Meprolight FT Bullseye Micro Optic - No front site ?

[ECU Pirates]

I agree she got lucky but lets put the woman aside and think how we can see a clear picture.
Also how our brain assembles what we are doing in an effective way for us.

I was taught to look at the front site. Some Gunfight (handgun) survivors have said they only recall the front post. Some even report being able to see the lines on it. You brought up archery, why do they use pins now? Having something to focus on sure seems to help. I shoot pistols fastest with straight 8 sites. Simple but effective. You think pistols don't need any site for average self defense distances? I would argue if people were actually trained to use them (front anyway) hits would go up and innocents would be safer. If you give a gun someone with no practice or training then they don't really matter much. What distances are you talking about here? I might cover up or remove a site and try a before and after at 7 yards and see. From a holster as quick as I can not slow fire of course.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Podmonkey]

There really is no right or wrong school of thought here. But you should have sights on your defensive pistol, front and rear. If you are point shooting within bad breath range sights aren't going to be in the way. If, however, you find yourself in a situation that requires you to bear down and deliver aimed fire (say a mass shooting incident in a mall and you have a clear shot at the bad guy 25 yards away for example) you are going to feel like an asshole if you don't have the means for it.

 

[meketrefe]

Of course there is no right or wrong. I am just bring up these points in order to reflect a little about the natural skills hardwired through thousands of years of evolution.
Most of the time we are not aware because of modern life and tools that do not explore and take advantage of those. I think there is nothing wrong with understanding the way we are
and the way our brain actually works in the most primitives ways. By creating awareness and showing examples we can start leveraging some of those things.
The one thing about the pistol is how to find a position that is so consistent and repeatable that one could simply use ones' optical axis and peripheral input to support trajectory estimation
that is how the humans 12,000 years ago figured out how to be very accurate with the bow and arrows they just invented. Then just evolved with it. No sights needed.
In WWII the best airforce turret gunners where folks that were good pigeon and clay shooters regardless of how long and hard they trained their had their own innate
ability to get hits. In the Vietnan war there was an airforce commander who was ademan about all his pilots getting clay shooting practice because he knew that this
traditional discipline made them better fighter pilots.
I think there is an opportunity to improve pistol systems and methods. Some other practices that might recall our innate skills might help us find new better ways.
IMO closed sights with busy designs work against this natural philosophy.

 

[Podmonkey]

I understand what you are saying, but one counterpoint. One would have to put in a lot of practice to determine just what instictive shooting ability one had, and more importantly to what extent can an individual rely on them in a crisis. While humans do have unrealized inborn ablities it still takes practice to draw them out. One of the reasons I say training and technique goes out the window under extreme stress is the amount of time it takes an action to become rote. But once it is that action becomes a dependable reflex. Its something I have much concern over, In my Army days I was a pretty decent shot but lack of trigger time has erroded those skills to a disturbing extent. I have to be content with a few hundred rounds per month as opposed to the 1 or 2k weekly that I once enjoyed.

 

[ProgSpear]

To Meke's point, years ago I got proficient with a crossman pellet pistol hitting beer cans at about 30 feet from low ready; no sights, just concentrate on the target. By proficient I mean 9 of 10. Then my BIL wanted it back for varmint control, LOL. Recently I picked up a 1911 CO2 replica to start practicing that stuff again. Lets just say that age and progressive lenses are not your friends... 30-40% is my best with a beer can target, but a man size target would definately be in a hurt, especially with a real 1911. Not trying to qual here, just build a dependable reflexive shot.

 

[meketrefe]

If course. This is not something to drastically change anything but to think about.

I think we could have a straight line or mark in such way that we never look directly at any sights and rather a simple reference that is in line and solid with the optical axis.
Unlike the pointing/aiming that is more natural, I think this is challenging regarding the position to make it consistent and repeatable.
Also the capacity to lead the shots is a pretty primitive instinct and when practiced in the pistol, it is very helpful not only to be able to shoot moving targets but to shoot
stationary targets one is running, perhaps for cover.
This is something not always practiced yet it is the most likely scenario in most fights. When pops are heard, everyone is running.
In a crisis the training takes over so training is the way. Like the old wise samurai once said, we fight at the dojo, then we play at the battlefield.

 

[eagleridge357]

I have eyesight that has gotten worse year by year. At the range, I always shoot without my script glasses (just clear safety glasses). I do this because I feel that if I ever need to shoot in an HD emergency, chances are it will be in low light and without my glasses. I focus on the target which I can see clearly with my vision problem, then bring the barrel to the target without losing focus of the target. My brain tells me when the barrel and sights are in good relative position, and I shoot. All without concentrating on sight picture or sight focus. I can shoot fairly rapidly at 7-10 yds this way and hit fairly well for rapid shots. I agree with those who say at close range sights are not necessary. I am sure I could quickly adapt to a no sight barrel using the same way I shoot with sights. Strange, isn't it? I feel target acquisition is primarily a psychological event, no thinking required, no focus required. Lots of judgment going on here, just like when you squeeze your vehicle between a moving and a parked car. You don't focus on either, but your brain is keeping track of all the data points relevant to the squeeze.

 

[Paxal]

Having used one, you don’t miss the front sight. However, having said that, I admit that I put the front sight back on. It helped speed up the sight alignment in certain conditions and then just disappears behind the sight. So, you can go either way you want.

 

[Edwardteach72]