I was searching various threads on the forum and came across the method of using your front sight post for up close shooting. I’m trying to get some clarification on the technique. As I understand it, if a target is around 10 yards and closer you just put the front sight post on target without the use of the rear sight, while keeping both eyes open and send rounds. Is that correct? Does a red dot on the rifle still allow you to use this technique? I’m thinking something with a large window like an eotech wouldn’t obscure anything but maybe a tubed red dot might…? Any clarification is appreciated, thanks.
That technique is unnecessary if you’re using a RDS. If the RDS is off or broken you simply use the tube as a giant rear aperture close up.
But generally you’ve got it. It should be pointed out that it still requires, maybe even moreso, good technique, grip, etc.
i never heard that for rifles before. i was always taught that for pistols. “in a fight, front sight”
Still depends on the distance.
Yup.
All the “alternate” aiming methods are enveloped.
Examples: using the bottom ring of the EoTech reticle, using the top of the FSB, shooting out of the notch with irons, using the post in a traditional reticle (5 to 10 mils low), all work at a specific distance envelope (generally from 3 to 10 yards, depending on several factors), but once you are out of that envelope you have to apply offest to some degree, which is why I recommend simply using the tried and true hold-over technique. When it comes to fighting for your life, simple is good.
I had not heard of that before. I was taught to “Point Shoot” at 50 feet and under by just lining up the barrel with the target. It takes some practice, but you pick it up real quickly, like riding a bicycle. Most people are going to be so scared they’re not going to aim anyway. This is why point-shooting is so important. (according to the person who instructed me) Even guys who’ve trained for years and years will forget everything they know and revert to the most basic of shooting skills under real combat. Training has almost noting to do with the fear you experience when someone is trying to kill you, and stands a good chance of doing just that.
People have an amazing tendancy to do what they are trained to do under stress.
There are certainly distances/situations/and applications that preclude the use of sights in the traditional sense, but at distances and situations that demand guaranteed hits of a specific target area, you better see what you need to see to consistently and quickly get the hit.
I only know what my father taught me growing up. 11th Cav. LRRP, 68-69 and former Police Officer.
The approach to firearms training and our appreciation for the effects of stress has come a long way since then.
Nothing against him personally, but we have been able to stand on the shoulders of giants to get where are are now.
Roger that.
Where can I find more information on this specific to shooting? With a martial arts and sports background, the concepts of muscle memory and perfect practice makes perfect and pretty clear to me, but this is something I have no experience with.
My shooting has always been, aim at what I want to hit and pull the trigger. Are there clear benefits to these alternative aiming techniques? Am I simply ignorant?
Sonny Puzikas is a big proponent of this kind of shooting. Spetznaz Guy. He’s obviously an AK guy however. You can see his vids and usually contact him here:
I’ve trained with his AMOK knife fighting class. The theory is that there are no rules, and anything that works is the right way. Instructor and Student are there to teach one another, and only a professional attitude is required to learn. No military or LEO experience required to be effective.
There is a ton of information out there, but you are either going to have to ask more concise/specific questions, do your own research, or take a class from a reputable trainer.
The goal is always to hit your target, the question becomes: what is your target, and what are your sights really telling you?
You can go that way if you want, but I have never seen a Spetznaz anything live up to the hype.
Very well said, F2S!
[QUOTE=Failure2Stop;1337461]There is a ton of information out there, but you are either going to have to ask more concise/specific questions, do your own research, or take a class from a reputable trainer.
The goal is always to hit your target, the question becomes: what is your target, and what are your sights really telling you?[/QUO
I guess im not sure what i should be looking FOR. This idea has stirred up some interest. Im happy to do some research, but I’m not sure where to start. Maybe names of techniques or instructors of some of the alternative techniques would be helpful. A google search on ‘alternate aiming techniques’ just muddied the waters.
Maybe this will all muddy the waters. Im a proficient shooter, not an expert. Are there some techniques that every shooter needs to have in their toolbox?
Larry @ Sealed Mindset has a pretty unique approach to aiming (with handguns at least). I’m just beginning in his school though. Contact him for more info.
If you’re asking what i think you’re asking, then your best bet would be to research the different zeros (50/100, 200, etc) and the trajectory of different caliber rounds, and how that affects sight picture at different ranges.
Awesome1228, apologies for not getting back to this sooner, I have been busy and wanted to give you a proper reply as I hate typing lengthy stuff on my phone.
Anyway:
“Traditional” aiming is point of aim corresponding to point of impact. This technique works with handguns out to about 50 yards (depending on gun/sights/ammo/shooter), and to varying degrees with rifles depending on zero distance and required degree of precision.
With rifles, if all you need to do is hit somewhere on a human sized target from muzzle to 350 meters, just hold in the torso and blast away (depending on zero distance). However, if increased levels of precision are needed, the shooter needs to understand his trajectory, especially at close range. This is due to the level of precision needed to consistently place rounds into the critial structures of the threat on demand, under stress.
In these situations, if the shooter is using a 100 meter zero, he simply places his point of aim 1.5 inches above his needed point of impact and he will hit within a 3" circle from 3 meters to 70 meters. The user can fine tune his holds for greater precision by holding approximately 2.3 inches above the needed point of impact from 3 to 25 meters, and then reduce that hold to 1.3 inches above center from 25 to 55 meters, and simply hold directly on what he wants to hit from 55 to 175 meters.
See the “Zen of the 100 Meter Zero” sticky for more info and discussion here: https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=107572
The alternate method is for sighting devices that have a distinct point in the reticle or sight that can be used for rapid aiming. For example, the bottom of the 65 MOA ring in the EoTech line of sights, a thick outer crosshair or circle in traditional scopes, or the base of the front sight of traditional iron sights. At close range, these excessively lowered aiming points will provide point of aim/point of impact at a specific close range, and will be “close enough” for high levels of precision within a narrow window of employment. The problem is that once that narrow window is exceeded or reduced, the shooter will once again need to apply a hold-over/under, which makes the whole purpopse of modern zeroing methods moot. It also forces the shooter to accurately estimate distance to within single digit meters/yards at distances that require immediate action/reaction to win.
So, my advice is to learn your “large window” holds, and train yourself to apply them, so that when you need it, it will be habitual and intuitive.
This is a HUGE issue IME. If you set up a competition-style COF and ask people to move from box to box and tell you the distance to each target, let’s say from 10 yards to 25 or 30, you’ll get wild-ass answers all over the place. People can kind of do OK when on a line with other shooters dressing on a line of targets parallel to them, but start turning them to and fro and offering up a variety of targets and target sizes and it all goes to shit. Set a par time that doesn’t give them long to figure it out and it gets worse.
In competition, I just shoot for high A-zone, and rely on the poorly designed USPSA target scoring zone to get me through. I’ve never shot anyone, but I suspect this methodology will get me through at any distance I’d be able to justify shooting someone, especially with the keep-shooting-until-threat-is-gone-and-then-go-looking-for-him method of engagement