Just picked it up yesterday, pakage deal with all of the XD gear and light for $550 at a local shop. Shot 50 rounds rapid fire to see how she groups and all I've got to say is WOW :shock: , amazing pistol.
The performance, so far, has been excellent. I'll have to post a picture of my rapid fire target. My only complaint came from my soft hands. The grip area tore up my hands pretty good with the roughed up area on the front and back. I guess it has been too many years since I worked construction...
I added the sleeve to protect my girlie hands. That one there I got rid of and made another that covers more of the grip.
I'll have to try and torture test the light for you, since it has a 12 month warranty.
I actually like the sights, that and my LEO buddy is pretty much trying to teach me to point and shoot more than use the sights.
I have a Blackhawk CQR holster and a DeSantis thumb break scabbard coming for it too. My CCW permit should be back in 2-3 weeks.
I second the tritium sights. Best investment for a weapon next to time at the range. You are going to love that pistol. Just don't have too much fun :lol: .
I have often wondered why cops expend so many rounds in shootings. I think I am beginning to understand why.
You should probably get a professional to teach you pistolcraft instead. The other term for unaimed fire is "spray and pray". There are situations when you may have to "point and shoot" without aiming, but for the civilian who is staying aware of his surroundings and understands threat management (which all deadly weapon carriers have a duty to practice) such situations are rare.
You should probably get a professional to teach you pistolcraft instead. The other term for unaimed fire is "spray and pray". There are situations when you may have to "point and shoot" without aiming, but for the civilian who is staying aware of his surroundings and understands threat management (which all deadly weapon carriers have a duty to practice) such situations are rare.
He is actually a NRA instructor, a patrol deputy and a member of the SWAT team. He is retired military, and all I will say about that is that he has used his weapons in live situations far more than most instructors.
His is not promoting unaimed fire instead of aimed fire, he is suggesting that (opposite of you) most engagements that I would see are at so close a range that trying to aquire a full sight picture takes too much time. We spend quite a bit of time using sights, but I think he is trying to get me to the point that I don't insist of getting a full sight picture at 5-7 yards. Thinking along the lines of the Tueller Drill, if you have a bad guy at 21 feet and closing fast, you simply cannot afford to aim, you need to be able to point and shoot.
His preference is smaller sights rather than the current trend of larger, more visible sights.
Having watched him on the range, he may not have the smallest group, but his shots are all in the A zone and the time from ready to the first shot is FAST. Until I have more experience that tells me what he is teaching is wrong, I will listen to the voice of experience.
Point-n-click is for using a mouse and an apple macintosh. Rapid target aquisition is a learned skill involving multiple techniques.
"Learning to point" = learning to shoot in a general direction and killing non-combatants 50 meters beyond the target; then getting sued for millions and doing time for negligent manslaughter.
"Rapid target aquisition" = learning to rapidly aquire a target using specific techniques; and does not involve killing non-objectives 50 meters downrange.
Long and short of it - that guy is not the person you want advice from (beyond why you might wanna keep it under 40 in a 35, or which is the best donut at Krispy Kreme).
Thinking along the lines of the Tueller Drill, if you have a bad guy at 21 feet and closing fast, you simply cannot afford to aim, you need to be able to point and shoot.
THe Tueller Drill is a theoretical exercise that has only a vague relation to reality. I don't know about you, but when I suspect danger, I don't walk around with my palms out at shoulder level. Going back to my point on threat management, if you suspect danger, you should be in Condition 3. If you are not, you need to be well versed in knife defense and forget the gun. Knife defense, taught and learned correctly is very effective.
Sharpsshooter said:
Until I have more experience that tells me what he is teaching is wrong, I will listen to the voice of experience.
Fair enough. I don't have any creds. The only time I had to whack somebody, I had a banding machine in my hands and he went down like a sack of potatoes.
It is a great looking pistol, and I plan to get one.
He is actually a NRA instructor, a patrol deputy and a member of the SWAT team. He is retired military, and all I will say about that is that he has used his weapons in live situations far more than most instructors.
Point-n-click is for using a mouse and an apple macintosh. Rapid target aquisition is a learned skill involving multiple techniques.
"Learning to point" = learning to shoot in a general direction and killing non-combatants 50 meters beyond the target; then getting sued for millions and doing time for negligent manslaughter.
"Rapid target aquisition" = learning to rapidly aquire a target using specific techniques; and does not involve killing non-objectives 50 meters downrange.
Point shooting is an entirely valid discipline. Do a Google search and you will find some very lively discussions on it. During one of them, a gentleman named Ken Cook expressed his support of it this way.
I have just decided that nails work much better than screws so I'm throwing away all of my screwdrivers.
{screw} it. A hammer's the way to go!
(Does this sound stupid to anyone else?)
Why does it have to be X OR Y?
Why are we not allowed to have both tools in our toolbox and available for use as the situation requires?
I'm not an "Aimed Shooter" and I'm not a "Point Shooter" I'm a shooter intelligent enough to realize that both have merits and neither is "best" for all occasions.
Yes, at 5 yards or less, I'm going to point shoot. I'm not even going to think about using my sights or even bringing the gun up to eye level, because I have absolutely no need to do so. I have proven to myself during "adrenalized shooting" that I can get boringly consistent hits at those ranges without ever seeing my pistol. I also believe that it's much faster than taking the time to acquire even a "Flash Sight Picture."
This must make me Superman or a Superman Wannabe, right? Either that or it means that I have devoted a lot of time and practice to something I consider to be a skill of incalculable value.
Go forth and do likewise, or go forth and do otherwise, it's up to you. But let's not be disparaging to those who wish to train harder, eh?
I fully believe that there will times and places for aimed fire as well as point shooting. I spend my time practicing both.
Sgt. Grace said:
THe Tueller Drill is a theoretical exercise that has only a vague relation to reality. I don't know about you, but when I suspect danger, I don't walk around with my palms out at shoulder level.
I only mention the Tueller drill as illustrative, not as a definite exercise. Besides, there are scads of Tueller variations. The point being the same as above regarding aimed fire and point fire.
Regarding credentials. I spent 4 years as a Cav scout in the active Army, which gave me zero experience in practical defensive pistolcraft. My current role in the CONG is similarly bereft of defensive pistolcraft training. It has, however, make me smart enough to ask how having experience in a military operation that dropped bombs on Libya is related to defensive pistolcraft. No offense, but unless you were a PJ or a combat controller, 10 years in the Air Force is not going to grab my attention.
Regarding credentials. I spent 4 years as a Cav scout in the active Army, which gave me zero experience in practical defensive pistolcraft. My current role in the CONG is similarly bereft of defensive pistolcraft training. It has, however, make me smart enough to ask how having experience in a military operation that dropped bombs on Libya is related to defensive pistolcraft. No offense, but unless you were a PJ or a combat controller, 10 years in the Air Force is not going to grab my attention.
I will respond to this as respectfully as I can; in an effort to keep you from feeling you have to defend the instructions your buddy gave you; and to clarify what I did for a living.
I was a 3POX1 for 12 years. In non USAF speak; I was combat tactical team squad leader. My missions for 12 years were air base defense. I guarded nuclear capable air bases for those 12 years (including two major operations).
I remain true to my position that to tell people to "spray and pray" is bad advice. Know your target, and know what is beyond and near your target. Point and shoot is for digital cameras. Weapons have sights for a reason.
With regard to Ken Cook's comments that you were kind enough to google and post: It has been my experience for 12 years; that if you treat your sidearm the exact same way every time you use it; it becomes an extension of your hand and you really don't think about it. Instinctive use, if you will. To fire from a sighted position or not based on some objective target distance is a level of thought that wastes time. Besides; my sidearm can aquire a rapid target in well below a second; and to someone else's point earlier in the thread - most people know the threat more than one second before deciding to terminate the target.
I think the point Sharpsshooter is trying to get across but isn't, is that when you've got a bad guy showing you what the "21 Foot Rule" is all about, you don't have time to draw, present, aim and fire like the textbook says.
The people who can draw and put a round in the X ring in under 1.5 seconds are fairly uncommon. And in that time, the bad guy will be nearing contact distance of you, as per the 21 Foot Rule. The people who can draw and put a round in the X ring in under 1.0 seconds are rare enough to almost be non-existent. Therefore, we're not talking about a matter of practicing more, we're talking about a matter of simply not being fast enough for a guy charging you.
Now, those times are measured when the shooter is ready to shoot. The times double or even triple and quadruple (!) when the shooter is taken by surprise, as most likely may be the case for Joe Sixpack walking down the street.
Yes, aimed shooting is essential; no one is arguing that. But shooting with a poor/flash/non-existent sight picture is a good skill to have. A guy ought to be able to draw and put hits into the torso of a man target at contact distance as soon as the gun clears the holster. A guy ought to be able to draw, present the gun and make hits into the torso of a man target at a range from 3-7 yards without looking for the sights.
They're all tools in the box, Gentlemen. No one is advocating using point shooting exclusively, only that "shooting from the hip" might come in handy.
Now that I've defended you Sharps, I do need to add that the reason your friend is so good at his method is simply because that's what he's chosen to practice. That he's so fast isn't necessarily a correlation to his method's superiority. A guy can get pretty fast doing everything bass ackwards if he practices doing it bass ackwards enough!
It is a fact that there are more faster and better shooters who utilize aimed fire, so be sure to make wise and measured decisions regarding how much time and effort you put into these different schools of thought.
I often wonder if people who appear to disagree are really saying the same thing...
I agree that "spray and pray" is stupid. I accept that there are people who advocate point shooting, but are really practicing "spray and pray".
I also agree that in the vast majority of situations, a person should have the situational awareness to know that a situation is going to require deadly force. In those circumstances, a person should be able to decide to engage their target at ranges beyond 5 yards. To attempt point shooting in those circumstances is stupid and irresponsible.
However, there can and will be circumstances where a person will not have the time to evaluate and engage at those distances. If surprised, and there is no way that you can say that you will never be surprised, you have your weapon clear of the holster and the target is less than 5 yards, will you insist on having a clear sight picture, or will you point center mass as the person is at point blank range and pull the trigger?
You have used your pistol for years, shot many 10s of thousands of rounds. You are probably able to bring your pistol to bear with it perfectly aimed at a target at that range by instinct, using the front sight for any minor corrections while aiming. If the target is closing on you and is almost at your muzzle, do you take the extra milliseconds to make sure the sight picture is perfect or do you squeeze?
Point shooting involves two criteria that must be present to use it. It must be at point blank range, it must be a situation that requires an immediate shot. If either are not required, you had best be using the sights.
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Related Threads
?
?
?
?
?
Sniper & Sharpshooter Forums
466.3K posts
47.5K members
Since 2004
A forum community dedicated to Sharpshooters and Sniper enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about optics, modifications, gunsmithing, styles, reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!