Has your handgun training set you up to be killed?

[mercop]

I think everyone would agree that if you have the opportunity to use your sights you should. Everyone should have sound marksmanship fundamentals. It just needs to be understood that during spontaneous altercations that begin at conversation distance there is good chance you may not be able to "focus" on your sights as you do in training and the the truth is that the only thing that is required to put rounds on target is the barrel being in line with your attackers body.

Another human factor that needs to be taken into consideration is that we all like to see ourselves getting better. If we stopped shooting paper targets all together, eventually people would get bored and not practice as much.

 

[5shot]

Just learned that Lou Chiodo has a new book on Target Focus shooting. Its by Paladin Press. Put a blurb about the book and a link to the interview on my site as a "new item."

Here's a link to the Author Interview via the Paladin Site:
http://www.paladin-press.com/downloads/Lou_Chiodo_QA.pdf

 

[JimFloyd]

Just learned that Lou Chiodo has a new book on Target Focus shooting. Its by Paladin Press. Put a blurb about the book and a link to the interview on my site as a "new item."

Here's a link to the Author Interview via the Paladin Site:
http://www.paladin-press.com/downloads/Lou_Chiodo_QA.pdf

Very interesting. Think I will order the book. Thanks for the post!

Regards,

Jim

 

[rhino]

I think everyone would agree that if you have the opportunity to use your sights you should.

I'd like to believe that, and it may be true for those participating in this conversation. However, I've seen enough true believers elsewhere online that there are people who really, truly believe that sights have no utility on a pistol. In some cases, they refuse to believe that it's even possible to see your sights under stress, which is false. In some cases, they assert that you can't shoot quickly enough if you use your sights, which is many (perhaps most) cases false as well (maybe they can't, but it's certainly possible).

 

[abnk]

Hello,

It's not something I'm inclined to discuss further, and only bring it up when I feel a particular point needs to be made and I can only make it by going from experience.

Regards,

Josh <><

When people make a point based on their experience, I like to know what their experience is. I was wondering if you shot a human or a dangerous animal. The psychological reaction would have been very different. However, I respect your decision to not discuss this any further.

 

[mercop]

It all depends on the application and situation. During my career I would estimate that I drew down on several hundred people. Most of them were an unknown threat. I can distinctly remember several times thinking "front sight, fright sight". In many of these instances I had strong cover and concealment. In all these instances the threat was standing still or moving very slowly.

It is my belief that during a spontaneous attack or when engaging any kind of a moving target you focus on the target/sights and not the sights.

In the NRA courses they teach you to aim with a pistol and rifle but to point with the shotgun when shooting skeet. Why? Because if you try to set your sights on a moving target you will shoot behind it.

 

[JimFloyd]

Here is an interesting article that pertains to this discussion: http://www.forcetactics.com/parts/media/What_Really_Happens_In_A_Gunfight.pdf

Regards,

Jim

 

[Jack Ryan]

Jack,

You realize that Hickok in particular despised tactics such as are being taught today? He would just aim while the other combatant was throwing shots wild.

It never ceases to amaze me, how people like to complicate things that are so simple.

I would suggest, even over moving as you say, do this:

1) Practice having a calm head.

2) While in this state of calmness, shoot the practice target.

There is no room in a gunfight for emotions. Afterward, you'll get hit with adrenaline, maybe vomit, maybe be a bit hysterical, maybe laugh - whatever the flood of chemicals does to your particular body chemistry.

But during, if you remain cold and emotionless, you'll prevail. Moving is good, but a cool, calm and collected persona beats every tactic ever devised all to hell.

If you do not panic in the face of death - whether it doesn't cross your mind to do so, or if you're just not afraid of death - you'll be much more apt to be calm than a person who is afraid of death.

Josh <><

Couldn't agree more.

I only suggest a little "moving" and I don't mean barrel rolls, running or any thing else like that movie baloney, I mean just may be a walk or a step one way or another for the few who try a "simple" can toss, draw, and shoot it to the point they feel it's to easy.

Until yer putting six holes in it before it stops rolling, it's not "too easy".

 

[rhino]

In the NRA courses they teach you to aim with a pistol and rifle but to point with the shotgun when shooting skeet. Why? Because if you try to set your sights on a moving target you will shoot behind it.

There is a difference with the shotgun shooting, though. That method (for success) depends on 1) a shotgun that shoots where you are looking when you have a 2) consisting mount and cheek weld.

That's possible for a rifle, but doesn't work as well, although some virtuosos have been able to do really cool things (like shooting aspirins out of the air with sightless BB guns).

You can't do exactly the same thing with a pistol. You have to learn how to orient the pistol to shoot where you are looking, and it's not going to work in as many situations.

 

[5shot]

Paladin Press interview on Threat Focused shooting.

sssorry a dup.

 

[5shot]

I shoot aerials with a pistol.

Not easy, but not that hard with some practice.

And if you think you can do that while Sight Shooting, good luck trying.

