If shot placement is so important, why no sights?

For a Seecamp I can understand, because the thing is tiny and is meant for ranges at which you can almost stick it in the other guy's belly. For a primary sidearm though? I'll take sights, thank you very much.
 
A Seecamp is hardly a tactical weapon. It would probably be used only in a last resort scenario, not to mention at very close range.

....Of the 250 fatal encounters, 92% took place under fifteen feet and 96.4% under 25 feet.
Click to expand...
 
Shot placement only counts in hunting. Staying alive means shots on center mass. Preferably with a caliber starting with a 4. Going smaller means that the target must be smaller i.e. the face-which is exactly where I'm going to empty my .25 if that's what I'm carrying.
 
Greg said:
Cliff notes ? The internet has graced me with a very short attention span to anything not involving porn.
Click to expand...

LMAO. So true.

WHY NO SIGHTS?

If shot placement is so important, why no sights?

An exhaustive NYPD report (NYPD SOP 9) revealed that in 70% of recorded police shootings (the majority under poor lighting conditions) officers did not use sights while 10% of the time officers didn’t remember whether sights were used. In the remaining 20% of the cases, officers recollected using some form of visual aid to line up the target ~ which could be the sights themselves or just the barrel.

The NYPD statistics showed no correlation between an officer’s range scores and his ability to hit a suspect at close range. The mean score for NYPD police officers (1990-2000) for all shootings is fifteen hits per 100 shots fired, which is almost the identical hit ratio seen among Miami officers ~ who in the years 1990-2001 fired some 1300 rounds at suspects while recording fewer than 200 hits. Almost unbelievably, some NYPD figures show 62% of shots fired at a distance of less than six feet were complete misses.

The 1988 US Army training manual for pistols and revolvers [FM 23-35], in apparent recognition of the disconnect between sighted shooting at the range and the ability to score hits in short distance combat, wisely calls for point shoot training at distances of less than fifteen feet. The ability to shoot targets at 25 yards using sights sadly seems to provide little or no advantage in close combat. Nor are there recorded instances where an officer required a reload in close combat. When reloads do occur, there is no immediate threat to the officer’s safety and the perpetrator has usually barricaded himself in a defensive posture. A study by Etten and Petee (l995) showed that neither large capacity magazines nor the ability to reload quickly was a factor in shootings.

Speed reloads at short ranges just don’t happen, and practicing paper punching at long ranges using sights appears to prepare one for short range conflict to the same degree it prepares one for using flying insect spray. (Hitting an annoying yellow jacket buzzing a picnic table without spraying the guests or the food might be better practice for combat than long range paper punching. So might a plain old-fashioned water pistol fight.)

In the FWIW department, of 250 NYPD police officers killed in the line of duty in the years 1854-1979 there was only one instance where it could be determined an officer was slain at a distance of over 25 feet ~ by a sniper 125 feet away. Of the 250 fatal encounters, 92% took place under fifteen feet and 96.4% under 25 feet. In the remaining eight instances the distance was unknown.
 
Greg said:
Cliff notes ? The internet has graced me with a very short attention span to anything not involving porn.
Click to expand...

Greg:

*** guns are good ***

*** big bullets are better ***

*** sights are good ***

*** better to have a gun and not need it,
than to need a gun and not have it ***

That is all.

Questions? [wink]

Darius
 
law dawg said:
LMAO. So true.

WHY NO SIGHTS?

If shot placement is so important, why no sights?

An exhaustive NYPD report (NYPD SOP 9) revealed that in 70% of recorded police shootings (the majority under poor lighting conditions) officers did not use sights while 10% of the time officers didn’t remember whether sights were used. In the remaining 20% of the cases, officers recollected using some form of visual aid to line up the target ~ which could be the sights themselves or just the barrel.

The NYPD statistics showed no correlation between an officer’s range scores and his ability to hit a suspect at close range. The mean score for NYPD police officers (1990-2000) for all shootings is fifteen hits per 100 shots fired, which is almost the identical hit ratio seen among Miami officers ~ who in the years 1990-2001 fired some 1300 rounds at suspects while recording fewer than 200 hits. Almost unbelievably, some NYPD figures show 62% of shots fired at a distance of less than six feet were complete misses.

The 1988 US Army training manual for pistols and revolvers [FM 23-35], in apparent recognition of the disconnect between sighted shooting at the range and the ability to score hits in short distance combat, wisely calls for point shoot training at distances of less than fifteen feet. The ability to shoot targets at 25 yards using sights sadly seems to provide little or no advantage in close combat. Nor are there recorded instances where an officer required a reload in close combat. When reloads do occur, there is no immediate threat to the officer’s safety and the perpetrator has usually barricaded himself in a defensive posture. A study by Etten and Petee (l995) showed that neither large capacity magazines nor the ability to reload quickly was a factor in shootings.

Speed reloads at short ranges just don’t happen, and practicing paper punching at long ranges using sights appears to prepare one for short range conflict to the same degree it prepares one for using flying insect spray. (Hitting an annoying yellow jacket buzzing a picnic table without spraying the guests or the food might be better practice for combat than long range paper punching. So might a plain old-fashioned water pistol fight.)

In the FWIW department, of 250 NYPD police officers killed in the line of duty in the years 1854-1979 there was only one instance where it could be determined an officer was slain at a distance of over 25 feet ~ by a sniper 125 feet away. Of the 250 fatal encounters, 92% took place under fifteen feet and 96.4% under 25 feet. In the remaining eight instances the distance was unknown.
Click to expand...


wow, great post!
 
codenamepaul said:
Shot placement only counts in hunting. Staying alive means shots on center mass. Preferably with a caliber starting with a 4. Going smaller means that the target must be smaller i.e. the face-which is exactly where I'm going to empty my .25 if that's what I'm carrying.
Click to expand...

