On the Shooter’s Log today, I very briefly made mention that you should watch out for firearms instructors that teach that there is a one size fits all aiming solution for all defensive handgun use. The reason I’d been thinking about this is because of this hilariously bad youtube video featuring someone blasting pop bottles with a Glock 19 that’s had the sights removed.
There are so many things that are delightfully wrong with that video; the first of which is that except for once, you can’t tell if she’s actually hitting the pop bottle. Even a near miss would toss up a spectacular dust cloud and move the bottle, so as far as demonstrations of accuracy go it’s not exactly blowing my skirt up. In their other videos, DOA Tactical explains their shooting technique, which is essentially a body-index aiming technique. Extending the gun towards the target and grossly sighting through the slide of the gun to get “fast” hits. They later refer to it as a “muscle memory” technique, which my personal pet peeves with that term aside actually make it an even worse idea.
Body index shooting works. I use it all the time during matches when the targets are wide open or up close. I’ll index shoot stuff from about 7 yards in, provided that it’s not a partial target or something else. Which is the problem with the “we don’t use sights” mindset presented by DOA Tactical in their videos and classes. It’s training shooters for an idealized lethal force encounter, where your attackers are at close range and wide open. It ignores the possibility of a difficult shot at a tight target; while preaching that you’ll have developed enough “muscle memory” over a single day class to use a proper body index on the target.
If you only train to slam the gun out to full extension and index it on the target, you won’t have the skills necessary to take a more refined sight picture if you need to hit a smaller target, like say the T-zone of someone holding your significant other hostage. Conversely, if you train to use the sights and aim the pistol, you’ll be able to use the sights when you need them, and also have a good enough body index that if you don’t need the sights you won’t be trapped into using them. This goes back to the old practical shooting adage of “see what you need to see”. If I’m engaging an 18×24 piece of steel at 7 yards, my sight picture won’t be really precise. But if I’m engaging a 3×5 index card at 10 yards, it definitely will be. Training only with body-index shooting or point shooting trains you for a “best case scenario” gunfight, and leaves you unprepared for the worst case scenario. Training to use your sights and opening your mind and vision leaves you ready for both.
Training body index only makes sense if you are going to practice once a year and never take another training course. It is essentially the bare minimum to bring a handgun from a melee weapon to a reach weapon.
But if you *are* going to keep practicing enough to buy videos and take real training, dear lord learn how to use the sights.
Are you guys aware of just how condescending the tone of your posts can be? Overall, I enjoy visiting your site, but the “know-it-all” attitude of what seems to be more and more of your posts is really, really starting to irk me. Humility can be a wonderful thing. Just one random guy’s opinion, but I hope you give it a little thought.
Mitch, in the context of this post only, I’m very specifically discussing a narrow training mindset that could lead to disaster if pursued. The problem with firearms training is that not all ideas are created equal – and bad ideas need to be identified and called out so that they don’t expand and do more harm.
I Was thinking the same thing. This is the first site I come to in the morning and I love the site, but you guys are getting wee bit snobby.
“you won’t have the skills necessary … if you need to hit … someone holding your significant other hostage”
Yeah, because that scenario is sooooo common in the real world. (Although, I did see it on an episode of Blue Bloods, where Tom Seleck saved his daughter held at knife point by taking that shot. I think I saw that on an episode of Justified too…)
“DOA Tactical … train[s] shooters for an idealized lethal force encounter, where your attackers are at close range …”
Yeah, because in the real world your attackers are never at close range…most of the time they will shout at you for your wallet or try to rape you from 25+ yards away. We know this because that’s how the action shooting courses are set up, which are very realistic.
Just curious, did you give DOA Tactical an opportunity to respond to your criticisms before you trashed their livelihood? Or is that privilege reserved for sponsors?
Actually, DOA Tactical has a response video up addressing the criticisms of the initial video. It explains the thought process behind their shooting style, without addressing the possibility that you don’t know what type of target you’re going to engage as a civilian.
