Pranka and Palmer are dead on the money with this. The worst thing about 'point shooting' is that it is so corrosive to the idea that one can reference sights accurately at speed, when that simple concept is exactly what shooters need to appreciate to be effective at speed. "sighted fire means slow fire = rage monster"
Point shooting is not working for cops. I retired three years ago and it has taken me all of those three years to do it right: target focused with alphas at speed with a variety of aiming schemes based on the distance and target presentations. Now with dots or irons only I’m doing it right and only getting better. At local matches I’m beating more than half of the other shooters. I go to my old agency and I can shoot two targets in half the time current officers are spraying one.
I guess a lot has changed since the original Delta Force days because one of the original members, Mike Vining, said in an interview that their M3 Grease Gun had the sights intentionally removed because they were trained to shoot instinctively. ruclips.net/video/-bNI5TwQFvw/видео.html
Yes… A Lot has changed! Like: Adjustable iron sights, HK MP5 improvement over M3, ditching the Weaver Stance, using both hands to grip your pistol, polymer guns, we have cell phones, we have red dots on rifles, kydex holsters, red dots on pistols, etc… just to name some
I don’t know, Matt maybe I’m wrong but I would appreciate your insight on this. In the early 90s during my law-enforcement career, we ran through the whole combat focus/ target focus shooting program. The merits I saw were the fact that we were teaching officers to focus on a very small spot or area of focus on the target. Indexing to that spot as quickly as possible on a shot timer. Accuracy was certainly addressed for good high thoracic hits. Much like you and Ben have been preaching for years. That visual connection to the target is paramount. Obviously we’ve all heard the unsighted fire BS. But what I always told guys there is a difference between not using your sights or unsighted engagement, just arbitrarily pointing the gun towards the target or wherever for that matter versus aimed fire, which is the visual relationship or alignment between the weapon and the target. Whether that was looking down the slide or using the back plate as you mentioned. They were still aiming their weapon, which was obviously very important legally to document and in court so they were not tripped up and state they were not using their sights which was misconstrued as not aiming the handgun and implied negligence. The problem I noticed back then was we were teaching two different things that inherently confused the LE community… the old doctrine that was always taught from the academy on down which was front sight focus. Then having them shift to target focus (properly) long before RDS was ever a thing. A problem we are certainly seeing now with agencies allowing RDS with minimal training and officers hitting the road taught front sight focus for decades and now using optics and they cannot reliably acquire their dot.
@@damonsmith71712 "Whether that was looking down the slide or using the backplate as you mentioned". I'm nobody on the internet. My experience, in a way, mirrors yours. However, I don't think using the backplate ever counted as aiming, outside of very semantic 'referencing a part of the pistol in some fashion'. The sights, irons or dot, provide precise alignment of the pistol in a clear way to the shooter. This is true for target focus or clear tip. Backplate and index do not, especially past 10-15 yards (backplate a headbox obscured by a no shoot at 7 or 10). I don't think it's a good solution. It's like saying paint the whole window on an rds red and shoot when you see red on target. So target focus with awareness of the proper sight alignment(relative to speed and accuarcy) really works, with cleaning up the picture/alignment as distance increases.
Yeah I should categorize that as “gross” sight pictures, with whatever frame of reference you were using to aim the gun, outside of precise iron sight alignment or even a flash sight pic. The officers had a problem going fast, this was one way, back then of making them consider an acceptable aiming strategy and get shots on target as quickly as possible, with precision. Their lack of effective hits was not tolerated. But that was as long time ago, and we certainly learned a ton,, namely from the competitive shooting community. Something I even pushed back on years ago and now see that I was dead fk wrong.
I don't want to answer for him. I will say in my force on force experience what he means is you are creating distance, not necessarily retreating. So if the adversary was right-handed you would move towards your left as you got off the x to make it harder for him to track you with his gun.
Just more difficult engage targets on your gun hand side. Try it dryfire with targets at 90. Much easier and faster going away from gun side. Even more pronounced with a rifle.
I'd like to second what cedartop1 said and also not speak for Matt. Picking lateral or diagonal movement (preferably while shooting) to enable you to engage over a longer period of time before your skeletal system says "ok, stop" and/or creating a similar mechanical problem in your threat. I hope I explained that well enough.
I suspect the “You won’t see your sights” came from officers interviewed and them saying they didn’t see their sights, but they “won” a gunfight. I believe that many did but don’t remember seeing them. The unconscious mind “saw” them but their conscious mind doesn’t remember. I believe Matt has talked about training so the person doesn’t have to think about seeing sights. Those who don’t remember don’t have a high enough training to perform and they got lucky.
All shots must be aimed, under no circumstances will you fire without confirming that your sight is aligned with the target. What he was talking about is to not think about the shooting part, everything runs in the background as in autopilot.
@ I totally agree. I was trying, unsuccessfully, to help point to where the idea of not seeing one’s sights in a shooting. I had an officer who was the state A class production champ, get in a shooting he told me he saw his sights for every shot. PLEASE keep emphasizing the importance of the Hard skills over gimmicks and fancy tech.
Pranka and Palmer are dead on the money with this. The worst thing about 'point shooting' is that it is so corrosive to the idea that one can reference sights accurately at speed, when that simple concept is exactly what shooters need to appreciate to be effective at speed. "sighted fire means slow fire = rage monster"
Holy, hell. How did I not know about this channel? I’m going to spend so much time going through every damn video.
Point shooting is not working for cops. I retired three years ago and it has taken me all of those three years to do it right: target focused with alphas at speed with a variety of aiming schemes based on the distance and target presentations. Now with dots or irons only I’m doing it right and only getting better. At local matches I’m beating more than half of the other shooters. I go to my old agency and I can shoot two targets in half the time current officers are spraying one.
Matts training is invaluable. Im still pissed about the Guntuber situation. They ruined free training for everyone.
But was Hop and Brass coming out of the closet on stream disappointing?
@@kwisatzhaderach1458 Lmao 🤣
How so?
@@JEJAK5396 Hop and Brass were too busy cuddling in a camper to be respectful. And it now appears Focus Tripp was in on the attack on Matt as well.
Why are people who are calling pranka toxic "allowed" to be called guntubers? They're not even Former Action Guys a lot of the time.
I guess a lot has changed since the original Delta Force days because one of the original members, Mike Vining, said in an interview that their M3 Grease Gun had the sights intentionally removed because they were trained to shoot instinctively.
ruclips.net/video/-bNI5TwQFvw/видео.html
Yes… A Lot has changed! Like: Adjustable iron sights, HK MP5 improvement over M3, ditching the Weaver Stance, using both hands to grip your pistol, polymer guns, we have cell phones, we have red dots on rifles, kydex holsters, red dots on pistols, etc… just to name some
I don’t know, Matt maybe I’m wrong but I would appreciate your insight on this. In the early 90s during my law-enforcement career, we ran through the whole combat focus/ target focus shooting program. The merits I saw were the fact that we were teaching officers to focus on a very small spot or area of focus on the target. Indexing to that spot as quickly as possible on a shot timer. Accuracy was certainly addressed for good high thoracic hits. Much like you and Ben have been preaching for years. That visual connection to the target is paramount. Obviously we’ve all heard the unsighted fire BS. But what I always told guys there is a difference between not using your sights or unsighted engagement, just arbitrarily pointing the gun towards the target or wherever for that matter versus aimed fire, which is the visual relationship or alignment between the weapon and the target. Whether that was looking down the slide or using the back plate as you mentioned. They were still aiming their weapon, which was obviously very important legally to document and in court so they were not tripped up and state they were not using their sights which was misconstrued as not aiming the handgun and implied negligence.
The problem I noticed back then was we were teaching two different things that inherently confused the LE community… the old doctrine that was always taught from the academy on down which was front sight focus. Then having them shift to target focus (properly) long before RDS was ever a thing. A problem we are certainly seeing now with agencies allowing RDS with minimal training and officers hitting the road taught front sight focus for decades and now using optics and they cannot reliably acquire their dot.
@@damonsmith71712 "Whether that was looking down the slide or using the backplate as you mentioned". I'm nobody on the internet. My experience, in a way, mirrors yours. However, I don't think using the backplate ever counted as aiming, outside of very semantic 'referencing a part of the pistol in some fashion'. The sights, irons or dot, provide precise alignment of the pistol in a clear way to the shooter. This is true for target focus or clear tip. Backplate and index do not, especially past 10-15 yards (backplate a headbox obscured by a no shoot at 7 or 10). I don't think it's a good solution. It's like saying paint the whole window on an rds red and shoot when you see red on target. So target focus with awareness of the proper sight alignment(relative to speed and accuarcy) really works, with cleaning up the picture/alignment as distance increases.
Yeah I should categorize that as “gross” sight pictures, with whatever frame of reference you were using to aim the gun, outside of precise iron sight alignment or even a flash sight pic. The officers had a problem going fast, this was one way, back then of making them consider an acceptable aiming strategy and get shots on target as quickly as possible, with precision. Their lack of effective hits was not tolerated. But that was as long time ago, and we certainly learned a ton,, namely from the competitive shooting community. Something I even pushed back on years ago and now see that I was dead fk wrong.
This isnt matts channel
@@damonsmith71712 gross sight picture is unsighted picture
congrats on your focustripp shout out
Retreat toward gun side? I don’t think I understand what he’s saying. Anyone able to elaborate?
What side your gun is holstered on.
I don't want to answer for him. I will say in my force on force experience what he means is you are creating distance, not necessarily retreating. So if the adversary was right-handed you would move towards your left as you got off the x to make it harder for him to track you with his gun.
Just more difficult engage targets on your gun hand side. Try it dryfire with targets at 90. Much easier and faster going away from gun side. Even more pronounced with a rifle.
I'd like to second what cedartop1 said and also not speak for Matt.
Picking lateral or diagonal movement (preferably while shooting) to enable you to engage over a longer period of time before your skeletal system says "ok, stop"
and/or creating a similar mechanical problem in your threat.
I hope I explained that well enough.
I would think retreat away from adversary gun side would create the more distance. Anyone elaborate?
I suspect the “You won’t see your sights” came from officers interviewed and them saying they didn’t see their sights, but they “won” a gunfight. I believe that many did but don’t remember seeing them. The unconscious mind “saw” them but their conscious mind doesn’t remember. I believe Matt has talked about training so the person doesn’t have to think about seeing sights. Those who don’t remember don’t have a high enough training to perform and they got lucky.
All shots must be aimed, under no circumstances will you fire without confirming that your sight is aligned with the target. What he was talking about is to not think about the shooting part, everything runs in the background as in autopilot.
@ I totally agree. I was trying, unsuccessfully, to help point to where the idea of not seeing one’s sights in a shooting. I had an officer who was the state A class production champ, get in a shooting he told me he saw his sights for every shot.
PLEASE keep emphasizing the importance of the Hard skills over gimmicks and fancy tech.