Red Dot vs Instinct Shooting?

[thequintessentialman]

Anyone have any good experience with these that they care to share? I'm wanting to do some more training this summer (hopefully the ammo shortage lets up) but not sure which route to go. The instinct method seems simpler but the Red Dot on my rifle sure does improve things a lot over iron sights, expecially with these "not so young any more" eyes.

 

[toddnjoyce]

At what distance?

 

[thequintessentialman]

Standard "contengency" range. This question came up after I had discussions with two different LEO on two different occasions. One trained with and used RMR, the other with front sight instinct shooting. It just got me thinking.

 

[andre3k]

Anyone have any good experience with these that they care to share? I'm wanting to do some more training this summer (hopefully the ammo shortage lets up) but not sure which route to go. The instinct method seems simpler but the Red Dot on my rifle sure does improve things a lot over iron sights, expecially with these "not so young any more" eyes.

How do you define instinctive shooting? I just want to be sure that we are using the same nomenclature.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[thequintessentialman]

How do you define instinctive shooting? I just want to be sure that we are using the same nomenclature.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

How do you define instinctive shooting? I just want to be sure that we are using the same nomenclature.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

It was described to me as using the front sight only. Sort of instinctively (with a lot of practice) knowing where the round is supposed to go.

 

[BeatTheTunaUp]

I'll put it this way. The first time I handed my bil an ar with a red dot. He turned back to me with the biggest grin on his face and said, " It's like cheating!". There's a reason they're so prevalent.

 

[andre3k]

It was described to me as using the front sight only. Sort of instinctively (with a lot of practice) knowing where the round is supposed to go.

I think if there was any advantage to instinctive shooting more people would be teaching or advocating for it. If you're shooting at bad breath distance you can get good hits with no sights at all. But I wouldn't want to exclusively train that way. I think its a skill to add to the toolbox, but aimed fire using a dot or front/rear iron sights is the best choice with little downside in regards to timed shots and everything to gain in accuracy beyond 5 yards.



Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[Dead Roman]

A shooting technique doesn’t negate the need for some type of sight. Red dots are the superior sight option for close up weapons.

Do with that info what you will.

 

[andre3k]

Hello Andre3K,

The question you ask has a complex answer. But, I’ll make it simple.

The determination to use instinctive fire as opposed to using any sighting apparatus is mostly influenced by the amount of time available before the threat can fire on you.

Example 1: The threat has a weapons jam and intends to engage you once the jam is cleared. This scenario potentially provides you with enough time to use acred dot or other aiming apparatus to engage the threat.

Example 2: You get out of your car at a convenience store and a deadly threat manifests itself from two cars over moving your way and discharging their weapon at you. In this scenario, you may not have enough time to utilize a red dot on a pistol or other aiming devices. Instinctive (or “Target Focused”) fire as we call it, allows you to use a firearm much more rapidly in your self defense, and may be a more viable option.
In the courses that I instruct, I provide both of these scenarios (and more) so that the student can learn for themselves, which is the more appropriate technique.

As for me, 90% of all of my handgun training is “Target Focused” shooting. I’ll cover why later.

If you’d like to discuss this topic more, please send me an email: HybridTactics18@gmail.com.

You can also check out our facebook page to see video examples of what I’ve written about: Hybrid Tactics

-Krieger

Special Operations Forces Private Security Contractors

BRIDGE THE GAP BETWEEN GUNFIGHTING AND TACTICS BY TRAINING WITH FORMER SPECIAL OPERATIONS FORCES AND PRIVATE SECURITY CONTRACTORS.

hybridtacticssecurity.org

I have transitioned over to primarily shooting target focused since carrying a RDS equipped gun both on and off duty. Thats the only way I know how to shoot a dot. I pick an exact spot on the target and bring the dot (or streak) to that spot.

I'm starting to use this on irons as well but I don't shoot my iron sighted pistols as often anymore. Both front/rear sight are blurry with the spot on the target being in complete focus. Past 15 yards I still have to have a front sight focus to be accurate.

In regards to instinctive shooting versus aimed fire, do you use a timer to compare both techniques and see if there is a significant advantage between the two?

