Speed vs. Accuracy

AR10ShooterinNC said:
You can only shoot as fast & accurately, as you can see the sights.
Click to expand...

I would change that slightly to this:

"You can only shoot as fast & accurately, as you can see the sight picture"

The sight picture may just be the back the gun with focus on target. Or, it may require carefully lined up sights. Just depends on the shot.

Just my opinion.
 
NKD said:
I would change that slightly to this:

"You can only shoot as fast & accurately, as you can see the sight picture"

The sight picture may just be the back the gun with focus on target. Or, it may require carefully lined up sights. Just depends on the shot.

Just my opinion.
Click to expand...

Or, you can only shoot as fast as you see an acceptable sight picture.
 
All of this is well and good, BUT things are different if rounds are coming AT you. I worked on accuracy first, speed came as I was still on target. Hopefully with muscle memory I will react as trained and not get caught flat footed. I don't do competition matches, I shoot for worst case scenarios.
 
SC380 said:
You guys can do what you want but Bill Rodgers proved decades ago that using the sights is exponentially more effective than point shooting.

Gunfights are dynamic and not at all similar to using the force at 5 yards to shoot with your eyes closed, shooting discs tossed into the air, or any number of other circus tricks cited. Take your sights off and try an IDPA or USPSA match and you will very quickly learn that point shooting, while possibly way better than you thought it would be, is far inferior.
Click to expand...

This method of thinking is used a lot to down talk point shooting. But I have a question, having seen a few IDPA shoots. Who is talking about point shooting at those distances? And how about this question, how many of those distances could you justify shooting someone at if they are not shooting or trying to shoot at you? IDPA and USPSA are games. Skilled games. But games non the less. Some scenarios might replicate real situations and a lot do not. I shoot sporting clays. Some stations shoot like you are upland bird hunting, and some are just fun or intentionally hard, even ridiculous. Because it's a game.

If I have space and distance, I'll go to my sights. If I don't, I won't. I'm not sure why that's hard for folks to comprehend. Or why the argument seems to always revolve around distance. Like anyone out there is suggesting you point shoot at 20 yards. Most IDPA distances that I see on video are beyond what most folks would point shoot.

Now to real life. According to NYPD research the deadliest gun fight distance for officers is 3-6 feet. At those distances experts are only 10% more accurate than novices. 70% of officers do not remember using their sights in a gun fight. As distance increases the reports of using sights increase. Which is probably what led to the NYPD rule of threes for a gunfight; 3 yards, 3 rounds, 3 seconds. And inside that box, point shooting thrives. And not just thrives, it's the natural reaction and probably the best bet at survival. It's not using the force. It's allowing your body to do what it does instinctively. Your body is perfectly capable, it's your mind that gets in the way.
 
chiefjason said:
This method of thinking is used a lot to down talk point shooting. But I have a question, having seen a few IDPA shoots. Who is talking about point shooting at those distances? And how about this question, how many of those distances could you justify shooting someone at if they are not shooting or trying to shoot at you? IDPA and USPSA are games. Skilled games. But games non the less. Some scenarios might replicate real situations and a lot do not. I shoot sporting clays. Some stations shoot like you are upland bird hunting, and some are just fun or intentionally hard, even ridiculous. Because it's a game.

If I have space and distance, I'll go to my sights. If I don't, I won't. I'm not sure why that's hard for folks to comprehend. Or why the argument seems to always revolve around distance. Like anyone out there is suggesting you point shoot at 20 yards. Most IDPA distances that I see on video are beyond what most folks would point shoot.

Now to real life. According to NYPD research the deadliest gun fight distance for officers is 3-6 feet. At those distances experts are only 10% more accurate than novices. 70% of officers do not remember using their sights in a gun fight. As distance increases the reports of using sights increase. Which is probably what led to the NYPD rule of threes for a gunfight; 3 yards, 3 rounds, 3 seconds. And inside that box, point shooting thrives. And not just thrives, it's the natural reaction and probably the best bet at survival. It's not using the force. It's allowing your body to do what it does instinctively. Your body is perfectly capable, it's your mind that gets in the way.
Click to expand...
Great post Jason.
 
fieldgrade said:
Great post Jason.
Click to expand...
Indeed...well thought out. Again, common sense. Guess what?? Won't change a single thing other folks are dedicated to. I was around and in on the beginnings of IDPA. It has moved so far away from it's original intent that it is comical. Most importantly, we must all seek our own salvation.
 
