Using front sight

[Nnobby45]

I was under the impression that point shooting didnt use the sights at all. I still use the sights, they are just not the point of focus. Is this point shooting or am I just special?

It does get a little confusing. I think what many, if not most, refer to as point shooting, is actually focusing on the target and using the sight as a reference. That's still a form of sighted fire.


A lot different than "real" point shooting where sights aren't visible at all. Some have referred to that as "instinct" shooting.

Maybe we've just been disagreeing about the degree of sighted fire. Focus on front sight vs on target. Both methods allow for seeing both target and sights.

 

[bogieb]

Using the front sight always works. It is the fail-safe method to make hits. You can have any stance, any grip, and position, even hold the pistol upside down in your hands.

Well, that's good - as long as you can actually see the front sights. For those of us whose arms aren't long enough anymore (they shrunk with old age), that is problematic. Sure, I can get special glasses for use while at the range, but in SD circumstanses, odds are those glasses will not be in my nose, so I practice the way I will actually be seeing in the real world.

 

[cavymeister]

So, is the answer: "Both have their place"? I mean, if you can't see your front sight, then you can't sighted fire, but sighted fire is the most accurate. I have read that you fall back to your training and as such you should practice with the weapons and way you will shoot in a SD situation. That being said, you should practice to be as accurate as possible for your particular limits.

 

[David Armstrong]

If target focused shooting is so effective and is thought to be the primary technique, then why don't we just toss the sights?

Because, unllike some, target focus proponents don't try to claim that one-size-fits-all. Target focused shooters and trainers, AFAIK, will ALL say one should use the sights whenever possible, but that one needs target focus skills for those times when focus on the sights is not possible, which seems to be quite frequent in close-range personal defense situations.

 

[David Armstrong]

I was under the impression that point shooting didnt use the sights at all. I still use the sights, they are just not the point of focus. Is this point shooting or am I just special?

Traditionally sighted fire referred to focusing on getting a sight picture to aim the firearm and target focused/point shooting meant focusing on the target itself rather than the sights. In point shooting you can have the sights in the sighting plane or they may be out of the sighting plane, but if your focus is on the target you are point shooting in the traditional sense.

 

[David Armstrong]

Well, that's good - as long as you can actually see the front sights.

Right, and that is the main flaw with sighted fire, IMO. It ignores the reality that often, due to physical or psychological issues, it is literally impossible to see the sights, much less use them to any effectiveness.

 

[Jim March]

Question: if you're focused on the front sight, how do you tell if a guy just pulled out a cellphone versus a 380?

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

NYPD's SOP9 reports a high percentage of officers who survive gunfights and say they did not use their sights.

Did not use their sights or don't recall using their sights? On a related note, when after the shooting was this statement made? Many agencies now wait at least 24 hours to debrief officers involved in shootings because the statements made immediately after the shooting are often not the best.

I've read speculation from psychologists that your brain continues to process information during a high-stress event but will "discard" stuff that doesn't appear critical to life or death survival. This information will be "lost" but will be recalled several hours after the event as the body/brain slows down and has time to process the "non-critical" information that the brain ignored during the event.

I ask because as a competition shooter, I've definitely had runs where I don't remember using my sights; but based on the results, I was clearly using them. I've also had runs where I only remember using my sights because I would be missing a bunch and think to myself "slow down, front sight" and start picking up hits. If I can forget that under relatively mild stress like competition, then I wonder how much of the "I didn't use sights" is actually "I don't recall using sights because I had so many other things rushing through my head at that moment."

 

[Mike Irwin]

I use the front sights on my S&W revolvers as back scratchers.

VERY effective.

 

[David Armstrong]

Did not use their sights or don't recall using their sights?

Does it matter? Everything is a matter of recall. One asssumes in doing research that the person is accurately relaying information to the best of their ability. If a shooter says they saw or they recall seeing their sights, we assume they used their sights. If the shooter says they didn't see or don't recall seeing their sights, we assume they did not use their sights.

I ask because as a competition shooter, I've definitely had runs where I don't remember using my sights; but based on the results, I was clearly using them.

And thanks to video we definitely have cases where a shooter "remembers" using their sights but it is clear they physically could not have done so.
I understand your points, but given the state of science at this time it appears we pretty much just have to take the individuals word for what happened, barring some actual evidence to the contrary.

 

[Jim March]

Does it matter? Everything is a matter of recall.

BZZZT! Wrong answer!

If you'd been in a situation where you life was really on the line, and the whole world slowed down and all that funky stuff, you'd know that your memory afterwards was very screwed up. To save time, your brain starts routing data past your short-term memory, or doesn't fork it over there, or something. It's an emergency boost system. You're still 100% functional, you've just crippled your memory circuit to boost speed to the max.

Most of my incidents of this sort involved near-motorcycle-wrecks. I was very, VERY functional but I also did things I cannot at ALL remember.

 

[BillCA]

I use the front sights on my S&W revolvers as back scratchers.

VERY effective.

The Patridge sights are best!

During my training days and especially at the academy we went over the fundamentals quite a lot. Besides that, we studied the Newhall reports (it was only a couple of years prior) and two decade-long studies - one from LAPD and one from KC, Mo. In the two studies, officers were asked questions about what they did and what they saw. Some specific questions (Do you remember using your sights? What do you remember about using your sights?) brought up some good points for training programs.

Officers who survived uninjured or with only minor injuries all recalled using their sights. Some of them vividly. One officer shooting in the early dawn light recalled seeing his red-ramp front sight so clearly that he could see a bit of holster leather caught in the 3rd serration. He still bullseyed the suspect with his 2nd round. Other officers reported similar results.[1]

Officers who were injured in shootouts did not recall using their sights by a 3.5:1 ratio. For every injured officer who used his front sights, 3.5 others did not. One officer who was hit in the side and had fragments hit him in the forehead fired five misses and retreated to reload. With blood in his eyes, he calmed down, wiped at his forehead and re-engaged. He said he focused on his front sight and took the first shot he had. Five misses between 2 to 7 yards and one solid hit at 16 yards.

Almost none of the officers reported being able to determine if they'd made a hit unless the suspect showed a reaction to it (clutching the area, bending over, turning or falling).[2]

The lessons learned were that focusing on the front sight provides the best accuracy in a gunfight. And it reinforces the axiom: Speed is fine, accuracy is final. One may succeed at close range by "point shooting" where the front sight is in the peripheral vision (with practice). One can also succeed at close range if the eye can see the front sight is on the target, with practice. But one will almost certainly succeed if focused on the front sight.


[1] One officer was wounded because he switched from his S&W to a Colt Python with a yellow insert on the front sight. In the fight, he expected the red-ramp sight and couldn't see the yellow one until being hit in the thigh jogged his memory. That's an important lesson right there.
[2] An officer said that he could see the suspect's clothing "dimple" from bullet impacts but the suspect didn't react to them until he was hit in the throat. But most officers said it was difficult to determine if a hit was acutally made.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Yes, I'd say it matters. I have no specific memory of using my brakes on my drive to work this morning; but if based on that lack of memory I tried to drive home without using my brakes, I bet I would have some problems - however effective downshifting might be in slowing the car down in some circumstances.

 

[David Armstrong]

If you'd been in a situation where you life was really on the line, and the whole world slowed down and all that funky stuff, you'd know that your memory afterwards was very screwed up.

BTDT, doesn't matter. We are discussing what someone reports after an event, and the reports are based on recall, barring some other evidence. One can certainly argue about how accurate the recall is, and I agree with that, but until something better comes along that is what we are stuck with.

 

[David Armstrong]

Yes, I'd say it matters. I have no specific memory of using my brakes on my drive to work this morning; but if based on that lack of memory I tried to drive home without using my brakes, I bet I would have some problems

Of course, but that proves my point. We report based on recall, but that recall can be contradicted by factual evidence. Personally, I'd bet if you thought about it you would remember using your brakes as you drive. I know I certainly do.

 

[Shane Tuttle]

Question: if you're focused on the front sight, how do you tell if a guy just pulled out a cellphone versus a 380?

My firearm is at low ready to keep from obstructing my field of view until I've decided to carry out safety rule #2.

 

[gwright]

It ignores the reality that often, due to physical or psychological issues, it is literally impossible to see the sights, much less use them to any effectiveness.

BINGO! Especially for us old folks who wear bifocals. To focus on the front sights requires putting your head back at a high angle. Not very good for self defense.

 

[Nnobby45]

In point shooting you can have the sights in the sighting plane or they may be out of the sighting plane, but if your focus is on the target you are point shooting in the traditional sense.

In what sense do we put hip shooting, ala Bill Jordan, where hand eye co-ordination takes the place of sights completely? Sounds like point shooting in the traditional sense to me.

If so, target focusing with sights as a reference would be moved to the sighted fire context, but outside the "traditional sense" which would be front sight focus.?

It can become a confusing discussion when we're advocating techniques on the one hand and disagreeing with the definition of those techniques on the other. It's probably not as important which definition should prevail as it is to be aligned so we're speaking the same language.

 

[David Armstrong]

In what sense do we put hip shooting, ala Bill Jordan, where hand eye co-ordination takes the place of sights completely? Sounds like point shooting in the traditional sense to me.

When hip-shooting Jordan's focus was on ther target, so that would fall into traditional target focus/point shooting.

If so, target focusing with sights as a reference ...

Traditional point shooting/target focus does not use the sights as a reference. The focus is on the target. Frequently when teaching we will tape over the sights or remove them entirely.

 

[Nnobby45]

When hip-shooting Jordan's focus was on ther target, so that would fall into traditional target focus/point shooting.

That's why it's hard to discuss a subject when we don't agree on the definition.

Who cares what you call it. Except at near contact distance, you focus on either the sights or the target with the other being out of focus, but still visible.

Unless, of course, you're Bill Jordan who's extraordinary hand eye co-ordination was matched only by his hundreds of hours of practice.

To some, blury sights are point shooting, to others it's a form of sighted fire.

Incidentally, when you tape up your sights, that's not point shooting either, since the rear silhouette of the GUN becomes what you cover the target with and that requires even stricter adherence to bringing the gun to eye level, and I'd hardly call that point shooting.
Even Cirillo, who popularized the technique, admitted that he saw the sights "subliminally" when using that method. The taping of the sights was for training purposes only. The method has it's place.