View Full Version : For those who PS, what distance is too far?
To go along with the other thread on when and if someone should be shown a PSing system, lets establish at what distances people feel they need to go to sighted fire in order to make reliable and succesful hits inside 9 inches.
What say the members ?
At what distance do you feel uncomfortable and stop PSing and go to sights?
How far do you realistically think PSing is good for with any reliability in making hits and staying inside 9" 100% of the time?
Robin Brown
David Armstrong
10-16-2004, 15:01
I don't think you can establish a magic distance. Different PS positions will yield different results, and the results are going to be somewhat dependant on the shooter. For example, I can regularly hit a 10" plate out to 15 yards with a two-handed shoulder-level position. That goes down to about 10 yards with a one-handed shooting position, and down to about 5 yards from my chosen retention position.
At what distance do you feel uncomfortable and stop PSing and go to sights?
I prefer to use the sights at any distance whenever possible. Recognizing that preference is not likely to be available in a lot of gunfighting situations, however, I keep the PS flame going.
Dave,
There are only two PSing primary positions. From the waist/hip one handed and from up to 6 inches below line of sight either one handed or two.
Your figures given are not using sights. At what distance do you feel it necessary to go to sights to be assured good hits?
Robin Brown
David Armstrong
10-16-2004, 15:38
There are only two PSing primary positions. From the waist/hip one handed and from up to 6 inches below line of sight either one handed or two.
I think that sort of depends on which school of thought you belong to. I'm from the old camp that says point shooting is not defined by position, but by focus. Thus, there are multiple positions available to shoot from. I can PS from the waist area with two hands, and I can PS with my gun at line of sight level.
Your figures given are not using sights. At what distance do you feel it necessary to go to sights to be assured good hits?
Again, what position am I in? I'm comfortable point shooting at 15 yards from a shoulder position, but at that same 15 yards I'd want to use the sights if I was kneeling behind a barricade. Given the option of good positioning I don't think it is necessary until a bit past that 15 yard mark with the 10" plate.
Well, yes, strictly speaking PSing is defined by your focal plane, which means you could shoot from any position and move 2 inches and shoot again, thereby making it almost an infinite number of "positions".
Thats not the question.
At what distance do you think you would have to go to sighted fire to make sure you had hits on a BG from ANY position? Now I understand there won't be a precise number for everyone, just an approximation if you please where your confident you can get good hits without sights, and the would have to go to sighted fire to be assured hits, for you?
What position would you normally expect to find yourself in when engaged with a BG using handguns? Lets take standing as the norm for this question. You are saying you can be comfortable not using sights to 15 yds standing but not kneeling from a barricade?
So you seem to think there is a difference in your bodies position which would determine sighted fire or unsighted fire and not distance?
Again, as a standard for this question, lets say you are standing, no barricade.
BTW-- what form of PSing are you trained in formally? and if not using a known PSing system like AF or QK, how are you PSing exactly? [ yes, I know your focal plane is not on the sights, thats not the answer I'm looking for here].
Robin Brown
I have avoided the PS threads pretty much to date. So I may sound a bit naive. I consider shooting from a retention position PS'ing and I use that when my threat is so close it precludes me from extending my arms. If I can extend my arms then I can use sighted fire. Now what kind of sight picture I have does indeed depend on many factors.
I aspire to see what I need to see to make the shot. I read an article recently about lining the muzzle up 2 inches below the desired poi as a ps technique. I find putting the dot on the threat much easier. Now that might be possible be because I can focus on the front sight and the threat at the same time which I understand not all can do. So I will PS when extending my arms will put me in harms way otherwise sighted fire for me. I am personally a big index fan. I see threat and my body does things and sure enough the sights are right there. "Look the shot off" is the goal I strive for.
I confess these concepts are not my own but derived from carefull study of those who are world class shooters. Brian Enos being one of my major sources.
I am curious, if I can place my first shot with sighted fire in .9 sec and get splits under .2 how much faster or more accurate is PS ?
If you can extend your arms what is the reasoning for not using your sights ?
Talon,
Under stress of taking incoming, it is well documented that most will not "see" their sights, not the front sight alone, nor both or the rear sights to align them as well.
The stress of real life and death encounters on the streets is in no way duplicated by any games anyone can play, no matter how hard the games are set up.
