Anyone here (other than me) think that in a self defense situation that if you have to "find your sights" you are probably dead?

I have been practicing self defense point and shoot with the weapon at chest height and extended for about 2 years now and am becoming rather adept at placing all shots within the scoring section of a target from 5 to 15 yards.

It is rather amazing what your brain does if you just point your finger at an object without thinking about it.

No they are not aimed percision shots to a bullseye but this method of firing gets the job done.

Thoughts anyone??

__________________
Hipcocked45

In a self defense situation, up close and personal, you'll never use your sights. If you have time and distance you might but perfecting your point shooting abilities is pretty much mandatory if you're under close quarters attack. The thing is that if you are adept at using your sights and hitting things at distance you should have no problem in 20 feet or so of hitting a man sized target by point shooting.

I didn't know how good I was at it until I took a close quarters pistol craft class and never missed a center of mass body shot all day with both a Hi-Power and a 4" 686+.

Thus my conclusion - an adept shooter can always do this and should practice it, too!

Your 'discovery' is spot on. Practice point shooting out to the distance for you that it no longer makes any sense on which to rely. The 'Always shoot for utmost accuracy crowd' seems to think that a handgun is worthless unless the shot is carefully taken with the proper stance, grip, trigger press and sight alignment with a perfect Isosceles or Weaver stance. All that can and will get you killed in the wrong situation.

I was an experienced IPSC shooter of some skill when I became a LEO. After a few field experiences I realized that the muscle memories that I was building in IPSC target shooting could get me killed. I stopped competing immediately. .......

I disagree with not using the front sight.

I'd you have properly developed your presentation (drawing from the leather) the pistol comes up with sights on the target.

Problem is that most folks won't put in the work to develop the skill.

Point shoot or use your sights?
The flash sight picture is the best of both worlds.
Some classroom instruction and about 50 rounds on the range and
most students have got it. But we need to be versatile depending on
distance. I like the speed rock for real close, the flash sight picture for
intermediate, and the sights for longer distance. Find out what works
for you and do that.

__________________
In Omnia Paratus

I use the Isosceles stance for there is IIIa body armor that protects me from calibers up to and including .44 Magnum.

I use the Weaver stance. I'd rather use a more athletic fighting stance for greater balance and stability. Isocceles might be better for at the range or if wearing body armor. But in a defensive situation without body armor I will always go with Weaver. I also practice point and shooting but will always attempt to put that front sight where I want the round to go.

I point at targets up to five meters away, but I use my sights for beyond five meters. My point shooting works up close.

I'm not sure what body armor has to do with point shooting but the reason you really need to be able to point shoot is because you literally might not be able to get that presentation accomplished the way they taught you in class and the way you practiced it at the range, if you did practice it. Using your front sight in a combat situation is great when there is time but when Jim the Perpetrator is running at you with a knife you need to be able to hit him with a round NOW! Getting that proper presentation accomplished with the front sight on the target is problematic when the adrenaline hits hard. If you slow him up then you can aim and take a second shot.

Further, you might not even get to use both hands. Unless you're a skillful one-handed shooter (many cowboy action shooters are very adept at this because we shoot that way in competition) you're not going to be very used to the way it feels and you will need to get that first shot off quickly. Find your front sight later.

YMMV

I wholeheartedly believe that non-proactive defensive shooting(and training) is/should be threat focused shooting. I think available research supports this concept and lessons from FoF/Force on Force training reinforce it.

There is a degree of confusion due to differences in definitions of the various methods. Massad Ayoob was asked about unsighted vs aimed fired and he makes a very good point...

"As you know, this is a hotly debated topic. I agree with the late Dave Arnold of Guns & Ammo magazine that a lot of the debate would be cleared up if everyone used the same terminology. Some people consider anything but the conventional sight picture from the marksmanship manual, applied with primary focus on the front sight, to be "point shooting." To me, it's only point shooting if I can't see the gun and its relationship to the target at all; if I can see the gun superimposed over the target, I consider it some degree of aimed fire, ranging from coarse to precise."

The first couple of minutes of this video really sums it up for me.

The body armor point was in regards to stance. As the comment above mine mentioned using isosceles because he wants his armor to face the threat.

Oh, now I understand, thanks.

Thanks. I made a crude assumption.

Just my opinion, for what it's worth.

In a close range self defense situation, one's focus should be on the attacker. So I use a target-focused approach with shooting. Whenever possible I try to get my gun in my line of sight while focusing on the target, even if I'm not using the sights. That at least allows me to get a rough visual index on the target. Even at longer distances, say up to 10 yards or so, I can get decent hits by looking "through" the sights while focusing on the target, if that makes sense.

