Major New Study: How Your Eyes Can Cast Your Fate In A Gunfight

Brownie0486

Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2009
Messages
1,133
Reaction score
2,237
"Field work for the research was conducted a year ago in the United Kingdom with the help of 24 police volunteers. Eleven were highly experienced, male veterans of an Emergency Response Team (ERT), seasoned in fighting terrorists among other assignments, with a median age of nearly 39. The rest were younger rookies (median age just over 30), 7 of them female, who had completed their pre-service firearms and simulation training and were considered “ready for the street.” Both groups predominately were right-eye shooters"

Gaze patterns:

  • The rookie’s final saccade, especially among those who missed when they fired, “occurred at the same time they tried to fixate the target and aim,” the study reveals. At that critical moment in the last 500 ms, the rookies in a staggering 82% of their tests took their eyes off the assailant and attempted to look at their own gun, trying to find or confirm sight alignment as they aimed. “This pulled them out of the gunfight for what turned out to be a significant period of time,” Lewinski says. Vickers adds: “On a high percentage of their shots, the rookies did not see the assailant as they fired,” contributing to inaccurate shooting and the misjudgment of the cell phone as a threat.
  • About 30% of the ERT also looked at their gun, but their timing was different. Most of those gaze-shifts occurred before the officers aimed, “followed by the onset of their aim and fixation on the target and firing.”
The researchers pose the possibility that the rookies’ training may have contributed to their poor performance. They were taught pistolcraft “similar to how most police officers first learn to shoot a handgun: to focus first on the rear sight, then on the front sight, and finally on the target, aligning all 3 before pulling the trigger.”

“This is a very time-consuming process and one that was not successful in this study,” Vickers says.

"Somewhere across their training, practice, and experience, the successful ERT officers had learned what essentially is a reverse process: Their immediate and predominate focus is on the weapon carried by their attacker. With their gaze concentrated there, they bring their gun up to their line of sight and catch their sights only in their peripheral vision, a subtle “sight glimpse,” as Lewinski terms it. “They have an unconscious kinesthetic sense to know that their gun is up and positioned properly,” he says. “This is a focus strategy that Olympic shooters use,” says Vickers, “and it is simpler, faster, and more effective.”

Now that the study has documented important ways in which expert shooters behave, how can trainers best convey these elite skills to other officers?
_____________________________________________________________________________________________

One importance to note for average inexperienced defender shooters is the fact that elite response team members bring their gun up to line of sight, and only catch their sights in their peripheral vision, described as a "sight glimpse" IOW, they're not looking at the sights directly but in peripheral vision which means they are threat focused.

Imagine that, elite response team members were shooting threat focused and weren't seeing their sights in direct vision when they fired. Seems threat focused skills have a place in DGU's. Seems training threat focused is a viable way of shooting defensively even as elite response team members were taught to directly see their sights before touching off a round.

Amazing what clinical research brings to the discussion relative threat focused vs sights focused training.

https://www.forcescience.com/2009/1...eyes-can-cast-your-fate-in-a-gunfight-part-1/
 
Last edited:
Very interesting. Going to read again…and again.

Thinking now…

As an aside, it’s much easier to bring something UP to a certain height than lower the same thing to that height. I’m talking about using your arms, of course, as if holding a handgun.

Be safe.
 
Okay, fine, so it's not exactly "new." The question is, is there any reason to believe that the conclusions are invalid?
 
Okay, fine, so it's not exactly "new." The question is, is there any reason to believe that the conclusions are invalid?
My thought would be that the environment in the USA has certainly changed since the study was done, and it was done in the United Kingdom, where officers didn't engage regularly in armed conflict in 2008, so I don't think the study has any real relevance . . .

I'm particularly amused that the OP entitled the thread "Major New Study," which tells me he/she didn't read it for content . . .
 
Misleading. The study is from 2009, which means 2008 from the above sentence . . .
Clearly elucidated at the top left of the page, written in 2009.
My thought would be that the environment in the USA has certainly changed since the study was done, and it was done in the United Kingdom, where officers didn't engage regularly in armed conflict in 2008, so I don't think the study has any real relevance . . .

I'm particularly amused that the OP entitled the thread "Major New Study," which tells me he/she didn't read it for content . . .
And the testing involved elite response team members as well as newer police officers, both trained in front sight press who carry firearms and are trained in front sight press. IOW, highly trained individuals and normal police officers.

The study is valid, if you'll do some research of your own, you'll see Lewinski has been involved with police from all over the world including the US in subjects covering after action reviews, memory issues in after action statements given by officers who've been involved in DGU's on the streets, psychological affects etc etc. He's been at that research for a very long time.

In fact, his research has changed the timeline of when officers are asked for statements about an incident right here in the US. No longer are officers demanded to give statements immediately after a incident. So, yes, his research has changed the way officers are treated after being involved in DGU right here in the US of A

The findings are as valid today as they were in 08. Leo's are still being taught front sight press. Leo's are still only nationally making no more than 35% of their hits being trained nearly exclusively in front sight press.

I copied and pasted the title of the article, it wasn't something I wrote, it was a quote.

Dr. William Lewinski, founder and executive director of the Force Science Institute, is a frequently featured keynote speaker and instructor in the law enforcement training community, frequently appearing at conferences for organizations such as the International Association of Law Enforcement Firearms Instructors as a keynote speaker due to his extensive research.

