Importance of sights in self defense

These are only my opinions that are based on my own observations and statistical analyses I have read and seen and been trained on.
Click to expand...

I hate statistics. I worked career in LE, the last 23 at the federal level. For 6 I ran an Intelligence Unit. You can make stats support whatever agenda you want.

There is no such thing as an average gunfight. That means that to get a 3 shot average 50 shootings could take 15 hits and 10 shootings take 1 hit. To get an honest assessment of shots fired in gun shots you need to look at each shooting.

Where I believe you can use stats in shooting is for example; in 10,000 shootings that the 357 magnum was used 9,950 required only one hit before the BG ceased hostility.
 
I think statistical analysis is a fine thing. I also know that the analysis is only as good as the data collected, and the skills and objectives of those doing it. Nanuk's example below supports this. His example indicates a 99.5% one shot stop rate when using a 357 magnum. There is absolutely no chance that is a valid stat, it simply makes his point, yet I can now say that based on my recent research, with a 99.5% one stop success rate over 10,000 shootings, the 357 magnum is by far the best for self defense if that suits my agenda. Once that is quoted a few times it becomes part of the internet data base.:rolleyes:

NvrGiveUp while numbers can be used to further an agenda, I understand clearly that things happen very quickly in a self defense encounter. I'm not advocating slow, deliberate bullseye practice as substitute for legitimate self defense training. Point shooting, shooting while moving or grappling, shooting with either hand with and without cover, threat assessment and many other skills are desirable when carrying a gun for self defense. Sight picture and trigger control are as fundamental as the 4 rules for safe and effective use of a firearm in my opinion.
 
This is a really stupid debate, IMHO.

Not sure were this idiocy of "not using sights" in a gunfight comes from but it is complete fallacy.

My background is multiple tours in Afghanistan with enough two way shooting ranges to have an informed opinion.

IMHO...someone is confusing an emergency technique that is the result of having a well trained and proper stance with normallacy.

The winner of a gunfight is the first well placed lethal shot. It is not the first one to get off a shot as many a gunfight loser has taken to their grave.

Use your sights. If your stance is correct and you have trained then in an emergency with close quarters immediate threat where nothing but a hail mary and some good luck will save you, then take the shot.

You should train your muscle memory so that the pistol is rotated towards the direction of fire the moment it clears your holster. In a target ~3 meters away you should be able to put rounds in the bowling pin the moment that muzzle is pointed downrange and clear of the holster.

You should also be able to push your pistol out to position 4 and engage hitting a target at 3 meters in the bowling pin.

Those are all emergency procedures. Tools in the toolbox that does not replace proper sight usage. In fact, those tools are designed to give you the space/time/distance to get on your sights as the range increases.

The fastest and most accurate shooters use their sights.
 
Last edited:
Sight picture and trigger control are as fundamental as the 4 rules for safe and effective use of a firearm in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Do not confuse "E" in your PACE plan with the "P".

Primary, Alternate, Contingency, EMERGENCY
 
I think that over the last 5 pages the point is that it is not an “either/or” proposition

Learn to use the sights and WHEN to do so

Learn to shoot without the sights and WHEN to do that

Learn from real life encounters. The a availability of videos showing actual gunfights gives us the best idea of human performance under stress. We also can readily see the effects of proper training when under attack.

Some folks do extremely well, some fall apart.
 
craddleshooter said:
... In a panic situation, where an officer is caught in a threat by surprise and perhaps overwhelmed by emotion, he or she may not be able to respond with sufficient control to attain a sight picture in the fraction of time available
Click to expand...

If being caught by "surprise" or "overwhelmed by emotion" means you can't effectively utilize a critical technique that ought to be part of your ingrained training and skillset, it's not necessarily a problem with a specific "technique" that needs to be utilized, but a broader training & experience problem.

If someone is caught by surprise and overwhelmed by emotion when attacked in an unarmed situation, he or she may be unable to effectively utilize an appropriate striking/punching technique in the fraction of time available. Does that mean the actual technique is ineffective and ought not be relied upon?

It's long be considered that proper training can help "inoculate" someone to a degree against some of the adverse effects of sudden stress, and help them better access and utilize their learned proper responses during such situations.

The Rule of the 7 P's comes into play, somewhat.

It's not a surprise that over many years of examining LE shooting incidents, one of the most commented upon elements noted by firearms trainers, of cops who have been "successful" in shooting incidents, has been when cops were able to acquire a sight picture or sight alignment and utilize aimed fire. Sure, very close distances have enabled the successful use of point/indexed shooting techniques taught and learned, but once the distances get out beyond very close, it's typically been sighted fire that's been successfully involved.

In a way, thinking it's only necessary to learn only use aimed or unaimed shooting techniques, and not both, is like thinking it's only necessary to learn how to punch or strike with only one hand, instead of both.

How "limited" do you wish to make your ability to be able to try and effectively and successfully respond in an unexpected, chaotic, dynamic and rapidly evolving situation? ;)
 
The most important thing is practice. In a close range, face to face, life and death situation involving firearms, your stress level will be paralyzing. In varying degrees, depending on the individual, you will stop thinking, your ears will not process speech, your body will stiffen, you will have tunnel vision, and you will stop breathing. Again, as I said, it will vary.

Remember the last time you suddenly tripped or slipped and fell to the ground? Remember the mental and physical state you were in on your way down? Ever been in a car wreck? Remember the mental and physical state you were in when the other car traveled that last few feet, just before it hit you? That's approximately the state you'll be in when a gun comes out and you realize that in the next half-second, you will live or die.

What you actually end up doing is following your training: doing what you do automatically, without thinking, from muscle memory, essentially as a reflex action. That action comes from practice and repetition, drawing and firing (you can dry-fire in practice) over and over again, until you can do it without thinking about it. It's much like learning a martial arts technique. When an assailant's fist is coming towards your face in a blur, you don't act; you react.

I had a teacher once who had spent 25 years as a federal drug agent. He drew from concealment and dry-fired 50 times EVERY morning. He could draw and fire so smoothly and naturally, it looked like he didn't even know he was doing it. This kind of training is enormously important and useful in establishing that instant, unthinking, "reaction" response to a self defense situation.

Taking it a step further, one should develop reactive techniques to apply to different situations. For example, close range and further out. With and without sights. I would particularly emphasize that latter, as in a sudden, unexpected, split-second, in-your-face self defense situation, you will have neither the time nor the ability to get in a proper stance, acquire a sight picture, etc. By the time you did, you'd be dead.

This is where the facts vary from people with wartime combat experience. With all due respect to their service, those experiences might not apply to many domestic self-defense situations. You're not going to be walking around in full battle rattle with an AR in an area populated by known enemy attackers. You'll be peacefully walking out of a restaurant with your girlfriend or wife, in street clothes, and violence will be the farthest thing from your mind. She'll look at you and you'll look back at her: "honey, can we stop by Bill and Mary's house and...." LOOK OUT!!! BANG!!! BANG!!! BANG!!! And that's how it will go down. Like that, it's already over. Hopefully, at that point, you'll still be alive.
 
Last edited:
Pointed or aimed, you had better be well versed in both, and able to do either, on demand, without thought, and the response anything but "defensive". ;)
 
This is where the facts vary from people with wartime combat experience. With all due respect to their service, those experiences might not apply to many domestic self-defense situations. You're not going to be walking around in full battle rattle with an AR in an area populated by known enemy attackers.
Click to expand...

This is a fallacy and without basis in reality. There is no difference. While Hollywood and fantasy may depict warfare as two mighty combatants fighting it out on equal terms that is a rare occurrence in battle.

Warfare for both sides mostly consists of catching your enemy completely off guard and unable to resist being murdered.

In fact whatever WWII veteran said, "99% boredom punctuated by seconds of sheer terror" is totally accurate.

The only difference is mindset.

If you choose to leave your weapon in your hootch, the GMV,your nightstand at home, your weapon safe, or glove compartment then it will not be available when you need it most.

If you choose to treat Immediate action Drills, training exercises, and weapon qualifications as something to be tolerated and survived or if you do not train with your Carry Weapon as you carry it, shoot to proficiency, practice magazine changes, etc.....

Then you as a CCW holder will reap the consequences and fight as you train just like any combat soldier. While there are so many who pray to the combat fairy....she does not exist.
 
Last edited:
I read the story of one Union Civil War regimental commander who always ended his pre-battle speech with the words "AIM LOW!" Bill Jordan advocated the belly shot, I wonder if we shouldn't emphasize that more. I have read that in SD/stress/combat situations people tend to shoot high, learn to shoot low, you may not hit your aiming point but you will hit your enemy.
 
A couple of points:

1. Obviously, one should practice for all kinds of situations, not just sights or no sights. Myself, I can say anything inside of 4 or 5 yards, I'll point shoot, and can do COM shots at 6 or 7 yards if I'm pressed for time. But I can visualize other situations where I might, if the situation allows it, take an extra half second to acquire a sight picture. Say, for example, the BG is standing sideways to me (smaller target) at 5 or 6 yards or more. Then I'd probably do a head shot - with sights.

2. Stress. In the crushing, paralyzing, suffocating stress of a life and death, split second self defense shooting, you're going to be too stressed out to focus on sights, unless you've practiced that shot about 10,000 times. You're not going to stand there thinking, "well, let's see, he's about 7 yards, I'd better use my sights.... ok, let's see.... focus on the front sight...."
 
Interesting comments by Patrick Sweeney.

August 2017 Guns & Ammo
One Size Fits All Is A Lie [Most of the Time]
Patrick Sweeney

"...Having spent more than a half-century pulling triggers, I've shot just about every handgun known to man. I have fired far beyond a million rounds, and much of it was done in hard practice and stress-inducing matches."

"I do not point shoot, and anyone who does and advocates it is trying to sell you a bill of goods. (You get intentional hits only by aiming.)"​
 
I'd argue there's a difference between competition and life or death situations. I've done plenty of practice on timers and while the additional stress there is important and certainly beneficial, it was nothing compared to the force on force I've done (which is still not life or death). Then there's also the reality that many engagements are at contact distances and you might be trying to maintain control of your weapon. Those distances and situations aren't replicated in many competitions. I've done a variation of the 21 foot drill where we saw firsthand that while those differences on the timer we saw by shooting reflexively as opposed to sighted might not seem like much, they were enough to make the difference between having rounds on the target before it reached you and not having rounds on target. Time and distance all factor into using reflexive shooting.

I can't discount his experience, nor do I want to. What I've found in my not very long shooting career is that when it comes to shooting, opinions vary much like they do on any number of topics. Many skilled people often have very different opinions and believe in them completely. I have yet to figure out a foolproof way to determine which shooter, instructor, etc. has all the knowledge and is the one I should listen to. In the meantime I try to listen to all of them, at least give what they recommend an honest try, and then evaluate what seems to work best for me and my gear.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
JohnKSa said:
Interesting comments by Patrick Sweeney.

August 2017 Guns & Ammo
One Size Fits All Is A Lie [Most of the Time]
Patrick Sweeney

"...Having spent more than a half-century pulling triggers, I've shot just about every handgun known to man. I have fired far beyond a million rounds, and much of it was done in hard practice and stress-inducing matches."

"I do not point shoot, and anyone who does and advocates it is trying to sell you a bill of goods. (You get intentional hits only by aiming.)"​
Click to expand...

How does he define point shooting? Many who advocate it define it more as a target focus technique that is still a form of aiming, just not with a hard traditional sight picture. If he is talking about shooting with the gun down by the hip, below your peripheral vision, I don't think many people teach that for other than retention distance.
 
There's different areas of importance between combat/speed shooting and refined bulls eye type shooting.

Pressing the trigger at the speed needed to control the sights to hit your target is what it's all about.

If the threat is in anyway difficult to hit, you will need to slow down on the trigger and focus more on sight alignment.

If the threat is close and easy to hit, then this is no time for a bullseye type group, in fact, you need to be pounding shots into the threat as fast as possible and stop the threat NOW!

Most of the time you will be somewhere between the two above examples.

Practice this process slow at first....you can't train the brain with speed.

Your decision on how fast vs. how slow to press the trigger, how much front sight vs. combat look through and/or body index is based on two things, your perception of the threat situation AND your perception of your skill with your equipment.

If you practice only one trigger press and sight alignment you are a target shooter and not preparing yourself properly for the street, and doing yourself an injustice.

Recognize the need for different levels of trigger press and sight alignment, practice at those levels and in between. In the fight have the ability to adapt to the situation smoothly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top