Sights/scopes for "zombies", out to 100yds, rifle

[RugerNUT 0]

Learn on irons first, then get an optic.

[High Exposure 5,664]

Completely disagree. It's all repetition and muscle memory, just like playing a musical instrument. I can hit ONE string out of 6 on my guitar, not because I'm looking at it, but from repetition and muscle memory. You look at what you want to hit, you point, and you fire. Now... I'm not saying that negates sights... not at all. You obviously need sights to get you there. But after awhile, it does become second nature. No way are those competition guys actually lining their sites up for every shot every split second.

 

Shooting in general, specifically shooting under stress (think gunfight and to a lesser degree competitions) have 2 things in common with playing an instrument: Jack and $#!+. However, as the previous poster stated, practice your guitar all you want, then try to play hopping up icy stairs, on one foot, in the dark, naked, in front of strangers and tell me you will not make any mistakes playing that song you just practiced sitting comfortably in a chair, alone in your room. I know that's over the top but you get the idea

 

I see what you are saying about "muscle memory" (the correct term is "procedural memory" vice "muscle memory" as your muscles do not have brains or the ability to retain information - the ability to repeat precise movement at an unconscious level due to correct repititions and proprioceptive motion/kinesthesiology along with spatial and situational awareness) and it does apply to certain things in gun handling and even gun fighting. Things like loading, mag changes, drawing from the holster, re-holstering, assorted administrative tasks.

 

The problem with "instinctive fire" based on procedural memory is first you have to predict exactly the scenario you are going to get into in the future (and let's face it, if we could predict when we were going to get in a gunfight,we could just stay home). Then you have to practice it approx 10,000 - 30,000 times, perfectly I might add, to produce the memory ingram necessary to perform the motion on demand and under stress. 1 slight variation in the scenario and all the practice you did is for naught.

 

I could teach you to hit a soda can at 25 yards without using your sights, consistently in about 2 hours. But as soon as I change the angle you are shooting at, the target, the distance you are shooting from, light conditions add any movement or a mag change, make it a moving target, etc... You are back to square one - the juice is simply not worth the squeeze. Or I could teach you to do the same thing with sights in the same amount of time and to shoot just as quickly and the skill level will diminish only slightly when adding variables.

 

There are too many variables in a gunfight, or even a competition, to rely on "instinctive fire" in order to win. The actual art of hitting what you want, however, requires some type of sight picture every time you fire. Anything less and you are setting yourself up for failure. I can guarantee you that every competition shooter and every gunfighter I know get at least 1 sight picture every time they pull the trigger.

 

Every. Single. Time.

 

As far as carbines being designed for that, I'll admit that might be taking it a bit far, but- a light, short, points-like-a-finger carbine definitely lends itself to that kind of shooting. And in combat, again- no way did all those M1 carbine shooters line up their sights when a charging enemy was 20ft away... they pointed, they fired. Sure it was hit and miss, and sheer volume of fire, but again, point being put a few thousand rounds out that way, and muscle memory begins to develop. Instinctive shooting is most definitely not "snake oil", but to each his own.

 

Carbines were designed so troops in the rear - cooks, officers, drivers, mechanics, (POGs) could have a weapon smaller and lighter than the issue line rifles, but pack more punch than a sidearm. They were most certainly designed to be used with sights. They were not designed to be bullet hoses or "fire and forget" weapons. In the past, carbines fired a lighter, less powerful round than their line rifle big brothers. That has changed with modern fighting arms. The M4A1 Carbine and the M16A4 shoot the same cartridge, with the M4A1 carbine having a barrel 4" shorter, is around 2 pounds lighter, and has an adjustable stock. The M4 is much handier for CQB and retains an effective range that is appropriate to our current battlefield for the most part. While an argument can be made that by its very design it lends itself to unsighted fire, it doesn't mean that it should be employed that way.

 

As far as combat, not using sights is how we get all those "No Shit, I dumped a full clip [sic] into him and he didn't go down" Well you don't say... maybe that's because you missed him. I bet if you would have fired 7 rounds using your sights instead of 30 without, you would have put him down, and faster to boot. (The adage "You can't miss fast enough to catch up" and "A slow hit is better than a fast miss" apply here) I have seen proponents of unsighted fire miss their paper target at 5 yards with a rifle trying to prove their method is better. I am not saying that you can't miss at 5 yards using your sights either, because I know I have, but using my sights I knew right away that I missed and could fire a follow up shot to correct my mistake.

 

In the real world, when you shoot someone you don't get the movie splatter. They bad guy doesn't "CLANG" and fall like a pepper popper, or ring like static steel. You can't see daylight through a badguy like paper or cardboard and go and count your hits. The only way you know you hit what you were aiming at is using your sights and tracking your target.

 

Now, having said all of that, the use of a red dot optic (RDO) is as close as you can come to unsighted "instinctive fire" and still maintainthe advantages of using your sights - Because you can focus on your target and simply superimpose the red dot to see your point of aim. Easy Day!

 

Finally, what I meant by "snake oil" is there are a lot of trainers out there that will be proponents of unsighted fire. They will take your money and teach you to hit a poker chip, standing still at 10 yards, in 1.5 seconds from the holster or low ready. They can teach 30 people to do this in a half day. It is fun, it makes you feel good, and gives you confidence. False confidence, because if your threat is not standing still, is not 10 yards away on a sunny day on a square range, you will miss. It does nothing to make you a decent shooter or gunfighter. Snake oil.

[raz-0 1,259]

Asa competitive shooter, I'll chime in. Sight picture every single time. Yes, on very close targets the sight is the whole front of the gun and making sure it is covering the right part of the target, but sight picture always. Sometimes you screw up, and fail at it, but you can see pretty fast.

[ruger9 0]

Asa competitive shooter, I'll chime in. Sight picture every single time. Yes, on very close targets the sight is the whole front of the gun and making sure it is covering the right part of the target, but sight picture always. Sometimes you screw up, and fail at it, but you can see pretty fast.

 

Exactly. That's my point... "sight picture" doesn't necessarily mean lining all 3 dots )or whatever) up on the center of the target. That is at least part instinctual shooting. You've aimed at a target (be it a target, steel, clay, person, animal, whatever) so many times at least part of it, especially in CQB and rapid fire, is instinctual.

[Vlad G 345]

No, I think you miss what raz-0 is saying, it is NOT instinctual it takes conscious effort and focus every single shot. That doesn't mean you need a perfect sight picture every time, depending on what the target is, but you always need some form of sight picture even if it is just seeing the muzzle somewhere on target. You need to SEE what you need see to make the shot, for every shot, there is no instinct, no muscle memory, but actual visual to mental to muscular involvement for every shot.

[ruger9 0]

No, I think you miss what raz-0 is saying, it is NOT instinctual it takes conscious effort and focus every single shot. That doesn't mean you need a perfect sight picture every time, depending on what the target is, but you always need some form of sight picture even if it is just seeing the muzzle somewhere on target. You need to SEE what you need see to make the shot, for every shot, there is no instinct, no muscle memory, but actual visual to mental to muscular involvement for every shot.

 

I don't think we're disagreeing here... I never said instinctual shooting = shooting with your eyes closed. "Use the force, luke." Of course you have to be able to get a sight picture. But getting a sight picture doesn't mean you're not shooting instinctively.

 

...I'm starting to think we have different definitions of instinctual shooting.

[echo five foxtrot 1]

Wow, this is a great thread with a lot of good info. I really like the dot scopes. I have had limited experience with the EO Tech, Aimpoints, and the ACOG. But, I think you need to try them and see what you like. As an example, Have you seen any of these you tube videos of the people shooting at the pigs in Texas from helicopters? There 12 year old kids with dot scopes on AR consistently making shots on moving pigs from the helicopter. Not that anybody here is going to be shooing pigs from a helicopter today, but, plenty of targets moving fast changing direction from a moving platform. That is about as zombie like scenario I can think of. I think that is a pretty good selling point for the dot scopes.

[NJDrew1 0]

It's a shame that there isn't a source to rent scopes and red dots, so you can experience them first-hand before you commit to buying one.

[ruger9 0]

It's a shame that there isn't a source to rent scopes and red dots, so you can experience them first-hand before you commit to buying one.

 

Totally agree- at the ridiculous prices they sell for!