I don't like thinking in terms of "shooting stance." To me that always makes it sound static, when one should be moving if at all possible in a self defense situation ("get off the X," interfere with your attacker's OODA loop, get to cover, etc.). It may sound "tacticool" but I like the idea of a shooting "platform," where the focus is from the waist up, thus allowing your legs and feet to move as needed. I tend to use more of an Isoceles platform with my arms when shooting two-handed since that is consistent with one's natural response to an attack. I don't have the source but I remember reading that even in situations where police officers trained exclusively using Weaver more often than not they ended up using more of Isoceles in actual shootings.

If you haven't seen this video (it's actually just audio, but still worth it), I'd highly recommend you watch it. It's an interview that Massad Ayoob did with Bob Stasch, a Chicago police officer who survived 14 gunfights. It's about an hour long.

I can shoot with the sights below the line of sight.....
I can also use the sights....mainly the front sight at fightin distances.

But I always practice shootin and moving...


Not like this, I jest happen to like this scene,



.

__________________
"IN GOD WE TRUST"

As keith44spl notes, 'shootin and moving' are important given many shooting incidents are on 2-way 'ranges.'

Cover and/or concealment are also extremely important...when available, of course.

Be safe.

Amen on the thoughts on terminology. Beyond arms length, there MUST be some visual reference between firearm and target. Might not be a text book sight picture ( top of front sight level with the rear sight and equal light on both sides SIR!) but there must be some reference.

I'd also be real careful about what's posted regarding use of sights. Should one be involved in a shooting and hit a bystander, posts claiming that sights one doesn't need sights or are un-necessary could come back to haunt you..

Took a tactical class given by a local swat guy. His position was "You always aim directly at your target, but you may not always use your sights to do it."

Visually, I ride the front sight when shooting fast. I can see it move as I'm looking over the top of the gun. As I continue firing, the sight picture completes, but I have no recollection of what the rear sight is doing. I'm only aware of the muzzle and front sight movement, and the muzzle smoke from firing. I can see the target a little more clearly than when I'm slow-firing with a proper front sight focus.

Generally, I'm firing around three rounds a second--not bad, not GM-level, either.

Shots are, without exception, inside the scoring rings of an NRA B-2 or B-3 (7.5-8 inches) at 7 yards. Which is about what I'm capable of with the same gun and target slow firing at 25 yards.

Doing it reflexively is the right thing, for your brain is going to be concentrating on the threat.

needing sights past arms length is incorrect.
i have removed the front sight from my dedicated point shooting gun.
i don't need to see the gun at all.
at 10 yards there is no way i could miss a center of mass hit.
just takes work.
last time i shot for score, from the hip, at 7 yards, the group was 4 1/4''.
it took more than 6,000 practice rounds to accomplish this, but it can be done..

__________________
susie

Exactly. When reading this thread about self defense shooting stance, I think of "self defense" as a sort of random or spur-of-the-moment incident. Something that happens unexpectedly.

I don't know anyone who wears body armor 24/7/365.

I agree with OP.

Most non-LEO or military SD shootings are at close range. Close range and bringing gun up to eye-level to use the sights don't go together.

The only likely scenario for me to shoot someone where I could use my sights would be in a home invasion. Otherwise, in public, if the assailant is not at close range, I'm probably not going to shoot them, anyway. I'm only going to shoot someone out of dire necessity; if they aren't close, it isn't dire.

__________________
I've still got it made.

I'd love to see a video if you happen to have a YouTube channel. That would be some awesome shooting!! If you don't have one, I understand.....lots of people don't do vids or like to be on video.

__________________
MSP - Retired

thank you, bob. i'm tech challenged , so no vid.
however, as soon as i'm a bit better, i'll issue a report of the procedure, for anyone interested.
we have members with eye problems n i especially want them to know they don't need sights to defend themselves.
the right to self defense remains after your eyes get bad.

__________________
susie

When I was an agent, 3 meters was the distance that we used a "weapon retention" technique; draw, rock the sidearm into a firing position at your side, lock your wrist against your body, and fire (be sure to keep your off-hand out of the way). This technique is fast and prevents the liklihood of being disarmed.

From 5-7 meters, we drew into a two handed grip and fired when the front sight crossed our line of vision (flash sight picture). Agents were required to make B-Zone (IPSC targets) hits in 1.5 seconds or less. Many could do this in less than a second from a thumb-break holster. This technique is also fast, but is a little more accurate than the weapon retention variation.

Over 7 meters we used conventional sight pictures, but all shooting was timed.

This is right on. Big Cholla is right. I don't practice at controlled ranges. I have a lot of desert here for that. A large piece of card board from an appliance box! Point shooting, no two handed. Practice from being on the ground__you may wind up there! Practice drawing and firing from every position___you might be in one of those.
Have been there___and done it. 24 years__Retired.
Stay safe.
Poli Viejo

I use paper plates. Roughly size of human center mass.

__________________
I've still got it made.

That's an interesting comment and one that bears thinking about. However, if you study the art of the gun, meaning you don't just go to the range and shoot but you literally get advanced instruction, well, besides the fact that I'm pretty confident in my point shooting, should I have the unfortunate experience of having to take a shot at a perpetrator that goes astray and hits an innocent third party, when the investigation is underway my advanced shooting instructor can be a witness in my defense. It's not my word alone that I can hit a man sized target at close quarter combat distances without using my front sight - my instructor can vouch for me.

Moral of the story - don't always shoot alone.

One of the four General firearms safety rules is, "keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on the target." It doesn't say, "keep your finger off the trigger until you have a clear sight picture of your target." When presented with a self-defense situation, as soon as you "rock and lock" your sidearm out of the holster, your sights should be aligned in the desired direction...

What one can do on a square range where neither target nor shooter are moving isn't really relevant if one of both may be moving. Your instructors testimony might get potential charges knocked down, but you're gonna be hurting in civil court.

A couple of months back the Ayoob Files featured a shooting by a Sgt. Gramins/Garmins where all but 3 rounds were fired without the formal use of sights. The good Sgt went 17/33 overall (very good!) but didn't end the fight until he used his sights on the last 3 rounds. Those last 3 were head shots and the first 2 didn't get the job done.

As for the advanced training.......I'd need to raid my records for the exact count, but I'm over the 500 hour mark.

can anyone actually hit anything from that weapon retention position?
i've tried with very poor luck.
i need to advance the gun a bit to be accurate.

__________________
susie

When he pulled from the holster and was raising his gun, he started firing at the adversary's FEET and continued shooting as he brought the gun up. If the guy was still alive after that, he could finish him off with an aimed shot when the gun was at eye level.

PS Practice does it. In my younger days I shot a lever carbine from the hip so much that my aim got pretty good. Definitely good enough to take out decent sized target at 10 yards or so.

__________________
"He was kinda funny lookin'"

rw, you hit it. people think it can't be done because it takes lots of practice n concentration.
you worked, you did it.

__________________
susie

I shoot one-handed and have my gun already drawn but hidden,then turn sideways and fire. Saves time of drawing.
If threat fades I walk on and reholster.

I was taught by a Treasury Agent instructor with a model 60. Bring it from the draw to your belt buckle as fast as you can and lock your wrist and pull the trigger when the sight lines up with your nose. Double tap. as fast as you can. Got good at ten feet from the waist. It is all about what you practice. A second is a long time when you practice quick.

Shooting from retention position is meant for very close range, i.e. 1 or 2 arm's length away at most.

That's called a zipper drill, for obvious reasons . . .

__________________
Wisdom comes thru fear . . .

...and is a really poor way to handle a defensive situation. Not only are you wasting ammo on wild shots, but there is a huge ricochet potential.

__________________
Freedom isn't free.

There is some logic, whether or not you agree with it

Some of the old-timers thought it preferable, if you were going to miss, to miss low. Reason being that in their experience, people being shot at tended to not notice misses to the side or over their head. But they tended to get awful shook-up by shots pinging off of walls or the dirt around their feet.

The other idea at work--if I recall correctly, this is Farnham--is to start at the beltline. Shots to that area either really, really suck (abdominal shots), or they hit the pelvis and knock the aggressor down. As you fire, recoil pushes your shots in a line upwards, directly through a bunch of important stuff.

Personally, I disagree with it, on three basic grounds:

(1) If shots must be placed that expediently, then what I am doing is playing catch-up. Instead of trying to play catch-up with a fast draw, I should be seeking cover, employing a barrier, or creating distance, as appropriate. I also should have focused on not being "behind the curve" in the first place. I'm not an LEO who has to enter dangerous situations, I'm a citizen that should be seeking to identify and avoid them.

(2) I feel there are no ranges at which it makes sense. At contact range--or so close as to be functionally identical--you're essentially fighting hand-to-hand, with a handgun. There's no excuse for not seeking to make the most effective shots possible, as you might only get one (automatics not returning to battery to due muzzle contact, revolver cylinders getting grabbed, etc). At casual sighting/point ranges, and full-sighting ranges, distance, barriers, and cover are all more effective options.

(3) I believe that the winner of a gunfight is most likely the one who scores the first effective hit. We know, thanks to one unfortunate gentleman that took the Tueller drill, that a broken leg does not necessarily halt an aggressor's mobility or fighting ability. And pelvic shots, while potentially disabling, are not reliable, and certainly do not guarantee that an armed aggressor is out of the fight. Therefore, I would conclude that lower-half hits are unreliable enough to be considered a waste of time and ammunition, both of which are in extremely limited supply. Should a leg or pelvis shot be all that prevents itself, then it's better than nothing, but that's all it is.

I was just giving it it's name. I didn't say it's something to try at the mall. It's taught to people who kill people for a living.

__________________
Wisdom comes thru fear . . .

Blackshirt your three techniques, depending on distance, as explained
in #26 are virtually the same as mine in #5. Your "weapons retention"
technique is similar but in the "speed rock" we also rock back a step on
the right while blocking or parrying with left hand/arm.

__________________
In Omnia Paratus

I practice dry-firing from the waist for targets at very close range.

The traditional speed-rock has very limited applications and effectiveness.

Mister X If you know a better technique than the speed rock for arms
length attacks I would like you to share it.

__________________
In Omnia Paratus

As a default response in ECQ, the traditional speed rock will usually result in the outcome being a mutual slaying. We see it time and again in FoF/Force on Force scenarios as well as in actual incidents. The shove and shoot as a stand alone reaction isn't much better. That's not to say that these techniques or the general concept of them doesn't have a place or can't be implemented, it's more a matter of them just usually not being effective when applied in isolation and as traditionally taught.
There just is no one single default counter-action that will be effective for all close-quarter scenarios. There are too many variables(gun, knife, blunt object, multiple assailants etc.).

The details and the dynamics of the specific ECQ scenario at hand will dictate the appropriate response. There are some general guidelines to each basic type, but no one definite answer by any means. Integrated unarmed defensive skills will likely be needed. It could be a matter of combining unarmed techniques with movement: closing, deflecting, getting off the X(create space, lateral movement, manipulate angles) with accessing the firearm. Weapon retention skills also often factor in and go far beyond simply shooting from compressed or retention positions at the range. Being able to properly fire a weapon from these positions, while engaged in a CQ struggle or entanglement(standing or grounded) and/or while in movement are vital skills necessary to be effective in ECQC.

"movement, deflecting, getting off the X, creating space,
lateral movement, all while accessing the firearm" all sounds
pretty much like the speed rock I know. Obviously the blocking,
parrying, and counter attacks, are flexible depending on the
variables of the attack. I don't know what "traditional" speed
rock you refer to, but I don't know anyone dumb enough to stick
with one fixed set of movements regardless of the what the attacker
does.

__________________
In Omnia Paratus

The speed-rock has been around for a very long time. It sounds as if you perhaps are using the term for something else. Technique: The Revival of the Outdated Speed Rock on Social Media – Growing Up Guns

The Speed Rock has been around a very long time (because it works)
and I have been around a very long time as well. I think the author
of "The Revival of the Outdated Speed Rock" must have made a very
limited study of the tactic. It was around long before Chuck Taylor
and the example shown is rediculous. The correct Speed Rock as I
learned it in the 1950s and have practiced a lot since is as follows:
1. A quick step back on right foot into a combat or boxing stance.
Rocking back slightly as you turn slightly to the right., also
gets the gun on your right hip a little bit further away from
the attackers grasp, and slightly changes the line of fire that
you were in.
2. Simultaneously grasp your gun, holding it with your wrist against
your side, just below your rib cage, for stability and indexing.
The way former Agent blackshirt explains in #26 above.

3. Also simultaneously the left hand/arm is going up if you need to
block or lower if you need to parry, but careful to keep it out of
the line of your shot, if you need to shoot.
4. Counter attack can depend on circumstances, but I have always
liked the tiger paw to the nose followed by fingers in the eyes.

As you can see there are several decisions to be made during
the execution of this tactic, depending on the attacker, his or
her weapon, shoot or not, etc.

The guy in the photo you referred, with his hips stuck out like
that, and his feet side by side, is a joke. I doubt anyone who
knows, and has used, the speed rock would put a lot of
credibility on that article.

Maybe its semantics, but the speed rock I know and teach
has worked for me and it has worked for my students for
years.

__________________
In Omnia Paratus

That's why I used the term traditional. There are variations. None, including the version you describe work very well in dynamic ECQ scenarios. The only way to pressure test it is in force on force and it just doesn't hold up. You say it has worked for you and your students. In what context?

Most defensive shooting instructors have very limited experience and knowledge of ECQC. It's an afterthought to them. The bulk of what is taught is basically ineffective gun solutions to a combativeness problem. The speed-rock(any variation), the shove and shoot, the step-back-palm heel/chin jab, the sidestep as they are generally taught are not very effective. It would be like thinking training one-step sparring drills prepares you for a street-fight or for getting into the octagon.