If you rely on a game or the static practice on a range as a standard for how you will perform on the streets based either on your own training regimen or through a professional schooling you on a line, you are not preparing yourself for a real world encounter.
When facing a deadly threat, your focus will be on the threat, not your gun, thats the way the mind works, it focuses on the threat to exclusion of all else.
Ever tried to run and gun, hitting targets that are moving on you at the same time in a dynamic environment? There is an instructor who has started to train others in this type of real world moving and shooting. Guess what the students have to say about their sights? They don't use them, if they atempt to use them, they are hit or are behind the curve and are always playing catchup on their targets.
Strictly speaking, Brian Enos does not train men and women to survive on the streets in his classes or through his writings. There are men who have moved well beyond in their understanding of what actually occurs in gun battles and have started to advance their training of others to address the real world problems of defensive shooting.
"if I can place my first shot with sighted fire in .9 sec and get splits under .2 how much faster or more accurate is PS ?"
Are you doing this standing still in a game, on a static line? or moving off line of the attack immediately upon seeing the threat so you do not create a stationary target for the perp to take you out. If you do not move, it's pretty well established by people who have been there and done that that you will die.
Studies of officer involved shootings by the hundreds show they do not remember seeing their sights under fire and in a gun battle on the streets.
Brian Enos, I'll use him as you brought him up in your reply, does not train men and women to survive gun fights, there is one out there who has recognized the way to train for real world encounters and guess what? They do not focus the training on sighted fire, but on tactics of moving and shooting where you do not have time to aim using sights.
Next time you are at the range, try to move laterally at a rapid pace, check your sights and hit the target all at the same time. Get involved in some airsoft training and see how many times you are taking incoming and stand still while using your sights and looking for your splits.
Try that and get back to us on how your first shot times were and if they found the target that was moving. I think you'll find that you are not concerned with splits between rounds when you are taking incoming. It's a different ball game when it's for real. The world of SD is not made up of static lines and split times on a target that isn't moving.
Others training indicates if you stand still you die in combatives. There is no mentioning of first hit times, split times, etc. You would be wise to make sure the games you and others play are relevant to real world survival before you make statements that are irrelevant in the real world of SD as others are finding out on a daily basis.
Do you think the SAS, Secret Service, Royal Marines, US Marines, SF, high speed/low drag guys doing it for real are working on their survival skills through training with Brian Enos or any of the gamers? I think you need to do some more research into what works and what doesn't on the streets. It's out there, easily found and it isn't with Brian.
Robin Brown
I must disagree, lots of folks are saying they saw their sights. I havent read, "In the Killing Zone"(I think thats close) but I remember Matt Temkin saying he was suprised at the number that said they saw their sights.
Just let me add, I saw my sights too. And to be perfectly honest I didnt move off the line like I train to do now, then again I was in a hallway so I couldnt move laterally anyway. Oh and I'm typing this so I'm not sure what to say about your documentation. Just lucky I guess.
So if we take out you can't see the sights premise, is PS'ing faster or more accurate ?
Cool edit, I was wondering why you were going to sue Brian. :) Ask Rob about his client list, you just might be surprised. It sure seems logical to me to learn how to shoot from the best and then take those skills and learn how to fight from the best.
My experience is limited but I have some. Do you ? I KNOW what auditory exclusion is. Do you ? I guess you brought the games in to this because I used Brian's name. I have no idea how well he fights but I know how well he shoots and those skills can certainly be adapted to fighting, at least IMHO.
Someone saying they saw their sights and actually having seen them under close combat are two different animals.
In one training session, though I forget the exact circumstances or location, the students were put through stressful real world scenarios.
In the after action reports, they all said they remembered using their sights. The problem was, there were no sights on the guns they were given. What one believes and what one is actually doing under stress has been documented to be quite different.
You may or may not have seen your sights, I believe you think you did see and use them though. And yes, Matt was surprised so many said they saw their sights, as it is not the norm which he also understands, thats why he was surprised.
It so well documented that your vision is seriously distorted as well as other senses in a deadly encounter that to even rely on the use of sights under those circumstances and train to do so is wasting time.
In the training being carried out today with airsofts at up close and personal real world distances in real time, many students are now willing to accept they are not able to rely on their sights, thats just the way it is whether you believe so or not.
