Nobody knows what is going to happen in your fight. Maybe you don't have time to use your sights. Maybe you don't even have time to extend your arms into firing position before shooting. Maybe you have time to put on a ballistic vest, shooting glasses, and muffs. Maybe you have time to call 911, maybe you don't.

"If he's far enough away that you need sights, then it'll never hold up in court."

Did you notice that nobody ever cites a law that stipulates this or anything relating to distance for self defense? That is because distance is not a legal standard for self defense. Vic Stacy engaged in 'self defense' (defense of another, then of himself) at a distance of 150+ feet with a revolver. You can bet he used his sights. You bet is was 100% justified self defense.

Self defense is more determined by whether or not the person has intent, opportunity, and ability to cause harm to you or somebody else more so than by some arbitrary distance from you.

The "law" of "3 shots, 3 seconds, 3 yards" is often cited. So the usual conclusion given is that sights don't matter, night sights are a waste of money, and lasers or red dots are just gimmicky party tricks.

ps: What often comes up too are figures about the hit/miss rates of police in gunfights, and these are usually dismissed as irrelevant to CCW because we aren't kicking in doors, and we won't likely be robbed from 15 yards away.

No, you aren't likely to be robbed (or raped) from 15 yards away. That is very true. But you may get shot from 15 yards away, 50 yards (Vic Stacy), 50-100 yards (DC Sniper), 300 yards (Las Vegas), or over 500 (UT shooter) yards away by a person trying to kill you. Why would you not have a right to defend yourself just because the person is far away?

 

[MTT TL]

Someone told me that his home defense setup includes a pair of electronic earmuffs (not just for hearing protection, but so he can better hear whether anyone is approaching) and a head lamp, so his hands are free, the light shines where he looks and he never has to illuminate anything with his gun.

Headlamps are not always a great choice either. Something with a momentary on switch is more desirable.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

1. Within a relatively close distance, maybe 0-15' where margins for error are much greater, speed rules and the best defensive tactic is to either point-shoot or use some other unsighted technique to get hits on target as quickly as possible.

I somewhat disagree with this. As you get closer, less skill is necessary for someone to shoot you as well. Handguns are not great fight stoppers. Unless you hit someone in the brain or upper central nervous system, making the first hit does little to stop them from still shooting you. I think too many of us think of gunfights as being like Westerns where whoever is slower loses; but that’s not the case. I’ve watched more than a few real gunfights now where the winner wasn’t the first to shoot or even the first to get a hit.

At close ranges, if you are facing someone who is willing to fight, you need better than A-zone accuracy or you are likely to be shot also. Look at the FBI shootout, the very first hit on Platt was fatal. Platt murdered the man who fired it and his partner despite this. At 15 feet, someone has the rest of their life to kill you.

 

[MTT TL]

At 0-2' (contact distance) sights won't matter at all because you won't be able to use your sights and hit probability is very high.

From 2-4' you could use your sights but probably not a great idea since your attacker could grab your weapon or knock it away with your arms extended. Hit ratio drops tremendously, likely for these reasons.

Where is the old time/distance reaction zone chart?

 

[TunnelRat]

At close ranges, if you are facing someone who is willing to fight, you need better than A-zone accuracy or you are likely to be shot also.

As I said above, from my limited experience I can't say there is a guaranteed distance at which reflexive is always better. I do know that at 3 yds shooting reflexively I can cut ~3" groups on the upper thoracic cavity shooting at full speed. Certainly well within the A zone. The farther I move out the more this obviously changes. Now at that same distance I do one hole drills with sighted slow fire and don't have any issue. How tight do the groups need to be? Given the limited effectiveness of handgun rounds getting that critical hit isn't a given. I think even if you do plan to start shooting reflexively you should be evaluating your effectiveness as the fight progresses. Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result is the definition of insanity, but I've seen people even in force on force freeze up and keep doing the same thing. Having the clarity of thought to change your tactics in a fight also isn't a given.

 

[OhioGuy]

As I said above, from my limited experience I can't say there is a guaranteed distance at which reflexive is always better. I do know that at 3 yds shooting reflexively I can cut ~3" groups on the upper thoracic cavity shooting at full speed. Certainly well within the A zone. The farther I move out the more this obviously changes. Now at that same distance I do one hole drills with sighted slow fire and don't have any issue. How tight do the groups need to be? Given the limited effectiveness of handgun rounds getting that critical hit isn't a given. I think even if you do plan to start shooting reflexively you should be evaluating your effectiveness as the fight progresses. Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result is the definition of insanity, but I've seen people even in force on force freeze up and keep doing the same thing. Having the clarity of thought to change your tactics in a fight also isn't a given.

One training class had us running drills like these:

1. On the buzzer, draw from the holster and fire one shot "from the hip" at retention (target at arm's length)
2. Step back and come to full extension, fire one shot at the torso unsighted (target at about 5')
3. Retreat to a position of cover, fire an accurate sighted shot (target at 10')

Of course, drills like these are staged with "cover" being available when you need it, nothing to trip over while you retreat, only one attacker, no consequences of a miss, etc.

