How about answering the question TS asked....... :munchin

My bad, i'm currently doing work for 360 Tactical Training in Houston and Crow Global Inc. in Toronto. I have been asked to go to SOTG for the CQB instructors and the Sig Academy before I leave.

Please keep in mind that i'm not the typical instructor that refuses to progress and stays in the box. I'm always looking to better myself and my students and i'm glad I brought this subject back up because at the end of the day it will make me a better teacher and student.

Three of the instructors at 360 have been to several of Paul Howes classes. I called them this morning to discuss what has been brought up here. My question to them was "What are you seeing when the gun is at extension and on target from 7 yrds and closer when trying to hit a high center chest"? Their collective answer was that their primary focus was on the threat but they could see their sight and it was blurry. My next question to them was "Is this what you learned at Howes courses"? There answer was a collective "yes". Thay haven't heard the term "Flash" front sight before but they agreed that it was a great term for what they are seeing. I also agreed that because the gun is "in and parallel with my light of sight" I also see a blurry front sight or flash front sight with my primary focus being on the spot that I want to hit.

If there is a misunderstanding here guys, please let me know. If i'm wrong, explain it to me. This is always a hot topic in the shooting industry and people are very passionate about the subject when they discuss it. I'm just always on the hunt for the best and most realistic methods for a fight, i'm not looking to piss you off.

I would suggest you take more classes, find and talk to some high level shooters and do some reading.

There is nothing more important than the front sight, period. If you take the time to read on this website you will find some very good posts concerning the front sight and why it is so important. I will tell you that I am sure Paul Howe stresses the front sight and has probably told individuals something like "front sight, front sight front sight squeeze."

This holds true for pistol, submachine gun and short assault rifle (unless you're using optics). And if I had to guess I'd speculate that the ability of using the front sight is greatly diminished because of the current and heavy use of optics.

When you level a weapon at the intended target you should be concerned with three objects, the target, rear sight and the front sight, which one is in focus and why?

I don't listen to the "shooting industry" as most are non-military or non-combatants. Most are weekend "civilian" shooters (like weekend golfers) that enjoy throwing lead down range and really don't care how well they do it. Most cannot hit the water if they fell off the boat.

Every law enforcement officer (city, state or federal) will have a different opinion on marksmanship and most teach some form of forty year old marksmanship techniques. This goes on today all over the country. There are individuals teaching federal law enforcement officers that have never been in harm's way yet they are marksmanship/weapons training "directors" and they're are "city" law enforcement officers that consider themselves "military Special Operations Instructors", there's a gunstore owner in Scottsdale, AZ that has NEVER been to sniper school consulting/teaching the Scottsdale police department "sniper techniques, tactics and procedures. I digress. My point is the "shooting industry" is rife with idiots thinking themselves as weapons instructors.

Do some reading here, there are a few threads concerning marksmanship. When you're done with those ask me more questions.

Will do TS. Thanks again.

IMHO
 

Gentlemen,

Respectfully, I attended CSAT's Tactical Pistol Operator course last month. While it is certainly possible I was the class dunce, the above description is inconsistent with the methodology taught by Mr. Howe, and the course notes he prepared for students.

That's not what Paul teaches, so they missed the point or have chosen to unlearn it. He teaches his students to push the weapon out from a modified retention position with the muzzle angled up so that the front sight is acquired and the trigger squeeze begins before the arms reach full extension. This allows you to break the shot upon "first good sight picture". If their sights are blurry their attention is not where he taught them it should be.

Roger that. I will say on their behalf that it's been a few years since they have been to his class and they have been to many different schools since but i'll be sure to tell them it's front sight, front sight, front sight.......squeeze. Thanks

CoolT,

Certainly, if you're firing from retention (such as the pectoral index as taught by Southnarc) or from less than full extension, such as Position 3 in the 4 count drawstroke, then it is nearly impossible to attain a sight picture as the weapon is out of your physical cone of vision. In those cases, you would need to employ indexed shooting techniques. However, if you're going to full extension before firing and putting the weapon into your vision cone, why not take the fraction of a second required to obtain at least a flash front sight picture? Is that 10th or 100th of a second time advantage actually going to have an appreciable effect in the outcome of the shooting?

Lot of knowledge here...
 

over the years there is always "some better way" to acquire and engage targets under stressed conditions. Whose method is better can only be tested in a one on one room to room duel. Winner wins. What ever is taught now certainly is good enough for the newly informed. To banter back and forth can only let each person believe his way is best. I learned and practiced a certain way and occasionally evaluate other systems for some enhancement over what I do. My thoughts are what ever system a person trains to comfort and confidence should work split second well.
Still trying for the best well place shot and the very split second difference may allow me the better shot.....or not. Unless I do some paint ball duels I'm not likely to know...

Razor,
I agree with what you are saying. The split second used to pick up the front sight won't make much of a difference. I do see the front sight on the target when at full extension, however my visual focus is in the center of mass of the area that I want to hit with a blurry front sight. But this is only at extremely close distances.....about 7 yds and in. If the target is small or far I will use a hard focus for more surgical shooting or slow down, depending again on my own balance of speed and accuracey. Either way I still shoot as fast as "I" can and still get the hit. The only real difference is as you stated, you focus on the sight no matter the distance, and at ECQ I focus on what the threat is doing and where I want to get the hit. I do that because it works well with what happens to the human body naturally in a fight. Keep both eyes open and focus on what is trying to kill you.
Did you happen to read that Force Science News article? Transmission #135.

But like you said, or someone else said. As long as you can do what you were taught well it doesn't matter. It's symantics. Still a good conversation to have though.

I'd have to disagree with this statement. If you were taught something incorrect or that is later shown to be ineffective it doesn't matter how well you do it or how much you train it - you have been set up to fail. If you have an appropriate mentor/instructor and train hard to precisely perform exactly what was taught at a very high level it shouldn't matter.

Take a look at a lot of the martial sports out there - the technique is designed to score points without neutralizing a threat (injuring an opponent will get you penalized.) You can train those techniques to a very high level but will find out how useful those skills are should you find yourself in a no bullshit combat moment. You should train how you want to fight because you WILL fight how you train.

Ped,

Let me clarify. That statement was in reference to the two different methods of shooting that we were discussing. Both are good and both work. BJJ or JJJ, both are good and both work.

Quick note to PedOncoDoc
 

Unlike Martial Arts, rarely do shooting styles focus on wounding the opposition. Most generally...to shoot is to kill.
Of course if one is trying to shoot a weapon from an opponants hands, the front and rear sights may be necessary...
Good shooting everyone... Blitzzz

Another note; For those who believe me to be a smart ass, yes, often when given the ammunition..Thanks.

The horse is (and should be) dead indeed.

FWIW, here's MSG (ret) Paul R. Howe's own words on point shooting:
http://www.combatshootingandtactics....g_thoughts.pdf
Most folks here have read it.

I subscribe to the "if it works, it works" and "if it ain't broken, don't fix it" mindsets. However, there are scenarios where if you find it doesn't work, you don't get a second chance. For these, I look up to those who've been there, done that, more than a few times (so that luck had nothing to do with it), and emulate their TTP's.

The horse is far from dead as there are tens of thousands that swear by point shooting and are teaching it as a "credible" shooting technique.

I actually don't mind, I'd rather not have tens of thousands shoot as well as we (SF) do.:D