Please bear with me as I am new to this idea. I've been a shooter for over 50 years, but my background is more target oriented. I've had a Windham Weaponry MPC (M4 Carbine civilian clone) for about 3 months now, and have pretty much gotten used to it, gotten it configured to work for me, and am comfortable with it. I'm at about 1600 rounds give or take. I've got a Trijicon ACOG on it, a 4 by 32 with the backup sights built in on top of the scope.

Anyway, I was talking to a range officer at a commercial range where I occasionally shoot, and the subject turned to close in shooting. He advocated shooting from the shoulder but looking over the sights, point shooting. Not from the hip, but not using the sights either. I had never tried this with any firearm.

I set up an 8 1/2 by 11 inch piece of paper on a clean cardboard backing at 20 feet. With the new backing I'd see any misses off the paper. I shot 15 shots from the shoulder looking over the carbine, and had only one miss. All the rest were on the paper. I was amazed. I didn't think I could do something like that.

So, my question is, do they teach this technique in any kind of carbine specific training? I haven't taken any and don't plan to. Is it considered a legitimate way to use the carbine? Is is taught in some kinds of training but not others? Is there a consensus on how close an assailant would have to be before one would resort to this? Just curious, really.

I'll probably keep working on it till it seems natural, as it strikes that me it would have some value in some cases.

"They" teach everything under the sun these days. The real question might be, "who is 'they?'"

Doctrinally, the Army these days isn't even consistent on terminology from one reference to the next. This is indicative of a larger problem and the sheer pace of change and innovation - some not always valid, but I digress.

The basic gist is the same, though. Namely, if in close quarters and time or other conditions detract from being able to adequately use the sights as designed, such shooting should be in the form of "aimed quick fire" (also known as "aimed quick kill") in which you look over the rear sight to the front sight, instead of inside the aperture. This is often taught as a block of "reflexive shooting," and to be used when the focus is speed at a close distance. There are concepts of "pointed quick fire" or "instinctive fire," where no sights are used, but I have never seen it formally taught.

Some references:

https://rdl.train.army.mil/catalog/view/100.ATSC/434948EB-8945-4C25-9389-B33B4927856C-1308726234899/3-22.9/chap7.htm#18

https://rdl.train.army.mil/catalog/view/100.ATSC/CD6EF4D3-3796-4330-A186-F4CE64B4C8DE-1274402456755/3-06.11/ch3.htm#par23

Thank you Bohr_Adam and heavily_armed. That was just the kind of information I was looking for.

For my part, no more replies are required. Doing some more research on my own, and with what was provided above, I have gotten enough information to answer the questions I asked.

As for me, I was not, and absolutely am not, looking for opinions or to start a discussion based on opinions. I was looking for references and real information. I apologize if I did not make that clear.

If other people want to discuss this technique and state their own opinions, well, I guess that's what we do here. I'm just saying I'm out of it.

Most fun class I took. Spit and polish is not as refined as say Magpul but this topic is interesting.

Roger Phillips will be the first person to admit that aimed shooting is more accurate but within certain distances this might be a useful tool. Probally aimed at civilian CCW types than door kickers. I was hesitant on going but I'm glad I did.