With a laser trainer at home, I often practice drawing and shooting from the hip at contact distance, 5', 10' and 15' trying to index my elbow at my hip joint for consistency. At contact distance I can't miss, at 5' it's still in the A zone, 10' it's still "pretty good," 15' is far less consistent, and even just bringing the gun to eye level results in more accuracy.

 

[TunnelRat]

Those are good drills and cover the type of progression I'm trying to get across. I'm just trying to convey that like most things it's not all one way or all the other. Ideally you'd mix the two as needed.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

 

[Rangerrich99]

Good discussion.

There seems to be at least two question being debated here.

1) Is it necessary to use the sights for every shot to get good hits?

2) Should we shoot at all without using the sights?

As for myself, I'm no LEO or combat veteran; I'm just an average Joe, so to speak. And wherever possible, I try to use the sights on my gun. I won't try to get into the technicalities of "flash pictures" and so forth because I'm a rank amateur compared to many of you and it would sound ridiculous. I will say that I do at least try to find the front sight for most of my shooting. Anything longer than about 10 yards, and I pretty much have to get a decent sight picture to keep my hits inside the A-box.

However, I recently watched a few videos at my close quarters defensive handgun classes where the potential victims were ambushed at close range and had no choice but to draw and shoot one-handed, and in at least three cases, had to fire from a non-standard position, two of them were basically hip-shots. One of those was from the man's back on the ground.

We also were given an observation from a well-known gunfighter (sorry I can't remember his name right now, Ayoob, Hackathorn, someone). I'm paraphrasing here: 'there are three things you will never feel you have enough of in a gunfight: time, space, and bullets.'

The lesson was there are times when you just don't have the time to bring the gun up and shoot from a Weaver/modified Weaver/Isosceles/etc. stance. Sometimes the attack happens so quickly that you barely have time to draw and get the gun pointed in the right direction. Sometimes you don't even have that much time.

Did those point-shots in the videos stop the fight right then and there? Nope. Follow-up shots were necessary in each case. But they did get hits, and those hits and the attackers' subsequent reflexive reactions (flinching/pulling away) gave the defenders a split second to back away/fall away and get a better grip on the gun for their follow-up shots. In one of the incidents that one shot to the side was enough to effectively end the fight, as the attacker turned and ran out of the store.

Should they have waited until they could've gotten themselves into a more stable, two-handed technically perfect stance to fire a shot? Based on what we saw in the videos, the answer to that was a clear "no."

And the more I learn at those classes, the more of these types of video clips I watch, the more I realize that being able to stand there in a mechanically perfect stance and deliver rounds as if I were at the range punching paper is a fantastic luxury that many (not most, but many) times I will not have, should I become the subject of such an encounter.

In fact, it's seems fairly likely that I'll have to fire my gun one-handed, probably while trying to find cover or even just ducking, and from a body position that is not perfectly stable. And that might include having to point-shoot for my life.

So with that reality in mind, I think it's necessary to my overall training regimen to practice shooting one-handed (both right and left), from non-standard positions, such as kneeling, from the ground, peeking around cover, etc. And so that includes point-shooting, whether it's from the "hip," (I actually shoot more from the side of my ribs than the hip), or from the center of my chest, or whatever.

Now someone stated earlier something to the effect of, 'you need better than a few A-box shots to stop an attacker.' And I would agree with that, but doesn't it also stand to reason that some hits are better than no hits (going with the hockey mantra, "you have to get shots on goal to score")?

Also, isn't there a chance that some of those 'A-box' hits will in fact hit something vital?

And don't the odds of getting a CNS/vital hit while point-shooting increase if you practice such shots? I mean, I'm not saying we can become the next Bob Munden, but take this video clip for example:

https://youtu.be/MXds-RgjOe4
(I made several mistakes during this drill, for bonus points maybe someone can figure out what they were)

The first three shots are all point shots, two from the side of the ribs, and the third is a chest indexed shot. Two of those rounds landed within 1.5 inches of each other, the other was about 6 inches below the other two. All shots were inside the 'A-box.' Two of those shots would've most likely impacted the spine had the bullets penetrated as advertised.

Yes, there was probably some luck in the POI of those shots, but I practice this type of shooting at least once a month, so my groups rarely print outside the A-box area.

Starting to digress. I was just trying to make the observation that sometimes one doesn't have the time or space to get into a technically perfect stance/position to take a shot in a defensive situation. Sometimes you have to work with whatever God/Fate gives you.

Anyway, I've enjoyed reading this thread and the varying opinions expressed here.

 

[Sharkbite]

I often practice drawing and shooting from the hip at contact distance, 5', 10' and 15' trying to index my elbow at my hip joint for consistency. At contact distance I can't miss, at 5' it's still in the A zone, 10' it's still "pretty good," 15' is far less consistent, and even just bringing the gun to eye level results in more accuracy.

