Wednesday, October 29, 2008

The great debate?

So, some guy on an internet board starts out a thread with "I think the most debated topic in the “Firearms Industry” is the use of the front sight or not using the front sight."

Huh?

In internet chatrooms and the letters column of Guns'n'Gear mags, maybe.

Generally, though, most everybody with serious credentials says one thing, and a handful of guys (most who coincidentally have techniques named after themselves and epaulettes on their shirts) say a few other, different things.

Incidentally, I'm planning to name a technique after myself, start teaching an "intense, high round count course", and let folks dump a case or two of ammunition into the berm unsighted from the hip for two days. That way I make money, and they get to take home a certificate and tell their friends that they're "trained". And since the odds of them being in a shootout in suburbia are slim to frickin' none, we're all happy. It'll be awesome. I just need to think up a name for my technique and order some shirts with epaulettes.



(Folks, you own every bullet that comes out of your gun and everything it touches. If you can't control exactly where it lands, you have no business toting a pistol in public. The easiest method for doing this (outside of arm's reach, anyway) is to use the sights that are conveniently built into every pistol.)

40 comments:

Carteach0 said...

A) I'd pay for the course, but probably in beer.

B) I want a hat too.

Joe Huffman said...

You should also teach they need to use your special ammo for best results.

morte said...

Kim-kata?

Anonymous said...

Tamtical.

José Giganté said...

"sights that are conveniently built into every pistol"

And yet Colt puts out one without proper sights. I don't consider the New Agent's sight channel a proper sight.

Anonymous said...

Just one word

Front Sight

Front Sight

Front Sight

Ooops that's two words, but you get the (sight) picture.

scooter

the pistolero said...

So...does this yahoo think they were put there just for aesthetics?

Ahab said...

You should also teach they need to use your special ammo for best results.

I'll make the ammo, it'll be great. Maybe we can sell the students some shady land deals while we're at it.

Paul Simer said...

I want my "Tamtical High-Round Hip-Fired IntuiBlasting(tm) Suburban Low-Risk Three-Season Combat Master, 2008" shirt.

Cossack in a Kilt said...

Maybe he meant, "using the front sight or not using the front sight, but using something else instead like lasers or reflex sights."

Nah.

He probably thought the New Technique (with its variations) was all new'n'made-up'nstuff.

GrantCunningham said...

Hey, you could also make and sell some kind of accessory that's necessary to use your technique properly! Yeah, that's the ticket!

Oops...already been done:
http://www.pointshooting.com/

Sorry. There goes your chance at immortality. You can still have the epaulets, though!

-=[ Grant ]=-

GeorgeH said...

Neither my Seecamp nor my Detonics came with sights. Inside 25 yards you don't need them to stay in hte kill zone, further out you should probably have run rather than fired anyway. If you can't hit at 25 yards without sights, you probably need to put away the pistol and spend a few weekends shooting sporting clays.

I'll admit sights can sometimes be useful, especially on revolvers that have no slide to sight down.

Ahab said...

Just out of curiosity George, if it's so easy to hit a man sized target at <25 yards without sights, how come all of the world class pistol shooters use the sights on their guns, even on targets as close as 1 or 2 yards? I mean, if it's really the bees knees, wouldn't Robbie Leatham have said "hey, I don't these sights on my 1911 any more, cool, I can save .3 ounces of weight!"

Paul Simer said...

If I'm supposed to be able to hit a torso with a handgun at 25 yards sans sights, I'm screwed.

Doubly so under the stress of a confrontation.

Maybe I should just stop carrying? Dang, that would make clothes shopping so much easier...

The Captain said...

One assumes he's referring to the eternal debate of point shooting vs. using the sights. There's some distance at which one has an advantage over the other, which varies by shooter and weapon.

Crucis said...

Hmmm, and Xavier just posted about "Flash Sight" aiming vs. "Point Sight" aiming.

I use Flash Sight because I can't see the front sight sharply. It works for me.

OTOH, both methods do use the sights.

Tam said...

georgeh,

Is there a bowling pin match near you?

A bowling pin is pretty much the size of the "lights out" zone, and matches are shot at 25 feet. Give it a whirl.

Less said...

I mean, if it's really the bees knees, wouldn't Robbie Leatham have said "hey, I don't these sights on my 1911 any more, cool, I can save .3 ounces of weight!"

Actually, Ahab, watch this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7n091somWoI, at about 2:00 in they're filming Rob L. doing 10 1-shot draw drills. The words out of his mouth is "Where am I going to get more time off, because I'm already not aiming..."

I'm not an advocate of "point-shooting", but all I'm saying is that indside of a few feet, coarse aimed fire, aided by body indexing (the Todd J. thumbs forwards grip where you can tell where the muzzle is pointing since it is the direction of the thumbs, right?) is pretty effective at putting hits on target.

Less said...

One more point I'll bring up is that body position aides getting site picture - doing it consistently is 95% of the battle.

If you think about having a proper platform, then you're pretty close to being on target from the get go and the sights are there to confirm it. It's kind of like NPOA in rifle shooting...

In fact, if you watch folks shooting Oly Pistol events, they spend an inordinate amount of time getting feet lined up, and perfecting the "outer position"... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpFMmwrgwPk

Somerled said...

Do you teach a course in Type 2 Hand Phasers or offer old-fashioned light saber instruction to your disciples, dear guru? I fear of succumbing to the dark side of the farce. What intergalatic forms of payment do you accept?

