Ayoob Stress Fire Point Index

[OlliesRevenge]

Hello,

I am a new (unclassified) USPSA member, and I'm new to this board as well.. I'm shooting a G17 in production w/ Dawson adj rear and .305 tall front. 3.5 lb connector, 6 lb trigger spring, and skateboard tape on the grip.

Iv'e been using the "Ayoob Stress Fire Point Index" in my dry fire practice and during matches for virtually all lower panel shots. To clarify, this index is defined as focusing on the target, while looking over the top of the gun such that the front blade stands above the rear notch by some amount. At 30 feet I usually allow the top 2/3 of the front blade to stand proud of the top of the rear sight, and then place the front fiber optic dot in the bottom third of the lower panel A zone. If I shot this for group off a sandbag this is good for a hit squarely in the middle of the A zone. Freestyle at speed (which for me is not all that speedy - yet), it's good for an A about 85-90% of the time.

I think Brian Enos alludes to this on pg 66 of his book in describing Type 2 focus.

I find it much easier to quickly see and align the sight at speed when the front blade is sticking up all by itself. My question for all you more experienced shooters is - How many of you use this type of method, and do you see a downside to training yourself to index this way?

Thanks

[Ron Ankeny]

...do you see a downside to training yourself to index this way?

Yeah, I do see a downside to training my vision for a type two focus. All of my dry fire draws are geared up towards training my index to put the front sight in the notch where it belongs, and I train my eyes to find the sight in the notch where it belongs. Sure, I'll use a type two focus when appropriate, and I can call shots on close targets with the sights misaligned. But I honestly feel a person needs to learn how to walk in a straight line before they learn how to run in a zig-zag.

[Michael Carlin]

As I understand the development of this technique post shooting interviews indicated that LEO sights were not being used in the manner that Ron Ankeny says is correct. I agree with him completely.

The train of thought from post gunfight interviews goes something like this:

They do not report using their sights properly, so the technique is not good enough, because they did not use it.

So the adage train as you fight is applied, the post engagement interviews have everyone doing what seems to have been the impression of what was done by those in last engagement.

How they fought then becomes the standard. This is in my opinion backwards. You will (under stress) fall back on that technique with which you are most comfortable. The way the proper technique becomes that most comfaortable haven is a process of inculcation (constant repetition and admonition). So if you under train a fundamental you will surely not use it under stress, because its use has not become your true comfort zone.

The phrase should be:

You will fight as you train.

When that Air Force Captain was shot down in the Balkans and hid within feet of the searching enemy they asked after his recovery"how did you do this?" and he replied "I did it just like we trained" or words to that effect.

YOU WILL DO UNDER STRESS THAT WHICH YOU HAVE TRAINED ADEQUATELY

Edited March 26, 2008 by Michael Carlin

[Run n Gun]

It doesn't take any more time to use the sights than to not use them.

Ed

[Chills1994]

Welcome to the forums!

I must commend you on your research and your training so far.

When I first really got into this style of shooting I thought it was all about putting the front sight centered in the rear notch squeezing the trigger, rinse, repeat, as often as necessary, but do it quickly enough.

I never did any research.

I never bought or read any books.

I still have Steve Andersen's two dry fire books I bought last fall right before IDPA Nat's. I cracked each open maybe once.

Sorry , Steve.

Now, with the Single Stack Classic a month, I am faced with putting in a lot of work to make my shooting better.

I'll be interested to read what the other more experienced and better shooters have to say on this topic.

[Loves2Shoot]

Freestyle at speed (which for me is not all that speedy - yet), it's good for an A about 85-90% of the time.

I think Brian Enos alludes to this on pg 66 of his book in describing Type 2 focus.

.... do you see a downside to training yourself to index this way?

Yes, that 10-15% non A hits percentage doubles (or more) when you are under stress.

It think it is better to practice seeing faster. If people focus on good technique instead of shortcuts, their skills improves faster.

[JoeSlomo]

There are any number of "alternate" sighting techniques available, and there are plenty of shooters who are proficient in each.

While the most accurate sight picture consists of centering the front sight post in the rear sight aperture, it is NOT the fastest, nor the most appropriate technique in every given situation.

The type of sight picture you take up depends on your ability, your target, and the range to said target. While I may need to "properly" align my sights in order to hit an 8" plate at 25 meters, I don't at 7 when aiming at a torso.

The "game" and the real world ARE different. I don't give a damn about an "A" zone real world, my aim point is CENTER MASS to give me the best possible chance of hitting the target, and I will aim center mass and shoot until the threat has been eliminated...barring the use of armor on the threat. Gun fights can lead to some pretty dramatic adrenaline spikes, which can seriously fook up your ability, so it is best to give yourself the best odds possible. At close range, simple sight pictures are easiest and faster to obtain. FRONTSIGHTPOSTFRONTSIGHTPOSTFRONTSIGHTPOST.....

You say your primary focus is on the target, and your sights are obscured. That IS a technique, and it has worked for alot of folks. My experience has lead me to use quick aimed fire techniques over point / instinctive shooting simply because I have seen FAR too many folks miss targets at point blank range because they DIDN"T aim, they just pointed and shot. Granted, it could be a training factor, but I KNOW where my round is going to land when I focus on my front sight post, as opposed to the target.

I recommend you continue to use and learn which alternate sight pictures you can use at various ranges, as they are FASTER to obtain than a traditional slow aimed fire sight picture. I WOULD rather shooters focus on the front sight post rather than the target, BUT, I will not argue with success.

[Matt Cheely]

I find it much easier to quickly see and align the sight at speed when the front blade is sticking up all by itself. My question for all you more experienced shooters is - How many of you use this type of method, and do you see a downside to training yourself to index this way?

My opinion: Either use the sights or don't.

If the target is close enough, I use my index to get the hits. Anything farther I am using the sights just as intended. You can't go for a "85-90% of the time this works" in this game, you have to get all your hits.

[OlliesRevenge]

Thanks for the replies,

It sounds like this isn't a common technique, so, I guess there's my answer. I suppose what I've tried to do is extend a type 2 focus out beyond "short range" in an attempt to increase speed. For me, this has worked to a significant degree. But, my thought is that the downside to this would be that my development in the ability to call my shots accurately would be diminished because it is a less precise way to use the sights.

Before I found this site, I had read Andy Stanford's book "Surgical Speed Shooting", and had Ron Avery's video's. I watched Ron's video 50 times or more while dry firing, and practiced his drills (trigger bar drill, etc) on the range. So I have a good index w/ a complete classic sight picture, and I was shooting very high point scores in matches with slow times. The experienced guys told me "Don't worry, you're doing it right. Keep shooting A's, the speed will come"

Then I found this site and bought Steve Andersons book along with Brians. While doing Steve's dry fire drills, and using a classic sight picture, I've clearly improved, but in trying to work my way down to the goal times I have difficulty honestly "seeing what I need to see" to feel like A zone hits would really be taking place. If I let the front sight peek up even just 1/3 of It's height above the rear, while indexing slightly low to compensate, It's like an "aha" moment. It just jumps out at me even at speed. I think the effect of this is essentially the same as if one was using an XS 24/7 Dot sight (Andy Stanford advocates this sight in his book, but I have yet to try it). The rear sight on the XS is a wide shallow 'V', and the front has a big dot on it, so even when using the "proper" sight picture the front blade/dot appears to be sitting out there by itself.

Anyway, I'll keep practicing, and I promise not to throw the classic sight picture on the scrap heap.

Take care.

[shred]

See if you can find anything from Todd Jarrett on "shooting out of the notch". It's a valid technique, but an advanced one, IMO.

[ktyler]

I am a LEO and a GM. I have been trained and have used both sighted and unsighted techniques. In the real world I am accounable for every round that leaves my barrel and in IPSC I am rewarded for calling my shots, I generally train using my sights.

While using simunition (fancy paintball) in training at work, I have tested and know which technique is best for me....I use my sights, its not any slower if you train that way. Having said that, you need to know how to shoot without the sights also, but only after you learn how to use them. After a couple KK worth of draws your will have an index ingrained.

Ktyler

[cnote]

Weapons silhouette is what Jim Cirillo use to call this in his training courses over the years. He would actually tape up the sites and make you move out to different distances and see, when and where, you could use the technique of the slide as your site, and get good hits (not necessarily our A-zone every time) Cover center mass with the square of the slide as the site while focusing on the threat. Depending on trigger control, its fast and accurate for a self defense technique where you hit center mass until the threat is nullified.

[Ron Ankeny]

LFischer:

To be honest, this topic has been discussed a lot on this forum. A little time spent snooping around should yield some answers as far as training your vision, perfect sight picture vs. perfect sight alignment and so forth. FWIW, a type two focus is a common technique, but it falls short if not used in an appropriate setting.

As far as the real life gunsliger kill them all dead behind the stop and rob and let God sort it out vs. competition shooting; well there are plenty of forums on the Internet where posters get down and roll in that gutter. Thankfully, this forum is not one of those and I hope it stays that way.

[Gallow]

It doesn't take any more time to use the sights than to not use them.

Ed

This seems to me to be just plain false, at least for most shooters, and especially for a new shooter. Admittedly, a very experienced shooter can transition from one target to the next by eye, and when the gun arrives there the sights will be aligned, and he breaks the shot. It takes a long time (for most of us) for this to happen.

>>You can't go for a "85-90% of the time this works" in this game, you have to get all your hits.<<

IPSC is a game of accuracy and speed. If you shoot all A's in practice, you don't know if you can shoot them faster. Only by scattering a few C's can you tell you're at your limit, and need to see more. In my opinion (and I can't shoot half as well as many others here) that's the area to learn in. In production, in a match, the C's will hurt you more than they will someone shooting major in another division, so you may have to see (shoot) more conservatively.

[Loves2Shoot]

It doesn't take any more time to use the sights than to not use them.

Ed

This seems to me to be just plain false

Experienced shooters just know how much of a sight picture they need, that is why they are faster. Getting a "perfect sight picture" is what takes more time.

The fastest spilts (.1) and transitions I've ever had were called shots, and I've thrown a lot of blind ones too.

[OlliesRevenge]

Shred,

Thanks for the tip on looking for info on "shooting out of the notch". I’ve never heard of that phrase before, but that is basically it. That is what I’ve been doing. For the record, I don’t think this can be described as “not using the sights”. At least not with the way I’m trying to do it at 30 ft. I look and focus on the target at the exact point I want the bullet to hit, and the sights are right there in my vision with the front blade poking up a bit. The front blade just isn’t in focus. It’s just something I’ve experimented with, and it seems fast.

In the search for "shooting out of the notch", I came upon several threads that debate (sometimes hotly) the merits between aimed fire and point shooting. When originating this thread I didn’t realize I was stumbling into a subject of “perpetual debate”, as Ron calls it in a thread on TheHighRoad I came across in my Googling.

Also, Ron, I don’t understand why you thought I was trying to portray myself as a gunslinger. I’m not, and I’m sorry if I came off as trying to portray myself as a hotshot or something. That was not my intention. I’m just a guy who is a fan of the 2nd Amendment, and who likes to shoot alot. I recently discovered USPSA, it is a lot of fun, and it really brings out the competitor in me. I just want to get good at this really fast, and I think it is great that there are so many books, videos and forums dedicated to this kind of shooting. Brian Enos’ book in particular is quite a read. I’ve read a lot of books on various subjects I wanted to learn; stock market trading, poker, motorcycle riding, among others. But I don’t think I’ve ever read another book that so completely gives you a glimpse into the mind of a top competitor and really explains “how it’s done”. Definitely a book worth the money.

I guess the answer to my original question is - "Although uncommon, yes there are other shooters who use this method, but, opinions vary". I'll just continue my practice in an attempt to become a well rounded shooter.

Edited March 27, 2008 by LFisher

[Chills1994]

@ LFisher, PM sent.

[Ron Ankeny]

Also, Ron, I don’t understand why you thought I was trying to portray myself as a gunslinger.

That certainly is not my perception of you at all. I was addressing the direction the thread was taking with the discussion of neutralizing threats and so forth. That's all. Sorry to come off like gangbusters. My apologies to all. Anyone up for a spirited discussion about Stress Fire, Fist Fire, and generic point shooting vs. using the sights? Just kidding. Edited March 28, 2008 by Ron Ankeny

[shred]

If you're looking at the spot you want the bullet to hit, it's very difficult to hit that spot before the sights arrive there, since that's what they do.

Pretty much by definition the sights are aligned anywhere the bullet goes... you can choose to look at them or not.

I also note that at the Steel Challenge, Cal Erlich and his posse had set up a Cowboy Fast Draw side-match-- on signal, hit the 3-foot-diameter plate at about 3 yards with a wax bullet. It was educational the number of clean misses with a 'good pointing' gun like the SAA. It was also educational in that Cal holds many of the CFD records, but at the Steel Challenge match itself, when the money's on the line, even on the 7-yard 18"x24" gongs, he used two-handed, sighted fire.

[HSMITH]

A good friend and shooting instructor in these parts is also a Stressfire instructor. He can really shoot, no doubt about it. But, in USPSA matches he uses a blend of techniques, he breaks open the toolbox and uses the right tool for the target. He will absolutely smoke me on a 3 target array at contact distance to about 7 yards, and I think a good part of that is by virtue of having shot the Stressfire courses several times, he has developed the ablilty to split the gun in the LOW teens on demand. I top out at .20's, and our transition speed is pretty close. One array up close and he picks up a couple tenths, to me it shows some validity in the technique. However, in most matches we are relatively close in finish, and I shoot every shot with a classical sight picture. To me that proves that there is some validity in shooting the sights on every shot. Watching someone like my friend use many tools when needed tells me there is a lot for all of us to learn. If it weren't for my movement on field courses he would OWN me at every match, which brings up movement. Way over 9 out of 10 people I see shoot would be best served working on movement and not shooting AT ALL for a while. Movement and transitions are the biggest flaw in most shooters I see.

Use what works for you 98% of the time in practice, it should hold up decently in a match, and ALWAYS be looking for the next tool to put in your toolbox when you practice. That is the real key to getting better, not using what works right now.

[EricW]

The $4 latte isn't what's making you broke, it's the motorcycle you bought with credit cards three years ago and still make minimum payments on.

Pretty well the same relationship between sights and the rest of what's going on in that big, brave world out there.

[DogmaDog]

One point we haven't discussed about Brian's different types of focus is that you don't consciously choose which type of focus you're going to use, then acquire the correct sight picture, then break the shot.

What you do do, (I think) is go through a targeting process, in which you refine the sight picture until it is good enough to make the hit, and then break the shot. For me, my focus begins on the target, then the gun comes into view, and the focus starts to shift back from the target to the sights. On a tight shot, this process goes on until the front sight is sharply focused, and centered in the rear notch. If it's a close, easy target, the focus doesn't come all the way back...just far enough to know the sights are good enough to make the hit. That might be a "soft focus on the front sight, which is a little low in the rear notch" or wherever it happens to be when I realize it's "good enough". The visual refinement keeps going, it's just the shot gets sent down range when it's good enough, not when it's finished.

The goal is to have your trigger finger wait just long enough for your eyes to tell it the shot will land in the A zone.

I would think that needing to see something as specific as "two thirds of the front sight above the rear notch, with the front sight tip in the lower third of the A zone" would take just as long as seeing the "front sight centered in the rear notch, in the center of the A zone". I also think you don't want to have two (or more) different aiming techniques you must consciously choose among. Locate the target, refine your aim until it is good enough, break the shot, repeat.

And getting away from the complicated stuff, you could consider enlarging the rear sight notch and or narrowing the front post in order to allow you to see more through the sights.

[Ron Ankeny]

For me, there is no consious thought or thinking about the sight picture. It is more of an instant recognition (at an almost subconsious level) of what is right in front of me.

[HSMITH]

I think part of your stage plan should include visualizing the sight focus you are going to need for that particular shot. There isn't a downside to programming it before the run, and it can help a lot on a tight/hard shot right out of a hose shot.

[Ron Ankeny]

I think part of your stage plan should include visualizing the sight focus ...

I know guys who do that. They even go so far as to say bang...bang...on the long shots and bang-bang, on the close shots.