Front sight rule not what it seems? - Page 2

Front sight rule not what it seems?

This is a discussion on Front sight rule not what it seems? within the Defensive Carry & Tactical Training forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; The problem was: You took an optometrist shooting. Before that you had no problems. Whichever eye you use, works. Pick one....

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 21 of 21
  1. #16
    VIP Member Array Guns and more's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Fl
    Posts
    2,391
    The problem was: You took an optometrist shooting. Before that you had no problems.
    Whichever eye you use, works. Pick one.


  2. #17
    New Member Array Con1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Southwest Arizona
    Posts
    7
    Quote Originally Posted by Maudite View Post
    ^^^^^^
    "dominant," not "dominate." Otherwise spot on
    Sorry about that . . . for me, spelling without a dictionary is like reading without my glasses.

  3. #18
    Member Array wkientz1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Around the corner from you.
    Posts
    258
    Quote Originally Posted by Con1 View Post
    Sorry about that . . . for me, spelling without a dictionary is like reading without my glasses.
    I love your reply....it was sooooooo smooooooooth. You must have more of 'em where they came from....'fess up!!
    Bill and Izzie: Proud parents of a soldier.
    I thought of you all day today when I was at the zoo.

  4. #19
    Ex Member Array G19inLV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    226
    I have noticed that before. If you close your non dominant eye, you will see which one of the two to focus on. If you are right handed, right eye dominant, then the sight/target on the right will be the one, if you are left/left, the one on the left will be the one.

    But, usually when I shoot, I just point shoot, not really focusing on the front target, except when I have to shoot to qualify. Then I close my non-dominant eye and squeeze out some nice and slow calculated shots.

  5. #20
    Member Array ECHOONE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    FL
    Posts
    243
    It's been proven in real life scenerio's ,when an altercation takes place a person DOES NOT use his site,instead he looks at his target usually the hand his target is holding the threat in,There's a time and place for sighted shooting and a time and place for point shooting you have to be the judge on when to properly apply the right system to you advantage so it benefits you!

  6. #21
    Sponsor Array DCJS Instructor's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    CONUS
    Posts
    431

    Nypd sop 9 - analysis of police combat

    NYPD SOP 9 - ANALYSIS OF POLICE COMBAT

    In 1969, the Firearms and Tactics Section of the New York City Police
    Department instituted a procedure for the in-depth documentation and study of
    police combat situations. It was designated Department Order SOP 9 (s. 69).


    Data gathering began in January 1970, and over 6000 cases were studied during the 1970s. The study results and findings were released in 1981. The following sets out many of those that focus on shooting situations and shooting techniques.

    Since the results became available, pistols have replaced revolvers in most
    agencies, and the results are dated. However, based what one reads in the
    literature, and sees in police videos, the elements and conditions of
    shooting situations have changed little over time. As such, the results can
    be expected to prevail today. At a minimum, they form a solid and scientific
    basis for self defense training and action until new study results and
    findings come along.

    Also, it is likely that the results are applicable most anywhere, as New York
    City, in addition to tall buildings, has numerous suburban communities,
    beaches, large parks, remote areas, highways, rivers, ocean fronts, etc.

    All of the results and findings applicable to police combat situations, are
    not provided here. Hopefully, the snippets below, will serve as a spur to
    those in need of that information, to get, study, and act on it.

    Shooting Distances

    From Sept 1854 to Dec 1979, 254 officers died from wounds received in an
    armed encounter. The shooting distance in 90% of those cases was less than
    15 feet.

    Contact to 3 feet ... 34%
    3 feet to 6 feet ...... 47%
    6 feet to 15 feet ..... 9%

    The shooting distances where officers survived, remained almost the same
    during the SOP years (1970-1979), and for a random sampling of cases going
    back as far as 1929. 4,000 cases were reviewed. The shooting distance in
    75% of those cases was less than 20 feet.