Times to first shot and splits has nothing to do with actual combat. If it did, the HS/LD guys would be all over Brian and other gamers for their training. They are not and that should give one an indication that the games do not make for staying alive when it's for real.
PSing more accurate you ask? Lets get a few parameters set here. How accurate do you think you have to be in an up close and personal SD situation?
Here's a hint--you only have to be accurate enough to keep your shots centered on the target presented you. Little tiny groups are not the goal in SD scenarios.
As to speed? It's fast enough with about 1/10 the training time as you are using your natural abilities which never leave you, unlike an unnatural ability that had to be learned through hundreds of repetitions constantly to stay at that pace.
It's also fast enough on plates at 11 yrds to be able to beat a nationally known shooter who was ranked fourth at one time in the world regularly enough so that he wanted to know how I was able to do it [ he saw the milspec sight on the original ww2 Colt 45 auto I used against him often enough while he was using his race gun ]. I'd say thats fast enough for real world encounters wouldn't you?
And to close with this thought if you will--how many have the time, money or inclination to train enough to be a Rob or Brian. How many carry gund for SD that have their talents through years and millions of rounds downrange? Using ones natural ability takes no where near the that time or rounds count.
"It sure seems logical to me to learn how to shoot from the best and then take those skills and learn how to fight from the best."
Actually the ones who train the best at SD do not train others like Enos or Rob, why not start the other way around? after all, your goal is to learn to fight and win isn't it?
And yes, I have real world experience over the last 35 years on the streets.
Robin Brown
Originally posted by brownie
Someone saying they saw their sights and actually having seen them under close combat are two different animals.
In one training session, though I forget the exact circumstances or location, the students were put through stressful real world scenarios.
In the after action reports, they all said they remembered using their sights. The problem was, there were no sights on the guns they were given. What one believes and what one is actually doing under stress has been documented to be quite different.
You may or may not have seen your sights, I believe you think you did see and use them though. And yes, Matt was surprised so many said they saw their sights, as it is not the norm which he also understands, thats why he was surprised.
Maybe he is just wrong.
It so well documented that your vision is seriously distorted as well as other senses in a deadly encounter that to even rely on the use of sights under those circumstances and train to do so is wasting time.
I didn't find that to be true, granted only limited experience
In the training being carried out today with airsofts at up close and personal real world distances in real time, many students are now willing to accept they are not able to rely on their sights, thats just the way it is whether you believe so or not.
Times to first shot and splits has nothing to do with actual combat.
That's confusing, so I should settle for a 10 second first shot and 5 second splits.
If it did, the HS/LD guys would be all over Brian and other gamers for their training. They are not and that should give one an indication that the games do not make for staying alive when it's for real.
Do you really think that Rob hasnt trained the high speed low drag guys ?
PSing more accurate you ask? Lets get a few parameters set here. How accurate do you think you have to be in an up close and personal SD situation?
Here's a hint--you only have to be accurate enough to keep your shots centered on the target presented you. Little tiny groups are not the goal in SD scenarios.
As to speed? It's fast enough with about 1/10 the training time as you are using your natural abilities which never leave you, unlike an unnatural ability that had to be learned through hundreds of repetitions constantly to stay at that pace.
It's also fast enough on plates at 11 yrds to be able to beat a nationally known shooter who was ranked fourth at one time in the world regularly enough so that he wanted to know how I was able to do it [ he saw the milspec sight on the original ww2 Colt 45 auto I used against him often enough while he was using his race gun ]. I'd say thats fast enough for real world encounters wouldn't you?
I really couldn't say.
You seem to give much credence to the Enos' of the world, first shot times and splits being important to SD skills.
That being the case, you are not sure if using PSing to beat one who was ranked fourth in the world more than lose to him is not good enough for the street and real world encounters? Okay, if you say so. You must feel there are many BG's out there who could take a world class shooter using their street skills and techniques to make that statement.
If you had time to use your sights in a hallway in a shoot out [ we can assume thats what you are talking about with your own experience can't we? ] you got lucky and your opponent was a terrible shot. Don't get me wrong here, lady luck has always played a role in survival. Just don't be fooled into thinking your sighted shooting was what won the day all by itself okay?