The International Association of Law Enforcement Firearms Instructors (IALEFI) fully encompasses US police officers. Its active membership includes local, county, state, and federal US law enforcement firearms instructors, alongside private, military, and international agencies

Dr. Bill Lewinski, executive director of the Force Science Institute, frequently presents on police use-of-force, human dynamics, and reaction times. Beyond the International Association of Law Enforcement Firearms Instructors (IALEFI), his speaking engagements have included International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) and the International Law Enforcement Training (ILET) Summit. Lewinski has presented to the President's Task Force on 21st Century Policing and internationally to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, New Scotland Yard, and the British House of Commons. He is a frequent guest speaker at meetings for the Association of Force Investigators (AFI) and has delivered keynote addresses at international medical conferences in the United Kingdom.

IOW, he's considered an expert in his field of study by major law enforcement organizations around the globe. The Force Science Institute, founded by Dr. William Lewinski, was officially launched in June 2004.

Dr. Bill Lewinski and the Force Science Institute have frequently addressed IALEFI and instructors regarding the "front sight, press" shooting technique. Rather than endorsing a strict front-sight focus for all lethal force encounters, his gaze-pattern and attention studies (beginning in 2008) showed that doing so under high stress can narrow an officer's visual focus and delay crucial threat detection. IALEFI's Annual Training Conference (ATC) is attended by approximately 300+ law enforcement officers and is considered to be one of the best firearms training conferences in the industry. IOW, US law enforcement also attended and heard these findings at one of the conferences.

The International Association of Law Enforcement Firearms Instructors (IALEFI) frequently hosts its Annual Training Conference in the US. Here's where they were held and will be held this year. Just in case you thought incorrectly he was some fly by night researcher. The IALEFI conference was held in Reno, NV in May of 08. If the findings were brought to the IALEFI conference in 09, it would have been West Palm Beach, Fla. ;)

2026: Palm Bay/Melbourne, Florida (Sept 27 – Oct 2)
2025: Houston, Texas (Sept 14 – 19)
2024: West Palm Beach, Florida
 
Last edited:
My thought would be that the environment in the USA has certainly changed since the study was done, and it was done in the United Kingdom, where officers didn't engage regularly in armed conflict in 2008, so I don't think the study has any real relevance . . .

I'm particularly amused that the OP entitled the thread "Major New Study," which tells me he/she didn't read it for content . . .
What environment has changed? Leo's in the US are still taught front sight press. They're still involved in DGU's using that training. In that regard, nothing has changed. Including Lewinski being a key note speaker with American law enforcement agencies who were presented with those findings, likely in Reno, NV in 08. He's sorta like the EF Hutton of the research side of law enforcement, when he's speaking, top law dogs are listening.
Research and advocacy by Force Science Institute, led by Dr. William Lewinski, has significantly influenced law enforcement policy, resulting in many police departments giving officers a 24- to 48-hour delay (or one to two sleep cycles) before they are required to provide a formal statement after a self-defense or critical incident shooting. That research was a result of officers being challenged on statements made immediately following a critical incident on the streets and then remembering different details which a prosecutor tried to use to show the officer was lying in the report. Many being charged and/or fired.

Of course you're more than welcome to disagree with his finding presented to law enforcement agencies across the globe. And thanks for your input
 
Last edited:
Who is Dr. Lewinski of the force science institute?

A behavioral scientist and founder of the Force Science Institute, which researches human dynamics in high-stress, life-threatening situations. He holds a Ph.D. in Police Psychology and is a Professor Emeritus at Minnesota State University, Mankato.

His research—which often explores reaction times, memory science, and use of force—is frequently utilized in law enforcement training and court proceedings. For example, he has evaluated tactical training methods used by the U.S. Marshals and has testified regarding the limitations of body-worn cameras

Among other accolades
 
While I don't know Mr. Lewinski personally, I have followed his work for decades and find his research and information crucial to the changes made in LE training and defensive tactics issues, as it relates to officers.

I did work with one of his current top instructors and primary researchers/writers at the Force Science Institute and can assure you that he is top notch and was a leader at our department in critical thinking over use of force issues and tactics. He moved on to a career in military law after leaving our department and eventually wound up at FSI. He puts forth good insight and information in the articles he writes and it comes from experience and I trust what comes out of FSI to be researched and well thought out.
 
As noted the study has been out there almost 18 years and the concept has been out there a lot longer and is valid, although there may be some flaws in the methodology of the study.

But it has not had a significant impact on training. I suspect because:
a) people misinterpret how shooters get to the point of being "threat focused" using a peripheral "sight glimpse"; and
b) the round count in training is insufficient and what is often a very individualized progression doesn't fit a LEA syllabus; and/or
c) the specific service pistol being used fits the hand of a specific shooter so poorly that natural sight alignment is extremely difficult or impossible to achieve.

It is all about the training, and it's going to sound counterintuitive as it starts with the basic sight focused fundamentals. We should be training shooters to:

Phase 1:
1) Focus on the target.
2) Draw the pistol (or bring it up from low ready) and bring it up into your line of sight.
3) Place the front blade on the target.
4) - the controversial part - *pause* and align the front sight with the rear sight with the front blade still on target; and
5) shift the focus back to the target while keeping the sights aligned through the trigger press.