    Contact to 10 feet ... 51%
    10 feet to 20 feet .... 24%

    Lighting Conditions

    The majority of incidents occurred in poor lighting conditions. None
    occurred in what could be called total darkness. It was noted that
    flashlights were not used as a marksmanship aid. Also, dim light firing
    involves another element which is different from full light firing, muzzle
    flash.

    Weapons

    Firearms accounted for only 60% of the attacks on police. However, in the
    254 cases of officers killed in an armed encounter, firearms were used in 90%
    (230) of them, and knives in 5% (11).

    The service revolver was used in 60% of the cases. The authorized smaller
    frame civilian clothes revolver was used in 35% of them.

    In all cases reviewed, an unauthorized or gimmick holster (ankle, shoulder,
    skeleton, fast draw, clip-on etc.) was involved when the revolver was lost,
    accidentally discharged, or the officer was disarmed.

    Unintentional discharges averaged about 40 per year. This number is
    relatively small given: the size of the force (28,000), that all officers are
    required to be armed at all times when they are in the city, and that 4,000
    non-police firearms are processed each year.

    Sight Alignment

    In 70% of the cases reviewed, sight alignment was not used. Officers
    reported that they used instinctive or point shooting.

    As the distance between the officer and his opponent increased, some type of
    aiming was reported in 20% of the cases. This aiming or sighting ran from
    using the barrel as an aiming reference to picking up the front sight and
    utilizing fine sight alignment.

    The remaining 10% could not remember whether they had aimed or pointed and fired the weapon instinctively.

    Quick Draw

    65% of the officers who had knowledge of impending danger, had their
    revolvers drawn and ready.

    This is proper tactically for several reasons, the first being that holsters
    which are designed with the proper element of security in mind, do not lend
    themselves to quick draw. The old bromide, "Don't draw your gun and point it
    at anyone unless you intend to shoot" is a tactical blunder.

    Situations in which rapid escalation occurred, were most often activities
    considered routine, such as car stops, guarding, transporting or
    fingerprinting prisoners or handling people with mental problems.

    Family disputes did not prove to be high on the police danger list. Sniper
    and ambush incidents represented less than 1% of the cases reported.

    Reports on incidents involving police death revealed that the officer was
    alone more often than not and that he was confronted by at least two people.

    Cover

    The element reported as the single most important factor in the officer's
    survival during an armed confrontation was cover.

    In a stress situation an officer is likely to react as he was trained to
    react. There is almost always some type of cover available, but it may not
    be recognized as such without training.

    Positions

    In 84% of the cases reviewed, the officer was in a standing or crouch
    position (supported and unsupported) when he fired.

    (The training doctrine developed for use in an exposed condition involves use
    of the crouch/point shoulder stance. The feet are spread for balance and the
    arms locked at shoulder, elbow and wrist. The body becomes the gun platform,
    swiveling at the knees. Multiple targets can be fired on with speed and
    accuracy through an arc of 140 degrees without moving the feet.)

    Strong Hand or Weak Hand

    Officers, with an occasional exception, fired with the strong hand. That was
    the case even when it appeared advantageous to use the weak hand. The value of placing heavy emphasis on weak hand shooting during training and
    qualification is subject to question.

    Single and Double Action

    The double action technique was used in 90% of the situations and used almost without exceptions in close range, surprise, or immediate danger situations.


    Warning Shots

    A warning shot may set off chain reaction firing.

    Accurate fire from handheld weapons from a fast-moving vehicle is almost
    impossible, even by a highly trained officer.

    Firing while running changes the situation from one where skill has a bearing
    into one in which the outcome depends on pure chance. It endangers the
    officer unnecessarily by depleting his ammunition supply, and increases the
    chance of shooting innocent persons who may be present.

    Rapid Reloading

    The average number of shots fired by individual officers in an armed
    confrontation was between two and three rounds. The two to three rounds per
    incident remained constant over the years covered by the report. It also
    substantiates an earlier study by the L.A.P.D. (1967) which found that 2.6
    rounds per encounter were discharged.

