Home› Main Category› General Firearms
Gene L
Senior MemberPosts: 12,759 Senior Member
Instinctive handgun shootin
Gene L
Senior MemberPosts: 12,759 Senior Member
I've been told there is no such thing for years, yet in 1944 the Army taught it up close and with the 1911. And by up close, I mean at 15 yards. I've often suspected it could be done as I shoot a bow instinctively. In the POST Ga law enforcement training, 15 yards is kneeling with both hands. Not so in 1944.
If you watch the video, which also contains the prone position and the kneeling position with two handed grips, the close in standing meant for quick shooting is one-handed and the instruction says specifically NOT to use the sights. Which is pretty well what happens in a gunfight. Bring it up to eye level, straight arm or slightly bent arm, and shoot. And TRAIN for that. Never mind about the X ring.
Is it possible we've been instructed and instructing the wrong methods? Given that LEO gunfights have about a 20% hit rate, maybe it's time to think about something different.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZJDdQG6vAI
If you watch the video, which also contains the prone position and the kneeling position with two handed grips, the close in standing meant for quick shooting is one-handed and the instruction says specifically NOT to use the sights. Which is pretty well what happens in a gunfight. Bring it up to eye level, straight arm or slightly bent arm, and shoot. And TRAIN for that. Never mind about the X ring.
Is it possible we've been instructed and instructing the wrong methods? Given that LEO gunfights have about a 20% hit rate, maybe it's time to think about something different.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZJDdQG6vAI
Concealed carry is for protection, open carry is for attention.
Replies
Luis
Talk to people who've been in fights, who qualify once a year or were taught what the nubby things on top of their guns were that one time back in basic, and they usually say that they don't remember seeing the sights. Talk to folks who do this stuff on a regular basis and ask them if they use "instinctive shooting" and they'll look at you like you're a complete moron.
As far as agency accuracy goes, once again it comes down to training. Look at the "average" stats and the hit rate is very low, but look at the accuracy stats for agencies that actually train, as opposed to agencies that make sure their folks are "qualified" and you find that the people who train tend to do quite a bit better than the people who don't. It's almost like if you work hard at something you get better at it.....crazy, huh?
For me personally, the first few times I did force-on-force stuff, I didn't use my sights.....and my accuracy sucked. The last few times however, I can clearly remember using my sights AND my accuracy was much better........once again, flippin crazy! :uhm:
I shoot that way sometimes, a big tgt in best then.
The key is does your wrist align with your arm and eyes or will you cock it when you are not using the sights.
Teaching cup & saucer grip. . .
Teaching changing of shooting direction by stepping one foot backwards into what you can't see vs. forward into what you can. . .
We've come a long way on some of this stuff.
As for point shooting, they're still bringing the gun up to eye level for the most part, and so are probably using the sights peripherally at least.
Not to make this a matter of one handgun design over another, but the 1911, Luger, and other older designs are A LOT more conducive to one-handed point-shooting than modern, double stack guns that give up the ergonomics of actually fitting the human hand in favor of providing more opportunities to miss. Many of the modern guns make the grip and sighting techniques born of Cooper and Weaver almost necessities.
"Nothing is safe from stupid." - Zee
On the other hand, those folks who have concentrated their training on hitting smaller targets at longer ranges have improved their grip and sighting techniques enough that they will usually also have pretty fair instinctive 'point' shooting abilities, at closer ranges. This seems like a more sensible approach to developing these skills, since it involves the development of good 'muscle' mechanics. I know people who shoot very well with very poor mechanics, and they invariably decline in their abilities at a faster rate, with weakening muscles and eyesight.
Maybe non-sight assisted shooting? No, I think I'll stick with instinctive shooting after explaining what it means. Since almost no one uses sights in a close up gunfight, maybe we're teaching it wrong. Certainly stats do not reflect very good close in training so I think in very close shooting people are doing this "instinctive" shooting instinctively. LEOs just don't spend enough time practicing this.
John Farnham used to train us. I remember the drill for close up (like arm length distance) was to draw, take a step back and grip the gun in both hands, sight on target, and double tap. I can't remember if this was against someone pointing a gun at you or someone going for a gun, a quick draw situation. I disagreed with this as it takes too long. I demonstrated on a popper that I could draw and fire five times in half the time it took him to assume the drill. My first shot on target was .6 second from holster to firing. And I got five hits on the popper. Not that John changed his teaching, but he admittedly gave it pause. Hard to miss at that range, and the range is just as short for your opponent. Nothing spoils a bad guy's aim like taking a few 230 grain slugs.
The Army may not be great at bowling pin shooting, but in 1944, they'd been training on pistols for 33 years. And I believe they knew the fatality of taking the time to use the sights at close ranges. The techniques of stiff arm and shoulder level seemed to work for them. But if you have time to aim, aim.
It ain't that hard and works every time it's used............correctly.
Not that hard shooting at paper or anything else that doesn't shoot back, but damned near impossible in a combat situation. Oh, we all like to tell ourselves we would/do, but the statistics tell a far different story.
