Quick Fire & Reflexive Fire

[kilogulf59]

Quick Fire is a method previously used by the US Army for teaching pointshooting. It is described in the following excerpt from US Army Field Manual FM 23-9:

For pistol:

"Quick-Fire Point shooting. This is for engaging an enemy at less than 5 yards. The weapon should be held in a two hand grip. It is brought up close to the body until it reaches chin level and is then thrust forward until both arms are straight. The arms and body form a triangle, which can be aimed as a unit. In thrusting the weapon forward, the firer can imagine that there is a box between him and the enemy, and he is thrusting the weapon into the box. The trigger is smoothly squeezed to the rear as the elbows straighten out."

For rifle:

Aimed quick fire


Aimed quick fire:
"When presented with a target, the soldier brings the rifle up to his shoulder and quickly fires a single shot. His firing eye looks through or just over the rear sight aperture. And he uses the front post to aim at the target. Using this technique, a target at 25 meters or less may be accurately engaged in one second or less.

Pointed quick fire


Pointer quick fire:
"When presented with a target, the soldier keeps the rifle at his side and quickly fires a single shot or burst. He keeps both eyes open and uses his instinct and peripheral vision to line up the rifle with the target. Using this technique, a target at 15 meters or less may be engaged in less than one second.

"Pointed and aimed quick fire should be used only when a target cannot be engaged fast enough using the sights in a normal manner. These techniques should be limited to targets appearing at 25 meters or less."
------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: attached are two files I assembled. They are on Quick and Reflexive Fire and are excerpts from U.S. Army FMs.

[TranterUK]

On the lower drawing, is that muzzle flash or a whole cartridge leaving the barrel?

Seriously, I was taught to use what was called the 'flash sight picture' for close up shooting. The sights come into line with the target and you fire, seeing the 'flash sight picture'. It's Instant, it's not perfect but with practice it will be on target.

[Pistolenschutze]

Originally Posted by TranterUK

On the lower drawing, is that muzzle flash or a whole cartridge leaving the barrel?

Seriously, I was taught to use what was called the 'flash sight picture' for close up shooting. The sights come into line with the target and you fire, seeing the 'flash sight picture'. It's Instant, it's not perfect but with practice it will be on target.

We use BIG bullets in the US, Tranter . . . but not on squirrels.

All kidding aside, you hit on a most important point I think. Having taught quite a number of new shooters the basics with both pistol and rifle, one point I've found that is sometimes difficult for them to grasp, at least in the beginning, is how sights should be handled differently based on the range to target. Proper sight alignment--front with rear--is obviously critical with any sort of distance shooting, the longer the distance, the more critical it becomes. Yet for close range work, and this is usually what self-defense handgun shooting is all about, it is the FRONT sight that truly matters, and its alignment with the rear sight is more or less superfluous. At 20 feet, for example, it matters not a wit whether the front sight is precisely aligned with the rear so long as the front sight IS aligned with the target's center of mass. If it is, the round will impact the target with sufficient accuracy to get the job done, and that's all that really matters in such encounters. Sure, if one is shooting match pistol, the parameters change and precision sighting becomes critical. What I'm talking about here is the "down and dirty" kind of fire that becomes necessary in "close encounters of the social kind."

[TranterUK]

Serious point, a bit more long winded that I like,

I don't agree with ever not using the sights. Firing a weapon is a huge responsibility be it as a citizen, soldier or police officer. A stray shot, especially in a town can easily hit an innocent person. I am in favor of shooting quickly and using a flash sight picture, but always in aimed fire.

It's possible that in rapid fire one may end up looking over the sights rather than through them, but that should be a reaction, not a plan.

I have been shown special techniques that are very cleaver and effective. The problem is that if like me you were never in the SAS or Delta teams you have not had the training required to make the things work. Some techniques require hours of practice every day with unlimited ammunition and skilled instructors.

I say keep it simple, learn to shoot straight with sights quickly with some re loading and stoppage clearance drills. And practice regularly.

[Pistolenschutze]

Originally Posted by TranterUK

I say keep it simple, learn to shoot straight with sights quickly with some re loading and stoppage clearance drills. And practice regularly.

Always good advice for any shooter, Tranter. In a very real sense, however, concentrating primarily on the front sight at close range with a handgun is indeed keeping it simple. As you know, the only rounds that count are the ones that hit the target, and do it quickly enough to suppress the threat before he can suppress you, which is always the more desirable outcome. I'm certainly not suggesting, however, that one should totally ignore the "sight picture," even at close range. I certainly don't. What I am suggesting is a switch in basic focus from perfect sight alignment to greater concentration on getting the front sight aligned quickly with the center of the target mass. I don't know about you, but I have never been attacked by a bullseye or a 10-ring, only by someone with a gun or knife in his hand that he intends to use on me!

[TranterUK]

Originally Posted by Pistolenschutze

I don't know about you, but I have never been attacked by a bullseye or a 10-ring, only by someone with a gun or knife in his hand that he intends to use on me!

Indeed Pistol. In fact you are quite right about the front sight, at close range, if its on target your bullets will be. In addition it is often taught to focus on the front sight, not the rear sight or the target. I fully agree with you but suggest that for a newbee they start with clear basics.

I will also admit that on the very few occasions I have fired in anger, save perhaps one, I don't remember seeing the sights at all. Having said that I don't remember where I left the car keys either.

[Pistolenschutze]

Originally Posted by TranterUK

Indeed Pistol. In fact you are quite right about the front sight, at close range, if its on target your bullets will be. In addition it is often taught to focus on the front sight, not the rear sight or the target. I fully agree with you but suggest that for a newbee they start with clear basics.

You'll get no argument from me on either of those issues, Tranter. When I teach a new shooter, I too begin strictly with the basics of proper grip, sight alignment, stance, etc. I've always been of the philosophy--and this pertains to many issues, not just shooting--that before one may wisely violate the rules of any activity, one must first know the rules perfectly, and then and practice those rules assiduously. In the practical world, it is true that rules--even good ones--cannot cover all possible cases. Yet how may one know when it is appropriate to deviate from them if he or she does not know them properly in the first place?

Originally Posted by TranterUK

I will also admit that on the very few occasions I have fired in anger, save perhaps one, I don't remember seeing the sights at all. Having said that I don't remember where I left the car keys either.

Alas, I know the feeling you describe all too well. Some say that it is part of the aging factor, yet I don't see how that could be true in my case, since at 59 I am still a young whippersnapper in my own mind at least. But yeah, those car keys, and the book I am currently reading, do seem to hide from me at times. I think it is either a government conspiracy, or perhaps there is some element of quantum mechanics we don't quite understand yet.

[kilogulf59]

My personal opinion here gentlemen...learn by the numbers...that means sights and two-handed shooting...at first. Progress to one-handed sighted fire, then to point shooting, both one and two handed. Point shooting is actually much easier to master than most folks believe. With the exception of the one-handed phase, long gun work should be handled in the same manner.

For those who may not know, FSA is Fairbairn, Sykes, and Applegate and, yes, I am a Point-Shooter. Now before you all draw any conclusions let me state what PS’ing is:

• Point shooting is an adjunct to, not substitute for, sighted fire.
• Point shooting IS aimed fire, the aiming device is hand/eye coordination, not mechanical or optical.
• One can quickly gain knowledge of Point-Shooting and the time and money invested in maintaining these skills are much lower. Let us face it; even police do not train for a living only professional instructors do.
• It is all-inclusive and depends mainly on the distance involved. Therefore, it is not “hip shooting” as some would believe.

If point shooting, or whatever moniker you choose to call it, were a difficult endeavor, then Captain Fairbairn would not have used it in developing his training program.

Enough said on my part, as I am not here for the infamous “PSing vs. Sights only” debate (as there never was one, my first point nullifies that). One should keep an open mind, undertake different methodologies, and then choose what is best for them.

Suggested reading, should you be so inclined:

The Sight Continuum by 7677

Handgun Offence

Matthew Temkin’s Point Shooting Lesson Plan

[TranterUK]

Originally Posted by kilogulf59

For those who may not know, FSA is Fairbairn, Sykes, and Applegate

Were they the ones at the OK Corral?

Nah, only kidding Kilogulf. 'Learn by the numbers' good advice.

[kilogulf59]

Actually Tranter, two of the three were your lads and all had many experiences that made the OK Corral look like a walk in the park.

Then they trained the Commandos, OSS, SOE, Rangers, et al, and literally wrote the book(s) on close combat.

[TranterUK]

Originally Posted by kilogulf59

Actually Tranter, two of the three were your lads and all had many experiences that made the OK Corral look like a walk in the park.
Then they trained the Commandos, OSS, SOE, Rangers, et al, and literally wrote the book(s) on close combat.

Yes kilogulf, I am familiar with Fairbairn. he really knew how to play hardball.