|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Banned
Of course you do not understand. There is a sight continuum that MT zealots dismiss out of hand and turn every discussion about handgun aiming into a black and white world of sights/no sights.Originally Posted by HeadHunter
I will drop it here because this place is extremely hostile to anything that deviates from Gunsite dogma.
- - - - - - - - -
Alpha Sierra,
Tone down your rhetoric.
~Thekatar
Site Sponsor
That seems to be a pretty accurate statement. When I tried them they were most useful at closer ranges with a threat focused approach to the target.
...but not vastly moreso than conventional sights, in my opinion.
To quote a couple of gentlemen wiser than I:When Modern Technique zealots try to use them as conventional sights, the results are predictable and all too aparent here.
Anyone who comes from a point shooting background (shotgunners, mostly) gets it.
"There's a time and a place for point shooting."
That time and place is at fairly close distance (10 yards and in...for some folks, maybe 15 yards).
The problem is that the farther back you get, the less useful the threat focused approach is when you are trying for a precise shot. A small misalignment of the sights is no big deal at 5 yards....at 25 that exact same misalignment can put the bullet a long way away from where you wanted it.
Threat focused shooting is a viable technique...but like all viable technique it has a range of application where it is most beneficial.
The problem a lot of folks have is taking something that's useful in a particular set of circumstances and trying to stretch it to cover ALL circumstances. In real life there's a time for threat focused shooting....but there's also a time for front sight focus. Conventional sights can be used quite effectively with the threat focused technique....but the XS sights don't seem to be as useful when it comes time for front sight focus for a lot of shooters....even very experienced, well trained shooters.
This only becomes a problem when someone gets offended at the notion that somebody doesn't like their pet sight system. That's a proclivity I see on ARFCOM all the time. People like their Glock/Bushmaster/whatever and then proceed to believe that they are the greatest thing ever made and react to any assertion to the contrary like you slapped them and told them their momma sells it on the street.
I personally don't understand it. I've said over and over and over again that sighting systems are intensely personal things. What works great for one person in one set of circumstances may not work very well for another person in another set of circumstances. I don't get offended if somebody likes XS sights or says that they use them very well.
I'm at a loss to understand why others get offended when someone shares that they haven't had the same success with them despite a good faith effort with them.
EDIT -- Since "this site" was mentioned, I'll mention that part of the reason I'm on this site is to hear the input from different people on various topics. I figured out a long time ago that there's much I don't know and that sometimes you can find some good input from somebody that helps a lot. Input from people on this site is why I tried the M&P (which I love), why I tried CT grips on my J frame, why I tried Warren sights, and why I tried training with Larry Vickers. Personally I'm glad I listened to others on all those decisions as they've all been things that have worked out well for me.
Thanks. Edited my post to correct.
I'm going to assume you've never seen HH or I teach, since neither of us comes anywhere close to "Gunsite dogma."
As for what you call the "sight continuum," I couldn't agree more and teach that same concept, though I never thought to call it a continuum ... I may have to steal that.
The difference is that my "sight continuum" is intended to cover everything from belly-to-belly through maximum long range precision without requiring students/shooters to play games estimating range or making judgment calls under stress as to whether Technique #1 or Technique #2 should be used.
Bingo. The high visibility front sight really makes a difference (see HeadHunter's results with the orange front sight on his snubbies, above) but the rear sight takes away a lot of the gains.
While it may turn out to be 10-15yd for a particular person, I'd strongly recommend against putting a range limit on the concept. I remember going through C.A.R. training and the instructor had different variations of the technique for near-contact shooting, contact-to-3yd, 3yd-to-7yd, 7yd-to-15yd, and beyond-15yd ... and honest to God, students would stop and have to ask what range they were at to figure out which technique they were supposed to use."There's a time and a place for point shooting."
That time and place is at fairly close distance (10 yards and in...for some folks, maybe 15 yards).
Proper visual reference should telegraph the degree of coarseness or finesse you need in your "sight continuum" and trigger press for each shot. This not only eliminates a lot of conditional branching, but makes for faster & easier transitions.
A great drill for many people is to have a close (< 5yd) target and a distant (> 15yd) target and engage them both with rapid multiple shots. Shoot the near one three or four times, then the far one three or four times, then back to the near one again for a few more shots. If you're doing it right, your speed will be much faster on the close target but you'll still maintain accuracy on the far target. Being able to switch gears from target to target is an immensely practical skill because whether you're going from a great big torso to a small ocular window, or from the guy swinging a baseball bat to his brother across the street leveling a shotgun at you, you can't just hit cruise control and shoot everything at the same speed.
Site Sponsor
That's precisely what I was going for, essentially that the conditions will dictate what you need to do. The 10 to 15 yard comment is more of an acknowledgment that the threat focused sighting technique has limits.
In real life folks aren't going to be on a nicely dressed shooting line and aren't going to know how far away the target is. They simply have to develop a "feel" for what technique is most appropriate for the situation in front of them that can only come from practice. There are occasions I can think of, for instance, when I want a hard front sight focus at 5 yards instead of a threat focus.
Member
Sorry I offended you. I was trying to get a clarification of your point, but I will refrain from that in the future.
An interesting take. Some Gunsite people have told me I am hostile to their dogma. Stuck in the middle again.
It's only an "arm's length" gun if you're incompetent.
Member
Or even 3 yards if it looked like this:
Which was taken from a re-enactment Course of Fire of this incident:
which occurred in Arkansas in 1999. Click on the image and a slideshow of how the incident unfolded will open.
The Course of Fire is attached.
It's only an "arm's length" gun if you're incompetent.
Member
Which member of the Partridge family is this named after? Hopefully Laurie (Susan Dey) I had a thing for her growing up.
Nevermind. I think you meant PATRIDGE instead. As in E.E. Patridge.
I'm a lead farmer motherf**ker! - Kurt Lazarus
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks