Depends on the distance. Point shooting is faster but not as accurate at longer distances. Focusing on the front sight is slower but is more accurate at longer distances.
Depends on the situation and the distance to the threat. Obviously well aimed shots are preferred, but when one is reacting; time is often not on the good guys side. Point shoot if the threat is close and there is no bystanders around or beyond. Flash sight picture if you are far enough away and can press out safely.
in 98.5% of shooting situations yes. - - - Updated - - - the one time I had to shoot someone it was point shooting because two mopes had jumped down from a raised porch as I passed by it. The shot was a contact shot so it was point shooting
From contact distance to 3 yards, point shooting is fine. At 5-7 yards the front sight should be used. You can hit at that distance without the sites but your chance of missing is greater, and it continues to get greater as the distance gets greater. Beyond 7 yards, I recommend using both sites. By the way, you can train to draw and present the pistol in a way that automatically interjects the sites into your eyesight, making aiming with the front site very quick.
It's interesting to read LEO shooting reports and low incidence of officers reporting using the sights an any distance. It's clear that if time and distance are on the good guys side, then sights are used almost universally. Anything else is a crap shoot. Time of day, light conditions and the type of encounter come into play.
That is what I do, I train for as much consistency in my draw, presentation and stance as possible, but also Do combat simulation to cover as many contingencies as possible. There are some amazing point shooters out there, like Bob Munden, but few get that good. If have put quite a few rounds down range using point shooting and one thing I find is my accuracy can vary depending on the gun, some naturally point better for me[/B. Probably the best for me thus far has been the 1851.44 Colt Navy...best balance and naturally pointing gun I have ever shot, fit my hand perfectly. It was Wild Bill's favorite, though in.36. The one other, was a Browning Challenger . 22 I had when I was younger an doing a lot of planking as opposed to combat defensive training.
I sure like the look of those guns and the history behind them, but I have to confess, I've never shot one. Maybe I'll get to one day. The vast majority of it has been DA revolvers and Glock pistols. Your Browning reminded me of my favorite .22 plinker which is my Ruger MK III. I ended up getting a Pac-Lite upper for it so I could add a suppressor. Looks a lot like this one with the suppressor. Wouldn't you know it? A few months after I bought the Pac-Lite, Ruger came out with a MK III with a threaded barrel *sigh*.
Interesting, I got the Ruger MK I when it came out, one with a bull barrel as I recall. Got it about the same time as the Browning. I liked them both. As I recall my MK I was a tack driver, but my Browning pointer better. Both ran like watches.
Something that is obvious to me, every time I practice point shooting, is that it's got to be terribly unsettling to the bad guy. He feels the muzzle blast, and that's got to give him pause to wonder if he's been hit. That buys me a tiny bit of time to carry through. I try hard to get off 3 very fast shots ASAP, and then bring the gun up to better aim. Shooting at things like a 1 gal. milk jug within 5 yards, at least one of those first shots usually connects. Barrel length makes a huge difference to me as well. With my Glock 26, point shooting is actually fun, because there is very little slide inertia to interfere with the single consideration of recoil recovery. With the Glock 19, I feel notably slower, but the mechanics are similar enough to be worth doing. With my 17 and 17L, point shooting is notably more difficult, because the slide inertia causes a kind of twisting You have to train differently with different guns.
Because It is not licensed concealed weapons carriers that are part of that cost, it is drive by shootings, liquor store hold ups, gang turf and drug wars, shoot outs with the police, they also include the cost of added police patrols and prison costs and court trials and appeals.
"With the Glock 19, I feel notably slower, but the mechanics are similar enough to be worth doing. With my 17 and 17L, point shooting is notably more difficult, because the slide inertia causes a kind of twisting You have to train differently with different guns." I never could see any great difference between a Glock 19 and a Glock 17 as far as function, a bit of extra weight and two extra rounds.
It is the NRA and those who support the NRA (firearms manufacturers) that are responsible for the culture of gun violence in this nation. By obstructing rational firearms legislation they have aided and abetted this gun culture that is costing taxpayers $229 billion annually. How about we do this instead? We increase taxes on every gun and ammunition purchase to cover this $229 billion and see how that works out? Just how quickly will the NRA and it's supporters start lobbying for effective firearm regulations?
Firt of all I would say that the NRA is aided and abetted by the gun culture of the USA not the other way around as you say. Secondly, an increase in taxes on firearms and ammunition would not be constitutional because it directly infringes on an individuals right to keep and bear arms. Instead of taxing law abiding gun owners how about we just prosecute the criminals that use firearms to the full extent of the law. Is there a medical term for fear of inanimate objects?
When we land on Pluto and Spiderman gives a press conference we can talk. Anything else is your fantasy.
What are you talking about. It's the law abiding citizens that add to the tax base and never commit crimes that make up the majority of healthcare bills..... sarcasm added for effect
Either way, the cost is about the same. However better shooting might be a motivating factor to "immigrate."
A cheapy indigent cremation runs only the price of Natural gas and a cardboard coffin no embalming required.
If that were true, the many Police Departments would not be using Glock as Duty sidearms, NYPD NYSPD uses Glock, the last sidearm I carried after the transition from S&W Revolvers, was a Glock 17 and a Glock 19, I now carry a Glock 17 under LEOSA, Safety = finger off the trigger until ready to shoot, not much different from a Revolver, and yes, I am a LE Firearms Instructor.
I would not even know where to start, however this posting has more holes in it, than an Emmentaler ( Swiss ) cheese.
