Shootout: Did you see the sights???

[TerryD]

I hope I'm not asking a verboten question here.

For those of you who have ever been in a shooting situation:

1. Did you see your sights?
2. Were they night/laser sights or plain sights?
3. What was your hit/miss ratio?

LEO's highly encouraged to reply. Thanks! (I'm not asking for specifics on the situation or looking for "classified" info)

I'm wondering if anyone even sees their sights in a bad situation. Many people spend a lot of money on night/laser sights (myself included) & am curious if the stats are in their favor for getting these items. Thanks!

1. Never saw the pistol sights, but I did see my rifle's.
2. Plain sights, no lasers.
3. About 95% (guess), as it was in the military, and it was quite a few "situations" over the years.

And night sights do have a use. They help locate the pistol...can't think of anything else, but they can and have been be handy in a "lost gun" situation.

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[SIXTO]

I suspected this was the case; I'm very curious as to how those Sure Sight triangular sights might change this, or if they do at all.


-B

They wont change a thing, cause you wont be looking at them.

Terry, a rifle is a different animal all together!

[Janq]

note to self:
use $150 reserved for night sites on extra ammo, targets, and range time for extra practice on instinctive shooting

BINGO!

- Janq is a newly converted point shooting believer

[SIXTO]

BINGO!

- Janq is a newly converted point shooting believer

It doesn't take long to get good at it, it just goes against what everyone has ever told you about shooting. Once over that initial mental block, its like all is right with the world and you will be an impressive shooter.

[BAC]

They wont change a thing, cause you wont be looking at them.

Not exactly what I mean. They advertise that their sights are very bright, meaning easily seen in peripheral vision when your focus is elsewhere. I still haven't heard if they've been run in low-light, high-stress use, even if only training, yet.

The point-shooting thing I'm admittedly leery about. I'm already bringing the weapon up sights aligned naturally enough, and I'm inclined to think the better/more familiar you become with a weapon the more naturally you're going to aim it to the point of doing so subconsciously. What might be point shooting for experienced shooters might well just be such familiarity with their gun and such development of muscle memory that when the weapon is brought up, the sights are already aligned and your brain can focus more on the threat than lining up sights.

Just guesswork on my part, but I do have a strong suspicion there's more to point-shooting than is often described.


-B

[TerryD]

It doesn't take long to get good at it, it just goes against what everyone has ever told you about shooting. Once over that initial mental block, its like all is right with the world and you will be an impressive shooter.

It is worth the time and effort in my opinion to get point shooting training. Cause in real life SHTF situations, I have never looked at my sights on the pistol.

Getting very familiar with your weapon will help also. Making shooting something that is "natural" for you is the goal.

I am a good point-shooter with almost any pistol I shoot. But it does take a lot of range time to get to this level.

Something I have always liked the idea of is getting a "soft-air" pistol of the same pistol you are using. For instance, I am a Sig 220 guy, and they make a 220/226 pistol that even has the slide "blow-back" so I could train a lot more, and could do it in the house.

The better ones cost a bit, but Sig makes one that is supposed to be the same as the "real" pistol, but only shoots the plastic bb's. The thing is even made out of steel instead of plastic.

[Double Naught Spy]

Interesting thing about asking people if they recalled seeing their sights, answers may be truthful, but not necessarily accurately. Well trained folks may perform tasks with no recollection of having performed them and what resides in the memory may not the administrative tasks, but other aspects of the action.

In the North Hollywood bank robbery incident, when the cops rolled up on the last gunman who was transferring money/guns/etc/ from his vehicle to a truck, a firefight broke out anew. The cops are trying to shoot around their squad and the bad guy shooting through his car. One cop is seen rolling out around behind the back of the squad with his AR15, attempting to fire and suffering a stoppage. He rolls back, performs a malfunction clearing drill, reinserts, and rolls back out to start firing. He had no recollection of the stoppage or clearing it when asked about it afterward. He had to be shown the video.

The opposite can also be true. Some folks will remember certain aspects down to the smallest detail such as recalling holster lint on the front sight, seeming to wait for seconds and seconds for the front sight to settle on the target, etc.

[SIXTO]

Interesting thing about asking people if they recalled seeing their sights, answers may be truthful, but not necessarily accurately. Well trained folks may perform tasks with no recollection of having performed them and what resides in the memory may not the administrative tasks, but other aspects of the action.

In the North Hollywood bank robbery incident, when the cops rolled up on the last gunman who was transferring money/guns/etc/ from his vehicle to a truck, a firefight broke out anew. The cops are trying to shoot around their squad and the bad guy shooting through his car. One cop is seen rolling out around behind the back of the squad with his AR15, attempting to fire and suffering a stoppage. He rolls back, performs a malfunction clearing drill, reinserts, and rolls back out to start firing. He had no recollection of the stoppage or clearing it when asked about it afterward. He had to be shown the video.

The opposite can also be true. Some folks will remember certain aspects down to the smallest detail such as recalling holster lint on the front sight, seeming to wait for seconds and seconds for the front sight to settle on the target, etc.

All this is true, but I have been trained not to worry about my sights. So, doing what I've been trained to do, I wouldnt have looked at my sights.

There is also a difference in remembering what you were focused on, and what the details of the fight. Everybody is different, as is each situation.

[BikerRN]

Yes
No
Yes

[AEA]

Best to forget about sights at close range and point shoot with both eyes open looking for additional threats.

[atctimmy]

I'm enjoying this thread. More posts please.

[rumblefish]

I'm presently engaged in point shooting practice. I've read the 'Bullseye's Don't Shoot Back' and would recommend it-the book is decently organized and edited. I'd rate it as a worthwhile read and informative on that topic.

My opinion is that point shooting may be the way to go with any handgun out to about 4 or 5 yards to 7 yards. Some people advocate it out to as far as 10 yards or even further..

However, here's the problem-drawing from a pocket holster and using one's drawing arm as a 'pump' appears counter-intuitive. In a panic situation, do you really think one could do the locked-arm/wrist combo, pull the gun out from the pocket, straighten arm, go to 45 degree position, pump the arm up like a lever and then shoot in enough time to avert the threat?

I don't know how practical it really is...however, with the low 'hit' ratio among shooters in actual encounters it is worth considering.

NYPD reports low hit ratio using, I believe, traditional sight training. Point shooting does not appear to be all that popular nowadays, in spite of the low hit ratio reported from NYPD, etc.. Would that not spark a change in tactics across the LE community?

I've been reading some other combat shooting books. Point shooting was apparently abandoned many years ago, notwithstanding its proponents..

Gabe Suarez generally discounts point shooting, as he states that PREVIOUSLY it was taught to law enforcement and in so many words, it just was not working.

In 'Tactical Pistol Marksmanship' he devotes a six-page chapter to "The truth about point shooting". It is worth reading. In summation, he states: "Quite simply, too many officers were being killed by suspects after they missed them with unsighted fire at close range"...

Then he discusses 'Hick's Law' and other determinants, including OIS.

Basically, he only advocates point shooting at extremely close distances, 'bad breath' distances, and Cooper sighted shooting, or its derivatives, in all other instances

It's a quandary for me.

[rhinokrk]

I hope I'm not asking a verboten question here.

For those of you who have ever been in a shooting situation:

1. Did you see your sights? No
2. Were they night/laser sights or plain sights? USGI front, no rear
3. What was your hit/miss ratio? 5 of 8, including a graze

Side note; I bought a Kimber Ultra Carry with XS sights, that big dot is a distraction. I shoot 4" high

[SIXTO]

However, here's the problem-drawing from a pocket holster and using one's drawing arm as a 'pump' appears counter-intuitive. In a panic situation, do you really think one could do the locked-arm/wrist combo, pull the gun out from the pocket, straighten arm, go to 45 degree position, pump the arm up like a lever and then shoot in enough time to avert the threat?
No, you probably would not able to get in a nice "proper" shooting position in time; first shot or two will come from a retention position.

I don't know how practical it really is...however, with the low 'hit' ratio among shooters in actual encounters it is worth considering.

You will find it very practical once you master it.

NYPD reports low hit ratio using, I believe, traditional sight training. Point shooting does not appear to be all that popular nowadays, in spite of the low hit ratio reported from NYPD, etc.. Would that not spark a change in tactics across the LE community?

Liability is the name of the game in most LE agencies training. That means clear, standard sight picture, etc. etc.

I've been reading some other combat shooting books. Point shooting was apparently abandoned many years ago, notwithstanding its proponents..

Again, liability. It worked well enough in WW1 and 2, but then we cared more about winning in the courtroom rather than the street/battlefield

Gabe Suarez generally discounts point shooting, as he states that PREVIOUSLY it was taught to law enforcement and in so many words, it just was not working.

In 'Tactical Pistol Marksmanship' he devotes a six-page chapter to "The truth about point shooting". It is worth reading. In summation, he states: "Quite simply, too many officers were being killed by suspects after they missed them with unsighted fire at close range"...

Then he discusses 'Hick's Law' and other determinants, including OIS.

Basically, he only advocates point shooting at extremely close distances, 'bad breath' distances, and Cooper sighted shooting, or its derivatives, in all other instances

I cant argue much about that!

[atctimmy]

Anybody familiar with the Fairbain (sp?) techniques. How do they compare to point shooting as it is taught mow?