The problem is that when this is taught, this is usually where it stops and you get the results reported for the inexperienced shooters.

Phase 2:
1) Rinse and repeat 1-5 above until the shooter finds the sights are already aligned when the pistol rises into their line of sight. At that point the eye motor loop tensioning the muscles in the hand is developed to the point that natural sight alignment is occurring.

2) At that point the pause can begin to be progressively shortened with the shooter intentionally increasing speed while ensuring there is no reduction in accuracy. This further reinforces the grip while also refining the trigger press to improve speed without disrupting sight alignment.

3) with sufficient repetition any pause is there solely to confirm the A) front sight is on target (while maintaining focus on the target) where slightly blurred front sight is a non issue, and rear sight focus is unnecessary as the rear sight is naturally aligned with the front sight, and B) that the shot still needs to be taken.

How long it takes a shooter to progress through Phase 2 will depend on the shooter, and that's where it runs into budget and syllabus constraints.

I have not read the study in question but a study like this needs to consider and control for the training conditions. For example of those ERT subjects have had significantly more training and have greater access to range time and ammunition, it's reasonable to expect the conditions in phase 2 to be met regardless of a formal training process. Put someone in a range training situation where both speed and accuracy are stressed (as opposed to just pointing the pistol in the general direction of the threat and pulling the trigger as fast as they can) and many shooters will naturally achieve the steps outlined in phase 2.

The use of the word "peripheral" is incorrect as it's all foveal vision. The eye is focused on the target and the front sight will be slightly out of focus as it is outside the eyes depth of field. How far out of focus will depend on the light conditions and the size of the shooter's pupil, which can vary with age and light adaptation. Bright light and a small pupil will create a greater depth of field where objects across a longer distance are in sharp, while low light and a larger pupil will create a shallower depth of field where objects across a much shorter distance are in sharp focus.
 
As noted the study has been out there almost 18 years and the concept has been out there a lot longer and is valid, although there may be some flaws in the methodology of the study.

But it has not had a significant impact on training. I suspect because:
a) people misinterpret how shooters get to the point of being "threat focused" using a peripheral "sight glimpse"; and
b) the round count in training is insufficient and what is often a very individualized progression doesn't fit a LEA syllabus; and/or
c) the specific service pistol being used fits the hand of a specific shooter so poorly that natural sight alignment is extremely difficult or impossible to achieve.

It is all about the training, and it's going to sound counterintuitive as it starts with the basic sight focused fundamentals. We should be training shooters to:

Phase 1:
1) Focus on the target.
2) Draw the pistol (or bring it up from low ready) and bring it up into your line of sight.
3) Place the front blade on the target.
4) - the controversial part - *pause* and align the front sight with the rear sight with the front blade still on target; and
5) shift the focus back to the target while keeping the sights aligned through the trigger press.

The problem is that when this is taught, this is usually where it stops and you get the results reported for the inexperienced shooters.

Phase 2:
1) Rinse and repeat 1-5 above until the shooter finds the sights are already aligned when the pistol rises into their line of sight. At that point the eye motor loop tensioning the muscles in the hand is developed to the point that natural sight alignment is occurring.

2) At that point the pause can begin to be progressively shortened with the shooter intentionally increasing speed while ensuring there is no reduction in accuracy. This further reinforces the grip while also refining the trigger press to improve speed without disrupting sight alignment.

3) with sufficient repetition any pause is there solely to confirm the A) front sight is on target (while maintaining focus on the target) where slightly blurred front sight is a non issue, and rear sight focus is unnecessary as the rear sight is naturally aligned with the front sight, and B) that the shot still needs to be taken.

How long it takes a shooter to progress through Phase 2 will depend on the shooter, and that's where it runs into budget and syllabus constraints.

I have not read the study in question but a study like this needs to consider and control for the training conditions. For example of those ERT subjects have had significantly more training and have greater access to range time and ammunition, it's reasonable to expect the conditions in phase 2 to be met regardless of a formal training process. Put someone in a range training situation where both speed and accuracy are stressed (as opposed to just pointing the pistol in the general direction of the threat and pulling the trigger as fast as they can) and many shooters will naturally achieve the steps outlined in phase 2.

The use of the word "peripheral" is incorrect as it's all foveal vision. The eye is focused on the target and the front sight will be slightly out of focus as it is outside the eyes depth of field. How far out of focus will depend on the light conditions and the size of the shooter's pupil, which can vary with age and light adaptation. Bright light and a small pupil will create a greater depth of field where objects across a longer distance are in sharp, while low light and a larger pupil will create a shallower depth of field where objects across a much shorter distance are in sharp focus.
Yup. You basically wrote part 2 of the article above. Part 2

One thing that has significantly changed in LE training since this (and we’re still in the early phases) is the adoption of pistol mounted red dot sights.

RDS training is very threat focused and basically forces you to work on presenting the gun with the sights already aligned because otherwise you’ll be searching all over for the dot. Our instructors are finding it easier to teach new officers than transition more experienced ones.

The downside is that it takes a lot of repetitions to get there. The upside is that you can do them without firing, or even dry firing, since you get the instant feedback of “I drew and presented the gun, is there a dot on the thing I was focused on or not?”
 
"Field work for the research was conducted a year ago in the United Kingdom with the help of 24 police volunteers. Eleven were highly experienced, male veterans of an Emergency Response Team (ERT), seasoned in fighting terrorists among other assignments, with a median age of nearly 39. The rest were younger rookies (median age just over 30), 7 of them female, who had completed their pre-service firearms and simulation training and were considered “ready for the street.” Both groups predominately were right-eye shooters"

Gaze patterns:

  • The rookie’s final saccade, especially among those who missed when they fired, “occurred at the same time they tried to fixate the target and aim,” the study reveals. At that critical moment in the last 500 ms, the rookies in a staggering 82% of their tests took their eyes off the assailant and attempted to look at their own gun, trying to find or confirm sight alignment as they aimed. “This pulled them out of the gunfight for what turned out to be a significant period of time,” Lewinski says. Vickers adds: “On a high percentage of their shots, the rookies did not see the assailant as they fired,” contributing to inaccurate shooting and the misjudgment of the cell phone as a threat.
  • About 30% of the ERT also looked at their gun, but their timing was different. Most of those gaze-shifts occurred before the officers aimed, “followed by the onset of their aim and fixation on the target and firing.”
The researchers pose the possibility that the rookies’ training may have contributed to their poor performance. They were taught pistolcraft “similar to how most police officers first learn to shoot a handgun: to focus first on the rear sight, then on the front sight, and finally on the target, aligning all 3 before pulling the trigger.”

“This is a very time-consuming process and one that was not successful in this study,” Vickers says.

"Somewhere across their training, practice, and experience, the successful ERT officers had learned what essentially is a reverse process: Their immediate and predominate focus is on the weapon carried by their attacker. With their gaze concentrated there, they bring their gun up to their line of sight and catch their sights only in their peripheral vision, a subtle “sight glimpse,” as Lewinski terms it. “They have an unconscious kinesthetic sense to know that their gun is up and positioned properly,” he says. “This is a focus strategy that Olympic shooters use,” says Vickers, “and it is simpler, faster, and more effective.”

Now that the study has documented important ways in which expert shooters behave, how can trainers best convey these elite skills to other officers?
_____________________________________________________________________________________________

One importance to note for average inexperienced defender shooters is the fact that elite response team members bring their gun up to line of sight, and only catch their sights in their peripheral vision, described as a "sight glimpse" IOW, they're not looking at the sights directly but in peripheral vision which means they are threat focused.

Imagine that, elite response team members were shooting threat focused and weren't seeing their sights in direct vision when they fired. Seems threat focused skills have a place in DGU's. Seems training threat focused is a viable way of shooting defensively even as elite response team members were taught to directly see their sights before touching off a round.

Amazing what clinical research brings to the discussion relative threat focused vs sights focused training.

https://www.forcescience.com/2009/1...eyes-can-cast-your-fate-in-a-gunfight-part-1/

Hello Brownie0486,

That is very interesting research into the hot topic for defense carry. Thank you for sharing.

After 53 years of research into health science, I’ve learned the critical importance to keep an open mind about “information” from ALL resources… I especially scrutinize what is being purported as “fact” from the “experts”.

“Now that the study has documented important ways in which expert shooters behave, how can trainers best convey these elite skills to other officers?”

That is the challenge.^^^

“AI Overview

Being open-minded is difficult because our brains are wired for Certainty and ego protection. When core beliefs are challenged, the amygdala often triggers a perceived threat The Psychology of People Who Are Open Minded. Psychological biases like Confirmation Bias and the need to maintain social belonging force us to cling to familiar ideas Bad news: You're probably not as open-minded as you think ....

Here are the primary reasons why this is a natural, yet challenging hurdle:


  • Ego and Identity Threats: People often tie their beliefs to their personal identity Bad news: You're probably not as open-minded as you think .... Admitting you were wrong can feel like admitting a personal flaw Bad news: You're probably not as open-minded as you think ....
  • Cognitive Load: Evaluating new, conflicting information requires high energy and mental effort. It is much easier for the brain to rely on rigid, black-and-white thinking Growing Your Capacity for Flexible and Open-Minded Thinking.
  • Neurological Defensiveness: Research shows that people who struggle with open-mindedness often experience an overactive amygdala when encountering dissenting views, interpreting new ideas as personal attacks rather than topics to explore The Psychology of People Who Are Open Minded.
  • Social Pressures: Communities and social feeds reward conformity and shared beliefs Bad news: You're probably not as open-minded as you think .... Questioning the group status quo can cause tension and isolation The Psychology of People Who Are Open Minded.”
 
I will try that today, but with my air pistol, at 10 meters.
Using my 2'x4', backup board, with a slightly smaller oval, and then try it with my 10"x24" target box, in front of the board.
Don't want to kill the house. 😜
 
My thought would be that the environment in the USA has certainly changed since the study was done, and it was done in the United Kingdom, where officers didn't engage regularly in armed conflict in 2008, so I don't think the study has any real relevance . . .