chiefjason said:
Now to real life. According to NYPD research the deadliest gun fight distance for officers is 3-6 feet. At those distances experts are only 10% more accurate than novices. 70% of officers do not remember using their sights in a gun fight. As distance increases the reports of using sights increase. Which is probably what led to the NYPD rule of threes for a gunfight; 3 yards, 3 rounds, 3 seconds. And inside that box, point shooting thrives. And not just thrives, it's the natural reaction and probably the best bet at survival. It's not using the force. It's allowing your body to do what it does instinctively. Your body is perfectly capable, it's your mind that gets in the way.
Click to expand...

If you believe the bureaucratic **** that is the NYPD on anything shooting related your nuts....

Point shooting work from contact to about 3 yards for the average person in real life, cops averaged 37 percent hit ration at this distance.
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-...e-7-10-police-bullets-miss-their-mark-gun-co/

Quality of police training is a joke in most departments.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
AR10ShooterinNC said:
If you believe the bureaucratic ****that is the NYPD on anything shooting related your nuts....

Point shooting work from contact to about 3 yards for the average person in real life, cops averaged 37 percent hit ration at this distance.
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-...e-7-10-police-bullets-miss-their-mark-gun-co/

Quality of police training is a joke in most departments.
Click to expand...

Not sure if you are trying to argue with me or trying to prove my point.

Regardless of bureaucracy I believe numbers. Especially from folks that are trying to make things better or train to do better.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I think I covered the last 3/5 of this thread in post 19...

:)
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: NKD
chiefjason said:
This method of thinking is used a lot to down talk point shooting. But I have a question, having seen a few IDPA shoots. Who is talking about point shooting at those distances? And how about this question, how many of those distances could you justify shooting someone at if they are not shooting or trying to shoot at you? IDPA and USPSA are games. Skilled games. But games non the less. Some scenarios might replicate real situations and a lot do not. I shoot sporting clays. Some stations shoot like you are upland bird hunting, and some are just fun or intentionally hard, even ridiculous. Because it's a game.

If I have space and distance, I'll go to my sights. If I don't, I won't. I'm not sure why that's hard for folks to comprehend. Or why the argument seems to always revolve around distance. Like anyone out there is suggesting you point shoot at 20 yards. Most IDPA distances that I see on video are beyond what most folks would point shoot.

Now to real life. According to NYPD research the deadliest gun fight distance for officers is 3-6 feet. At those distances experts are only 10% more accurate than novices. 70% of officers do not remember using their sights in a gun fight. As distance increases the reports of using sights increase. Which is probably what led to the NYPD rule of threes for a gunfight; 3 yards, 3 rounds, 3 seconds. And inside that box, point shooting thrives. And not just thrives, it's the natural reaction and probably the best bet at survival. It's not using the force. It's allowing your body to do what it does instinctively. Your body is perfectly capable, it's your mind that gets in the way.
Click to expand...

People are talking about point shooting at 5 yards...does anybody here have a 5 yard arm? Is your arm 3 yards even? If you can extend your arm in front of your face you can get a sight picture...that is about 3 feet max. Most (as in a majority) of targets at IDPA and USPA are closer to 5 yards than 20 yards and while they are games, they require movement and accuracy, which is far more relevant to self defense shooting than looking at a stationary target, closing your eyes and "trusting your instincts" or tossing coins into the air when deciding if aimed fire is right for you. Limited to 3 yards, you would find it nearly impossible to devise a realistic drill where people would reliably perform better with point shooting over aimed fire.

If somebody is advancing on me with a weapon from any range at I have seen at IDPA I am probably justified in shooting them...so that was a silly question.

You have three experts on video in this thread preaching accuracy...and you will not find any experts that advocate point shooting for accuracy. The FBI used to have a mostly point shooting program until Bill Rogers showed them their ass through a multitude of drills, they tested it further (as in extensively), and now they teach using the sights on all shots when possible and they have proven that it is in your best interest to make that possible. Even if your rationalization is "well thought out," even if I comprehend it, and even if you get a few likes, your opinion is not shared by true experts in the field. Using aimed fire when at all possible is preferred...this method of thinking has been proven scientifically.

chiefjason said:
"It's allowing your body to do what it does instinctively. Your body is perfectly capable, it's your mind that gets in the way."
Click to expand...
This is 100% pure Yoda force talk...borderline comical. Shooting is about overcoming a lot of things your body does instinctively.

chiefjason said:
"According to NYPD research the deadliest gun fight distance for officers is 3-6 feet. 70% of officers do not remember using their sights in a gun fight"
Click to expand...
This looks like solid evidence that point shooting doesn't work at 3-6 feet either...so why promote it at all??
 
But.....what if you can't get those arms up in front of your face to see those sights? Put me in front of you, within 5 yards, and I decide when I go and I'll guarantee you you won't ever see your sights before your ass is mine. I've done this so many times in force on force it's comical and silly.

Sent from my LM-Q710.FG using Tapatalk
 
SC380 said:
People are talking about point shooting at 5 yards...does anybody here have a 5 yard arm? Is your arm 3 yards even? If you can extend your arm in front of your face you can get a sight picture...that is about 3 feet max. Most (as in a majority) of targets at IDPA and USPA are closer to 5 yards than 20 yards and while they are games, they require movement and accuracy, which is far more relevant to self defense shooting than looking at a stationary target, closing your eyes and "trusting your instincts" or tossing coins into the air when deciding if aimed fire is right for you. Limited to 3 yards, you would find it nearly impossible to devise a realistic drill where people would reliably perform better with point shooting over aimed fire.

If somebody is advancing on me with a weapon from any range at I have seen at IDPA I am probably justified in shooting them...so that was a silly question.

You have three experts on video in this thread preaching accuracy...and you will not find any experts that advocate point shooting for accuracy. The FBI used to have a mostly point shooting program until Bill Rogers showed them their ass through a multitude of drills, they tested it further (as in extensively), and now they teach using the sights on all shots when possible and they have proven that it is in your best interest to make that possible. Even if your rationalization is "well thought out," even if I comprehend it, and even if you get a few likes, your opinion is not shared by true experts in the field. Using aimed fire when at all possible is preferred...this method of thinking has been proven scientifically.

This is 100% pure Yoda force talk...borderline comical. Shooting is about overcoming a lot of things your body does instinctively.

This looks like solid evidence that point shooting doesn't work at 3-6 feet either...so why promote it at all??
Click to expand...

Closing eyes? Seriously? Ok. Who the hell is closing their eyes? Yoda force, yeah. Typical bs spouted by folks that think you can’t hit a target without sights. Do you hit a baseball with sights? Catch a ball? Any of a number of things the body can do while focusing on something else. Again, using silly hyperbolic nonsense to try and disprove something you don’t like.

Did I say not to use aimed fire? Feel free too.

And it depends on what your definition of performance is. If you are defining performance as small groups in a static environment I’m not sure that’s the entire picture. Rounds on target fast in a fluid environment is a big plus too. And the person that makes contact first can buy a bit of time to make more and better contact.

Personally, I’ll go with rounds on target fast working into accuracy as opposed to feeling like I have to start with accuracy and take more time. You can feel free to do you.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
chiefjason said:
Closing eyes? Seriously? Ok. Who the hell is closing their eyes? Yoda force, yeah. Typical bs spouted by folks that think you can’t hit a target without sights. Do you hit a baseball with sights? Catch a ball? Any of a number of things the body can do while focusing on something else.
Click to expand...

Read the thread and you'll figure out who is closing their eyes? Do you try to hit someone in the vitals with a baseball during a fight?

chiefjason said:
And it depends on what your definition of performance is. If you are defining performance as small groups in a static environment I’m not sure that’s the entire picture. Rounds on target fast in a fluid environment is a big plus too. And the person that makes contact first can buy a bit of time to make more and better contact.
Click to expand...
We are talking about hitting someone in the proper place to quickly end their ability to fight. If you don't know what performance we are arguing about why are you arguing?

chiefjason said:
Again, using silly hyperbolic nonsense to try and disprove something you don’t like.
Click to expand...

Here is another expert talking about point shooting:

I'll take the hyperbolic nonsense of Leatham, Hackathorn, The FBI firearms unit, and even Bill Wilson over the guy who observed some IDPAs

chiefjason said:
Personally, I’ll go with rounds on target fast working into accuracy as opposed to feeling like I have to start with accuracy and take more time. You can feel free to do you.
Click to expand...
Then just go do it and quit arguing with me.
 
chiefjason said:
Closing eyes? Seriously? Ok. Who the hell is closing their eyes? Yoda force, yeah. Typical bs spouted by folks that think you can’t hit a target without sights. Do you hit a baseball with sights? Catch a ball? Any of a number of things the body can do while focusing on something else. Again, using silly hyperbolic nonsense to try and disprove something you don’t like.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

You must not have played much serious ball when growing up. Keeping your eye on the ball is they key to hitting and catching!

The vast majority of the people that shoot, have to be taught to not close their eyes and flinch, it's an automatic reaction to an exposition happening at arms length.
 
chiefjason said:
Not sure if you are trying to argue with me or trying to prove my point.

Regardless of bureaucracy I believe numbers. Especially from folks that are trying to make things better or train to do better.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Kind of both, I would not trust much shooting related information out of any major police department, to much information is sanitized.

Point shooting works because people learn how to index the gun each and every time they draw. Like everything else, it requires practice, that most will not do. A 30% hit ratio at arms length is sad.
 
Stick Man said:
But.....what if you can't get those arms up in front of your face to see those sights? Put me in front of you, within 5 yards, and I decide when I go and I'll guarantee you you won't ever see your sights before your ass is mine. I've done this so many times in force on force it's comical and silly.

Sent from my LM-Q710.FG using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
This man has been here several times. If somebody lets him get you into this exact situation, done exactly like he proposes, you will lose Everytime.
Amp Mangum said:
Bill Allard was on the NYPD Stakeout Squad with Jim Cirrilo. They were the winners in multiple gunfights. Here is a link to a podcast where he is being interviewed by Mas Ayoob, fast forward to the 30 minute mark to hear what he had to say on the subject:
http://proarmspodcast.com/010-save-b...n-bill-allard/
Click to expand...
Amp you make points without getting down in the weeds. One of the many reasons I respect you.
 
Amp Mangum said:
Bill Allard was on the NYPD Stakeout Squad with Jim Cirrilo. They were the winners in multiple gunfights. Here is a link to a podcast where he is being interviewed by Mas Ayoob, fast forward to the 30 minute mark to hear what he had to say on the subject:
http://proarmspodcast.com/010-save-b...n-bill-allard/
Click to expand...

I am in no way putting down those men, they were the real deals. But, those were the 70's, NYPD of today is totally different. Tactics of the gun fight have evolved a long way from the 70's and are still evolving.

I took the LFI-1 class with Mas Ayoob back in 1997, it's been the best firearms class I have ever taken.
 
SC380 said:
Limited to 3 yards, you would find it nearly impossible to devise a realistic drill where people would reliably perform better with point shooting over aimed fire.
Click to expand...

And the truth is: realistic drills have been done to answer this very question by the greatest shooters in the world probably millions of times.

I don't want to argue, but your absolutes are just incorrect. Many many many shooters use target focus for certain targets. I'm not talking about NYPD, I am talking about professional shooters. They know what is fastest, and they know what is most accurate, for any target from 1 yard to 100 yards and beyond. It's not conjecture or opinion. In the shooting sports things have to be proven.

I am talking about the act of shooting, not bullets coming back, combat, whatever. If we are talking about that, I'd going to venture a guess that 99% of gunfights involve zero use of the sights by anyone involved. But just a guess on that. Edit: talking about typical civilian gunfights, and prob most leo ones
 
Last edited:
NKD said:
I am talking about the act of shooting, not bullets coming back, combat, whatever. If we are talking about that, I'd going to venture a guess that 99% of gunfights involve zero use of the sights by anyone involved. But just a guess on that. Edit: talking about typical civilian gunfights, and prob most leo ones
Click to expand...

I'm inclined to agree with this. If I need to draw my weapon in a defensive situation, I'm also going to be on the move. No way I'm going to acquire a sight picture while I'm hauin' ass. If the confrontation isn't over by the time I've reached cover, then I'll use the sights.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NKD
For those interested, check out this interview with Yong Lee. He is a long time Leo, Swat leader and trainer, and expert on this subject. He is also a 4Division USPSA Grandmaster.
Please listen to his thoughts on this.

https://firearmsnation.com/yong-lee-2016-shooters-summit-replay/

Also check out his youtube yleegm.
 
NKD said:
And the truth is: realistic drills have been done to answer this very question by the greatest shooters in the world probably millions of times.

I don't want to argue, but your absolutes are just incorrect. Many many many shooters use target focus for certain targets. I'm not talking about NYPD, I am talking about professional shooters. They know what is fastest, and they know what is most accurate, for any target from 1 yard to 100 yards and beyond. It's not conjecture or opinion. In the shooting sports things have to be proven.

I am talking about the act of shooting, not bullets coming back, combat, whatever. If we are talking about that, I'd going to venture a guess that 99% of gunfights involve zero use of the sights by anyone involved. But just a guess on that. Edit: talking about typical civilian gunfights, and prob most leo ones
Click to expand...

Target focus still uses the sights and is not point shooting...it is still aimed fire.

It is a safe guess that your guess about 99% of gun fights not using the sights is wrong.
 
SC380 said:
Target focus still uses the sights and is not point shooting...it is still aimed fire.
It is a safe guess that your guess about 99% of gun fights not using the sights is wrong.
Click to expand...

Sure buddy. Whatever you say.
 
I don't have a dog in this particular cat fight, but maybe look at some of the equipment used over the years.

The 1911. The most prolific combat semi automatic handgun of all time. The original has maybe the worst sights to ever top a firearm.
The S&W Model 10. The most prolific combat revolver of all time. The original has maybe the 2nd worst sights to ever top a firearm.
Sure there were different models of each that had better sights. But the vast majority of these guns issued maintained the weak sights of the original design, even after decades of use in the field.

The model 10...a fixed front blade with a groove cut in the topstrap. Wth is that? They're sights only in the technical sense. In fairness, this design is not 'entirely terrible' and they work better than one might think.
The 1911. Even the 1911 lovers won't dispute this. Arguably the worst sights to ever be placed on a handgun.

Point being, neither of these guns were designed to 'sight like a master' in a gunfight, and gunfights are exactly what these guns were made for. Obviously, the idea was to yank the thing from the holster and start shooting, sights be damned.
"Time heals all wounds, technology and methods advance, we don't do that anymore" is the presentation the 'experts' will give you. Never mind that these guns were issued in their standard configurations for over 100 years, the experts now proclaim that it was all wrong.

Maybe so. But apparently point & shoot was determined to be a viable method of defense in regards to close quarters combat. They had the numbers, you know, 'does this work' numbers from the field.
Obviously point & shoot worked good enough to continue, and was determined to be a better method than any others for a variety of reasons. And I'm sure one of those was 'easier to use for the vast majority of people' making it the preferred method...along with it makes the most sense for the real situations encountered and not theoretical exercises of what if.

Even after all the experiments with different firearms, they still came back to point & shoot because "you're gonna have to know how to do this because it is what will happen to you and you simply won't have time to use sights'".

I'm not arguing the accuracy benefits of using sights. I'm arguing that there will be times that sights just won't come into play. I think it's fairly myopic to insist upon perfect scenario situations that you'll be able to use the sights every time.
 
SC380 said:
What Rob Leatham just said in the video above is the correct definition of point shooting...are you saying he is wrong?
Click to expand...

I think I posted the correct definition.
 
SC380 said:
Read the thread and you'll figure out who is closing their eyes? Do you try to hit someone in the vitals with a baseball during a fight?

We are talking about hitting someone in the proper place to quickly end their ability to fight. If you don't know what performance we are arguing about why are you arguing?



Here is another expert talking about point shooting:

I'll take the hyperbolic nonsense of Leatham, Hackathorn, The FBI firearms unit, and even Bill Wilson over the guy who observed some IDPAs

Then just go do it and quit arguing with me.
Click to expand...


You’re really hung up on one offhand comment about shooting on the range aren’t you? The eyes closed came up once, as a means to prove a point. And it wasn’t me. But here we are because you keep bringing it up and attaching it to my point. Let me be clear, no one is recommending closing your eyes in a SD situation. But you are using it to try and make your point with me.

I know what performance I want. I’m wondering what performance they are looking at to form their opinions. Because if it’s just group size it’s biased towards one conclusion but may not translate as well in person.

