Using front sight

That's why it's hard to discuss a subject when we don't agree on the definition.
Click to expand...
I agree, which is why I always try to use the defeinitions that have been promulgated for decades, used by the NRA, the FBI, the military, etc. , which are very clear, and is defined by the focus of the shooter. Anything beyond that tends to cloud the issue, and has only become popular recently by former "front sight only" supporters who realized that their doctrine was indefensible.
Except at near contact distance, you focus on either the sights or the target with the other being out of focus, but still visible.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily. A lot of target focus shooting does not require the sights to be visible at all.
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.
Click to expand...
Given that it has been used for decades to teach point shooting, given that the military uses it to teach point shooting, and given that one cannot focus on the sights when they are covered, I'd say it certainly fits the traditional and commonly accepted definition of point shooting. And again, you don't have to bring the gun up to eye level for point shooting.
 
Folks, I completely and utterly suck at real point shooting as Bill Jordan (with two hands) or Jelly Brice (with one hand) understood it.

Yet with target-focus blurry sights of the right type, I'm doing GREAT. So there's a big difference between point shooting and target-focus with target-focus optimized sights.
 
Sure, just as there is a big difference between FS point shooting versus Quick Kill point shooting, Bullseye sighted shooting versus PPC sighted shooting, and so on. Both point shooting and sighted fire are big tents with a number of different techniques and styles available to them.
 
Given that it has been used for decades to teach point shooting, given that the military uses it to teach point shooting, and given that one cannot focus on the sights when they are covered, I'd say it certainly fits the traditional and commonly accepted definition of point shooting. And again, you don't have to bring the gun up to eye level for point shooting.
Click to expand...

The sights are only taped for training to teach the shooter to use the silhouette of the gun as a sight. When not in training the silhouette of the gun is still used, but the sights are visible "subliminally" as Jim Cirillo described it. To myself, the sights are just fuzzy like they'd be if I focused on the target.

Even if they weren't visible "subliminally", the superimposing of the rear of the pistol over the target meets most folks (but not your) definition of a FORM of sighted fire.

As I've been trying to point out all along, some consider any method where the front sight isn't focused on as "point shooting". Some don't agree.

Yes, David, in those instances where no reference to gun or sight is used, and only the target is focused on, that would be point shooting, indeed.:cool:

As would Cirillo's "geometrical point shooting" method, with no sights or gun visible, in which the body's position is used as a crude sighting method. But this thread is complicated enough without getting into that.:D
 
Last edited:
By my definition, many of the threat focused techniques (such as using the silhouette of the gun in your peripheral vision) are aiming techniques as opposed to sighted techniques.
 
Idle curiosity, which branch of the military allegedly teaches point shooting? I know for a fact it's not the Coast Guard, and I also know it's not the Army, since the Army's CQB and marksmanship programs are designed by the Army Marksmanship Unit.

I don't know about the other three branches of service.
 
By my definition, many of the threat focused techniques (such as using the silhouette of the gun in your peripheral vision) are aiming techniques as opposed to sighted techniques.
Click to expand...

I basically agree. All sighted fire is aimed fire, but not all aimed fire is sighted fire in the strict sense. I consider aimed fire only a rough form of sighted fire in the general sense.
 
Jim March said:
Question: if you're focused on the front sight, how do you tell if a guy just pulled out a cellphone versus a 380?
Click to expand...

Is this an IQ test Jim? :p

If you have your gun in hand and pointed at someone, and you're doing everything right, you should already be in fear for your life. If not, whatindaheck are you pointing a gun at him for in the first place?
 
The sights are only taped for training to teach the shooter to use the silhouette of the gun as a sight.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but there are lots of instinct/point shooting/threat focus instruction that tapes the sights or removes them that do not use the silhouette of the gun for sighting purposes.
the superimposing of the rear of the pistol over the target meets most folks (but not your) definition of a FORM of sighted fire.
Click to expand...
Don't know where you are getting that info. It doesn't meet the definition of any of the point shooting instructors I've worked with and trained with, it doesn't meet the NRA definition, it doesn't meet the Army definition, and so on. In fact I've never heard anybody make that claim before now.
But this thread is complicated enough without getting into that.
Click to expand...
Doesn't have to be complicated, and it certainly shouldn't be. Sighted fire is focusing on the sights to aim the weapon. Focusing on the threat is threat focused or point shooting or instinctive shooting, depending on which terminology one prefers. It's been that way for years. The Army uses "Instinctive Fire": The firer concentrates on the target and points the weapon in the general direction of the target. While gripping the handguards with the nonfiring hand he extends the index finger to the front, automatically aiming the weapon on a line towards the target. (from FM 3-06.11)
 
Last edited:
Idle curiosity, which branch of the military allegedly teaches point shooting?
Click to expand...
U.S. Army was teaching it in 2003, and AFAIK it still is today. It is part of their Quick Kill/Quick Fire program. I understand that it has been somewhat absorbed into the current Reflexive Fire doctrine.
 
Last edited:
By my definition, many of the threat focused techniques (such as using the silhouette of the gun in your peripheral vision) are aiming techniques as opposed to sighted techniques.
Click to expand...
Right. Just because you are point shooting it doesn't mean you are not aiming the gun, it just means you are aiming it using some method other than using the sights.
 
There's a galaxy of difference it would seem between "reflexive fire" with a carbine and point shooting with a pistol though, both from a training and tactical standpoint.
 
There's a galaxy of difference it would seem between "reflexive fire" with a carbine and point shooting with a pistol though, both from a training and tactical standpoint.
Click to expand...
We'll disagree. Looking at the FM and such it appears the concept and principles are just the same, only the weapon differs.
 
I'm not talking about "concept and principles", I'm talking about the actual mechanics of using a rifle vs. a pistol, which are radically different.
 
I'm not talking about "concept and principles", I'm talking about the actual mechanics of using a rifle vs. a pistol, which are radically different.
Click to expand...
that is a little different animal than the previous post, which was "There's a galaxy of difference it would seem between "reflexive fire" with a carbine and point shooting with a pistol though, both from a training and tactical standpoint. " The training and the tactics are much the same. And as the concepts and priciples are used for firing both carbines and pistols, I'm not sure what the mechanical differences between the weapons would matter to the discussion.
 
About 14 months ago I trained an 18 year current Army instructor in both rifle and handgun point shooting. ( It was at SouthNarc's range in Miss.)
His job was then to teach the current Army's close range rifle program to the infantry.
I commented that what he was teaching with the rifle was very similar to the WW2 long gun point shooting that my dad (who was a WW2 Ranger) taught me.
So I guess you can say that the Army is teaching point shooting, at least as an advanced skill.
He was very impressed with how easy, simple and accurate handgun point shooting was, especially that it only took a couple of boxes of ammo to get it down pat.
You guys can debate here all you want, but until you receive some hands on training, your debates resembles virgins talking about sex.
Once again, here is my home study course for those who want to explore this skill.
http://kilogulf59.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=handgun&action=display&thread=114

PPS..here is his review of our range time together:
http://www.warriortalk.com/showthread.php?t=34500

I spent this last weekend with Matt Temkin, his friend Paul and Southnarc. Southnarc was a great host to all of us! Those of you who are still wondering about the Fairbairn-Sykes/Applegate PS concept, let me tell you: it is valid and it should be a part of any gunmans reportoire.

We worked on PS with rifle and pistol; going through the whole of what Matt has been talking about for a while now. For the close fight, which as we all know, is close, quick and violent, these are some of the best techniques I have seen for dealing with a situation of this type. My goal now is to work out for myself where they fit in my bag of tricks along with what I have in there already.

Matt also beat me up for a while using the WWII combatives out of "Get Tough" and "Kill Or Get Killed." Yeah, it hurt. But, I'll be showing it to my LTs when I get back to work in a few weeks. It is extremely effective, and isn't the watered down, PC crap that passes for fighting skills these days.

I want to thank these guys for letting me hang out with them, and pick their brains for a while. Train with Matt if you get the chance. Just bring lots of ammo, Matt likes to shoot...a lot!
__________________
 
Last edited:
Best 7yd shooter I ever saw....

was an Orkin man. He had been on the job 20+ years. I'm not sure how it applies and is probably off topic it's just that reading this thread made me remember. At 7yds he could drill the center with consistency. He said he really didn't 'aim'.
 
I'm not sure what the mechanical differences between the weapons would matter to the discussion
Click to expand...

It's a lot easier to point shoot with a carbine at close range than it is with a pistol. At least, it is if you know what you're doing with a carbine. You seem to think I am disagreeing with you or something.

Matt Tempkin said:
You guys can debate here all you want, but until you receive some hands on training, your debates resembles virgins talking about sex.
Click to expand...

OH LAWL. I would not rush to judge other people's training so quickly, my good man.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top