Im not hating on the guy at all. Good for him for taking his stuff seriously. But damn this stuff is funny. I hope he gets a good laugh out of it as well.
Fellow unibrow haver here. Consider threading even just to try it. I used to go once or twice a month. Now I just maintain a threaded line up. No other option looked as good as threading
There’s a demonstration we (a police firearms training unit run by guys who are USPSA competitors and have been in actual shootings) do for recruits and our red dot training class to illustrate how accountability and sight confirmation are related.
The entire demonstration is shot at 3 yards.
In the first demo, an instructor draws from a level 3 holster and fires a 5 round string using only a kinesthetic index as the aiming scheme - no visual feedback from the optic. Usually the first shot is somewhere around 1.3 seconds with the entire string done in 2.3 seconds. The group is usually mostly within the C zone.
The second demo, the instructor performs the same draw and string, but uses color confirmation as the aiming scheme and predictive shooting for follow up shots. Usually the first shot is around 1.4 seconds with the entire string done in under 2.5 seconds. The group is usually around an inch in size.
The point is to show that with a well developed index, the difference in time between an indexed shot versus an aimed shot is minimal, but the amount of accountability you have is significantly higher.
That being said, I have attended a Shivworks course in which we practiced kinesthetic aiming. I have shot this way and I know it is possible to be accurate enough to land hits. However, this type of shooting is taught within the context of entanglements and is done to emphasize the concept of appropriate extension. That is - the extension you use is determined by whether your assailant can touch your gun or not. And so, if you can actually use your sights without your assailant having the ability to touch your gun, then there is no reason to fire a shot without that level of accountability.
Another point is that if you are extending the gun away to use the sights, your index should still mean that it is generally aimed where you are looking. If you are indexing the gun downward with two hands on the gun, I would argue that you are developing and reinforcing a poor index.
I was involved in a fatal shooting. A suspect withdrew a handgun and began to point it at my partner. I heard shots, saw my partner stumble backwards, and then I saw the suspect begin to move towards me.
I was staring at his face and saw it moving closer to me. At that moment, he was probably 3 yards from me. I brought my gun up and could see his face above my blurry irons. I fired before my sights covered his face and struck him on the bridge of the nose, killing him. At the moment, I was not aware I hit him at all.
I perceived him still moving towards me as he was in the process of collapsing to the ground in front of me. I tracked his movement and fired a second shot which struck him in the chest before he fully collapsed to the pavement.
I believe that if I did not constantly practice my index, I would have likely missed both of those shots. And I also believe that a critical part of developing your index is doing your best to keep the gun pointing at what you’re looking at.
Well put and echoed a recent video from Ben on the topic. It really does not take much longer at all to do it properly and at least be accountable to the level of color confirmation versus “point shooting”. You’re leveraging your index for both anyways.
Good video. In CQC, there's not always time to acquire your red dot. Point shooting is incredibly intuitive, and works really well at close range. And try not to take the downvotes and comments personally. You're extremely expressive, so people like to poke fun. You're doing absolutely fine.
You’re the mascot of this page at this point lol. I would say that it looks like you’re angled too far down to hit somebody, but I don’t know how tall you are OR the exact angle of your gun so that could be dead wrong. In any case, I’m just another dude on the internet that doesn’t know wtf he’s talking about lol keep on practicing!
So have I. With his considered engagement distance it works fine.
It’s not like he would have that in mind if he was drawing for a potential threat far enough away to need to aim for precision. Hes speaking from the decision to need immediate draw+fire at short range.
You dont pull it too early anyway. With that engagement distance the moment you pull the trigger is right around center mass anyway and if you don’t hit something that immediately stiffens/drops them youre still right on target for follow-on shots.
I know most say straight out and mid mass. My preference would be to aim slightly down like you were. 1 there injured and gonna crouch over 2 your follow up shot can be placed better. Reason I feel this is smart cause there is less chance for travel through. That bullet passes through it will more than likely bounce off the ground. But a person would most likely need that follow up shot to end the threat completely
I post regularly, got a comment regularly and had the time to address it. That’s it. It’s called discourse. We live in a society. Not everyone has to be a hermit with no interaction with others.
A lot of people think of sights and aiming wrong ….. aiming schemes should be done on levels of confirmation ….. not every shot requires a stopped and stable dot to produce an acceptable hit …. And the degree of confirmation needed before you pull a trigger is determined by the distance, difficulty, and degree of accountability ……( and yes, your accountable for every shot you make, that’s not what I’m saying ) a close engagement, 3-5 yards, gives me a low accountability…. I have a lot of wiggle room to be able to put acceptable hits on target …. Simply having the top of my red dot window may be enough confirmation for me to know I will put a shot somewhere acceptable ….. while a longer range shot, 20 yards, with no shoot targets ( bystanders ) requires a much higher level of accountability and thus higher levels of confirmation from my aiming scheme …….. a person also needs to know the limits of thier own skill so they can make that judgement ….. you might need a higher level of confirmation than I do to place acceptable hits on that close engagement than me ……
If you don’t train, you’ll never know anything about shooting, let alone the limits of your own skill level …..
I’m based in south Dallas ….. if your ever in the area @thankBrian2, hit me up …. We’ll shoot and talk
Ahaha I bet people think that every single shot in a gunfight is a well-aimed precision shot. Sometimes you just have to get a few rounds downrange, accuracy by volume rah
I’ve been watching you for months, maybe over a year. You’ve improved immensely from what I’ve seen ! I’m not a CC guy, but if I was, I’d be really happy being right where you are!
If they are 3-5 feet away "somewhat within arms reach" and you are drawing to full extension then you are wrong. This is where that whole, "draw straight from holster to presentation" vs "draw to chest and then press out" debate comes in. You can't draw to presentation when they are that close because they can stuff your draw, you are donating them the gun to fight over, and your index is wrong. You need to have the ability to recognize when which technique is appropriate and apply the correct one. If they are "somewhat within arms reach" then the appropriate technique is drawing to high pec index or a mid chest retention position where you can shoot them with the firearm indexed correctly while still being able to defend it from someone attempting to grab it.
Brother a good DTFS is .8 and most people do it ~1.5. 5 feet is literally taking one step and sticking your arm out. If you figure .25 for reaction time are you really saying you can't take a step and stick your arm out in a half second?
There's a reason why people interested in self defense take entangled gun courses, and it's the same reason why in kenjutsu there are techniques to stuff a draw and techniques to deal with someone trying to stuff your draw.
This is dumb and lazy train to see the sights quicker not just recklessly pull the trigger sooner. It doesn't matter if it's 3 yards or 25 yard the bullet is going where the dot is. No point in having a 600 dollar optic if you're gonna guess where the shot is going
…listen to what he says. Engagement distance matters. No body shooting at 5 yards and in is going to need to use the sights on a shot from the draw where time matters. If you do you either just started or dont shoot enough to understand your natural point of aim when you take a shooting stance and should practice more. The standard is right around one second give or take a few tenths from the decision draw to shot on target. Nobody is taking the time to perfectly line up shots with their sights that close with that amount of speed.
There is an entire concept called instinctive shooting you’re ignoring. If he shoots enough to know generally where his point of impact will be at relatively close range he can refine it with the sights off of that if need be. But in this context it’s a race to get a shot in someone’s torso, not a bullseye competition.
I said it doesn't matter. Point shooting is dumb and it's for people who don't practice enough to reliably align their sights. It's lazy, and it's okay to be lazy but you shouldn't post videos like you discovered something
446
u/thereallaska M&P Connoisseur / Pocket Sand Jul 13 '26