I'm particularly amused that the OP entitled the thread "Major New Study," which tells me he/she didn't read it for content . . .
Apparently, you missed this at the beginning of the article

"Eleven were highly experienced, male veterans of an Emergency Response Team (ERT), seasoned in fighting terrorists among other assignments, with a median age of nearly 39"

You're still entitled to your opinion, but stating officers didn't engage regularly is diametrically opposed to the report where the 11 officers who were "seasoned in fighting terrorists"
 
As noted the study has been out there almost 18 years and the concept has been out there a lot longer and is valid, although there may be some flaws in the methodology of the study.

But it has not had a significant impact on training. I suspect because:
a) people misinterpret how shooters get to the point of being "threat focused" using a peripheral "sight glimpse"; and
b) the round count in training is insufficient and what is often a very individualized progression doesn't fit a LEA syllabus; and/or
c) the specific service pistol being used fits the hand of a specific shooter so poorly that natural sight alignment is extremely difficult or impossible to achieve.

It is all about the training, and it's going to sound counterintuitive as it starts with the basic sight focused fundamentals. We should be training shooters to:

Phase 1:
1) Focus on the target.
2) Draw the pistol (or bring it up from low ready) and bring it up into your line of sight.
3) Place the front blade on the target.
4) - the controversial part - *pause* and align the front sight with the rear sight with the front blade still on target; and
5) shift the focus back to the target while keeping the sights aligned through the trigger press.

The problem is that when this is taught, this is usually where it stops and you get the results reported for the inexperienced shooters.

Phase 2:
1) Rinse and repeat 1-5 above until the shooter finds the sights are already aligned when the pistol rises into their line of sight. At that point the eye motor loop tensioning the muscles in the hand is developed to the point that natural sight alignment is occurring.

2) At that point the pause can begin to be progressively shortened with the shooter intentionally increasing speed while ensuring there is no reduction in accuracy. This further reinforces the grip while also refining the trigger press to improve speed without disrupting sight alignment.

3) with sufficient repetition any pause is there solely to confirm the A) front sight is on target (while maintaining focus on the target) where slightly blurred front sight is a non issue, and rear sight focus is unnecessary as the rear sight is naturally aligned with the front sight, and B) that the shot still needs to be taken.

How long it takes a shooter to progress through Phase 2 will depend on the shooter, and that's where it runs into budget and syllabus constraints.

I have not read the study in question but a study like this needs to consider and control for the training conditions. For example of those ERT subjects have had significantly more training and have greater access to range time and ammunition, it's reasonable to expect the conditions in phase 2 to be met regardless of a formal training process. Put someone in a range training situation where both speed and accuracy are stressed (as opposed to just pointing the pistol in the general direction of the threat and pulling the trigger as fast as they can) and many shooters will naturally achieve the steps outlined in phase 2.

The use of the word "peripheral" is incorrect as it's all foveal vision. The eye is focused on the target and the front sight will be slightly out of focus as it is outside the eyes depth of field. How far out of focus will depend on the light conditions and the size of the shooter's pupil, which can vary with age and light adaptation. Bright light and a small pupil will create a greater depth of field where objects across a longer distance are in sharp, while low light and a larger pupil will create a shallower depth of field where objects across a much shorter distance are in sharp focus.

Hello BB57,

I’ve been a gun owner for 48 years. In last nearly 7 years I’ve been actively practicing at our local range with 10 of my good friends and range buddies about once or twice a month.

I’ve read 1000s of posts on “gun forums” and viewed 100s of videos on just about every aspect of firearms.

Perhaps my perspective is wrong, however one significant fact that stands out in my mind is that ALL the incredible “training” has NOT shown to work in actual gun fights. The well-documented and analyzed gun fights like Hollywood and Miami clearly indicate that whatever training, practice, and expertise by law enforcement during the violent shootouts, disappears like a flea fart in a hurricane.

I’m sure there are lots of rhetoric and in-depth explanations, however for me the disparity between expert training and actual gunfighting is disturbingly great.

So… all the training and practice really works great right up to the point when it does NOT.
 
Hello Brownie0486,

That is very interesting research into the hot topic for defense carry. Thank you for sharing.

After 53 years of research into health science, I’ve learned the critical importance to keep an open mind about “information” from ALL resources… I especially scrutinize what is being purported as “fact” from the “experts”.

“Now that the study has documented important ways in which expert shooters behave, how can trainers best convey these elite skills to other officers?”

That is the challenge.^^^

“AI Overview

Being open-minded is difficult because our brains are wired for Certainty and ego protection. When core beliefs are challenged, the amygdala often triggers a perceived threat The Psychology of People Who Are Open Minded. Psychological biases like Confirmation Bias and the need to maintain social belonging force us to cling to familiar ideas Bad news: You're probably not as open-minded as you think ....