[Vlad G 345]

Hmm, they sell at the price people are willing to pay. Its called a free market.

 

Some bigger stores like Cabelas have lots of scopes for you to play with and often mount targets and such all the way across the store from the optics counter so you can compare what they look like through the scopes.

[NJDrew1 0]

Hmm, they sell at the price people are willing to pay. Its called a free market.

 

Some bigger stores like Cabelas have lots of scopes for you to play with and often mount targets and such all the way across the store from the optics counter so you can compare what they look like through the scopes.

 

Didn't know that.

[ruger9 0]

Hmm, they sell at the price people are willing to pay. Its called a free market.

 

.

 

Yup, I'm all for the free market- and for exercising my right to not overpay for something.

[Vlad G 345]

Well I guess you can always grind your own lenses.

[ruger9 0]

There are affordable options out there... it's up to each of us to decide what we are willing to pay for. I recently paid full retail for a USED gun, because you can't get one... I found one used, the market dictated the price, and I willingly paid it. I don't feel that way about optics.

[NJDrew1 0]

For me, it's not really a matter of money. With all of the brands, and configurations, it's more a matter of wanting to try various scopes before I commit to spending the money. Regardless of the cost, once you buy it, you own it. You might think you'll be satisfied with it based on reputation, specifications, feedback but you really won't know for sure until you take it to the range for a test drive. I wouldn't mind renting several different brands/configurations to see which one I would prefer. Sorta like renting high end photo lenses or camera before you spend a lot of money. Sounds like a business model to me.

[ruger9 0]

For me, it's not really a matter of money. With all of the brands, and configurations, it's more a matter of wanting to try various scopes before I commit to spending the money. Regardless of the cost, once you buy it, you own it. You might think you'll be satisfied with it based on reputation, specifications, feedback but you really won't know for sure until you take it to the range for a test drive. I wouldn't mind renting several different brands/configurations to see which one I would prefer. Sorta like renting high end photo lenses or camera before you spend a lot of money. Sounds like a business model to me.

 

I agree- I'm a musician, and we have felt the same way about guitars and gear... you can rent amps from a few places, but almost never guitars. Trying a guitar or amp out in the store, even multiple times, doesn't cut it. Most of us have resorted to buying USED gear, that way if we sell it we won't take a ridiculous hit on the resale. I have no idea how reliable used optics are- what little I know of optics, if it works, it works. As long as it's not all beat up? But an optics rental sounds like a great business idea to me- ranges rent guns, why not optics?

[vladtepes 1,060]

I agree- I'm a musician, and we have felt the same way about guitars and gear... you can rent amps from a few places, but almost never guitars. Trying a guitar or amp out in the store, even multiple times, doesn't cut it. Most of us have resorted to buying USED gear, that way if we sell it we won't take a ridiculous hit on the resale. I have no idea how reliable used optics are- what little I know of optics, if it works, it works. As long as it's not all beat up? But an optics rental sounds like a great business idea to me- ranges rent guns, why not optics?

 

used quality optics providing they are not broken are generally just as reliable as the day you bought them.. my OLD Leupold scope makes holes in holes on my 308 AR

 

the exception to this is something like a Trijicon that uses an element that dies over years... sometimes a bad choice to buy something like that used...

 

they do not rent optics because dialing in an optic can really take some time as it is dependent on that gun and shooter... and if you don't know what you are doing you can spend hours chasing zero.....

[High Exposure 5,664]

 

 

Exactly. That's my point... "sight picture" doesn't necessarily mean lining all 3 dots )or whatever) up on the center of the target. That is at least part instinctual shooting. You've aimed at a target (be it a target, steel, clay, person, animal, whatever) so many times at least part of it, especially in CQB and rapid fire, is instinctual.

 

Sorry, I just saw this and feel it needs a response.

 

First, you should never be "lining up 3 dots" - I am assuming you are referring to your night sights here. You should always be striving to use the physical outline of your front and rear sights at all times. The dots are reference points to obtain a rough sight alignment in Low light/no light until you use your white light and are able to get a proper sight picture. As a last ditch effort, you may be able to use them to obtain a sight picture, but you better make sure you can ID your target as a legitimate threat first.

 

Up close and personal, you may decide to use a "flash" sight picture. That is a topic for a whole other thread. I personally obtain a proper sight picture and I try to use the first-best sight picture possible for every round I let go, whether in competition, training, or real life.

 

Finally, nothing in CQB/CQC is instinctual. Especially aiming at a threat. Everything you do while in CQB/FISHing is methodical and precise. Your weapon manipulations- reloads, clearing malfunctions, adjusting for offset, etc... may be at the unconscious competent level but you are never running on autopilot in your movements, target aquisition, selection or identification, your aiming, or your decision to engage a threat.

[ruger9 0]

Once again, I think we are saying the same or near the same thing... but you guys seem to be hung up on my use of the word "instinctual"... whatever you want to call it... "sight picture", "flash picture", whatever.... That's what I'm talking about. And frankly, at the ranges I'm talking about, you wouldn't really need the sights to do it. Give a SEAL an AR15 w/o an Aimpoint on it, and he'll still be able to clear that house, from skill and precision built from repetition and muscle memory (again- you don't like that word, so- whatever you want to call it.)

 

Now, I don't train that much. *I* wouldn't be able to do it, I'm not that skilled. But it's not a black/white issue anyway; just like different shooters have better/worse skill levels, different shooters will have progressed to different levels of this "instinctual" (there's that word you hate again) shooting I'm talking about.

 

And I didn't make this up- I've read many articles over the years calling it just that - instinctual shooting.

[High Exposure 5,664]

Once again, I think we are saying the same or near the same thing... but you guys seem to be hung up on my use of the word "instinctual"... whatever you want to call it... "sight picture", "flash picture", whatever.... That's what I'm talking about. And frankly, at the ranges I'm talking about, you wouldn't really need the sights to do it. Give a SEAL an AR15 w/o an Aimpoint on it, and he'll still be able to clear that house, from skill and precision built from repetition and muscle memory (again- you don't like that word, so- whatever you want to call it.)

 

Now, I don't train that much. *I* wouldn't be able to do it, I'm not that skilled. But it's not a black/white issue anyway; just like different shooters have better/worse skill levels, different shooters will have progressed to different levels of this "instinctual" (there's that word you hate again) shooting I'm talking about.

 

And I didn't make this up- I've read many articles over the years calling it just that - instinctual shooting.

 

Ruger9,

 

We are not saying the same thing at all. Not even close.

 

Words have meaning, the word "instinctual" has a meaning. I know you didn't make it up because I know the concept of "instinctual fire" that you are talking about. There is no instinctive fire, point shooting, etc... In CQB. The only concept that I can think of that you may be accidentally referring to by the wrong name is Unconscious Competence, but that is a completely different, and necessary, part of gun fighting.

 

When engaging a threat in CQB/CQC conditions there is deliberation and precision from 0" all the way to the maximum effective range of your weapon system. There is threat ID, sight alignment, sight picture, decision to fire or not, appropriate post engagement sequence, move, and communicate. Every step takes thought and deliberation.

 

You are right, give a SEAL a rifle with iron sights and he can clear a house. I have done that very thing with them in training, as well as USSOFA/CAG guys, Rangers, Recon Marines, etc... Instinct never comes into play. Training/tactics, mindset, weapon handling and precision marksmanship are the pillars CQB/CQC are built upon. The skill and precision of fighting with a firearm are not built on procedural memory- "muscle memory". It is built on training and experience, coupled with the ability to think quickly and solve problems on the fly.

 

I train often and with reputable trainers. It is black and white to me. I do this stuff, and if a team member ever said to me he was running on "instinct" or didn't use his sights, I am not going into a house with him and the guys I do this with feel the same way. It has nothing to do with skill level, other than the fact that a shooter that practices this method is un-skilled.

 

Competition guys may have a different take on this, and that is fine. They can afford to use "instinctive fire", "point shooting", "FAST fire" or whatever they want to call it. They shoot for money. If they shoot a no shoot target, no big deal, they lose a few points. I can not afford to be sloppy or imprecise.

 

And neither can you if you are shooting in defense of your life or the lives of your family.

[ruger9 0]

No disrespect, obviously you know what you are talking about, but apparently I'm still not getting my point across, as you just agreed with what I am talking about, if not the words and phrases I used.

 

Don't call it instinct, don't call it muscle memory, call it whatever you want, but we are talking about the same thing.

 

But I do have to say- if you think all that training doesn't induce "procedural memory", you're nuts. All due respect. The eyes are tied to the hands and the body. Do something enough times, a pattern is set up. Muscle memory, procedural memory, whatever. You get very good at hitting what you shoot at, even w/o sights, especially at close range.

[High Exposure 5,664]

Unless you are saying "Use the sights properly all the time, regardless of distance. ID all targets, and evaluate all force options before acting, remain aware of your surroundings at all times, and think about every little thing you do before you do it" we are not saying the same thing.

 

Training creates procedural memory for administrative actions (draw/presentation, reload/ammo management, offset adjustment, transitions etc...), it makes new things feel familiar, reduces stress, increases team integrity and cohesion, and builds confidence - it does not allow you to operate on autopilot in high risk scenarios such as CQB/CQC.

 

You may be good at shooting without sights on the square range or the shoothouse, but when you are shooting at meat that may shoot back, you must use your sights to discriminate targets and evaluate the effectiveness of your fire. All tactical problems are unique. In the real world you can't operate as if you are on the range shooting at paper/steel. Your perception of events must meet the reality of your situation. If they do not, you have to adjust your plan. You can not do that "instinctually".

 

Now, there is a relationship between speed and accuracy that depends greatly on distance. And, I agree that the closer you are, the more important speed is (barring a high-percentage shot such as a headshot on a hostage taker) and the less precise your sight picture has to be but, (barring weapon retention/speed rock position) it still has to be there. Always.

[ruger9 0]

No, of course what I've been saying is to "never use your sights, never ID targets, and consider nothing before taking action."

[High Exposure 5,664]

You appeared to be saying "use your sights sometimes and react on instinct based on your muscle memory".

 

Unacceptable and unprofessional in CQB/CQC.

 

If that's not what you are saying please explain.

[ruger9 0]

No. But if I haven't made myself clear enough yet, I apparently am not able to on this matter. But like I said- I didn't invent this concept. It's been around a long time.

[High Exposure 5,664]

Brother, You have been far from clear in this to me, but that's ok, makes for a fun discussion

 

As far as being around a long time, that is no excuse for using poor TTPs.

 

For example this has been around for a long time as well:

 

 

Doesn't mean we still shoot like this. Techniques change. What was once cutting edge, becomes obsolete.

[ruger9 0]

The instinctual shooting I am talking about is very much still around, I've read recent articles on it. It is NOT what is pictured above.

 

But again- as I have already said, apparently I'm not making myself clear, so I will stop trying.

[High Exposure 5,664]

That photo was not a representation of instinctive shooting. It was an example of an obsolete TTP that used to be the Cat's Pajamas some time ago, and we now know to be less than optimal.

 

Now I must admit that I am confused - You have never been trained in "instinctive shooting" methods? Your position is all based on conjecture after reading a few articles on the practice? Have you ever attended reputable training by been there/done that instructors? Have you ever put any of this into practice under the trained eye of a professional instructor?

 

Instinctive shooting is synonymous with point shooting and is closely related to target focus shooting. I understand what it is and I have been trained by point shooting proponents. My experience with this method leads me, and many of the real deal guys that I know, to this: Point shooting, instinctive fire, etc... Is a gimmick used by some instructors to fleece students of their hard earned money because it is easy to teach quickly and gives a false sense of proficiency to the student. It is useless in any real world application and is very likely to get you killed on the 2 way range. At any distance, other than weapon retention distances - where there isn't enough room between you and your assailant to bring the firearm to eye level, the sights should be used.

 

I am not understanding your defense of the practice by stating that instinctive shooting uses any kind of sight picture.

[Parker 213]

Brother, You have been far from clear in this to me, but that's ok, makes for a fun discussion

 

As far as being around a long time, that is no excuse for using poor TTPs.

 

For example this has been around for a long time as well:

 

 

Doesn't mean we still shoot like this. Techniques change. What was once cutting edge, becomes obsolete.

 

Note the size of Bill Jordan's hands in relation to his Mod. 19. He had a serious pair of mitts on him.

[ruger9 0]

I never said "uses no kind of sight picture".