And that sums it up nicely. Inside double arms reach, firing from a retention position or, at most, at compressed high ready results in good hits without sights. Beyond that distance hits fall off and sights increase the hit probability

I go so far as to have my students shoot from different levels of extension to see what the hits are like as the gun comes fully out. Beyond about 5-6 yards the gun at full extension and looking for the sights seems to yield the best results. Just Inside that looking over the gun works well. At Knife fighting distances, shoot from retention

 

[Brit]

Utilizing the Punch Draw. Where you utilize the draw stroke to orient the two, or one, handed combat grip, the sights are seen, as the first round is fired helps in first round effective hits. The sights kick, from where the gun was aimed.

The difference in seeing the sights, or not (looking over the gun) is a split second. A burst of rounds that hit, where you want them, is more likely to be effective (3 or 4 rounds) than point shot ones. Just saying.

 

[fastbolt]

If you were to treat each and every round fired as your only round, would you want each and every one to be accurate, or just pointed in the hopeful direction?

This sometimes reminds me of another instructor I knew when we'd first went from revolvers to hi-cap 9's.

One day the head instructor was checking and assessing the training staff using some drills involving pepper poppers. These were all guys who had spent their previous years as cops and trainers shooting revolvers (from .357 Magnum to .44 Magnum), and who typically had shooting skills superior to the "average" cop shooter. A couple had previously been on shooting teams.

Things were fine, as you might expect with a bunch of seasoned instructors, with everyone making nicely accurate and controlled hits ... until ...

When it was the turn of that guy, he drew and rapidly emptied his whole magazine, throwing up dirt and sand all around a pepper popper. He was "loosely aiming", but shooting faster than he could see the sights between shots. He hit the popper a couple of times, but low and not well enough to knock it over, and most of his shots were misses in the near vicinity of it.

The head instructor didn't care for that response, obviously. When asked why the hell the instructor had "sprayed and prayed", he was silly enough to give the answer that he thought that was why they gave him so many rounds in his hi-cap mags. (No, he'd not have acted that way if he'd been shooting a lo-cap revolver.)

Now, this was a long time ago, but it illustrates a point that some folks, even with some training and experience under their belt, might sometimes make the mistake of thinking having a greater number of rounds available before having to reload might mistake that for being able to "absorb" some misses.

Well, you're responsible for each round fired, so why not act as if you're responsible - and desire - to have each and every round hit the intended threat, in a solid manner?

Another peeve I had as younger instructor was the occasional guy who actually said that he considered his first DA shot, using a traditional double action pistol (DA/SA), to be a "throw away" shot.

I always looked at it as that first shot being absolutely critical, as it might turn out to be the only shot I had available to me. I'm ultimately going to be held responsible for where it goes, so I might as well make it hit where I want it to hit, right? Might just save my life, too.

 

[AK103K]

Another peeve I had as younger instructor was the occasional guy who actually said that he considered his first DA shot, using a traditional double action pistol (DA/SA), to be a "throw away" shot.

I believe this Jeff Coopers solution to the DA autos, due to his disdain of them?

I remember seeing him make that very comment a couple of times in print. Shoot the first DA round into the ground as you bring the "crunchenticker" up, to cock the hammer.


As far as speed and hi cap guns (or any gun for that matter), I never understood the whole "Spray and Pray" thing. Those who can shoot, dont seem to have the problem. More rounds to shoot, simply means more rounds on target. At least thats how I always looked at it. Its always going to be up to you to put them there though.

Shooting quickly, with control, takes some practice, but isnt difficult. Sighted or unsighted.

 

[OhioGuy]

Another peeve I had as younger instructor was the occasional guy who actually said that he considered his first DA shot, using a traditional double action pistol (DA/SA), to be a "throw away" shot.

I always looked at it as that first shot being absolutely critical, as it might turn out to be the only shot I had available to me. I'm ultimately going to be held responsible for where it goes, so I might as well make it hit where I want it to hit, right? Might just save my life, too.

Another option would be to learn how to properly shoot a DA shot!

I'll admit I'm still more likely to jerk a heavier trigger, but by forcing myself to shoot DA frequently I've become pretty proficient with it. Especially with sights

 

[SIGSHR]

I have read that under stress most people shoot high. I read of one Union regimental commander who always ended his "just before the battle" speech with the exhortation "Shoot low!"

 

[fastbolt]

Another option would be to learn how to properly shoot a DA shot!

How can I phrase this and not risk violating forum rules? How about ...

Abso-freaking-lutely.

This is one of the reasons I've often observed that handgunners who properly learned their foundation handgunning skills on DA revolvers, were usually better able to adapt to other handgun designs & trigger modes, compared to the newer shooters who only learned their skills using one of the myriad DAO-ish plastic pistols.

Especially if we're talking about learning to properly and effectively run a Magnum DA revolver, using Magnum loads.

Of course, over time there's usually a "price" to be "paid", to one degree or another, after many years of being subjected to Magnum recoil. More's the pity.