    The necessity for rapid reloading to prevent death or serious injury was not
    a factor in any of the cases examined.

    In close range encounters, under 15 feet, it was never reported as necessary
    to continue the action.

    In 6% of the total cases the officer reported reloading. These involved
    cases of pursuit, barricaded persons, and other incidents where the action
    was prolonged and the distance exceeded the 25 foot death zone.

    Bullet Efficiency

    During the period 1970 through 1979, the police inflicted 10 casualties for
    every one suffered at the hands of their assailants.

    In all of the cases investigated, one factor stood out as a proper measure of
    bullet efficiency. It was not the size, shape, configuration, composition,
    caliber, or velocity of the bullet.

    Bullet placement was the cause of death or an injury that was serious enough
    to end the confrontation.

    Hit Potential In Gun Fights

    The police officer's potential for hitting his adversary during armed
    confrontation has increased over the years and stands at slightly over 25% of
    the rounds fired. An assailant's skill was 11% in 1979.

    In 1990 the overall police hit potential was 19%. Where distances could be
    determined, the hit percentages at distances under 15 yards were:

    Less than 3 yards ..... 38%
    3 yards to 7 yards .. 11.5%
    7 yards to 15 yards .. 9.4%

    In 1992 the overall police hit potential was 17%. Where distances could be
    determined, the hit percentages at distances under 15 yards were:

    Less than 3 yards ..... 28%
    3 yards to 7 yards .... 11%
    7 yards to 15 yards . 4.2%

    The Disconnect Between Range Marksmanship & Combat Hitsmanship

    It has been assumed that if a man can hit a target at 50 yards he can
    certainly do the same at three feet. That assumption is not borne out by the
    reports.

    An attempt was made to relate an officer's ability to strike a target in a
    combat situation to his range qualification scores. After making over 200
    such comparisons, no firm conclusion was reached. To this writer's mind,
    the study result establishes that there is indeed a disconnect between the
    two.

    If there was a connection between range marksmanship and combat hitsmanship, one would expect the combat hit potential percentages, to be well above the
    dismal ones reported. That is because the shooting distance was less than 20
    feet in 75 percent of the 4000 encounters studied.

    The US Army recognizes that there is a disconnect. Its training manual, FM
    23-35 Combat Training With Pistols & Revolvers (1988), calls for the use of
    Point Shooting for combat at less than 15 feet, and when firing at night. It
    does not call for using standard and traditional range marksmanship
    techniques.

    "The weapon should be held in a two-hand grip and brought up close to the
    body until it reaches chin level. It is then thrust forward until both arms
    are straight. As the weapon is thrust forward, the trigger is smoothly
    squeezed to the rear. The arms and body form a triangle which can be aimed
    as a unit." For shooting at 5 to 10 yards, a modified version of the
    technique is used.

    Various Point Shooting techniques are available for use. They are simple,
    direct, easy and quick to learn, and effective. With appropriate emphasis
    and training time allotted to them, one can expect a better future than the
    past.

    Target Focused shooting is taught to the CHP. It is similar to the shooting
    methods of Fairbairn, Sykes, and Applegate, in that the sights are not used
    in close quarters aiming.

    There was an extensive write up of the system in the Oct, 2001 issue of Guns
    & Weapons For Law Enforcement. Louis Chiodo is the developer of the method.
    His site is Gunfighters Ltd., and the URL is:
    http://www.gunfightersltd.com/home.html

    Another innovative approach to Point Shooting is the C.A.R. or the Center
    Axis Relock Method of Gunfighting. C.A.R. is a strong, stable, and flexible
    platform that allows for quick target acquisition and rapid fire bursts of 4
    shots to COM in under 1 second with standard pistols. It also can be used
    effectively in small spaces and vehicles. It provides maximum weapon
    retention, and also serves as a practical and effective base for contact
    fighting.