Here are the primary reasons why this is a natural, yet challenging hurdle:


  • Ego and Identity Threats: People often tie their beliefs to their personal identity Bad news: You're probably not as open-minded as you think .... Admitting you were wrong can feel like admitting a personal flaw Bad news: You're probably not as open-minded as you think ....
  • Cognitive Load: Evaluating new, conflicting information requires high energy and mental effort. It is much easier for the brain to rely on rigid, black-and-white thinking Growing Your Capacity for Flexible and Open-Minded Thinking.
  • Neurological Defensiveness: Research shows that people who struggle with open-mindedness often experience an overactive amygdala when encountering dissenting views, interpreting new ideas as personal attacks rather than topics to explore The Psychology of People Who Are Open Minded.
  • Social Pressures: Communities and social feeds reward conformity and shared beliefs Bad news: You're probably not as open-minded as you think .... Questioning the group status quo can cause tension and isolation The Psychology of People Who Are Open Minded.”
Glad you were able to glean useful information from the results obtained. Most people don't know there's 17 forms of eye dominance and some of those really affect one's ability to shoot at higher levels of skill
 
As an aging rookie to firearms for home and self defense, I was using a barrel mounted, flash-on- hammer-fall laser trainer and electronic targets in the house to train for target acquisition and an instant rewards "wall drill". I was seated at a desk, picking up the Ruger LCR and "firing" the laser at uneven intervals. After dozens of accurate strikes indicated by the beep of the target, using those two handed sight picture aiming techniques, I got up and walked toward the target to shut it off. (It was about 6 yards away) I raised strong arm only from low ready/carry, and when the gun appeared in my peripheral vision pointed at the target I squeezed the trigger. Surprise : BEEP -- hit the 2&1/2" target !
I began repeating the moves and kept hitting the target, or within 2" of it.

I had never heard of point shooting. I thought the "shoot from the hip" stuff was cowboy movie dramatic imagery. My attempt at understanding this was something like : Trigger finger, hand, arm, body, eyes, brain are already experienced at the task. When the target appears to the eyes and weapon appears in the peripheral vision field, the brain does the geometry/trigonometry/3D motion tasks, aligns the extremities, and "triggers" the squeeze. The need to aim the sights in the multi-step sequence is bypassed or fast-forwarded by the brain.

The OP's article reinforces everything about my experience. At first it worked best with the snubbie revolver. My favored micro semi-autos didn't have that trigger operated mechanical cylinder roll that was part of the original experience. Over about two years of alternating revolvers and striker fired SAs the old brain compensates for those trigger feel differences. If the first point of impact is a couple inches off there's an auto-correct happening that puts the next one on the target. (Revolvers only- the slide has to be racked on the SAs to reset, stopping and restarting the process)

I've applied all this to live fire as best I can. I've discussed it with the rangemaster(s) and that low ready firing is considered a safety violation. I can test the accuracy by staying focused on the target with the weapon below my eyesight line at my in house distances. After including the controlled explosion and recoil sequence to the brain's computer, the accuracy of point shooting is confirmed.
Thanks to all posters and your points of view. Training never stops. Stay vigilant.
 
As an aging rookie to firearms for home and self defense, I was using a barrel mounted, flash-on- hammer-fall laser trainer and electronic targets in the house to train for target acquisition and an instant rewards "wall drill". I was seated at a desk, picking up the Ruger LCR and "firing" the laser at uneven intervals. After dozens of accurate strikes indicated by the beep of the target, using those two handed sight picture aiming techniques, I got up and walked toward the target to shut it off. (It was about 6 yards away) I raised strong arm only from low ready/carry, and when the gun appeared in my peripheral vision pointed at the target I squeezed the trigger. Surprise : BEEP -- hit the 2&1/2" target !
I began repeating the moves and kept hitting the target, or within 2" of it.

I had never heard of point shooting. I thought the "shoot from the hip" stuff was cowboy movie dramatic imagery. My attempt at understanding this was something like : Trigger finger, hand, arm, body, eyes, brain are already experienced at the task. When the target appears to the eyes and weapon appears in the peripheral vision field, the brain does the geometry/trigonometry/3D motion tasks, aligns the extremities, and "triggers" the squeeze. The need to aim the sights in the multi-step sequence is bypassed or fast-forwarded by the brain.

The OP's article reinforces everything about my experience. At first it worked best with the snubbie revolver. My favored micro semi-autos didn't have that trigger operated mechanical cylinder roll that was part of the original experience. Over about two years of alternating revolvers and striker fired SAs the old brain compensates for those trigger feel differences. If the first point of impact is a couple inches off there's an auto-correct happening that puts the next one on the target. (Revolvers only- the slide has to be racked on the SAs to reset, stopping and restarting the process)

I've applied all this to live fire as best I can. I've discussed it with the rangemaster(s) and that low ready firing is considered a safety violation. I can test the accuracy by staying focused on the target with the weapon below my eyesight line at my in house distances. After including the controlled explosion and recoil sequence to the brain's computer, the accuracy of point shooting is confirmed.
Thanks to all posters and your points of view. Training never stops. Stay vigilant.
All one really needs is to develop the proprioception to shoot and hit where one is looking. Surprisingly, it doesn't take all that long to develop the proprioception to be able to shoot where they look as you've discovered on your own time.

At one of my Daytona pistol courses years ago, I was demo-ing the point shoulder one handed skill developed and taught in the 30's in Shanghai and then later in ww2 by W.F Fairbairn. I'd set the target at 10 yrds, had the students stand to my right up on a hill at the end of the range to watch what I was doing.

Made 2 draw and fires and one of the students asked where I was hitting because they were far enough perpendicular to the target they couldn't discern the hits. Had them all come down off the hill and look at the target. Results-- 2 X hits one handed gun no higher than shoulder height and used the nose index [ gun centered between my eyes shooting over the slide of a G17.

The students sat up, took notice and realized I can shoot where I look and so they could develop the same eye/hand coordination [ proprioception ] with just a modicum of practice.