Pistol calibers suck. By your reasoning if your hit 22 times by a .4 something you should be dead? Read up on this guy.

Even hitting Center Mass is not always going to do it since parts of the stomach, liver, kidneys, intestines can be hit as well, and though they are considered 'center mass' they are not vital like the hearts and lungs are.

The more I read and delve into the terminal ballistics of it all the more I am convinced of proper placement so the round is able to do what it is designed to do, and why I pulled it out in the first place.
 
Greg said:
Cliff notes ? The internet has graced me with a very short attention span to anything not involving porn.
Click to expand...

X2 ... I got about 2 paragraphs in and decided it wasn't that important haha.


Skald said:
Pistol calibers suck. By your reasoning if your hit 22 times by a .4 something you should be dead? Read up on this guy.

Even hitting Center Mass is not always going to do it since parts of the stomach, liver, kidneys, intestines can be hit as well, and though they are considered 'center mass' they are not vital like the hearts and lungs are.

The more I read and delve into the terminal ballistics of it all the more I am convinced of proper placement so the round is able to do what it is designed to do, and why I pulled it out in the first place.
Click to expand...

I just read that Officer Down story today in the cruiser...I was on my lunch break...and it is AMAZING. Kinda scary but good to know...I will have that shitheads will to live should I ever need it now that I know its possible.
 
i have a friends Jennings 22, this is a earlier version of these. the sights on these are horrible and to small anyway. like said earlier this is for a close range backup. great ankle gun.
 
There's a thread in the training section on "point shooting" if I remember correctly. I'll see if I can find it.

ETA: can't find it now... google "point shooting". There's a long debate.
 
Last edited:
johnN said:
i have a friends Jennings 22, this is a earlier version of these. the sights on these are horrible and to small anyway. like said earlier this is for a close range backup. great ankle gun.
Click to expand...

[laugh2]

My Dad had purchased a Jennings .22 a few years back. It was a 6 round magazine fed (nickel plated?) .22lr. It's small size meant getting pinched by the slide on almost every shot, and if you squeezed 'em off faster than 5 seconds between shots, it would jam. Needless to say, it spent a lot of time in the safe; he traded it in at M&M's towards a 10/22.
 
matt said:
There's a thread in the training section on "point shooting" if I remember correctly. I'll see if I can find it.
Click to expand...

I've been point shooting for over...well for lots of years now.

For the thread, the data was an interesting read. More so for the belly gun crowd.
 
Lawdawg...thanks for the link it is a good topic and worthy of discussion.

I absolutely love my Seecamp but would not think of using it from any distance. It is a up close and personal gun.
 
I use my sights every time I shoot.

However, I've never had anybody shooting back, so I can't say what the hell I'd do if that were the case.
 
Last edited:
EddieCoyle said:
However, I've never had anybody shooting back, so I can't say what the hell I'd do if that were the case.
Click to expand...



Exactly....every officer I know that has been in a shooting has stated that they either did not use the sights or does not remember.

It is nice to think that you would use them.....but you truly don't know if you ever will.
 
Half Cocked said:
Exactly....every officer I know that has been in a shooting has stated that they either did not use the sights or does not remember.

It is nice to think that you would use them.....but you truly don't know if you ever will.
Click to expand...
If you've ever done any training with a simulator, you see this right away as well. Practicing at the range for tight groupings is like playing scales on a musical instrument. The (correct) intention is to make aiming second nature... To be effective, I am betting you will not consciously "sight" your target...

In any real scenario where things are moving and SHTF is in effect - you aren't going to pull off a 100 yd Mel Gibson "Lethal Weapon" rifle shot with a 92[laugh]

You are going to point and fire 2-3 shots and hopefully the only thinking you do is in that moment between when you started raising the weapon and pulled the trigger, you made sure you were shooting at a bad guy before your finger starts moving toward the trigger...

It occurred to me the other day that if they wanted to make the "safety" course actually have a chance of producing safer gun owners, they'd focus far more on threat determination drills with such simulators... As it turns out, my course had a version of one of these sims and lets just say there were a lot of friendly fire casualties that day...

Lots of fun, but obviously, this wasn't the focus of the course - maybe it should be? (if we are going to have these courses required to be "eligible" for our 2nd amendment rights[sad])
 
Cross-X said:
Greg:

*** guns are good ***

*** big bullets are better ***

*** sights are good ***

*** better to have a gun and not need it,
than to need a gun and not have it ***

That is all.

Questions? [wink]

Darius
Click to expand...

Thanks,it's good to have you around here Darius.

I have to admit I did read the first 3 lines of that article before I got sidetracked and started thinking about Phoebe Cates in the swimming pool scene from "Fast Times at Ridgemont High"..
 

Similar threads

Kennedy is a no vote.
2 3 4
Replies
98
Views
2K
HARRYM
H
S&W 617 Reflex Site Placement
Replies
5
Views
181
STEED
STEED
Why is it called a talo edition
2
Replies
54
Views
2K
M1911
M1911
Missouri law being passed: If you home school, your home is now considered a school and you can't own guns
Replies
17
Views
670
Nhusa
N
Why is .22 CB Short louder than .22 CB Long in my rifles?
Replies
10
Views
269
Bigfudge16
Bigfudge16
Back
Top Bottom