Ahab said...

Less, I don't think that rough unsighted fire using a close index position or similar doesn't have uses, but I tend to get a little jaded when people tell me about hitting the money spot on a target at 10+ yards without sights every time.

Less said...

Less, I don't think that rough unsighted fire using a close index position or similar doesn't have uses, but I tend to get a little jaded when people tell me about hitting the money spot on a target at 10+ yards without sights every time.

yeah, there is a word for that:

bullshit

;)

Less said...

BTW, has anyone else noticed that Blogger's Captcha's are getting really odd?

My last one was "lanicane", which is a topical anesthetic.

The one before that "briami", which is Greek food.

OldTexan said...

Hmmm 25 yard consistant hits without using the sights? Sounds like the old cowboy movies when we were kids and the guys would sling the bullets out of the end of the gun. Or maybe Marshall Dillon who would stand out in the street and shoot from the hip.

I haven't done any cowboy shooting but don't those guys use the sights on their guns?

Mike W. said...

The front sight is there for a reason.....

Oldsmoblogger said...

Just call it TAM:

Tactical
Awesomeness
Methodology

Verification word: ratexpz. So named for the cost of the course. "Rate: XPNZV."

New Jovian Thunderbolt said...

No, Tam, you are wrong. It is the MOST debated topic....


Ha!

trainer said...

The AccuTam Method - TAM.

Word Verification - supti

docjim505 said...

Folks, you own every bullet that comes out of your gun and everything it touches. If you can't control exactly where it lands, you have no business toting a pistol in public. The easiest method for doing this (outside of arm's reach, anyway) is to use the sights that are conveniently built into every pistol.

I practice without using the sights with the idea that, if things were "real", I might not have time to do good sight picture / breath control / trigger squeeze. However, what you wrote makes tremendously good sense.

Time to start looking at the sights again.

Thanks.

cjr said...

Ahab -

It's interesting you mention Rob Leatham. If memory serves, Rob was one of the first big-name practical shooters to admit that he does not focus on the front sight on all occasions.

That said, unless you are a genetic freak on the order of Jelly Bryce, you CANNOT do good shooting without reading the sights. Keeping your hits inside six inches (that's the size of the "kill zone", guys) at 25 yards is right out, and I'll bet cash money that it can't be done with a sightless pistol.

I sometimes use unsighted fire on close, open targets. I always use the sights while practicing.

Cowboy Blob said...

But I LIKE epaulets! *SNIFF!* :{

New Jovian Thunderbolt said...

Who DOESN't like epaulets, tho.

And a cape. And hip-high boots with spurs.

Less said...

genetic freak on the order of Jelly Bryce

It was rumored that he could actually SEE the bullets in-flight!

:O

20/5 vision or something?!


(Captcha was "SNORI" - that's goofy, but it's not Greek food...)

Tam said...

Snori was a Viking, not a Greek food. (Or was it Snorri with two r's? I forget...)

Glenn Bartley said...

"targets as close as 1 or 2 yards"

Sorry but anyone who uses their sites on an adversary at one yard is a fool in almost all situations. On paper it is great, on an armed adversary, even an unarmed one, you would have to be out of your mind not to hip shoot, or shoot from the high ready if you already had the gun out and up and were justified to shoot.

TBeck said...

Jim Cirillo used to put tape over his students' rear sights. The idea was to get them used to using the profile of the slide as a crude sighting index for extremely fast, close-range shooting.

It wasn't instinctive shooting, it was a way to shoot effectively for those times when there was no time to take a good sight picture.

Personally, I think that the sights are your friend. I even pay extra so that my sights glow in the dark. One night that feature was very reassuring.

Anonymous said...

I find lots of folks with serious credentials on both sides, and trying to say that they are only there on one side is just plain wrong. It's OK to argue about techniques, I think, but to say one group has good credentials and the other doesn't seems pretty biased given the qualifications on both sides.

José Giganté said...

I haven't done any cowboy shooting but don't those guys use the sights on their guns?

There are times I don't use the front sight when shooting cowboy action, unfortunately, those times are called misses.

The sights on single actions are great, but they're useful.

JPG said...

Oh, yeah, even 25 years after my days of active competition, I can “point shoot” when appropriate. It’s a fairly simple thing to learn, too. Just practice coming from the holster to sights-on-target and dropping the hammer (“The Stroke”) countless times. You do it with the same pistol -- or its exact twin -- with the same stocks and same sights. You adjust foot position and hand-arm-shoulder position until you can execute the stroke eyes closed and find the sights on target - - within two inches of intended point of impact - - when you look. You also do the stroke for several thousand rounds of live fire.

So, at ranges of ten to 20 feet, I’m able to plant bullets in the target, simply bringing the pistol to shoulder level before firing, without conscious reference to the sights. I’m not sure of the current terms-of-art, but we used to call this “slide sighting.” Interesting thing, though - - shots fired from much below shoulder level are measurably less successful. And, yes, buckaroos, at distances where the extended arm would TOUCH the target, a simple speed rock, truly firing “from the hip,” will do just fine.

And please - - let’s use the right words. There’s nothing “instinctive” about shooting. We’re really dealing with muscle memory and conditioned reflexes. “Instinct” deals with pain avoidance, seeking food and drink, the breeding imperative, and such. “Reflexive shooting” is the correct terminology.

JPG

Tom S. said...

High round count hip shooting method?

Tam o' Shatter, of course

You don't want to know the name of the CCW sessions.