Glad you experimented and found you're capable of point something where you look. It's always nice when one has an ah ha moment
 
They say,
"People in real gunfights don't use the sights."
There has been a lot of eyeball analysis of LEO shoots.
They are not using their sights.
Except the ones who do.
The whole discussion is interesting, but I would ask folks to remember the actual problem that needs solved.

The trainers who abandoned "point shooting" did so because it failed them. It failed because of the clodheads (by which I mean typical average human beings) whom they were trying to train. Telling cadets to ignore their sights because when somebody is trying to kill them, they will not use their sights? This did not work.

The study here is interesting but as Brownie said, it is open to interpretation. But if we are comparing proper skilled use of "flash sight picture" with proper skilled use of "target focused shooting", and if you are concluding that the one is faster or more accurate than the other, how can we conclude that our purpose is better served?

The very title of the thread betrays the flaw in thinking.
The comparison to Olympic events betrays the flaw.

The current burning issue in law enforcement is staffing, no doubt. In LEO training the burning issue is "de-escalation".
"Spray and pray" is just as bad as it always was.
Officer survival is still a huge issue.
Community outrage over officer involved shootings is still huge.
There is a vast disconnect between what is actually happening and how the populace perceives it most importantly among potential recruits.

In civilian concealed carry the current burning issue is road rage. If somebody cuts you off in traffic, at what point do you start thinking about your front sight?

Please correct me everyone. I know I sound like a know it all.

I always enjoy Brownie"s contribution.

Regards!
Brian D
 
Last edited:
They say,
"People in real gunfights don't use the sights."
There has been a lot of eyeball analysis of LEO shoots.
They are not using their sights.
Except the ones who do.
The whole discussion is interesting, but I would ask folks to remember the actual problem that needs solved.

The trainers who abandoned "point shooting" did so because it failed them. It failed because of the clodheads (by which I mean typical average human beings) whom they were trying to train. Telling cadets to ignore their sights because when somebody is trying to kill them, they will not use their sights? This did not work.

The study here is interesting but as Brownie said, it is open to interpretation. But if we are comparing proper skilled use of "flash sight picture" with proper skilled use of "target focused shooting", and if you are concluding that the one is faster or more accurate than the other, how can we conclude that our purpose is better served?

The very title of the thread betrays the flaw in thinking.
The comparison to Olympic events betrays the flaw.

The current burning issue in law enforcement is staffing, no doubt. In LEO training the burning issue is "de-escalation".
"Spray and pray" is just as bad as it always was.
Officer survival is still a huge issue.
Community outrage over officer involved shootings is still huge.
There is a vast disconnect between what is actually happening and how the populace perceives it most importantly among potential recruits.

In civilian concealed carry the current burning issue is road rage. If somebody cuts you off in traffic, at what point do you start thinking about your front sight?

Please correct me everyone. I know I sound like a know it all.

I always enjoy Brownie"s contribution.

Regards!
Brian D
Nov 2023 posted elsewhere and copied here ---------------------------------

This morning I went out on the motor to meet up with some others on motors for coffee and gab. I stopped at Chevron close to the house to get some gas, filled up and pulled out onto the main 2 lane road heading south. The station is at a major intersection [ 2 wide lanes on each ].

Sept 2022 the state passed a filtering law where motors can run to the front of the line between cages if they are stopped at a light [ I did just that this morning ]. Most cagers don't know about the newer filtering law and there's many examples since it's passed that cagers have opened doors seeing the bike rolling up between them. The state didn't do a great job of advertising the new law, so many people still think it's illegal [ the motor rider is breaking the law ]. I don't normally filter but this morning with the wide lanes it was easy to move up front to the stop bar.

Upon the light turning green I rode off and moved to the right lane ahead of traffic. Within 150 feet, a Mercedes comes flying up on my left and swerves into my lane barely missing my front tire and comes to a full stop in the lane. I hit the brakes enough to activate the abs module and end up just about 3 feet from his bumper. I instantly move to neutral and put the side stand down.

While I'm doing that, he jumps out of the Mercedes and starts approaching me. He's yelling about I violated the law, I can't do that, blah blah blah. I point to my Cardo unit on the side of the helmet and tell him he's been recorded in this incident and though I didn't violate the law, he has, and I have it on film.

He moves back to his car and leans into the vehicle. I pull the 5 shooter from my back pocket and place it on the tank bag, my off hand covering the gun from view. He straightens up and he's retrieved his cell phone [ instead of pulling a bat, tire iron, knife, gun etc ].

Come to the back of the motor and takes a picture of my plate [ because I told him he'd been filmed which he had not, but it's not what you know it's what you think you know that becomes ones reality. He gets back in his car, I throw the 5 shooter into the tank bag and we're on our way.

I've mentioned carrying 5 shooters in back pocket carry often enough here. Now, had I had a belt holster on, I'd have not been able to retrieve the 5 shooter in time [ maybe there might be enough time had he pulled a firearm but I doubt it ]. Instead, the 5 shooter in the back pocket was in my hand in less than a second and before he straightened up after leaning in his window.

