I have noticed that discussions on combat sights, combat shooting, and handguns are often hi-jacked by those with an embarrassing lack of experience. All they know is what they have read and much of that isn’t accurate. A shooter should study, true, but they should also gain practical experience and meet the instructor half way with this experience.
An instructor who recommends not using the sights in a personal defense scenario or recommends off the wall or less reliable handguns isn’t doing you any favors. Chances are, his handgun is loaded with an off brand, trendy ammunition with serious deficiencies. i.e. it isn’t service grade and proven—along with the handgun—in serious agency testing. It should be a combination that has fired 20,000 trouble-free rounds is service grade and good enough for you and I. The load of the moment in the newest Glock clone isn’t in the same league.
When attempting to have an intelligent discussion concerning combat sights, I have actually been confronted with ‘no-one uses their sights in combat.’ My counter is, “The ones that hit do!” Everyone in my circle of friends that has ‘been there and done it,’ has used their sights. They have a vivid memory of using their sights to aim. The ones that missed do not.
On a related subject, I recently heard a comment at a gun shop that a fellow missed a deer at about 30 feet with a shotgun! Something is definitely wrong. Maybe it was nerves. God help him if the deer could shoot back. Let’s not get into fairy tales concerning those who shoot without using their sights. They are in a league with the so-called stopping power studies and those who shoot tethered goats. They are shills, fairy tales promoted by rascals to impress fools.
I have studied the subject for many years. As a peace officer, I walked the line and was involved in more than one incident—including a rather hairy ordeal in which a single shot solved the problem. It was delivered at 15 yards with a pistol equipped with self-luminous iron sights. This tends to color your thinking.
The justice system is a tightrope walked by us all, and it is the difference between always fulfilling your wishes and social responsibility. Those without social responsibility are often violent. It is best to be prepared. Every incident is different and the more versatile the sights chosen, the better you may be prepared.
A target sight is specialized. A big dot sight is equally specialized. Something more versatile is needed. My experience includes many thousands of rounds of ammunition expended over more than four decades of shooting handguns in realistic drills. While no one seems to have the perfect training system for combat shooting, the persons who constantly train and use good equipment are more likely to survive a critical incident. Prior training and regular practice are the most reliable predictors of survival in a critical incident.
Sights keep the shooter from missing the target. I would not wish to be the instructor asked to testify in a wrongful death suit who must tell the judge that I trained the student not to use their sights. I think the legal definition for deliberate indifference may apply to such training.
The sights should be used. Exceptions are very close range—3 yards or so. In these cases, the body of the handgun should be used as an index in meat and paper drills. The slide or cylinder covers the target and you fire.
I practice precision fire often. I make a perfect sight alignment and press the trigger. At close ranges, sometimes a fast but smooth press and superimposing the front sight on the target very quickly works. Using the sights consistently requires the shooter to train to draw, get on target, and get a very fast sight picture. This means that situational awareness must be in place, and you are prepared to respond to the attack.
The sights must be high visibility and easily acquired quickly. Regular practice is the most important component of competency. Situational awareness is vital because a surprise attack will cancel out training, save for the most rigorous training.
The design of the sights is important. I think that the classic Smith and Wesson orange insert revolver sight is a good sight for most uses. It is accurate for close range defensive encounters and accurate in the precise sense at longer range. The sights must be large enough, and they should have a contrast of some type with white dots on a black sight the baseline.
Bright orange front sights are better. The fiber optics used in the Ruger GP 100 3-inch barrel .44 Special are excellent. This is a sight that has proven accurate well past 50 yards but is brilliantly fast at moderate range.
Tritium night sights are a good choice for a personal defense handgun. The tritium vials, however, are not large enough on their own to provide a rapid sight acquisition and must be surrounded by another material. TruGlo uses fiber optic sights to surround tritium and this comes out well.
I like the single front dot for many conditions. This makes for brilliantly fast work and aids keeping both eyes open. Be certain to practice dry fire with a triple-checked unloaded pistol, and be certain you understand the sight picture you will have with the night sight of your choice. Practice constantly, keep your eyes on the target, and you will get a hit. Only a lack of practice will hinder your marksmanship.
What is your opinion on the use of handgun sights? Do you practice using them in self-defense drills or do you subscribe to point and shoot theories? Which sights do you prefer on your carry or home defense handguns? Share your answers in the comment section.