I have always struggled with the shooter’s mentality that accepts that there is enough of a chance that you might need to use a gun to defend yourself so that you actually go and carry a gun, but then eschew learning to use it to the best of their ability. Yes, I might be confronted by an antagonist at close range that I can simply point shoot. Or I might be on a crowded street with innocent bystanders. Or I could be carjacked and have a narrow target profile to hit.
Training for the “best case” scenario leaves a shooter unprepared for the worst case. Since we all agree that using a gun in self-defense is a worst case scenario, why not be ready for the worst you can imagine?
Gotta give it to you Caleb you handle your responses very artfully. Not a skill most people have and should.
They have not contacted me by email or phone but as of today we are offering the writter for this blog the class for FREE.
Great points. Point shooting is simply a bygone vestige from times when pistol sights were horrible small things that could only be seen by 20/20 youthful eyes in optimal light.
Today our sights are big, visible, and low-snag.
If you practice drawing and making a sight picture your body quickly learns how to align the sights with your target. IF you’re at contact distance an indexed shot can be made by most anybody from muzzle contact to near-contact range.
Also for Jewish Marksman’s complaint of your well-aimed shot scenario, what about say a spree shooter, or an insane person attacking in a crowded area? (Say the Tuscon Shooting, or the Trolly Square or Omaha Mall, Ft. Hood, New Life Church) Its one thing doing this bullshit in the middle of the desert, but what if you’re in a group of people with a bad guy committing mayhem.
Your shots in such a situation not only need to be aimed but WELL AIMED!
Weer’d-
While sensational, those scenarios are not the most common self-defense situation the average citizen will face.
I think good argument could be made that while the average citizen should be able to use their sights well, they might be better served if they can shoot without sights at close distances better.
The Most common self defense situation is situational awareness where the gun never leaves the holster and the armed citizen never goes out of condition Orange.
We’re talking past eachother.
Still as this video shows, if you’re not at muzzle-contact or very close distances your accuracy is going to be HORRIBLE, and frankly I can’t see any noticeable speed.
So really one should use your sight, either to accurately place shots, or as a nostril hook.
I don’t think one video proves anything. The question is what are people capable of doing with lots of practice? The video is just an anecdote, just as my archery experience above is an anecdote. The real question, which I think nobody knows, is how good can you get at unsighted shooting with a lot of practice? And relative to what distances?
I don’t think the gun community has a very good handle on this question at all. So we just keep on doing what we always do, which is try to (practice) shoot with our sights no matter what, even if reports from gun fights suggest this often gets thrown out the window.
Probably the most credible proponent of body index shooting is Rob Pincus, his “Combat Focus Shooting” method advocates a much more reasonable approach to the whole thing – use your sights when you need them, and don’t use them if you don’t.
Also, I can successfully engage a “man-sized” target out to 25 yards using just a body index to aim the gun, but if that target shrinks to an 8 inch plate at the same distance, then I need sights. The point that I was reaching for is that there isn’t a 1-size-fits-all solution. However, teaching people sighted fire with a properly aggressive body index will help them get good at the body index point shooting stuff.
Wow this is very funny… obviously there are a lot of shooting styles out there. But don’t come off acting like you are the end all be all shooter. Let’s break this down a little bit.
1. This was a level 1 course.
2. This girl had never touched a gun before.
3. She learned how to shoot accurately without using sights.
4. she was shooting at the distance where most shoot outs take place.
Do you really think this girl who is a novice shooter is going to jump right into some of the most complex shooting known to man? A hostage situation at 25 yards…? First of all if you take that shot with a pistol you are moron. As far as mall shootings are concerned this is a perfect shooting technique. It is fast and especially accurate in high stress situations because it is designed around rough motor skills not fine motor skills. Have you ever tried to call upon fine motor skills when YOU are being shot at? John the instructor in this video is a retired Marine who served multiple tours to Iraq and Afghanistan. He formed this technique around what works when you are being shot at. Not around silly shooting competitions.
I love it when people reference what they do in competition and liken it to real world life or death shooting. It makes me laugh really.
Please stop embarrassing yourself by making silly comments. Get off your high horse and take Some of DOA tactical’s courses. You will be surprised how much you learn when you do some foot work of your own.
“Since we all agree that using a gun in self-defense is a worst case scenario, why not be ready for the worst you can imagine?”
Well and good, if one has first mastered the most likely case scenario, based on empirical facts about most likely case scenarios, not imagination.
I’m a High Power and Bullseye guy. Both with metallic sights. This weekend I tried an olympic-style recurve bow for the first time, no sights, just to develop a good release. Now, I thought my arrows were going to be all over the range…after all, based on my training, no sights = no chance, right? Wrong. With just “instinctive” aiming I was hitting what I would call a center-mass-ish group at 25 yards. Bow and arrow. We humans are not so enslaved to sights as we “trained shooters” might think, was definitely an eye-opener!
I know absolutely nothing about DOA Tactical other than what you’ve written. But the idea that new shooters should be taught without sights first is an interesting concept, one which I would not be quick to dismiss without in-depth analysis and argument. Maybe it is a “radical” idea, but it actually makes a lot of theoretical sense, since most law abiding owners will train very little, but most likely be involved in a close quarters shooting if they ever do need to shoot. And many studies show that in those close situations even highly trained shooters “forgot” to use their sights, or at least did not remember using them. So why train with sights as a newb, if that is the least likely scenario? I guess the counter-argument is that instinctive shooting comes from years of shooting with sights…i.e. you develop a “feel” for how the gun aims even if you don’t have sights to look at. But who knows? The point is we should embrace these arguments and advance our abilities to prevail against criminals instead of calling outside-the-box thinkers “shady.”
But I guess the gun accessory marketing machine won’t let this kind of thinking spread, because then one couldn’t $ell the newb$ tritium big dot night $ight$.
The difference here is really one of mindset. I want people, especially shooters to aspire to be more than just “good enough”. That’s why when I’m confronted by training ideologies that preach The Gospel of Good Enough I tend to view them somewhat askance. Especially when their version of “good enough” overlooks certain skill sets.
I am not talking about overlooking certain skill sets. I’m talking about prioritizing them. I am not convinced sight shooting should be the priority for the defense-minded gun owner. In a typical civilian self-defense scenario, I would put my money on someone who mastered unsighted and hip shooting and is below average with sights versus, say, a Bullseye shooter who can hit an apple at 50 yards with a pistol one-handed but rarely if ever practices unsighted shooting. Obviously a master at both skills would be ideal, but that’s also unrealistic given most gun owner’s time and money to practice.
Sighted shooting is critical for the games you and I play on the range. But I don’t think those games are realistic, even if they might be marginally helpful for increasing your survival chances.
I really don’t care if they want to do dumb things with their training time and training ammo.
But to have a “student” taking pot shots into gravel at less than 10 feet – with no eye protection???? That’s just blatant ignorance of any kind of safe gun handling. That tells me everything I’ll ever need to know about how much experience they have as shooters and instructors.
Thanks for bringing that up, that was driving me nuts.
When you take a class there are 2 waivers that you sign if you choose not to wear safety glasses after being instructed to then that is your choice, we also advise that students wear hearing protection if they choose not to do that they signed it away, we also recommend not wearing shorts or sandels or tank tops, like I said before, you signed the waivers. If it effects the safety of others in the class well that is a whole different situation then. my email is doatactical@gmail.com if you have questions
Yeah, no.
If you see the instructors in your pistol class allowing anyone to shoot without proper ear or eye protection, regardless of waivers, that is when you ask for your money back and get competent instruction from professionals.
Having been through Rob’s CFS class as well as many other reputable schools, the common theme is not point shooting. Picus teaches kinesetic alignment with both eyes open to hit high center chest as far as you can consistently get hits. But to hit the 3″ dots at 7 yards some people can’t get hits, he says then to use sighted fire to get the hits you need. Point is use the appropriate system to get the hits you need as quickly as you can. I think Caleb was on the money saying shoot to get hits based on target size, distance and personal skill level as appropriate. Sights or point shooting as you need. Remember only hits count and your training needs to include the ability to hit anything that you need to, a 3×5 card at 10 yards or a torso at bad breath distance
One little factoid a lot of point shooting advocates like to bring up is that most shooters “do not remember using their sights” in a gunfight. I honestly for the love of me cannot remember what I ate last week, which must mean I have been starving! And I wasn’t fighting for my life when I was (presumably) not eating my meals last week.
In self-defense, especially close quarters engagements, only hits count.
In the military, that is not true as suppression has its own standards. But when you are threatened to the point that lethal force is necessary, you must hit your target.
I understand that no one is advocating shooting wildly, but point shooting is in my opinion a huge step backwards. Regardless of the caliber, bullets are actually very small. Unless the bullet hits a critical body part (T-zone or heart) you have just wasted a shot. Even shotguns are prone to this. Within CQB, the shot dispersion will not have opened up enough to compensate for a poorly aimed shot. The benefit of 00 buck is shooting someone 9 times with a .32 all at once. That requires the shot pattern to hit the body with most pellets.
In Algebra, there are many “short-cuts” that only work when whole numbers or the most basic set of variables. Students are tempted to use the short-cut without learning the logic of the mathematical function. When the equation becomes more complex, the short-cut crashes.
That is how I see point shooting. Fine when you are within knife range. But when the shot has less room for error, it quickly becomes useless.
“That is how I see point shooting. Fine when you are within knife range. But when the shot has less room for error, it quickly becomes useless.”
But what is the real life threat matrix?
Real life is you get jumped and/or robbed at 2 feet, from behind. A guy breaks into your house and you shoot at 10 feet in the dark or you are in a 7/11 and a shootout happens at 5 feet. I think that covers 99% of real life.
Can anyone find a news article from the last 5 years where a civilian (not cops) used a handgun to save a hostage, loved one or otherwise, from any distance? Little less 25+ feet.
I can’t find ANY. Not one. On the other hand I can find plenty of shooting that occurred at 10 feet or less during robberies.
I understand the “prepare for the worst case scenario” but if real life *almost* NEVER presents that then perhaps, how often you practice it should be adjusted accordingly.
If 99% of real life defensive shooting is at ‘bad breath’ distance then train there 99% of the time.
*IF* point shooting is faster at 10 foot center mass hits than aimed shooting then, while slow is smooth and smooth is fast.. fast into center mass beats slow 99% of the time and who lived is all that matters.
I suspect that our time would be better served practicing shooting from retention at 3 feet .
Not that I do that myself much either because that sort of practice is not nearly as much fun or challenging but I don’t pretend that having to save a loved one with a headshot at distance is more than a black swan probability either.
Having said all that.. At our next zombie shoot, you have to make a 25 yard headshot to save the hostage THEN deal with the rolling zombie before it gets to you…
All of these arguments about how frequently self-defense shootings take place at close ranges MIGHT have some validity if EITHER:
A. Training for sighted fire in an aggressive stance somehow SUBTRACTED from one’s ability to hit when they use point shooting at “farther than arms length or so”, and it also had NO benefit in programming your brain with a stance that indexes the gun in a reliable, repeatable, fashion. (Frankly, I find that I can generally close my eyes, snap the gun up to eye level pointing at a small target spot, open my eyes, and my sights are at least 90% dead on.)
OR,
2. “Sight” proponants EVER stated that sighted fire was so superior that “point” or “index” shooting shouldn’t be used EVER, even at grappling range.
Technically, when someone talks about “traditional point shooting” methods such as Jim Cirillo taught, it requires that the shooter have trained with sighted fire beforehand, to program themselves with a nearly subconscious awareness of where the gun is pointed, even if they are not really using the sights and carefully lining up front sight – target – rear sight.
Hell, Cirillo even advocated the “silhouette point” (which I’ve always called “Cirillo Silhouette”). . . which is “aimed fire” — you are using the slide or cylinder as a crude but fast sight, aligning it dead on to the target, and shooting based on that visual reference.
Given his background, I’ll take the late Jim Cirillo’s advice that extensive pure point shooting (shooting from the hip and the like) is something you do extensive training on AFTER you’ve learned how to make hits via aiming. (Not because it’s “unimportant”, but more that if you really need to do hip shooting, chances are the target is so close that you’re likely to land lead in target, despite a lack of training. My biggest concern with “shooting during a wrestling match” is shooting myself through a lack of body awareness, or snding rounds into an innocent crowd because you’re really in a fist fight with a handgun at that point.)
if you cannot shoot WITH your eyes lined up with the gun and target, you damned sure cannot shoot with no visual reference at all. If he’s so close that sights aren’t needed and you don’t have room to raise the gun to eye level, you don’t need so much training to hit.
Ithink it is pretty interesting that you would think that there is only one class, this video was just a short demonstration of how fast a shooter that already knows how to use sights can use the technique we are teaching them and how accurate it can be. We have been using this for years in the USMC and now out of the service teaching Military, Law Enforcement, and Civilians this for the purpose of self defense. This is not your standard I took one class and now I am going to win every possible scenario. If you have no combat Experience your critique really means nothing to anyone except those who want to believe target shooting or the use of sights is a nessesity. There are many different ways to shoot a gun and just as many articles written from guys who sit in a basement somewhere buying shooting videos online and then writting about it. You are welcome to come out shootinmg with us anytime at no charge if you are so confident this does not work, I will look forward to meeting you.
Brent, thanks for chiming in. Just as a point of clarification, at no point did I say that the technique doesn’t work. I use body index shooting all the time, especially in competition because when I’m facing a wide open target within 5 yards it’s a very fast method to get hits. The issue I have is with the mindset that’s presented in your videos of “we never use sights ever”, because it teaches a closed view of the science of shooting. By closing off that avenue of marksmanship, shooters will eventually reach a hard ceiling where they won’t be able to get any better.
I have personally seen John the instructor in this video shoot his pistol at 100 yards only 2 times. He didn’t use sights when he shot and he hit an 8 inch target on his first shot both times I witnessed him shoot at that distance. One of the occasions was at shot show 2011 when a poster boy pro shooter representing a firearms manufacturer was trying to make that shot (with sights) and failed.
I could be wrong and I don’t want to speak for John but when he said “We never use sights ever” he might have been referring to never using sights at that distance. Because I have personally heard him advocate shooting with sights at longer distances.
I’ve taken this course and several others from this company. It is legit and has made me a MUCH better reactive and target shooter….I can’t stand “internet commandos”, go take this class, then come to your own conclusions.
Oh, and I have video of me using this technique, the very first time I took this class, hitting small satellite dishes 75 yards away, from the draw. (I’ve since taken this class several times and DOA Tactical’s more advanced courses)
I have taken 4 seperate courses with DOA Tactical.
I have seen topics covering point shooting as well as sight shooting.
I have seen citizens with no firearms experience gain knowledge and confidence to safely store, handle, and deploy their respsective firearms.
Hands down these guys are great instructors and this class we are discussing (and their other courses) have great value for any individual who sees fit to exercise their 2nd amendment rights.
Like my old man would say…don’t knock it till you try it.
If that girl was within an inch or two of those 3″x9″ bottles isn’t that a hit on a human? Combat and slowly squeezing off a controlled shot are two different things. I believe your eyes will not have proper sight picture when someone is attacking you. DOA is training for real life, not on a range. Think before you blog.
Haha…you also ask why they aren’t training this obvious beginner to do an amazing shot…to pick off someone in a hostage situation? “OK friends, this is called a gun, now you need to shoot 1/2 MOA from 50 yards.” You are clearly not a pistol instructor. What do we start with? Basics!!! Again, think before you blog my friend.
Basics, you mean like sight alignment and trigger control? ;-)
The average shooting is approx 3 yards 3 shots 3 seconds, we just did a class for and LE who had been involved in 2 seperate shooting months apart. He emptied 3 mags at 5 feet and hit the suspect only a couple of times, in both shootings the distance was under 7 feet, I bet his breath control, sight alignment, sight picture, trigger control and all of the gun safety rules were followed right? Sorry for any errors in hurry, my email is doatactical@gmail.com if you have questions
Its like this…I had never picked up a firearm until I met DOA Tactical. I have shot on two different occasions with them. They came to my home and done the same exercise that they did in the video. I would not go to anyone else if I wanted to learn more…..Oh and by the way I was there with Ki when they shot that video. This is all real and for those that do not believe…..YOUR LOSS….MY GAIN!!!!!