    An article on the C.A.R. system was published in the Summer 2002 issue of The Deputy Sheriff Magazine which is published by the United States Deputy
    Sheriffs' Association. Paul Castle is the developer of the system. His site
    is Sabre Inc., and the URL is: Sabre

    The author is a fan of AIMED Point Shooting or P&S as he calls it. He has
    patented a very simple, cheap, and practical aiming aid that has proven to be
    very effective in recent test shoots. Information on it with pics is
    available at AIMED Point Shooting or P&S

    Anyone who wishes to make and add the aiming aid to their own personal
    firearm/s, is welcome to do so, if done at their own risk and expense and if
    they accept full responsibility for any and all results. This also applies
    to police agencies who may wish to make and add them to various agency
    weapons, and gunsmiths who may be needed to do the work.

    To use the aid, one just grabs the gun, points the index finger at a target,
    and pulls the trigger with the middle or left index finger. That is all
    there is to it. Just point-n-pull, point-n-pull. No more, no less. It is
    instinctive, and it works. The photos of the targets used in tests, show
    that to be fact. One does not need to learn a special technique, grip,
    stance, or dance. The full details on P&S are available for free at
    AIMED Point Shooting or P&S For Self Defense

    The author has had several articles on Point Shooting and related topics
    published over the past few years in a variety of Police publications. A
    recent article titled: Is Front Sight Press, Front Sight Folly?, and one on
    the C.A.R. system, can be reviewed on his site. He is not a professional, or
    a gunslinger. He just objects to shooting methods that don't work when they
    should.

    The US Army's Combat Training manual is free on the web at:
    http://www.adtdl.army.mil/cgi-bin/at...35/fm23-35.htm

    finis..........

    A final note:

    I have recently completed another article titled "Is Front Sight Press, Front
    Sight Folly?" I have not included it here as it would make this long e-mail,
    much longer. I will send it to you if you wish, or you can review it on my
    site. The URL is AIMED Point Shooting or P&S

    I wrote the Front Sight Press article after I happened upon the US Army's
    combat pistol training manual a month or two ago. It describes in great
    detail, the requirements that "must be met" to use the Front Sight Press
    technique successfully.

    If those requirements are looked at closely, and considered in the light of
    what is known about real life and death pistol gunfights, serious questions
    come up about the use of FSP in gunfights. That is so, because some of the
    requirements are patently unrealistic, and plainly impractical for
    application in those situations. Even the US Army doesn't call for the use
    of FSP at under five yards.

    One article compliments the other.

    Link to on-line article: Combat Shooting

    Tom Perroni

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Front Sight-Anything new?
    By Roaddogg 4040 in forum Defensive Carry & Tactical Training
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: July 26th, 2009, 10:02 PM
  2. “Front Sight or No Front Sight that is the question”
    By DCJS Instructor in forum Defensive Carry & Tactical Training
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: October 18th, 2008, 09:51 AM
  3. front sight post and holo sight picture
    By Plan B in forum Defensive Rifles & Shotgun Discussion
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: September 21st, 2008, 10:55 PM
  4. Front Sight Only?
    By Cody in forum Defensive Carry & Tactical Training
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: December 9th, 2007, 10:22 PM
  5. front sight mod
    By tg in forum Defensive Carry Guns
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: November 25th, 2006, 08:46 PM

Search tags for this page

center axis relock manual

,

front sight dry practice manual download

,

front sight sul

,

frontsight 5 rules

,

jodyh xs big dot

,

ken hackathorne article on trigger press, not sight alignment

,

lapd pistol qualification

,

position sul pistol

,

what is the front sight rule

,

what is the front sight rule?

Click on a term to search for related topics.

» Log in

User Name:

Password:

Not a member yet?
Register Now!

» DefensiveCarry Sponsors