I use an airsoft pistol and pop cans.

If you want to improve your "snap" shooting, give it a try.

Here's a link to more info on that, plus a video of me hitting seven in a row.

AIMED Point Shooting or P&S

 

[longrange]

thanks alot will check it out

 

[5shot]

To those who have said welcome and/or expressed an interest in reading the info on the site, Thank you.

Here is a link to an article I just put up whose title is: Force Science Tests Show That Even Inexperienced Shooters Are Fast & Deadly Accurate Using Point Shooting. If you are a LEO or have a handgun for self defense, and are not familiar with the test results, could be worth your while to take a look at it.

www.pointshooting.com/psfirst.htm

 

[2ADMNLOVER]

The link keeps saying (404 page not found) , but thanks for the info anyway .

 

[Buckaroo]

The link keeps saying (404 page not found) , but thanks for the info anyway .

AIMED Point Shooting or P&S

Buckaroo

 

[kingnereli]

This has been an interesting thread to read. I agree with the convinces that point shooting has its place, but the sights should be used where possible. I wish the OP would be more clear what is meant by "close distances." The pictures the robbery and Lee Harvey Oswald being shot showed gunfights at a few feet. Increased distance would increase the need for sights.

Also, while I hate to discredit a practice method I have not yet tried(which I will), I don't by the correlation between hitting pop cans and being prepared for a gunfight. The adrenaline will mess with point shooting ability as much as it will sight acquisition.
I guess my main complaint is with the suggestion that we should plan to NOT use our sights in a life or death situation. If time is the issue and firing from retention is necessary then, of coarse, the sights won't be used. If there is enough time to get the gun extended there is enough time to effectively use the sights. Take your time in a hurry.

 

[rvb]

All of those hit-rate statistics don't point to a type of training getting you killed, it points to a LACK of training that gets you killed. The amount of training by most officers is dismal at best. Pick another technique that is also only practiced once per year on qual day and the results will be the same. To blame the hit statistics on using the sights is a gross misrepresentation of the numbers.

To correlate those numbers to people and officers who actively and regularly train and say that doing so will get them killed does not make sense. But it's much easier to justify spending money engineering a solution through equipment changes and studies on new techniques than it is to justify spending money putting lead down range (and that's true for both departments and private citizens because it's much easier on the ego to place the blame the equipment and the technique than the person behind the gun).

-rvb

 

[JNG]

All of those hit-rate statistics don't point to a type of training getting you killed, it points to a LACK of training that gets you killed. The amount of training by most officers is dismal at best. Pick another technique that is also only practiced once per year on qual day and the results will be the same. To blame the hit statistics on using the sights is a gross misrepresentation of the numbers.

-rvb

 

[kingnereli]

All of those hit-rate statistics don't point to a type of training getting you killed, it points to a LACK of training that gets you killed. The amount of training by most officers is dismal at best. Pick another technique that is also only practiced once per year on qual day and the results will be the same. To blame the hit statistics on using the sights is a gross misrepresentation of the numbers.

To correlate those numbers to people and officers who actively and regularly train and say that doing so will get them killed does not make sense. But it's much easier to justify spending money engineering a solution through equipment changes and studies on new techniques than it is to justify spending money putting lead down range (and that's true for both departments and private citizens because it's much easier on the ego to place the blame the equipment and the technique than the person behind the gun).

-rvb

 

[Archaic_Entity]

Jack,

You realize that Hickok in particular despised tactics such as are being taught today? He would just aim while the other combatant was throwing shots wild.

It never ceases to amaze me, how people like to complicate things that are so simple.

I would suggest, even over moving as you say, do this:

1) Practice having a calm head.

2) While in this state of calmness, shoot the practice target.

There is no room in a gunfight for emotions. Afterward, you'll get hit with adrenaline, maybe vomit, maybe be a bit hysterical, maybe laugh - whatever the flood of chemicals does to your particular body chemistry.

But during, if you remain cold and emotionless, you'll prevail. Moving is good, but a cool, calm and collected persona beats every tactic ever devised all to hell.

If you do not panic in the face of death - whether it doesn't cross your mind to do so, or if you're just not afraid of death - you'll be much more apt to be calm than a person who is afraid of death.

Josh <><

I would also like to point out that Bill Hickok also used two Colt 1851 Navy Revolvers, being percussion revolvers it was very, very hard to reload them in any sort of situation that would require some sort of duress. I'd say that he worked to make each shot count while the other person was shooting at him wildly.

Another pair of folks often overlooked are Wyatt Earp and Doc Holliday. During the fight out at the OK Corral, Wyatt Earp was reported to not have moved at all, but simply to shoot at each person as he saw fit. Doc Holliday also seemed to be as calm as if it were merely target practice, moving only to get a better angle on the people he was shooting at.

Most of your famed gunfighters of that era were very steady handed, I'd say that's because Josh has the right of it. First you get calm, then you shoot. You train like that, and when the time comes, you act like that. You'll hit what you're shooting at.