There are pro shooters like Bob Vogel and Taran Butler that can get first round A zone hits from the draw in .80ish. I just can't see the purpose of not using my sights if it's humanly possible to get good hits that fast while using my sights. I might not be able to draw and shoot that fast but we know that it is possible.

I'll check out your website and videos.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[avvidclif]

Point shooting, as I was taught and taught years ago, was very effective but required practice. My ex and I practiced using empty beer cans. The shooter holstered the loaded gun, S&W 686, I threw a beer can as far as I could (wasn't far, aluminum cans, maybe 20 ft). When I threw, she drew and fired when it hit the ground. Most times a hit(too close), repeat firing as it hits the ground until empty. She would average 4 hits out of 6 shots. Lots of fun and good practice.

Moral of Story: Don't piss off wife.

 

[DougC]

On a related topic are pistol iron sights destined for extinction?

From the American Rifleman blog;
"The popularity shows in the number of handguns that ship wearing either an optic or factory-cut slide for mounting one. Nearly every major manufacturer does it, and it’s convinced some that pistol iron sights are destined for extinction. We asked seven of the industry’s foremost if they’re indeed on the endangered species list. Even they can’t come to a consensus."

And are rifle iron sights going away? From the American Rifleman blog;

“Iron sights on many commercial hunting rifles these days, especially on higher performance bolt-action rifles, are becoming rarer and rarer,” he explained. “Mostly due to the cost of installing something that the gun makers feel the majority of their consumers are never going to use. If 99 percent of your expected users are going to slap a big optic your rifle, why have the extra expense, even to just drill and tap the holes?”

When I got my AR-15 platform rifle it didn't hesitate to put a red dot on it. But still had iron sights on my handguns. After many attempts trying various combinations of vision aids for seasoned eyeballs I switched to red dots for the pistols. OooRah! much better.

Sidebar: The Dallas Pistol Club recently hosted a Scholastic Action Shooting match among TX youth groups. I would say 1/2 of shooters (teenagers) shot rifles/pistols with optics.

 

[seeker_two]

On a related topic are pistol iron sights destined for extinction?

As long as deep-concealable firearms and close-range dangerous game rifles are needed, iron sights aren't going anywhere.

 

[SIG_Fiend]

On a related topic are pistol iron sights destined for extinction?

I think irons will likely exist for at least the rest of this century, if not much longer. I just think we'll continue to see more options for RDS on pistols, and that's a great thing too.

If we look at the AR-15 as an example, RDS have been in use on them in at least some serious-use capacity since the early 90s. If we look at the simple concept of an unmagnified optic that provides some form of a dot aiming point for small arms, we can trace it back at least as far as the Singlepoint OEG, which saw use by SF in the Son Tay prison raid of 1970.

So 50yrs of some form of use on AR's, with things only really taking off via the commercial market in the past ~20yrs. Despite that, FSPs still exist because people like what they like, some like building clones, and some like the simplicity.

Pistols are even more constrained due to size and moving parts, so I don't think we have to worry about irons going anywhere in our lifetimes. Even if they did and most manufacturers were shipping pistols RDS-only, you'd likely still see an aftermarket industry spring up of people getting iron sight cuts.

 

[Deaf Smith]

Point shooting ... hmmm.. Read this below about Rex Applegate.

And then study Jeff Coopers MT.

Then study the other attachment... from the Top Gun Training Centre newsletter.

 

[CharlieWH2O]

We trained quick-kill in the Marine Corps starting with BB rifles with no sights starting in ITR. That was 1970 and it was quite effective CQB. Not sure if it or some variant is still taught?

 

[TxStetson]

Point shooting ... hmmm.. Read this below about Rex Applegate.

And then study Jeff Coopers MT.

Then study the other attachment... from the Top Gun Training Centre newsletter.

Nobody said we had to do homework on this forum.

 

[DougC]

Great discussion of using sights (red dot or iron sights) or point shooting (instinct I guess). Let's add force-on-force training options to determine what may/may not be best for each of us.

"Force-on-force (FOF) training is where a student uses some type of simulated firearm, launching a non-lethal projectile, to engage real people role playing a threat. However, there are several varieties of this type of training, and each has a different objective and focus."