I’m arguing with you mainly because of the silly points used to demean something that actually can work.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Stick Man said:
But.....what if you can't get those arms up in front of your face to see those sights? Put me in front of you, within 5 yards, and I decide when I go and I'll guarantee you you won't ever see your sights before your ass is mine. I've done this so many times in force on force it's comical and silly.
Click to expand...

BatteryOaksBilly said:
This man has been here several times. If somebody lets him get you into this exact situation, done exactly like he proposes, you will lose Everytime.
Click to expand...

This is simple action vs reaction and the initiator of the action always has the advantage. Trying to prove who wins cowboy duels with force on force is comical and silly.

There are countless examples of people prevailing after being shot at first because they were more accurate faster.
 
AR10ShooterinNC said:
You must not have played much serious ball when growing up. Keeping your eye on the ball is they key to hitting and catching!

The vast majority of the people that shoot, have to be taught to not close their eyes and flinch, it's an automatic reaction to an exposition happening at arms length.
Click to expand...

Again. Kind of proving my point. You keep your eye on the ball, not the bat. Or the glove. Threat focus is the same. You keep hard focus on what you want to hit, not the tool you are using.

Unlearning the instinct to close your eyes is not the same as claiming people are being taught to close their eyes. Which seems to be one of the claims upstream. Another instinct that works with threat focus is the instinct to hard focus on the threat at hand. You just have to learn to focus on where you want to hit instead of focusing on something like hands, where the threat is located.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
chiefjason said:
You’re really hung up on one offhand comment about shooting on the range aren’t you? The eyes closed came up once, as a means to prove a point. And it wasn’t me. But here we are because you keep bringing it up and attaching it to my point. Let me be clear, no one is recommending closing your eyes in a SD situation. But you are using it to try and make your point with me.

I know what performance I want. I’m wondering what performance they are looking at to form their opinions. Because if it’s just group size it’s biased towards one conclusion but may not translate as well in person.

I’m arguing with you mainly because of the silly points used to demean something that actually can work.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I bring it up because you keep wanting to quote and question it. If it isn't part of your argument then quit arguing about it.

My point is simple, point shooting can work but aimed fire works better. Accuracy beats speed in self defense shooting...it is the consensus among experts and has been proven using scientific methods.

If you disagree with that take it up with Leatham, Hackathorn, Wilson, Rogers, that guy that AMP linked, and the FBI. If you want to point shoot like Taran Butler...more power to you...if affects me not.
 
Last edited:
Amp Mangum said:
Bill Allard was on the NYPD Stakeout Squad with Jim Cirrilo. They were the winners in multiple gunfights. Here is a link to a podcast where he is being interviewed by Mas Ayoob, fast forward to the 30 minute mark to hear what he had to say on the subject:
http://proarmspodcast.com/010-save-b...n-bill-allard/
Click to expand...

"If I was hit I didn't know it at the time, I just returned fire watching my front sight and squeezing the trigger"
"The lessons that are most important are...when you get into a gunfight, don't look at your opponent, look at the front sight of whatever gun you are using...you focus on that and concentrate"
"I never missed, you have to focus on that front sight, and when you do you are going to perform"
"You don't have to dress that sight up like its going to a wedding, just see it pretty clear"
"it isn't the first person that breaks the first shot that wins a gunfight, its the first person that places the first accurate shot in the opponent that walks away a winner, so don't rush, speed doesn't win the gunfight, accuracy does."

This guy must not be aware that NKD says nobody uses the sights 99% of the time...I am sure he needs to be wished luck also.

Great links in this thread Amp!
 
SC380 said:
"If I was hit I didn't know it at the time, I just returned fire watching my front sight and squeezing the trigger"
"The lessons that are most important are...when you get into a gunfight, don't look at your opponent, look at the front sight of whatever gun you are using...you focus on that and concentrate"
"I never missed, you have to focus on that front sight, and when you do you are going to perform"
"You don't have to dress that sight up like its going to a wedding, just see it pretty clear"
"it isn't the first person that breaks the first shot that wins a gunfight, its the first person that places the first accurate shot in the opponent that walks away a winner, so don't rush, speed doesn't win the gunfight, accuracy does."

This guy must not be aware that NKD says nobody uses the sights 99% of the time...I am sure he needs to be wished luck also.

Great links in this thread Amp!
Click to expand...

I never said anything even remotely close to that.
Man you’re just being a childish dick now.
 
Another dipshit for the ignore list.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom