This thread started from another thread regarding painting "iron sights" on pistols where I found a significant amount of responders were only painting front sights.

So that got me curious why that might be so, and I'm thinking they may have been using a Jeff Cooper technique of flash sight picture, where emphasis in defensive shooting with aiming is weighed heavily on the front sight coming to the target, and the rear sight then comes up secondarily with the shooter "seeing" it, but not focusing on it, as I understand the article.

For decades, even with defensive pistol shooting, I've been lining up front and rear sights, and allowing the target in the distant to be a bit fuzzy, feeling comfortable that as long as the barrel is relatively parallel to the ground, the bullet should fly straight and not veer off at all angles.

But now re-thinking.

So I'm curious, who is practicing defensive shooting with the Flash Sight Picture (in the Wikipedia article below) and who is lining up front and rear sights, both in focus and with great care (but of course in an expedited manner!)

Interesting article below:

Thanks!

Rich

This from Wikipedia (flash sight topic is about half way through):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern...que_(shooting)

Flash sight picture

The Flash Sight Picture is a method of allowing the cognitive faculties of the shooter to align the target and the sights without the delay involved in the conscious alignment of sights, as used when slow-firing a rifle at a distant target. In point shooting, by contrast, the pistol is drawn from the holster and fired from the hip, without the sights being aligned at all.

In slow-fire rifle shooting, the front sight and rear sight of the rifle are aligned with the distant target with great care, taking at least several seconds.

The Flash Sight Picture technique falls between these two methods. During a gunfight, waiting to align the sights is too slow. However, more accuracy than point shooting is required to hit one's assailant reliably. It is physically impossible for the human eye to focus simultaneously on the rear sight (nearest to one's eye), the front sight (farther away from one's eye), and the relatively distant target at the same time. The muscles of the eye adjust to focus sight on one specific distance optimally at any one instant, so 3 different distances mean the shooter's focus must hunt (muscular physical adjustments) between all three points of mental concentration. The greatest adjustment of focus (relatively more ocular muscle contraction) is required to view shorter distances, such as the gun's rear sight. In the modern technique, the shooter is taught to focus on the front sight of the pistol and align it against the target, ignoring the rear sight for quicker aiming and minimal physical requirements. This prevents the focus of the eye from hunting between rear sight, front sight and target, wasting vital time in refocusing.

The technique is called 'flash' sight picture because the cognition is best able to perform this function when the target and front sight are presented quickly as a single image, in a 'flash', as if the shooter had just turned around to face a threat appearing from close by. The shooter's vision can "see" the rear sight, even if the focus is on the front sight. This is enough for the cognition to make an alignment. With the flash sight picture, the front sight and a rapidly presented image of the target are used to align the pistol. This is faster than slow-fire rifle, and offers more chance of hitting the target than point shooting from the hip.

The cognitive functions of the brain align objects in the hand with distant objects at great speed. This ability of human cognition can be used to align the pistol with the target. Colonel Cooper discovered this specific ability and named it the "Flash Sight Picture".

Human cognition can perceive a "Flash Sight Picture" at a speed faster than conscious awareness. This facility was discovered during World War II experiments with rapid recognition of aircraft silhouettes. Experimentation was continued after the war and branched into subliminal advertising in the 1960s, where images were flashed onto cinema screens for a duration too short for the viewer to notice, yet for cognition to have observed the image nonetheless.

Use of the Flash Sight Picture requires a rapid acquisition of the front sight in order to allow the brain to perform its calculations. This focus on the front sight is one of the main themes Colonel Cooper impressed upon students of the modern technique to clear their minds when shooting during a confrontation. The emphasis for students of the modern technique on the word "front sight" was so great, that a shooting school and a shooting magazine were named after this phrase.

This is something that I naturally started doing after practicing shooting both eyes open. I see a lot of people shoot with one eye and concentrate on aiming, same as if they were shooting a deer or in an accuracy contest. IMO in a self defense situation you will want both eyes open and on the target so you can continually assess the threat and your surroundings. Concentrating on the sights will take too long and cause you to lose focus on the attacker.

I have found this technique is a lot easier with the tritium sites on my glock as they are easier to decipher when blurry. The target sights on my 686 also work well, but the fixed sights on my sp101 do not work very well as they blend into the gun

For those who might be "re-thinking" make sure you are not "over-thinking."

No I don't. It other threads here it has been accepted that shot placement is the most important factor.

Depending on how you present your gun, you should have plenty of time to acquire and align the sights.

This is one advantage the isosceles method has over the Weaver method of presenting the gun.

__________________
Life Is A Gift. Defend it!

I find that markings on the rear sight create a "busy" sight picture that can distract my eye from the front sight. Most, if not all, three-dot sights I've encountered have all the dots the same size even though the front sight is farther away from your eye and appears smaller and dimmer when brought up on target. In low light practice I've initially locked onto a rear tritium dot instead of the front.

Sure...... out to 5-7yds.......has minimal affect on shot placement at those ranges

Also..... being a bit farsighted I don't get as crisp of a sight picture as I use to........

Yes, although up to now I did not know it had a name.

"Back in the day" when I was an LEO, we were trained to fire the first round at the intended target then pick up the sights in the muzzle flash with the second round for a more precise aimed shot.

I can attest to the method as one night it was REALLY quiet in the county and one of the deputies and I decided to shine some racoons. Spotted one about 40 yards out in a field and stopped to take a shot. Fired the first round which sent the coon running, picked up the sights in the muzzle flash and rolled him with the second round (137 grain super vel from a 4" model 19)

I do use the "flash sight" technique for defensive shooting practice. In fact, I use it for normal target shooting, except that I slow down. My vision is always focused on the front sight - which is how I learned to shoot.

I have also taken to only coloring the front sight of my guns, but I prefer a dot sight. So, on my Smith & Wesson revolvers (all I shoot now).....I invariably change the front sight to a true blade design, tapered in thickness, with a colored dot (orange or yellow) on the rear. For whatever reason, works much better for me than the standard front sight.

We were doing that over 45 years ago in ITR. We called it "quick kill". Used Daisy pump up b.b. guns and 2 inch? steel disc tossed up by another Marine. We were all hitting the targets in no time. A great skill to have, saved alot of green rear ends.

At close range if I see my front sight I can hit the target. At longer ranges I use both sights. I was in Law Enforcement 35 years and was in a few fights. This always worked for me.

"Quick kill" is actually a form of threat focused instinctive or point shooting.

I'll also add a common misconception regarding "point shooting" is that all shooting is done from the hip. Many forms of aimed point shooting bring the gun into the line of vision and superimpose the gun on the target. WILSON DEFENSE JOURNAL: Understanding Point-Shooting -Michael Janich The key difference between it and any type of sighted fire is the focus is on the target/threat rather than the sights.

That's well said; but there also seems to be a lot of confusion as well as variance in personal technique related to this topic. The question remains, 'For those longer shots, 'How' did you focus on both sights?'

I know how I do it; but, from reading this thread, it's obvious to me that other pistoleros are doing the same thing in other ways. I've spent a good part of my life learning how to speed shoot well; and, no matter how much better it might work, I'm too old now to learn somebody else's method!

I will take as much time to line up my sights ..... to make the best shot possible....... that the situation I am facing allows.......

or to put it another way.........

I would prefer to shoot them (if I have to) before they can hurt me!!!

As I'm sure most of you know, most Police shootings are real close. At a couple of feet or so you just shoot. At longer ranges you have a bit more time. I shot a bad guy at 80 yards one night, I took my time. You need to practice at any and all ranges, you never know what's going to happen.

80 yards at night? I can't imagine any realistic, probable scenario where a civilian would need to make such a shot or for it likely to be legal. You should devote your training appropriately to what's most probable. If roughly 97% of all self-defense situations occur within a certain distance range, it's prudent to allocate training time accordingly.

80 yards? At night? I've heard a lot good sea stories, but tell me more.

My compliments, really!

YOU ARE A VERY CLEVER GUNMAN!

That is exactly my own hard-acquired philosophy of how to successfully survive a CQB pistol gunfight.

For many years, now, I've practiced at 12 to 15 yards while everyone else was practicing at 3, 5, and 7 1/2 yards. Why did I do this? Well, after the third or fourth incident I realized that most opponents don't start shooting until AFTER they're reasonably confident that they're going to hit what they aim at.

As you have said: Much of surviving a gunfight involves stopping the other guy BEFORE he's able to stop you! To me this means that if the BG is comfortable at starting to fire from 5 yards then I have to be comfortable at starting to fire from 8 yards.

If the BG is ready to start firing at 10 yards then I have to be skillful enough to successfully engage him at 12 to 15. I mean: It's a CQB pistol gunfight - Right! Whoever fires first AND is able to successfully hit the mark has the best chance to survive.

Things were this way 125 years ago in the Old Wild West; and, in the interim, nothing's really changed all that much. CQB pistol gunfighting is the same today as it was when Wild Bill Hickok was out gunfighting on the streets of Deadwood.

It's pistol gunfighting! Stopping, waiting, to verify might be a good idea before you cross the street; but it's a very bad idea when your opponent has, both, a gun and evil intent. In CQB pistol gunfighting there are no timeouts; there are no starting lines; there is no opening bell; and there are no, 'Marquess of Queensberry rules'. There's only successfully stopping the other fellow BEFORE he successfully stops you.



PS: I don't, 'take my time to line up my sights'. Instead I, sometimes, take a little more time to line up my first shot. Then I allow my proprioceptive reflexes to take over as I, 'pour fire' on the center of the target. (NOT the exact center, only the general center.)

What is the cardinal sin in speed shooting? That would be taking the time to actually, 'nest' your front sight. (Seldom a good thing to do!) Instead I TAKE A LOW HOLD ON COM, allow my front sight to remain elevated, and focus on the target. The farther the target is away from me the more I focus on THE VERY TOP of my front sight, and the less I focus on the target.

In case you're wondering: Even at my present advanced age I remain a very good speed shooter. (I should be! To begin with I had no one to teach me; so, I had to teach myself. It took me a long time, as well as the repeated expenditure of a lot of ammunition before I finally learned how to do it right.)


Proper, Slow-Fire, Paper Target, Sight Alignment ~




Proper, Slow-Fire, Humanoid Target Focus ~




Proper, Rapid-Fire, Sight Alignment ~




Me at 16 1/2 yards, just as fast as my G-21 would go, 'Bang!' ~

As an old guy who no longer has vision acute enough to see the front sight clearly, I've been forced to train myself to point shoot. At 5-7 yards, I actually shoot smaller groups than I do when using the sights. Admittedly, I may be using the blur that was once the front sight subconsciously. At distance, with time, I use the sights, but then you are no longer in a justifiable self defense shooting situation.

Hi Brasky!

And thank you for your reply!

RE: Eye's open: I have a lot of trouble with parallax error with boths eyes open. Although right-handed, my left eye is very dominant. And when using both eyes open , still tend to line up with my left, and squint with my right: that just seems natural to me now.

RE: front sights. Yeah: definitely gonna have to do something with my basic iron sights on my S&W BG 380: Either paint or modify the front, it just seems to add delay to acquire the target with the fixed sights the same color as the weapon.

Thanks again!

Rich

Hi 10mm!

And thank you for your reply!

Indeed!

Hi V0!

And thank you for your reply!

Yeah, I can see how that would get busy in a time-critical moment!

I haven't modified my sights on my BG 380 yet, but liking the "Big Dot" system to make it REAL easy to find the front sight.

https://www.xssights.com/Products.aspx?CAT=8208

Thank you for your input!

Rich

Hi Bam!

And thanks for your reply!

I'm losing the battle on both ends of vision as I get older! (Sucks!)

rich

Hi Elpac!

And thank you for your reply!

For me, it seems to me the second shot is more accurate, as the weapon is already in position and stable from moving up from the draw position. Makes sense.

40 yards on a moving target! Nice!

Thanks for the input!

rich

Hi K-framer!

And thank you for your reply!

I'm seeing a lot of front sight only painting from other readers, too.

Take care!

rich

Hi Ozark!

Thank you for your reply!

Interesting Input! And amazing what level the human can train to! Once one can do that, up close and personal with a man-sized target would be a walk in the park!

Thanks!

Rich

Hi Bohica!

Thanks for your reply!

rich





prioritize

Hi Shotgun!

And thank you for your input!

Especially validated by your lengthy experience! So glad to hear you survived your "fights!"

And if I could humbly add: what you said it makes sense to me. I practice two ways:

1) point shooting from the hip if you will, with my BG 380 "belly gun" in close (5 yards): As soon as the weapon is about my belly height, and parallel to the ground I fire two shots, and have had great success getting about 16-17 out of 18 shots on silhouette (3 x 2-shot draws, repeated 3 times). Most end up center mass. I think this saves a bit less than a second from my other method below. And if I was really in a pickle, and couldn't get distance on an attacker, I think this is how I would most likely employ my gun. and...

2) bringing the weapon up to eye-level, as quick as possible while maintaining control, acquiring sights, and if they look "good enough:" firing. I attempt to "push" the gun to the target while simultaneously raising the weapon parallel to the ground. I like to see all three sights somewhat in alignment; and have to admit, I really wanna see that front site! (maybe it IS a subtle priority!) And I get much tighter consistency, of course.

(At further distances, and if I or a loved one is not under threat: I'm probably better a witness with my weapon in my pocket!)

Anyway, not sure if training two ways in-close is helpful or hurtful: one poster smartly said "...while re-thinking, don't over-think..." indeed. And with all that said: I'm just an average shot.

Anyway, thank you for your service and your input!

Rich

Hi MisterX!

Great Post, and thanks for the link!

A very long time ago, I was trained to make front and rear sight sharp, and target fuzzy (picture 2 in your link). Guaranteed to work, especially at distance--great accuracy for target shooting. And I even taught my nephew this (blind leading the blind :0)

But in close, what I'm finding I'm doing and liking, is my focus being just opposite: target in focus, while the weapon and sights comes up to meet the line between my eyes and target, then "looking through" the sights and firing as quick as possible once all is "good enough" (as in picture 3 in your link). I actually think this may be a natural occurrence, as just for fun, I tried it the opposite way, trying to find and focus on sights as quick as possible as the weapon comes up, align, and then focus on target: what a timely, wandering mess!

My only issue, as I mentioned in another post, is I strongly favor my left eye, and that's where the barrel tends align with. With both wide open, there is, for me, just too much parallax error.

All this assumed using sights to aim. I mentioned I practice what might be considered shooting from the hip, in responding to a previous post: as soon as the weapon is belly level and parallel: off go the rounds. And I'm satisfied with the results, should I find myself if in a wicked pickle (and thinking that is the most likely scenario I would be deploying a weapon).

Anyway, thank you again for a great post and link!

Rich

Hi Michigan!

And thank you for your reply!

I'm sensing there is a lot of validity to your approach, given your environment and capabilities, and anticipated scenario. (Note: I'm not LEO or "expert shot," just agreeing as a fellow arms owner.) I agree.

And as my arms get increasingly "shorter" with age, and vision marginalized on both ends; I've attached a picture of my next deep pocket personal carry weapon (it's design is making a lot of sense!):

Cheers!

Rich

Attached Images

Blunderbuss.jpg (11.9 KB, 16 views)

Flash sight picture training is included in the NRA Personal Protection Training Manual.
Nothing new or strange about it to me, since I teach it routinely.

__________________
Science plus Art

Hi OK!

And thank you for your reply!

Cool: an instructor!

What else can you share with me/us about what you teach, methodology, or distinct steps, and what criteria you have that you're satisfied to pull the trigger, etc.

When you teach, for instance, do place a concerted effort on bringing the weapon up parallel to the ground, or just raise the weapon, look for front sight, and then "rotate" the back sights up to meet front sight.

Outside of 5 yards are you teaching to focus on the sights or shoot threw them and keep the target in focus?

Curious...

Some of us may be doing the flash sight picture and not knowing that's what it's called, who knows, so anything you can further share would be appreciated.

Thanks again!

Rich

The above statement may, or may not be true. The problem is that in the race between remaining entirely politically correct and continuing to remain alive, if you guess wrong ....... you might not be around for either the coroner's inquest, or the fascinating court case which could follow; and, who knows, you might, also, miss your chance to meet Massad Ayoob.

Another thing: Anyone who still thinks that most CQB pistol gunfights, all, occur at very close range is, sadly, well behind the times. The most recent gunfighting data reveals that many victims managed to survive by acting sooner rather than later.

Many, if not most, unfortunate victims of gun violence are, invariably, the same righteous, upright, and politically correct people who: (1) Were, themselves, unarmed, (2) were armed but, nevertheless, still got themselves unexpectedly ambushed, (3) were naïvely unprepared and/or overconfident, (4) foolishly trusted in either, 'the system' or someone else to protect them, (5) simply weren't paying attention, or - in the alternative - (6) were either unable to think fast enough to form a viable survival plan, or (7) regrettably had no practical means of adequate self-defense available with which to save themselves.

'Street survival', and/or CQB pistol gunfighting ain't, 'rocket science'! Out on the street, out in the real world, attempting to remain politically correct, and/or hesitating in order to verify the parameters of whatever potentially violent (life or death) scenario you're confronted with is no different that the driver of a dragster waiting until he's sure the light is green before he releases the clutch!

Any drag racer who feels compelled to wait, who needs to verify his own behavior to himself before he acts, is sure to end up looking at the back of the other driver's dragster; and, even though it's currently politically incorrect to talk about it, the exact same rationale behind drag racing, also, applies to CQB pistol gunfighting.

Don't believe me? OK, do an internet search for any of the FBI reports on how armed criminals think, and are most likely to behave. Then read retired Sheriff's Deputy Lieutenant Dave Spaulding's incisive analysis of what really happens in a gunfight.

In brief: An armed opponent who intends you harm will always try to shoot first, as well as BEFORE you do. Hence the practical, real world value of using: (1) a, 'flash sight picture', (I don't like that term.) (2) speed shooting, and/or (3) firing sooner and at greater distance rather than waiting to be absolutely positively 100% sure that you're doing, 'the right thing'.

Excessive time, excessive doubt, confusion, inexperience, and uncertainty are, all, intrinsically dangerous intellectual dilemmas that no CQB pistol gunfighter can afford to indulge in. As my mother once said to me,

'Son, you can't rely upon other people to give you the right answer.' 'Other people aren't going to save you.' 'The smart move is to always be prepared to save yourself.' 'You constantly need to be ready; and the solution should always be available beforehand.' 'Anything else, any other sort of personal behavior, is a recipe for disaster.'

(At the time Mom was talking about financial investments; but, it didn't take me long to appreciate that my mother's advice enjoyed a much wider application!)

You gents are of course free to do as you see fit. But it really doesn't have to be so convoluted.

I defer to post number 3.

__________________
Life Is A Gift. Defend it!

I don't! Why? Because in my more than 25 years of experience training other people to use firearms I would say that better than 90% of them could not while training, and I strongly suspect cannot now, speed shoot with a pistol. Knowing how to grab a, 'flash sight picture' and being able to speed shoot well is even more rare than being a good wing shooter with a shotgun.

Look at the Wikipedia article referenced in the OP's first post - What a convoluted intellectual mess! Anyone who truly thinks that he's going to learn the fundamentals of speed shooting by reading an article like that would be better off taking up knitting. (He'll get farther!)

I've worked and practiced with several advanced IDPA shooters. I KNOW what it takes for these guys to become faster and faster with their pistols, as well as to MAINTAIN that edge. I, too, have had to suffer through, 'breaking the mental and emotional barriers' of my conscious mind. (Something that, without BOTH continued regular practice and reinforced belief is very easy to fall away from.)

Apparently I was a little too oblique in my above reply; so, this time, I'll try to keep things more simple and to the point. Albert Einstein once said that, 'All knowledge (Read, 'skill') begins with an accurate definition of terms.' Until you know AND understand the terms (the parameters and idiosyncrasies) of the problem you're NEVER going to be able to genuinely master it. Neither should it be forgotten that mastery, and retention are NOT the same thing - Especially when it comes to a, 'naturally depreciating skill set' like pistol shooting.

Simple enough?

https://books.google.com/books?id=7T...0Point&f=false

Simple enough? Evidently not because 90% couldn't do it.

Without writing a book here, I've tried it. Doesn't work for me. So no I don't train with it.

In my mind, you will either need to point shoot or make a steady aimed shot which means aligning the sights. Point shooting means that you may or may not reference the sights. Depends on who you ask. And it's been hotly debated here a time or two.

In my opinion "flash" sight shooting is unnecessary. So why complicate things? That's my point. If you like it and are good at it then continue. But keep in mind that when you get older such things may not work and they will become less important. But even then the sights will be there to greet you.

__________________
Life Is A Gift. Defend it!

NRA courses are available all over the country. Enter your zip code for a search.
NRAInstructors.org - Portal for NRA Certified Instructors, NRA Education and Training


The books are also sold separately:
NRA Guide to the Basics of Personal Protection in the Home (HANDBOOK ONLY)

For defense use, contact range is no sights, then flash sighting further out, then sight picture at range. The exact distance to transition depends on the individual. I would not expect a novice to point shoot at the distance I do.
For any of this to work, much practice is required to be effective, because the whole point is to do it quickly without stopping to think about your shooting technique. Like riding a bicycle, the mechanics of shooting should be instinctive and smooth.

__________________
Science plus Art

I, actually, agree with much of what you've said; (and I don't need to write a book in order to explain, 'Why').

There ARE necessary prerequisites to acquiring, BOTH, flash sight picture AND point shooting skills. The guidance of an experienced instructor is only one of them. You also need to practice frequently, and have access to - not hundreds, but -thousands of rounds of ammunition BEFORE you'll be able to demonstrate the same skill as, say, and IDPA Master Class pistol shooter.

Obviously there needs to be a strong commitment on the student's behalf to personally accomplish the skill set. Another thing: I've been doing this for a long time; and, quite frankly, everything I've said about learning how to use a, 'flash sight picture' is equally true of good point shooting, too. In fact I believe that anyone who's adept at the one skill set isn't far away from mastery of the other.

I do not regard the kind of, 'point shooting' I've seen at many of the popular shooting schools as authentic point shooting. It's one thing to shoot from retention into a target you're right on top of, and call it, 'point shooting'. It's entirely another thing to draw, extend the weapon forward, and place accurate fire upon a target that's standing 10 or 12 yards away. (Most pistol shooters are unable to do that, too.)

Personally, unless a gunman is able to effectively, 'point shoot' against targets at 10 to 12 yards away then, as far as I'm concerned, I don't regard that gunman as a competent point shooter. Because I spend most of my time, nowadays, at strictly regulated firing ranges I haven't practiced genuine, 'point shooting' in, well, more than 5 or 6 years; however, when I used to practice frequently I was adept at a full 15 to 18 yards - THAT is real, 'point shooting'; the kind that, in my experience, 90% of most pistol shooters are, also, unable to do. (Except, of course, on internet gun forums!)

For me it's undesirable in non-time-critical shooting too.

If you've never seen them in person big dots are BIG. I had small dots on a full-size pistol for a while. They were decent for action shooting, but I could not make the transition from those to big dots and eventually went back to standard notch and post sights.

Front Sight, for example, teaches that your accuracy in "real life" is half what you achieve on the range. Assuming that's true then throwing 1-2 rounds off the silhouette in training is definitely unacceptable.

You're welcome.

I am cross eye dominant as well. It was a pretty big obstacle to get over with shooting handguns, especially since my left eye is not completely dominant (I can still sight with my right eye with both eyes open, it is just much harder and takes a little bit of time). Because of this it became the #1 goal of my training. After a couple of months I finally got it licked. Now I shoot with both eyes wide open every time without even thinking about it. Unfortunately rifles are still a big issue. I pretty much have to close my left eye to effectively get a sight picture. I am contemplating learning to shoot left-handed.

Hi Jascott!

And thank you for your post!

Wow! Awesome that you were able to change your shooting technique not allowing your dominant eye to remain dominant.

I would equate that to learning how to write with my left hand (versus being right-handed my whole life).

Learning to shoot left-handed: well, I think I would just end up hurting myself!



That would be a Herculean effort, indeed!

Good luck with that, and thank you for the post!

Rich

Hi ArcAngel!

Thank you for your thoughtful input!

And I like your Mother's far-reaching advice!

When I got my CCW, I understood the police officer teaching the course say most fire fights are within 10 feet, in dark lighting, and over in 3 seconds. So I kinda went with that at face value.

If I read your post correctly, it seems that may not be the case.

Would you be so kind to post some links regarding FBI/other results for us to look at?

I reviewed the very good Dave Spaulding article, link below, thank you for that.

What Really Happens In A Gunfight?

Take care, and thank you again for the good post!

Rich

Hi Mister X!

Thank you for your reply!

Interesting link!

Take care,

Rich

Hi again, OK!

Thank you for the grreat links!

I like your transitional approach--it makes a lot of sense to me.

BTW, as a side note, have you taken any courses at Gunsight? (link below

http://www.gunsite.com/

If so, your thoughts?

Thanks again!

Rich

A lot of the conveniental approaches arise from guys who do only range work. They shoot from static stances at non-moving pieces of paper and draw conclusions from there. The problem is an assailant will not likely be standing still and you will very often be moving as well(to escape, to get to cover or simply not to be an easy target). He may be moving laterally and/or often closing in. This should be given strong consideration. You have to constantly visually track and confirm the movement and activity of the threat under compressed time frames and you simply can't do that if you are focusing on your sights. For almost any realistic scenario you will encounter and the distances they occur at, threat focused shooting is the best approach and prioritize your training accordingly to what you're most likely to face.

I'd recommend highly finding an instructor/class that incorporates Force on Force scenario based training into their curriculum to best understand the dynamics. WILSON DEFENSE JOURNAL: Sights-What and Why? Gabe Suarez and Rob Pincus

The first two minutes are what I want to highlight...

I use the Grant Cunningham method

__________________
K & N S&W revolvers

Sorry! I'd have answered this sooner; but I didn't remain subscribed to the thread. Standby, I'll search my hard drive for it. Broadly speaking, what I, personally, got from Dave Spaulding is that things tend to happen very quickly in a CQB pistol gunfight;* and the concept of, 'Semper Paratus' applies.

You've got to be alert; and, even if you're wearing a uniform, don't be overconfident. Always anticipate the possibility that things can very quickly go wrong. The closer the other guy is to you, the more potential danger you're going to be in. (Proximity to danger is a common hazard of police work.)

It seems to me that survival often comes down to correct anticipation, as well as accurate prior knowledge of what to, and not to do. You've got to know, beforehand, the most favorable way to proceed. It's insightful observations like these that I've gleaned from reading Spaulding's (actually) seminal article on unexpected assaults and street gunfighting.

'Close' is bad. 'Close' always seems to be more applicable to victims than it does to survivors. People who react sooner, AND are able to formulate some sort of escape or attack plan with which to advantage themselves are more likely to survive a potentially deadly close encounter than others who are caught, 'flatfooted'.

I'll look for the 2007 FBI report on how criminals use guns; but I do remember that relatively unsophisticated, seldom practiced, street gunmen are able to exhibit a higher than expected, 'hit probability' against their selected targets. (Good guys like you and me!)

One demonstrably viable technique armed street criminals use it to almost immediately, 'throw lead' at the target. I was always taught NOT to, 'throw lead' downrange; and to make each of my shots count; but, apparently, when it comes to CQB street gunfighting I was taught wrong! Drawing sooner rather than later, in the same way that you see so many police officers do on these TV police videos, is the more correct, mutually armed, confrontational response.

So is NOT taking the time to, 'nest' your front sight; and, then, compensating for your high front sight by taking an immediate, 'low hold' on COM as you begin to tap the trigger. The caveat? The farther away you are from the target the more you've got to watch THE VERY TOP of your elevated front sight!**



* NOT to be confused with a pistol ambush in which the victim, probably, won't have any reaction time at all!

** Don't worry about the rear sight. Whenever the front sight is properly viewed, the rear sight will automatically take care of itself.

OK! Here's a synopsis of that FBI article: Force Science News: FBI Report On How Criminals Use Guns. This is only part of the original article; but it makes the point.

With TDSA and the United States Shooting Academy both located right here in Oklahoma, I see no need to go elsewhere for ANY type or level of training desired. Not to mention Mike Seeklander's classes and training materials.

Gunsite, in Arizona, is a handy location for the west coast people. Compared to TDSA, I find gunsite prices to be high.

The Defensive Shooting Academy of Tulsa Homepage

https://www.usshootingacademy.com/

Shooting Performance | Michael Seeklander | Handgun, Rifle and Shotgun Firearms Training and training books and DVD's

__________________
Science plus Art