"That's confusing, so I should settle for a 10 second first shot and 5 second splits."
No, not at all. I don't myself and there's the rub, you do not need to use sights to make fast good hits at combat distances. Your sights are not a prerequisite to shooting fast and accurately.
I'm aware Rob trains some HSLD guys ocassionally, but that does not negate the fact nor gives credebility to the methods he uses to shoot in competitions. That he is not training the majority of those types around the world or that his and Enos' training methods [ or any gamers ] are used by the majority of these people says more than the few who have sought him out. That someone trains a few is not validation.
Just so you know, I'm no great gunner on any circuits nor do I purport to be. I competed locally and was in a positon to shoot against a name you and others would know right away. I used QK with a 1911 milspec ww2 autoloader. He used a 2000.00 race gun. He was ranked nationally, I was not. I took him about 6 out of 9 relays on racks of plates once a month over the winter months when he shot at this one club in the winter to stay sharp. He shot constantly, I shot once in awhile like I do now, whenever I feel like banging a few.
After a few months time, he walked up and asked how I could possibly see the sights on the gun to be that fast on the plates. Knowing he was a man who professed front sight, front sight at his training center, I merely told him I didn't use the sights, I sighted along the side of the slide. He walked away shaking his head and me and the buds had a good laugh about it on the way home.
I relate that to you so that you do not go through life believing you have to use your sights to be proficient [ have speed and accuracy ] at SD with a handgun. He would have lost to me in a gun battle if he lost to me on the plates. His times were slower overall and his splits didn't cut it.
I don't know, never knew, nor care to know now what split times I can do. What I care about is being able to bang the BG fast enough and often enough [ splits ] to survive on the streets where I have worked profesionally since 1977.
The times and splits are not whats important in the real world of SD. I also realize that you may not understand this at this time in your life for whatever reason.
There are many theories on how to survive using a sidearm, use what you think works for you, I know I have. There are people here who have seen me shoot without sights and I daresay none would mention here or elsewhere I don't have the ability as I described it for you.
Keep training and gunning, rounds downrange are a good thing, no matter how they get there.
Robin Brown
Well you got a few contradictions in there but I'm too lazy to point them out and I get the gist of your post. Not that I mind but your tone is a bit condescending here and there.
I think you have pretty much told me what I wanted to know on the subject so I'll leave it for another time. Thanks a bunch for the posts.
protozo1
10-16-2004, 22:57
This is a very interesting thread. I haven't read the whole thing as there are a lot of posts. PSing reminds me of intinctive shooting with a recurve bow. The distance is totally dependant on your personal skill level. If you practiced long enoungh you can shoot extremely well right from the hip or (as an extreme example) over your shoulder. It all depends on you skill level. I don't believe there is a magic distance. On american shooter there's a guy that quick draws a 6 shooter and blast asprins out of the air without sighting. Or even more amzing, see some old Fred Bear movies when he's duck hunting with a bow.
Brownie,
As you probably know, I'm not a point-shooting fan. Anything past belly-to-belly and I use the sights. The actual distance would depend on the demands of the situation, but +/- TEN FEET is my arbitrary street max.
When practicing, I can hit COM point shooting out to TEN YARDS and beyond. But on the street I want to be 100% certain of good hits, not 75%.
As for "seeing" the sights, once in a shooting situation in the dark (armed robber), I can recall seeing my sights clearly in the muzzle flashes (which surprised me). So I know for sure I was trying to see them in the dark, even though it was impossible.
I spent a year on a US Army Advanced Marksmanship Unit Pistol Team, where focusing on the front sight was drummed into our heads all day long, every day, until it became automatic. It still is. ;f
PSing system like AF or QK
I'm knew to the Forums and it's acronyms and such. Some I've figured out, and some such as these "AF" or "QK" Point Shooting Techniques, I haven't. Where would I find out what they are, and more about them?
BTW, What's the general opinion around here on the D.R. Middlebrooks system called "Fist-Fire"?
Thanks...
AF=Applegate/Fairbairn, they were ww2 era trainers of military personnel going in harms way. Do a google, plenty of documented material to go through for hours and days on point shooting
QK=Quik Kill, developed by Lucky McDaniels who was hired to train the US army in point shooting with a rifle in the early to mid 70's which the government adopted due to it's effectiveness in getting soldiers to hit the enemy with a minimal of of training time and an increase in hit to shots fired ratio.
