In a Fight, Front Sight!
by Brent T. Wheat
Core to instinctive shooting theory holds that during high-stress events, you throw everything out the window that your higher intellect has learned, and respond using only the more primitive “limbic” or “old mammalian” part of your brain. Far more accurate scientific explanations of the concept exist, but that summary will do for the moment.
Thus, unable to process or complete complex movements such as sight alignment, the theory holds that you won’t (or can’t) use the sights on your gun. I might add that you would probably also scream, run willy-nilly, cower, cry, freeze, throw your firearm away, or do many of the other unproductive things ill-trained and unprepared people commonly do when confronted by imminent death.
In other words, this argument isn’t really about the inadvisability of using sights, but rather a backhanded admission of failing to properly prepare for that eventuality.
If you look closely at real-world examples starting from the time modern firearms were invented, shooters have acquitted themselves quite nicely using their weapon sights even in horrific circumstances against overwhelming odds.
People who trained and maintained their cool under the circumstances were able to use their weapon sights effectively instead of the sadly too- common “spray and pray” method of return fire.
So we must ask: How is a lack of “grace under pressure” an indictment of sights on a firearm? If we can be painfully honest, the whole thing is simply a matter of operator error rather than failure of equipment or concept.
The second argument often presented is that during extreme close-range conflicts, it takes too much time to develop a proper sight picture before firing. This concern is also valid to a point but is often and wildly misconstrued when touted by instinctive shooters and trainers.
As the recent Force Sciences newsletter #279 notes, “At less than 20 feet, you’re probably best to fix your gaze on your target and quickly drive your gun up to align with that line of view, firing unsighted.” That makes sense and even the most doctrinally crusty instructor would probably agree.
But the article goes on to note, “to do this successfully requires a great deal of consistent practice (by) responding to force-on-force scenarios at various distances that develop realistically in terms of action, movement, and speed.”
In other words, even thrusting your pistol out in short-distance, extremely short-duration scenarios requires “a great deal of consistent practice.” This explains why poorly trained “instinctive shooters” have sometimes fired a dozen rounds at a target located within bad-breath distance and never caused more than short-term hearing loss to their adversary.
Ryan
Jul 28, 2015 @ 08:14:55
Finally, some common sense about what happens in a fight. If you panic, then you’ll do all sorts of crazy things. But if you’re prepared, you can use your training and your sights just fine. From the Diary of Alvin York:
And then the machine guns on top swung around and opened fire on us. There were about thirty of them. They were commanding us from a hillside less than thirty yards away. They couldn’t miss. And they didn’t!
*** As soon as the machine guns opened fire on me, I began to exchange shots with them. ***
As soon as I was able I stood up and begun to shoot off-hand, which is my favorite position. I was still sharpshooting with that-there old army rifle. I used up several clips. The barrel was getting hot and my rifle ammunition was running low, or was where it was hard for me to get at it quickly. But I had to keep on shooting jes the same.
In the middle of the fight a German officer and five men done jumped out of a trench and charged me with fixed bayonets. They had about twenty-five yards to come and they were coming right smart. I only had about half a clip left in my rifle; but I had my pistol ready. I done flipped it out fast and teched them off, too.
I teched off the sixth man first; then the fifth; then the fourth; then the third; and so on. That’s the way we shoot wild turkeys at home. You see we don’t want the front ones to know that we’re getting the back ones, and then they keep on coming until we get them all. Of course, I hadn’t time to think of that. I guess I jes naturally did it. I knowed, too, that if the front ones wavered, or if I stopped them the rear ones would drop down and pump a volley into me and get me.
*** Over twenty Germans were killed by this time.
LikeLike
Ryan
Jul 28, 2015 @ 08:17:20
Six charging men closing in from twenty-five yards, six shots, and six men down. Since York was using military ball ammo, I can only conclude that his shot placement was superb — and that came from lots of practice back home.
LikeLike
John M. Buol Jr.
Jul 28, 2015 @ 08:25:48
York is an example of what happens when a skilled marksman fights back. An even better contemporary example is Sam Woodfill.
https://firearmusernetwork.com/2014/08/29/sam-woodfill/
http://www.worldwar1.com/dbc/woodfill.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Woodfill
https://army.togetherweserved.com/army/servlet/tws.webapp.WebApp?cmd=ShadowBoxProfile&type=Person&ID=36317
http://www.spaceacts.com/woodfill.html
http://www.handgunsandammunition.com/practice-tactics/7482-sam-woodfill-s-story.html
LikeLike
John Veit
Jul 28, 2015 @ 10:46:39
My theory is that the emphasis on the need for sight use, and in particular the mantra” front – sight – press, came into being, because the 1911 is not a natural pointer. (It was the standard issue sidearm of US forces for 70+ years.)
So to compensate for that shortcoming, users needed a reminder to bring the sight into play for each shot taken. Here’s a link to more info on that which also includes photos from a WWII training film which document the shortcoming: http://www.pointshooting.com/1a1911x.htm
The theory presented in the article that sights are/can be employed in real CQB situations, is a comforting one, but the stats and studies of thousands and thousands of CQB situations, have proven that is more of a pipe dream than reality in most all cases.
It would be nice to know how much training, or what training program has proven to result in the effective use of the sights in CQB situations.
If it’s one used by SO’s or Delta types, or top comp shooters, then logic dictates that to protect the public at large from inept gun users, only those who have been certified as such, should be allowed to have a firearm. And I don’t expect that to receive a warm welcom in the gun community.
As to Dr. Lewinski’s negative supposition that to use “Point Shooting” successfully requires a great deal of consistent practice, the good doctor provided no scientific data to support his supposition, which is also an oft repeated mantra by those who champion the use of Sight Shooting in CQB.
Also and very importantly, Dr. Lewinski did not say which specific brand of Point Shooting is best used at the less than 20 feet distance where most gunfights occur, and where there is the greatest chance of being shot and/or killed.
Hard factual evidence exists of Point Shooting being used in CQB situations, and Point Shooting methods can be learned with little or no training, and maintained with minimal practice.
Some skill is involved in their use, so waiting until a life threat situation arises to learn this or that method on an ad hoc basis and when your life is on the line, is not advisable.
Also, Point Shooting is not a bar to the use of the sights if they can be seen and there is time to use them, in CQB scenarios.
Here’s a link to an article that provides more details in response to Dr.Lewinski’s supposition: http://www.pointshooting.com/1aemails.htm
I have been a fan of and supporter of Force Science for years and years, and appreciate their making available research findings and other info on defensive and CQ shooting.
LikeLike
John M. Buol Jr.
Jul 28, 2015 @ 11:58:37
>> It would be nice to know how much training, or what training program has proven to result in the effective use of the sights in CQB situations.
Tom Givens has reported on 62 of his students in CQB situations. The only students that lost were those that didn’t have their defensive firearm on their person at the time. Everyone else won.
https://firearmusernetwork.com/2013/06/20/tom-givens-rangemaster-handgun-core-skills-test/
https://firearmusernetwork.com/2015/07/03/competition-vs-street-training/
https://firearmusernetwork.com/2014/07/03/self-defense-findings/
https://firearmusernetwork.com/2012/11/22/competition-shooters-and-techniques-win-fights/
https://firearmusernetwork.com/2013/06/25/truths-about-defensive-handgun-shooting/
Also, every competition shooter that has been in battle has done well for him/herself. There are dozens of high profiles examples of competition shooters doing extremely well in combat, usually the best results among their peers and I have never seen a single report claiming otherwise. There is much myth and nonsense making false claims, but not a single named example of a competition shooter succumbing to “bad habits.”
People who train to win matches do well in fights across the board. This has been true for centuries.
LikeLike
Colorado Pete
Jul 30, 2015 @ 11:34:00
One of the best and simplest explanations I’ve seen.
Training and practice (of both mind and body) matter.
Cooper’s codification of the flash sight pictures was verification of an alignment already achieved by the (well-trained) hands as the gun comes into your sight line. No time spent aligning sights after the gun is raised, just checking to see you aren’t so off that you’ll miss.
LikeLike
John M. Buol Jr.
Aug 12, 2015 @ 09:22:51
Yep. Pete is right again. Learning to shoot well with the sights is better than point shooting. Here’s an example:
LikeLike
Anonymous
Sep 26, 2015 @ 10:41:10
You will do what you trained. And by trained I don’t mean read a book of went to a weekend course. I mean practiced, and practiced perfectly 10,000 times. Then not matter how much stress you are under that is what you will do.
LikeLike
John M. Buol Jr.
Sep 26, 2015 @ 10:47:15
Indeed! Great point.
LikeLike