For those joining the discussion did you take force-on-force training and did it affect your choice/understanding of using or not using sights in close defensive shooting situations.

 

[Mowingmaniac 24/7]

I like red dots (prefer green) on range guns.

Self defense guns...iron sights only.

 

[hullhullhull]

If possible I always want to use my red dot for every shot I fire. The red dot solves most if not all issues brought up in the news letter from topgun.

 

[SIG_Fiend]

Great discussion of using sights (red dot or iron sights) or point shooting (instinct I guess). Let's add force-on-force training options to determine what may/may not be best for each of us.

"Force-on-force (FOF) training is where a student uses some type of simulated firearm, launching a non-lethal projectile, to engage real people role playing a threat. However, there are several varieties of this type of training, and each has a different objective and focus."

For those joining the discussion did you take force-on-force training and did it affect your choice/understanding of using or not using sights in close defensive shooting situations.

Let me preface this by saying none of this is directed at anyone here and I don't intend for it to sound harsh or make anyone feel like they're being attacked. I tend to be very matter of fact on this subject as I've dealt with it a LOT in the past and have come to the conclusion there are some fairly definitive answers on the subject at this point. If I come across as a jerk, I apologize, as that's not my intent. I just want to see people train safely and achieve the best performance they can.

This subject has been thoroughly beat to death in the industry by now, by world class instructors, top level competitors, etc. At this point, IMO there's no legitimate reason to use what people traditionally refer to as "point shooting" or "instinctive shooting" in a defensive context. In the past, I've seen some instructors teach point shooting as a viable solution even beyond 15yds out to as far as 25yds. It is my position that, beyond the 0-3yds I'll describe below, for any serious use this gets more and more negligent the farther the distance beyond 3yds.

The goal should always be to achieve the highest degree of sighted fire necessary for the given shot. Maximum accountability, especially considering the intended application.

Too often, point shooting is used as an excuse for lackluster training habits. If it was a thing that had some sort of performance benefit, we would have seen some USPSA or IPSC titles taken by point shooters by now. When the gun is relatively in front of your face, nothing is gained by not moving the gun the extra couple of inches to achieve confirmation with your sights. I've seen others measure this on the shot timer and I've done so myself. We're talking about an almost nonexistent difference of less than one hundredth of a second to be able to move the gun from a few inches below the sight line to in the sight line.

There are at least a couple exceptions I can think of. In count 2 and 3 of drawstroke, those are typically considered retention fire positions. Personally, I choose not to use the terms point shooting or instinctive shooting for these positions. I consider them to still be sighted fire. I think the most accurate term would be indexed shooting to help differentiate. I'll explain below.

Count 2 of Drawstroke

(Pictures courtesy of John @ Warrior Poet's video with Craig Douglas below)

Count 2 is a gun hand-only retention fire position. The best version of this I've found for civilian defensive usage, IMO, is the thumb-pectoral index as popularized by Craig Douglas of Shivworks. People have variations on this but, I quite like his version.

The idea being developing a consistent and robust index of the gun on your body. Your gun hand elbow is brought back far and high about as far as it will go (repeatable), muzzle pointed down at roughly a 45 degree angle, thumb flagged to provide a buffer and index point between the gun and your body, hand resting around your pectoral area as the index point you're trying to hit.

This gives you repeatable body mechanics and a consistent index of the gun against your body such that you're able to achieve acceptable hits at contact distance. This position is only intended for use in a clinch or at contact or arms length distance.

Count 3 of Drawstroke

Count 3 is a two-handed retention fire position, hands met relatively centered on the chest, gun relatively below the dominant eye. Idea being you now have a greater degree of index on your body. Muzzle pretty much parallel to the ground.

Count 2 is no longer good enough at this position to achieve an acceptable index. You're also not yet ready for Count 4 and beginning significant extension of the gun to target as the threat is close enough that one large step by them might be enough to put hands on you and initiate a gun grab attempt.

You center your chest on the threat for an index, your arm and elbow position is repeatable for consistency. This position is typically intended for somewhere between too far for Count 2 (just beyond arms length) and inside of ~3yds.

Here's a couple of great videos on those two positions, as well as some side benefits: