Rainbow Six
New member
Chuck,
A double post would have been fine. Your post should be read twice anyway. Well put!
R6
A double post would have been fine. Your post should be read twice anyway. Well put!
R6
point shooting vs aimed shooting
- Thread starter cana
- Start date
I was recently told that under the stress of a violent confrontation, I could not possibly focus on my front sight. Funny, I distictly remember seeing my front sight superimposed on the guy who was pointing a 270 Weatherby in my direction. (and no, I didn't shoot himl but I was younger and supider back then)
In the entire recorded history of gun fighting, no one has ever been killed by a fast noise. Only hits count, and if you want to hit what you're shooting at past arms length (well, okay, maybe double arms' length), you use your sights.
Before anyone jumps to the conclusion that I'm saying point shooting doesn't work at all, think again. I've seen a lot of point shooters who can do some pretty impressive shooting, but most of us need to use our sights in order to hit what we're shooting at. The addition of stress will only make this more necessary, not less.
I've been told that statistics show that police officers rarely use their sights in actual gunfights. Looking at the average hit ratio, I'm inclined to agree. If we used our sights more often, we might have a higher hit ratio. The reason cops don't use their sights more often is that they're not sufficiently TRAINED to do so. The same would apply to legally armed private citizens, except that the average armed private citizen is more likely to be interested in learing to use his/her sidearm than the average LEO. Sad, ain't it?
As a trainer, I'm as impressed by the dedication of a few officers as I am by the apathy of the majority.
------------------
Roger Shambaugh
Ottawa, Kansas
"No man who's in the wrong can stand against
a man who knows he's right and keeps on
a-comin'." Capt. Bill McDonald, Texas Rangers
In the entire recorded history of gun fighting, no one has ever been killed by a fast noise. Only hits count, and if you want to hit what you're shooting at past arms length (well, okay, maybe double arms' length), you use your sights.
Before anyone jumps to the conclusion that I'm saying point shooting doesn't work at all, think again. I've seen a lot of point shooters who can do some pretty impressive shooting, but most of us need to use our sights in order to hit what we're shooting at. The addition of stress will only make this more necessary, not less.
I've been told that statistics show that police officers rarely use their sights in actual gunfights. Looking at the average hit ratio, I'm inclined to agree. If we used our sights more often, we might have a higher hit ratio. The reason cops don't use their sights more often is that they're not sufficiently TRAINED to do so. The same would apply to legally armed private citizens, except that the average armed private citizen is more likely to be interested in learing to use his/her sidearm than the average LEO. Sad, ain't it?
As a trainer, I'm as impressed by the dedication of a few officers as I am by the apathy of the majority.
------------------
Roger Shambaugh
Ottawa, Kansas
"No man who's in the wrong can stand against
a man who knows he's right and keeps on
a-comin'." Capt. Bill McDonald, Texas Rangers
Watching Bob Munden may lead you to believe that point shooting is the end all be all. But he is one in several million... The acception, not the rule.
Sights slow you down? A fraction of a second at best. If more, you are not practicing enough.
Gabe Suarez has posted here on the subject before. He is arguably the most qualified individual TFL has on the subject. Search and read his posts.
Front sight, press...frontsight, press...repeat as necessary...
[This message has been edited by Erik (edited April 13, 2000).]
Sights slow you down? A fraction of a second at best. If more, you are not practicing enough.
Gabe Suarez has posted here on the subject before. He is arguably the most qualified individual TFL has on the subject. Search and read his posts.
Front sight, press...frontsight, press...repeat as necessary...
[This message has been edited by Erik (edited April 13, 2000).]
VictorLouis
New member
Everyone keeps reciting the mantra of "training", and how you will react under "stress". But stress has nothing to do with FRIGHT, which many fall victim to under a lethal assault.
Now, I would agree, that good and plentiful training increases our resistance to slipping into the "fright-zone". BUT, once there, much of today's theories fall flat. I believe that those who saw/used their front sight are not liars, or mistaken. I do think that they did not fall victim to fright. They simply assessed the need for a lethal response to a threat, and made a calculated, determined decision to do so.
We know that budgets will never supply enough money for more "training". And, we know that most of the troops won't supply the initiative, if they did. So, the question is, do we resign those officers to their "fate" if the time should come? Or do we implement some simple, common sense methods into our current curriculum that will allow them a MUCH better chance to live when it's for REAL?
As to the video's, I would find it hard to believe that there weren't at least a few "shooters" represented there. Take any group of 900 cops, at random, and you should find some dedicated competitors, or at least some high-scorers come qualification time.
Now, I would agree, that good and plentiful training increases our resistance to slipping into the "fright-zone". BUT, once there, much of today's theories fall flat. I believe that those who saw/used their front sight are not liars, or mistaken. I do think that they did not fall victim to fright. They simply assessed the need for a lethal response to a threat, and made a calculated, determined decision to do so.
We know that budgets will never supply enough money for more "training". And, we know that most of the troops won't supply the initiative, if they did. So, the question is, do we resign those officers to their "fate" if the time should come? Or do we implement some simple, common sense methods into our current curriculum that will allow them a MUCH better chance to live when it's for REAL?
As to the video's, I would find it hard to believe that there weren't at least a few "shooters" represented there. Take any group of 900 cops, at random, and you should find some dedicated competitors, or at least some high-scorers come qualification time.
It seems to me that being able to fire the first round from the hip would be wise. The extra time to align the sights combined with moving the gun up to align can loose quite a bit of valuable time. I'd rather fire a potentially non-stopping round quickly and then follow with more carefully placed hits while he's recovering from a shot to his shoulder.
Is there any reason that a first shot from the hip should not be used?
Is there any reason that a first shot from the hip should not be used?
A comment on the fright issue. It is appropriate to study fright, to rationalize it, to accept it. Nobody knows how they will react until it happens. There are macho men who freeze up and whimpy geeks who act appropriately. You cannot know until the moment of truth.
But why train as if you will succumb to fright? It makes no sense.
I grew up in a military family. Many years of many war stories... A popular theme was how the training got them through it. Fright came up often. But the deciding factor between who lived to tell about it was training, to hear the veterans talk about it. I recall luck coming in second place. But who relies on luck?
[This message has been edited by Erik (edited April 13, 2000).]
But why train as if you will succumb to fright? It makes no sense.
I grew up in a military family. Many years of many war stories... A popular theme was how the training got them through it. Fright came up often. But the deciding factor between who lived to tell about it was training, to hear the veterans talk about it. I recall luck coming in second place. But who relies on luck?
[This message has been edited by Erik (edited April 13, 2000).]
This debate reminds me of something I read about martial arts. It was comparing Kung Fu with Karate and Taekwondo.
[paraphrase] Karate and taekwondo both give beginners good tools to use. They are relatively quick to get proficient at. But when it comes to masters who gets the art down, then none is better than kung fu.
Lots of training will modify your reflexes. See concert pianists whose fingers 'seem' to flutter on their own. Some refer to this as muscle or body memory. The same can apply to stressfull situations and to fright-freeze responses. Training gets you over the hump better.
But then the question is, do we train in point or sight shooting? Short of spending money and building a moving target range ala special forces training, training sight shooting makes sense. Point shooting works in close range. That range may lengthen due to sight shooting training.
Best to all.
Yenyin
[paraphrase] Karate and taekwondo both give beginners good tools to use. They are relatively quick to get proficient at. But when it comes to masters who gets the art down, then none is better than kung fu.
Lots of training will modify your reflexes. See concert pianists whose fingers 'seem' to flutter on their own. Some refer to this as muscle or body memory. The same can apply to stressfull situations and to fright-freeze responses. Training gets you over the hump better.
But then the question is, do we train in point or sight shooting? Short of spending money and building a moving target range ala special forces training, training sight shooting makes sense. Point shooting works in close range. That range may lengthen due to sight shooting training.
Best to all.
Yenyin
Ok so i'm not a cop and i've never shot anyone.. but for sheer anecdotal purposes:
I shot a match last weekend where the first target had to be engaged while moving backwards to get to cover. Buzzer goes off i draw and point shoot a 0 (prerfect) at 4 yards as i'm scrambling backwards for cover.. i lean out to engage the two far (15 yard) targets bang bang bang bang.. I realize i'm looking OVER the gun, not at the sights. Results were one hit per bad guy (very low) in the -3 section and TWO hits on good guys (very bad).
I'm still new to match shooting.. but in the excitement i think i just plain forgot what the heck i was supposed to be doing. I imagine a LOT of training ends up in that "blackout" of stress etc. However, once you realize you made a mistake you can usually correct it. Thats why training is good.
Dr.Rob
I shot a match last weekend where the first target had to be engaged while moving backwards to get to cover. Buzzer goes off i draw and point shoot a 0 (prerfect) at 4 yards as i'm scrambling backwards for cover.. i lean out to engage the two far (15 yard) targets bang bang bang bang.. I realize i'm looking OVER the gun, not at the sights. Results were one hit per bad guy (very low) in the -3 section and TWO hits on good guys (very bad).
I'm still new to match shooting.. but in the excitement i think i just plain forgot what the heck i was supposed to be doing. I imagine a LOT of training ends up in that "blackout" of stress etc. However, once you realize you made a mistake you can usually correct it. Thats why training is good.
Dr.Rob
You're stressed that you wrote up a poor report. You're afraid of catching AIDs. The body reacts differently to stress and fright. And because each person will react differently there's no such thing as one system that works well for everybody.
------------------
So many pistols, so little money.
------------------
So many pistols, so little money.
Matt,
What is fright? It is different for everyone. That feeling of panic, adrenal dump, often coupled with a flinch, duck, or jump? That's fright. So is slow motion perseption, tunnel vision, and the inability to respond- the classic freeze. That's fright, too.
Like I already posted: It is appropriate to study fright, to rationalize it, to accept it. Nobody knows how they will react until it happens. There are macho men who freeze up and whimpy geeks who act appropriately. You cannot know until the moment of truth.
Erik
What is fright? It is different for everyone. That feeling of panic, adrenal dump, often coupled with a flinch, duck, or jump? That's fright. So is slow motion perseption, tunnel vision, and the inability to respond- the classic freeze. That's fright, too.
Like I already posted: It is appropriate to study fright, to rationalize it, to accept it. Nobody knows how they will react until it happens. There are macho men who freeze up and whimpy geeks who act appropriately. You cannot know until the moment of truth.
Erik
Tecolote and Erik,
You're providing examples of stress and of fright, and you're describing the symptoms, but you aren't defining them. I think we need to agree on the definitions of our terms so we don't have another thread of "training versus fright" that goes round and round without making any progress.
I think that fear and fright are related, but not interchangeable. For instance, you might be afraid of contracting AIDS, but I doubt that you would experience fright as a result (unless you were about to be stabbed with a syringe full of infected blood). Fear can be mild or intense, brief or long term. Fright seems to me to be more of an acute state like rage or ecstasy that can't be sustained for long.
You're providing examples of stress and of fright, and you're describing the symptoms, but you aren't defining them. I think we need to agree on the definitions of our terms so we don't have another thread of "training versus fright" that goes round and round without making any progress.
I think that fear and fright are related, but not interchangeable. For instance, you might be afraid of contracting AIDS, but I doubt that you would experience fright as a result (unless you were about to be stabbed with a syringe full of infected blood). Fear can be mild or intense, brief or long term. Fright seems to me to be more of an acute state like rage or ecstasy that can't be sustained for long.
I practice both point shooting and using the sights with all my pistols. It's much easier to point shoot with my .22, but I agree that is the result of having more ammo to blast away with in practice.
I find that point and shoot works better on subsequent rounds than the first, after which you can correct your "pointing."
If I ever need to shoot, I intend to use the front sight, but if I "forget," hopefully I will have some ingrained reflexes to fall back on.
I find that point and shoot works better on subsequent rounds than the first, after which you can correct your "pointing."
If I ever need to shoot, I intend to use the front sight, but if I "forget," hopefully I will have some ingrained reflexes to fall back on.
John Lawson
New member
"Fright" is synonymous with an intial "startle response" that triggers the full "Fight or Flight Response."
The other definition of "fright" is "alarm", which also triggers the full f/f response.
"Fright" is not synonymous with a retreat into "cowardice."
After the initial startle response, all further bodily changes are involuntary, due to a sudden release of hormones and chemicals into a bloodstream that has picked up velocity due to a more rapidly beating heart and the constriction of certain blood vessels.
You will focus on the perceived threat... and this is the reason that so many hits are recorded on an opponent's gun, his shooting hand and arm. Your sight picture cannot be in sharp focus if you are focusing on your target...the human eye does not have that kind of depth of field. Your memory of a sharp sight picture is just that, a memory. Your sights may have been perfectly aligned, but they had to be blurred. Nobody claimed that the sight picture disappears, only that it blurrs when the target comes into focus. And unlike a poster above claims, if you DON'T focus on the target, the suspect will be blurred and you might hit the little old lady with a shopping cart instead of the suspect. The law requires that you absolutely identify a target before shooting; there is no requirement for identifying a sharp sight picture. Try telling, in court, that you focused on your sights and see what happens.
And, this is why I advocate a shoulder point. It has worked for my officers, and for me.
[This message has been edited by John Lawson (edited April 14, 2000).]
The other definition of "fright" is "alarm", which also triggers the full f/f response.
"Fright" is not synonymous with a retreat into "cowardice."
After the initial startle response, all further bodily changes are involuntary, due to a sudden release of hormones and chemicals into a bloodstream that has picked up velocity due to a more rapidly beating heart and the constriction of certain blood vessels.
You will focus on the perceived threat... and this is the reason that so many hits are recorded on an opponent's gun, his shooting hand and arm. Your sight picture cannot be in sharp focus if you are focusing on your target...the human eye does not have that kind of depth of field. Your memory of a sharp sight picture is just that, a memory. Your sights may have been perfectly aligned, but they had to be blurred. Nobody claimed that the sight picture disappears, only that it blurrs when the target comes into focus. And unlike a poster above claims, if you DON'T focus on the target, the suspect will be blurred and you might hit the little old lady with a shopping cart instead of the suspect. The law requires that you absolutely identify a target before shooting; there is no requirement for identifying a sharp sight picture. Try telling, in court, that you focused on your sights and see what happens.
And, this is why I advocate a shoulder point. It has worked for my officers, and for me.
[This message has been edited by John Lawson (edited April 14, 2000).]