The rifle QK is well documented and you canfind the publications fromtime to time. He also wrote a book on the rifle stuff. His pistol QK was never published before he died unfortuantely. There were several hundred who were given the knowledge by Lucky himself and very few of those people are presently training/showing the pistol QK to others. I am one of the relative few who were given the pistol QK knowledge at the masters hands.
Until I put the pistol narrative on the net this last year, it had never been put in writing before anywhere in the world. I instruct others in it's use presently on a limited basis.
BTW-- for those naysayers out there who believe any point shooting sysytem is horse pucky and valid at SD distances, I recently was videotaped shooting with a taped front sight on a 1911 platform at 20 yds on a B-27 target [ reduced silhouette ]. 6 mags totalling 46 rounds divided into 23 round segments and ALL hits were inside the black silhouette. Yes, I've had 22 years of doing this, but then we have people herewho think itcan't be done reliably at 10 feet let alone 60 feet. It's on tape, and one day in the near future poeple will have a chance to see point shooting and QK specifically are valid platforms in a SD setting.
Just so the naysayers understand--sights are not necessary to make reliable hits. Those who say otherwise are ones who have never been trained in it's proper use and do not have a basis of knowledge they are working from.
Sights, take em or leave em, it's up to you. No one is forcing this on anyone, but in certain circles, point shooting is being accepted more and more everyday. Enlightening isn't it?
Robin Brown
David Armstrong
10-18-2004, 10:05
Again, as a standard for this question, lets say you are standing, no barricade.
Standing in a commfortable stance, non-moving 10" target, I'd anticipate 90% or better PS at 15 yards. For closer to 100% I'd max out at abut half that distance. So as a very rough generalization, say 7-8 yards would be the "necessary to use sights" area.
BTW-- what form of PSing are you trained in formally?
As mentioned in another thread, I was originally trained in the Fairbairn/Sykes method, later with the Israeli Method. Throw in a lot of point shooting at my police academy, and you get an amalgamation of styles that I have gone through.
how are you PSing exactly?
Focus on target, point gun at focus point, pull trigger.
Hi David. I'm having a little trouble understanding the why of it.
In a real encounter would you ps at 6 yards and if so what would your reasoning be. Also do you place any credence in the article posted earlier that claims it would be difficult to switch between systems.(ps vs sights)
I don't find it unreasonable to believe that there are folks who can PS very very well. There have sure been some amazing "hip shooters" over the years.
Is gunkid back from the dead?
Troll, me thinks.
JB
David Armstrong
10-18-2004, 11:47
You seem to give much credence to the Enos' of the world, first shot times and splits being important to SD skills.
A whole lot of of the high speed-low drag folks also give credence to the Enos' of the world, as well as the Latham's, Burkett's, and so on.
You must feel there are many BG's out there who could take a world class shooter using their street skills and techniques to make that statement.
That will depend in large part on the situation, wouldn't it? Any BG could take any world class shooter given the right scenario, and the opposite is also true.
David Armstrong
10-18-2004, 11:59
In a real encounter would you ps at 6 yards and if so what would your reasoning be.
Not if I had the choice. I wouldn't point shoot at 1 yard if I had the choice. However, the speed with which the scenario unfolds might not allow that, or the physical dynamics, or the environment, and so on.
Also do you place any credence in the article posted earlier that claims it would be difficult to switch between systems.(ps vs sights)
I don't find any problem with it WHEN TAUGHT AS A NATURAL TRANSITION. The only time I have found it to be a problem is with folks who have been taught "use this method at distance A, this method at Distance B" and so on. The way I use it, the way I teach it, is focus on target with preparation to PS and go to the sighted shot if time and circumstances allow.
You must feel there are many BG's out there who could take a world class shooter using their street skills and techniques to make that statement.
That will depend in large part on the situation, wouldn't it? Any BG could take any world class shooter given the right scenario, and the opposite is also true.
If you were to keep it in the context of the post, it would be on racks of plates. Of course your above statement is correct in the general sense, but in the context it was being discussed, not many BG are going to beat a world class shooter on plates.
"A whole lot of of the high speed-low drag folks also give credence to the Enos' of the world, as well as the Latham's, Burkett's, and so on."
Many other real world operators disagree with their training methods. For every one who does give credence, there are that many who do not. Proves what? Certainly not that what they are teaching is applicable to the real world with everyone.
Robin Brown
Maybe my "instinct" type shooting at close range, with pistol well below line of sight, doesn't qualify as "point shooting"? It certainly isn't anything like the F/S style.
My style is closer to the old fashion "hip shooting" style of Bill Jordan. And I only use it up close.
The only reason I might transition from sights to hip-point, is because the BG is closing fast and is almost on top of me. Otherwise, I would use one or the other (sights/hip) based on distance to the target, with no transition.
My thinking is if I'm going to take the time to bring my pistol up to line of sight like the F/S method, why not use the sights? Especially if the sights are ultra-fast, easy to see, BIG Dot sights?
"Maybe my "instinct" type shooting at close range, with pistol well below line of sight, doesn't qualify as "point shooting"?"
Yes it does IMO. From your description, it could be near that used by Jelly Bryce as well.
"My thinking is if I'm going to take the time to bring my pistol up to line of sight like the F/S method, why not use the sights?"
The rapid fire two handed QK technique is not at a direct line of sight and does not require one to make use of "ultra-fast, easy to see, BIG Dot sights" which most people do not have on their choice of defensive sidearms.
Robin Brown
Originally posted by brownie
At what distance do you think you would have to go to sighted fire to make sure you had hits on a BG from ANY position?
Brownie,
Since I know from experience that armed BG's always "seem" closer to me than they really are, I use 10 FEET as my "mental max" for point/hip shooting, even though I can hit at 3x that range = 10 YARDS.
Basically I'm tricking myself, so I don't end up hip/point shooting at BG's who I mistakenly think are within easy ranage, but aren't. ;P
Brownie,
As you know, I can hit out to 15 yards with Quick Kill all day long and further out with a carbine. However, the furthest I've made hits in simunition training where the enemy and I have been both moving was around the 10 yard mark.
Talon,
Most people that where involved in dynamic close quarter gunfights do not remember seeing their sights. However, as the playing field opens up and the combatants tend to become stationary the shooter recalls the use of sights.
From a previous posts I have made:
"The first rule in my sight continuum is if you have time to use your sights use it but don't die in order to use it. Distance and the urgency of making the shot with dictate which method you need to use. Also, movement of the shooter and/or the enemy and the availability of cover will play a role in what shooting style is going to be employed. Every gun fight has its own unique set of circumstances this is why some remember seeing their sights and other did not."
"There have been examples of both point shooting and sighted shooting posted and they both work and have their places in armed combat. I know this because I've used both in actual combat and in each situation time and distance dictated rather or not I used my sights. There is a time and distance continuum to each shooting and there are difference tactics to deal with. I use and teach point shooting but that does not mean if I have time to use my sight that I won't use them and I think that every point shooter here would agree with me on this point"
"Sighted shooting and point shoot both have their uses and limitations. Moreover, the situation will dictate which method is used. I have personally used both point shooting and sighted shooting in the field and in my cases the situation dictated which one I used. I use Point shooting during dynamic CQC gun fights where I'm reacting to a bad guy and there is no immediate cover. The FBI study In The Line of Fire and other studies all show that police officers are dying in close in dynamic gun battles not the ones where the officer uses cover and sighted fire. For the most part age-old mistakes are getting officers killed however, the fact is that officers are getting killed close in not at a distance. I used my experiences as a soldier in combat plus as a police officer, in Dallas, combined with firearms training from local and federal agencies and additional research I've done on why officers are killed in the line of duty to form my opinion on what works and what doesn't. I also try to keep an open mind (which at times it is not easy) when it comes to new techniques. The simple truth is that after reviewing several tapes of police shooting combined with watching veteran and rookie officers and agents in shoot houses and simunitions situations that in dynamic CQC gunfights the person that stops to aim is the one that is hit."
JonnyB,
Who are you calling a troll?
7677 said, "I use and teach point shooting but that does not mean if I have time to use my sight that I won't use them and I think that every point shooter here would agree with me on this point"
I am having a little trouble with "not having time" to use your sights. The only way I can see that I would be faster not using my sights is if I shoot while extending my arms. I really don't know how long it takes from the time my hands come together to the time my arms are extended and I fire. That should be pretty easy to find out though. Now that I think about it though I actually have a sight picture before my arms are extended to my normal shooting position.
7677:
From this summer, I certainly know you can bang em without sights at 45 feet all day, and not at some target shooting pace either. For the readers here, lets let them in on how we know you were point shooting at that distance and could not have possibly been using your sights---------as you omited the meat and potatoes in your response and I think it deserves to be told so people understand exactly what happened for a true perspective to that statment.
7677 lost his front sight mid morning that day. Came right off during a session and the sight was lost and never found [not that it would have done any good to find it then anyway ]. Yes, he was able to continue with his glock for the remainder of the day and not skip a beat or worry about "how" he was going to shoot at that distance without a front sight. Why? Because 7677 is capable and trained in a few of the point shooting systems that are well documented to work and not just at the up close and touching distances many profess is the only way to hit anything without sights.
There's a lesson to be learned here for those who may be paying attention and continue to believe, as many apparently do on this forum, that you NEED sights to be able to hit something 45 feet away. The fact of the matter is, you don't need em, don't need to take the time to find em, nor verify you are then lined up with the threat to "take the shot".
Now we are well aware that many have practiced so diligently and have so many rounds downrange that they can do the verify of threat, check the front sight, and get on the threat in very short order with great success, all the while "seeing" their sights.
What if I told you I could and have taken an inexperienced shooter and within 10 minutes had him hitting anything he looked at in the same manner without all the rounds downrange and money spent in ammo using the QK system? Sure, sounds impossible, how can that be when it has taken someone all this time to be able to get on a threat with speed and accuracy "learning" to see the sights quickly. Pretty simple actually. It's called using ones natural ability which takes only a few minutes to show one how to use effectively to easily hit with good speed and more than acceptable accuracy at some good distances away [ lets use 7677's 45 feet as an example ]. The steel plate he was shooting was about 10 inches across by 14" high and had a center swinging gong half that size in it's center. Thats what 7677 was hitting regularly [ the center ] with no front sight and with speed using the two hand rapid fire QK system.
As 7677 mentions briefly, moving targets are a dfferent animal altogether, and one had better know how to work in a dynamic environ with ones weapon. Get off the static line, start using some FoF with airsoft equipment and then see how well you can find your sights at 5 paces while the adversary is banging at you as well. Stand still and try to get on him and you will die. Move quickly to keep from letting him bead on you and return fire on the move and let us know exactly how successful you at focusing on that front sight and hitting movers while you are moving as well.
In FoF as dynamic and representative as real world crisis management with a handgun, you won't have time to "see" or use the sights. If you take the time to "look" as thats what you know on the static line, you'll die. It's a proven fact as more and more get into training realistically.
Train as you will be required to fight [ moving off line and shooting on the move ] or not, and watch how fast your static line training goes in the toilet as you play catch up with the sights, have to slow your pace to attempt to track with them.
It's been a long time coming but point shooting is as valid and as important a skill to have in ones bag of tricks that can be called upon when necessary as sighted fire, especially when caught out in the open and under attack.
Look at it this way--does it hurt to have the knowledge?, to be able to call upon it if and when it is found necessary to survive in a sceanrio?, or do you plod along getting faster and faster on a static line and keep focusing on that front sight, timing your splits when stats show in "many" scenarios you won't have the time to "see" them or use them and if that's all you have to rely on for your survival, you'll likely die?
Your choice, your life, your decisions. As long as you can live with them or die with them, no problem here. I prefer to have as many tricks in the bag as possible. May never need em all, but they by god better be there if I do need em one day or I'm going to end up a stat like so many others do.
Thats NOT why we train is it?
Robin Brown
7677:
Sorry for any confusion. This 'brownie' guy sounds like the reincarnation of gunkid, and a few other trolls who appear to be the same guy, and just can't quit bleating about their pointshooting prowess. To him/them/it, there's simply no need for sights, and even if you have them, you'll never use them in a gunfight, so why even try?
It's hard to recall all of the new names this guy invents, but the subject never changes. He's been going on for several years, here and at The Firing Line (when it was up & running) and now at The High Road. I don't recall his 'handle' over there, though. Same song; tenth or twelvth verse.
JB
JonnyB,
Actually gunkid was back for a brief time by the screen name of Sweaty. I have personally met and shot with Brownie and he is everything he says he is and I have it all on tape for anyone that doubts it.
JonnyB:
If you knew how old I was, calling me any kind of kid would be considered a compliment;)
Never been to the firing line, though I've heard of it.
Robin Brown
David Armstrong
10-19-2004, 10:12
If you were to keep it in the context of the post, it would be on racks of plates. Of course your above statement is correct in the general sense, but in the context it was being discussed, not many BG are going to beat a world class shooter on plates.
Not many BGs have ever shot a rack of plates before, so I'm not sure what that has to do with anything.
You must feel there are many BG's out there who could take a world class shooter using their street skills and techniques to make that statement.
No, what I feel is that in order for the world class shooter to use his skills requires a fairly specific range of events. Outside of that range there are other skills that might be as important or more.Many other real world operators disagree with their training methods. For every one who does give credence, there are that many who do not. Proves what? Certainly not that what they are teaching is applicable to the real world with everyone.
Well, for one thing it proves that ther is a fairly significant body of shooters who do feel that type of training is effective and good for them. And yes, some give it credence, some don't--just as happens with point shooting. So I don't understand your issue. You seem to be saying one particular standard of proof should be used to support point shooting, but the same standard should not be acceepted to support sighted fire.
"Not many BGs have ever shot a rack of plates before, so I'm not sure what that has to do with anything."
The point was to extrapolate the accuracy on target with speed, no more or less. Another user thought the static line accuracy and splits was so improtant to his own training and street survival skills and thats how it came up, not my idea of real world but of course to each his own.
"No, what I feel is that in order for the world class shooter to use his skills requires a fairly specific range of events. Outside of that range there are other skills that might be as important or more.
My point exactly to another who stated the his static line draws and splits were tantamount to staying alive on the street, which they are not, for the most part, as you surmise and agree above for us.
"And yes, some give it credence, some don't--just as happens with point shooting"
exactly the point being made which others seem to really have a problem with where credence is concerned relative the PSing side of the coin.
You make some of my points for me with your responses Dave, thank you.
Robin Brown
brownie said, "My point exactly to another who stated the his static line draws and splits were tantamount to staying alive on the street, which they are not, for the most part, as you surmise and agree above for us.
Please point out where I ever used the word static. You really seem to dislike the word splits. I believe fast accurate shooting is better than slow accurate shooting. I use the word splits to point out the difference between the two.
When at the range the only time I shoot standing still is when behind (simulated)cover and a few drills. For the most part I am moving if not running.
If you came to your conclusion based on my posts then I really must learn to communicate more effectively.
Brownie, thanks for the explanation. I will try a search on these methods. In the mean time, do you have a link to the QK pistol article you wrote? Thanks..
Until I put the pistol narrative on the net this last year, it had never been put in writing before anywhere in the world. I instruct others in it's use presently on a limited basis.
TCM:
The first time the pistol portion of QK was ever put into print anywhere by anyone was 2/21/04 @ 12:43pm EST.
It was then subsequently republished here http://www.pointshooting.com/qk.htm by another with my permission.
Please remember I give all credit to Lucky McDaniels for the QK as it was a system he had developed and which I only pass onto others at this time.
QK is not something I had a hand in developing and I consider myself extremely fortunate to have been able to train with Mr. McDaniels personally.
If you have any questions, feel free to pm me at your convenience.
Respectfully
Robin Brown
David Armstrong
10-20-2004, 09:06
The point was to extrapolate the accuracy on target with speed, no more or less. Another user thought the static line accuracy and splits was so improtant to his own training and street survival skills and thats how it came up, not my idea of real world but of course to each his own.
That is pretty much what I was suggesting. When you downplay the relevance of the "game" side of shooting, it seems somewhat problematic to then try to use a "game" to prove your point.
exactly the point being made which others seem to really have a problem with where credence is concerned relative the PSing side of the coin.
Agreed, but again it seems problematic to downplay and also advocate the same measuring/testing tools.
You make some of my points for me with your responses Dave, thank you.
That is because I agree with some of them<G>! But I feel that covoluted reasoning, no matter what ones position, does not further understanding or discussion.
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.