DOA Tactical is the REAL deal! Before skinnig the cat you should learn some facts about their technique and courses. This was a video of one of their beginning “defensive pistol” courses. Take it and I guarantee it will improve your shot. The instructors are well trained in all types of shooting (muscle memory defensive pistol as well as sniper range sight shooting). Don’t be afraid to learn something new. Open YOUR mind.
As an NRA instructor and having taken many pistol courses, this is one that you need to take before you say one negative word about the class or these instructors. I have taken the course, the shots they show are actual “hits”. your questions about being able to hit someone holding a loved one and such? I would challenge you to a shoot off. You really just need to take the course. I’m sure they would let you take it for free to show you the truth. until you’ve done so you have no room to judge. They aren’t called to train police officers and armed forces this technique for nothing.
And the take the course for free remark was for the author only.
You are so far off the mark, you missed the target completely..These courses from DOA tactical, are the best, they are called DEFENSIVE HANDGUN courses, If you think that you are going to be on a pristine, pistol range with red bullseyes, somewhere with eye protection and Hearing protection in place… You are out of your mind, they are teaching civilians, Military, and Law Enforcement officers, how to survive. They teach you how to survive, by acquiring your target rapidly, with incredible accuracy, even as soon as your weapon clears your holster. If you think in a surprise situation, that you can or will get into a proper Weaver or Issoceles stance, control your breathing, and site down your barrel, you are out of your mind, you my Friend would be dead…Low life Scum that are hell bent on doing you in, do not play by the local range’s rules, I’m guessing that you have never been in combat, fighting for your life, both of these instructors, are real Life Marine Combat Veterans, and former Marine Snipers, real live American Heros…Stop with your denergration, take Brent’s challenge, a free course…they are teaching Joe, and Jolene average, how to survive a close encounter, with a Madman, Doped up Crazy, or Rapist, etc. we aren’t training for the Olympic target shooting contest, we are learning how to survive on the streets of America. I would suggest that you get out of your pajamas, while your blogging in your mother’s Basement, and come out and see, then learn about, what really is going on, until then, I would mind your own narrow-minded business.
I have known Brent for some time now in the shooting/ firearms industry. He is a real life American Hero. He is an honorable man who demonstrates integrity, honesty, honor and patriotism in all that he does. I have not taken his shooting class YET. I hold over 20 different shooting instruction certifications for civilian and law enforcement weapons training. I am looking forward to taking my first class with DOA Tactical this year. If Brent Roberts says that the shooting technique they teach works…..that is good enough for me! I will save my comments on the shooting technique AFTER I take the class!
@ the blogger- (caleb?) How many times have you been in actual combat?
IF SO, hopefully you remembered proper rear-sight alignment+front-sight alignment, target focus, proper grip, breath control, proper trigger control with a “surprise break” whilst you were in fear of being shot by your enemy. i’m sure that the USMC instructors that made this “hilariously bad youtube video” had extra money that they saved up from their military pay to go out and hire a professional camera team & rent a RED camera for a day so that they could make a more professional video that better shows their hard-earned skills being taught.
If you HAVE NOT been in combat (and I don’t count fighting your grandmother’s Pomeranian off when it comes down her basement & starts nipping at your ankles whilst you blog away with all of your awesome wikipedia knowledge) please take the course that DOA Tactical is offering for free- but make sure that they run your through the “stress-fire” course section first- lets see if you can hit the target with all of your skills while you have tunnel vision, lessened auditory sense, adrenaline surge, (some urinate & defecate, but that only happened to the last blogger that couldn’t back up his online assumptions / uneducated critiques).
Semper Fi
Do I have to bring my own clown shoes to the class, or can I borrow yours?
Why does everyone keep playing the “have you been in combat?” card?
There are a bunch of guys that have been in CAG or DEVGRU and teach proper use of sights.