He, nor anyone else knew I had the 5 shooter in my hand sitting on the tank bag. There's no furtive movement necessary to retrieve the revo like there would be trying to get to a belted firearm on a holster on my hip [ which would draw considerably more attention from passing motorists moving by us in the left lane, particularly having to unzip the jacket and then retrieve a pistol.

It was near subconsciously drawn and in my hand long before he stood back up from leaning into his window. We both got lucky I suppose. Me, because he didn't hit me due to my abs brakes. Him, for not pulling a weapon of some kind while he was enraged in the middle of the road. HR was up, BP probably same. Adrenaline had kicked in the moment he leaned into his vehicle to retrieve something.

Back pocket carry has proved beneficial several times over the years when time was short and the threat or potential threat was imminent and deescalated the event PDQ when one thinks they have the upper hand and in the blink of an eye, are staring at the muzzle of the revo.

Stay vigilant, the crazies are out there and one never knows when they may have to pull heat on some road rager etc.
 
I am familiar with Dr.Lewenski’s work and seem to recall having read this before. I suspect that the article being about the UK suggests differences in attitudes as well as training, at least when the study occurred.

Here in the US, the LE handgun training I’ve received and regurgitated started with the front sight. It seems to me that rear sight focus first results in the front sight bouncing all over the place before the shooter acquires it. Sort of like me with a red dot.

When firearms ownership is no longer the norm, or legal, the gun handling standards of an armed section of a largely unarmed LE community don’t need to be as high.

But that’s just my opinion this Sunday morning.
 
It’s long been known and understood that point shooting / front sight - press is much faster and simpler under stress, especially from a holster. I don’t need a study to know that, but finding the hard data to support isn’t a bad thing.

Like a lot of us, I practice Mozambique (or failure drill) out to 25m with 2 to the torso using point shooting technique and one to the head using irons or a red dot. A great way to practice both in a logical real world drill that makes use of each technique’s strengths.
 
"Field work for the research was conducted a year ago in the United Kingdom with the help of 24 police volunteers. Eleven were highly experienced, male veterans of an Emergency Response Team (ERT), seasoned in fighting terrorists among other assignments, with a median age of nearly 39. The rest were younger rookies (median age just over 30), 7 of them female, who had completed their pre-service firearms and simulation training and were considered “ready for the street.” Both groups predominately were right-eye shooters"

Gaze patterns:

  • The rookie’s final saccade, especially among those who missed when they fired, “occurred at the same time they tried to fixate the target and aim,” the study reveals. At that critical moment in the last 500 ms, the rookies in a staggering 82% of their tests took their eyes off the assailant and attempted to look at their own gun, trying to find or confirm sight alignment as they aimed. “This pulled them out of the gunfight for what turned out to be a significant period of time,” Lewinski says. Vickers adds: “On a high percentage of their shots, the rookies did not see the assailant as they fired,” contributing to inaccurate shooting and the misjudgment of the cell phone as a threat.
  • About 30% of the ERT also looked at their gun, but their timing was different. Most of those gaze-shifts occurred before the officers aimed, “followed by the onset of their aim and fixation on the target and firing.”
The researchers pose the possibility that the rookies’ training may have contributed to their poor performance. They were taught pistolcraft “similar to how most police officers first learn to shoot a handgun: to focus first on the rear sight, then on the front sight, and finally on the target, aligning all 3 before pulling the trigger.”

“This is a very time-consuming process and one that was not successful in this study,” Vickers says.

"Somewhere across their training, practice, and experience, the successful ERT officers had learned what essentially is a reverse process: Their immediate and predominate focus is on the weapon carried by their attacker. With their gaze concentrated there, they bring their gun up to their line of sight and catch their sights only in their peripheral vision, a subtle “sight glimpse,” as Lewinski terms it. “They have an unconscious kinesthetic sense to know that their gun is up and positioned properly,” he says. “This is a focus strategy that Olympic shooters use,” says Vickers, “and it is simpler, faster, and more effective.”

Now that the study has documented important ways in which expert shooters behave, how can trainers best convey these elite skills to other officers?
_____________________________________________________________________________________________

One importance to note for average inexperienced defender shooters is the fact that elite response team members bring their gun up to line of sight, and only catch their sights in their peripheral vision, described as a "sight glimpse" IOW, they're not looking at the sights directly but in peripheral vision which means they are threat focused.

Imagine that, elite response team members were shooting threat focused and weren't seeing their sights in direct vision when they fired. Seems threat focused skills have a place in DGU's. Seems training threat focused is a viable way of shooting defensively even as elite response team members were taught to directly see their sights before touching off a round.

Amazing what clinical research brings to the discussion relative threat focused vs sights focused training.

https://www.forcescience.com/2009/1...eyes-can-cast-your-fate-in-a-gunfight-part-1/
It would seem the best training is skeet shooting.
 
It would seem the best training is skeet shooting.
If you're training to shoot aerials with a pistol perhaps. Some skeet shooters focus on the front bead, others on the moving clay.

I was taught by McDaniel to watch the bird and keep the end of the muzzle in peripheral [ Qk rifle above line of sight with no lead ] while others are trained to watch the front bead and track the clay.
 
I practice this at home. Place a target (dot) across the room. Draw (dry fire) from different positions, right handed, left handed etc. Repeat and repeat then close your eyes and repeat, open to see if you are on target. Mental and physical memory will kick in.
 
Back
Top