No.
Do I reference my sights and assure myself that they are respectably aligned and oriented in the intended direction?
Yes.
Under stress.........it may not be picture perfect every time........but.....look over....around....or through your sights. I promise.......it won't hurt.
I think.
Well, we've been poorly training for the past 200 years, but would welcome a not-piss poor training regimen. We're training for shooting bowling balls and paper silhouettes so long we've developed skills for shooting targets rather than surviving. Unless we train humans to be automatons who under duress of the possibility of losing their lives, we're going to continue doing the best we can. If you can come up with a much better training program, you'll save lives and become very rich.
In my non combat opinion, :that: .
Train with the sights and you will INSTINCTIVELY put them in the right place because that is where you shoot from. Same as shooting a bow instinctively. It really is trained, but it is training to do what feels like a extension of your body. You look at the target and basically AIM with the grip hand and anchor the same each and every time. There isnt a sight per say, but there is a sight picture that you have to acquire each and every time. With a rifle it is breath control and trigger control. You practice those each time you are shooting at a bench so that when you need to pop one off fast or go rapid fire, you just "do" it.
Ignoring all of the basics of shot placement to blam away at a close range target isnt training, it is making lead rain and hoping.
Just my opinion
Shooting rifles in combat at close range, which is what I experienced in VN is also done sans-sights, which accounts for the several-hundred thousand shots to kill an enemy. At longer range (100 yards) there is time usually to use the sights for the first couple of rounds but once they start shooting back, it takes EXTREME discipline and training to use the sights.
As a kid- I always thought it was so cool to watch the gunslingers walk a can with their bullets, and I set out to be able to do this.
Mission accomplished- to a degree. Using a handgun that fits me- I can walk down range and shoot targets from the hip with a surprising degree of accuracy, and these same handguns shoot very well for me when I use the sights.
Single actions , double action revolvers and semi autos all the same, as long as they fit me I'm great. Handguns, shotguns and rifles- I can do it all.
I call it point shooting.
Now- this is why I don't own a Glock- I can shoot them like it's nobody's business but I have to stay very focused on the sights to do so.
A 1911- you can take the sights off and I'm still good.
I think point shooting should be taught as well as sight shooting- they both have their place.
As teens, we shot much more than I do today. Every week, sometimes twice a week, both revolvers and mostly shotgun. It was possible for us to shoot about 60% clays from the 16 yard line from the hip when we were at our best.
I couldn't do this, but my shooting partner could shoot clays or cans easily out of the air when thrown by hand with his .38. He just had that connection and knew where his shots would go within a foot or less.
D
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.... now who's bringing the hot wings? :jester:
Lack of "instinctive shooter" training would not appear to be the fly in the ointment.
F-U-N-D-A-M-E-N-T-A-L-S
Sure there are cops who can't hit a thing at 7yds, just like there are civilians who never miss at the same range. It's all about PRACTICE. Instinctive/Point shooting is also a skill just like aiming with the sights. Think of it as "throwing a rock". You don't have any sights to use for aiming, but I bet with practice you could hit a hand sized target at 5-7 yds (maybe further) every time.
I assure you that even I, who don't practice point shooting that much, can stick a full magazine from my Glock 17 into an open hand sized group at 5-7 yds as fast as I can physically pull the trigger 20 times without even glancing at the sights.
Luis
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8OpLNaAixw
Who'da thunk it.
Chances he used the sights?
Do you understand the "fundementals" of shooting at 7 yards under extreme stress? Or closer? I don't but I've studied the hit/miss stats and do because I'm a LEO instructor. Such has almost nothing to do with sights. F-U-N-D-A-M-E-N-T-A-L-S are great for putting holes in targets at leisure but when it's putting holes in bad guys up close and quick, I'm not sure there is time to go to target training under stress. For years I've been against the what I consider wasting training time of shooting at 25 yards for LEO qualification for practical shooting. The fact that the timing for shooting up close allows LEOs way too much time and encourages a high percent on qualification is IMO wrong, but I was never able to convince the training staff to concentrate on what I think is real shooting, maybe because it's too easy or the time requirements and holster requirements in most agencies simply do not mean realistic requirements.
But maybe I'm entirely wrong. We shoot four rounds at 25 yards from a barricade for qualification. Big deal. Not terrible, but the scores count the same as those at 10 yards with an almost zero chance of ever engaging targets from standing at that yardage.
Basics, stock weld, stance, trigger control, sight picture. We have talked about it often. He was dropping birds badly (like 4 in 100) so he went back to fundamentals. Everything must be the same, giving you the same sight picture.
My point entirely.
The fact that I was hitting the first shot every time with a more powerful round, and hitting 75-85% of all my shots did nothing to convince him that my way was better. He was hitting 40-50% with a less powerful round, and occasionally, but not always, emptying a 15 round mag before I emptied an 8 round (I think) mag. He did not convince me that the near misses were more important than the hits, either. :silly: