In lot of older movies like the original James Bond, Bond holds his gun and shoots without using his sights to aim, often, even at further distances. Same goes for a lot of older black and white movies. But in new Bond and new most movies, the men use their sites, and keep their pistols held at eye level and ready. What changed? Why did this take so long to come around?
Ever notice this with pistols in movies?
- Thread starter harmonica44
- Start date
I think a better question would be; Since they now use the sights, why do they still miss so much?
I don't know how much experience you have at combat shooting, But there are a couple of different techniques that look like "just pointing and shooting". They require a lot of practice to be good at, but you can be good at them.
Having said that: I do not know if Connery was acting these styles, but it is beleivable that his character would know them.
Just watch some speed shooting competions with pistol. There is no way they are "siting in" for every shot.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8bJ3TLEbZw
Having said that: I do not know if Connery was acting these styles, but it is beleivable that his character would know them.
Just watch some speed shooting competions with pistol. There is no way they are "siting in" for every shot.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8bJ3TLEbZw
Last edited:
That’s where the term “shoot from the hip” comes from.
From what I understand, it’s quite common in high-pressure situations, when under fire for example. It’s not ideal, but if you don’t have the time to aim, you just shoot.
What’s worse is when somebody holds a gun on its side. It looks cool, but (apparently) it just doesn’t work!
From what I understand, it’s quite common in high-pressure situations, when under fire for example. It’s not ideal, but if you don’t have the time to aim, you just shoot.
What’s worse is when somebody holds a gun on its side. It looks cool, but (apparently) it just doesn’t work!
Shooting from the hip doesn't apply here. Shooting from the hip is when you quick draw from a hip holster are fire without raising the gun to aim. It can work at very short distances or with hundreds of thousands of rounds of practice.
In that clip, what you are seeing is insanely fast target acquisition. He is aiming, he's just REALLY good at doing it quickly.
In that clip, what you are seeing is insanely fast target acquisition. He is aiming, he's just REALLY good at doing it quickly.
Yeah but Connery would also walk around with the gun pointed out, ready to shoot, without using the sites. It wasn't just a quick shot for him, he and other heroes in older movies would have that be there ready to shoot position as well.
Inside 7 yards, you can hit a human sized target using point shooting (shoving the muzzle at the target and firing) quite reliably. Beyond 7 yards, accuracy falls off rapidly. Like anything, the more you practice, the better you get. 007 hitting a moving target on a rooftop without aiming from 50 yards with a Walther PPK is not going to happen.
Don't confuse iron sights with SIGHT PICTURE. Sight picture is how the gun looks in your hand in relation to the target, or bad guy. I hold the gun at eye level, get my sight picture, and press the trigger to the rear. 90% of the time point of aim on a pistol isn't the same as point of impact anyway.
I just sold a 1911 that shot an inch high and two inches to the right from point of aim (with the sights) to point of impact on the target, but I rarely missed my target because I had a good sight picture even though I had iron sights that were off a bit.
I just sold a 1911 that shot an inch high and two inches to the right from point of aim (with the sights) to point of impact on the target, but I rarely missed my target because I had a good sight picture even though I had iron sights that were off a bit.
I was a pretty decent archer in pre bow sight days. I just focused my eyes on the point of impact and my body automatically did the rest. You were 'aiming", but there wasnt even a sight to look through.
Tom Knapp can shoot a falling clay target with the shotgun upside down with his arms fully extended above his head. No sights, but there's definitely a sight picture there.
I can see shooting from hip with pin point accuracy for a terminator or cyborg because their eye sight and on board computers have greater range and accuracy than a scope.
That is what was done wrong in my latest production. The cyborgs should not have used scopes--only the humans. Cyborgs are machines themselves, unlike Humans..
You are grossly misusing the term Sight Picture. Sight picture is sighting through the rear sight and aligning the front sight (differs depending on sight system being used) and focusing your eye so that the front sight is in focus but the rear sight and target are blurry. You raise the weapon, point at the target and pull your focus back to the front sight blade.
The reason that Tom Knapp can do the incredible things that he does with firearms is by practicing endlessly. With thousands of hours of dedicated practice, you too can accomplish the seemingly impossible.
Image Star Wars if the Stormtroopers had thought to aim...
I have to disagree. Lets say you have an 1873 Single Action Army clone, using the sights with a six 'o clock hold you fire a round and miss the bull. That's because on those old revolvers the point of aim is virtually NEVER the same as point of impact. So what do you do? Spray and pray? Perhaps, but then you're the equivalent of a storm trooper.
The answer is to manipulate the gun in a way that puts the round where you want it every time. The only way to visually guarantee this is through A.) Practice and B.) Looking at the gun in relation to the target. The latter may be referred to as the Sight Picture. Though it is not be the webster definition it is still accurate.
The same applies to a gun without sights (i.e. a blow dart gun or a shotgun held upside down). You still have to look at the target, and look at your gun in order to know where the bullet would go.
Just conjecture, but I also keep the target/bad guy/game animal in focus. In case the situation changes before or after I press the trigger. Cops/military/target champs all do the same.
Apology accepted
.yeah yeah, everyone's an expert.. (someone point lowexosure to my "Gift Of Life Saving Information" Christmas video.. 
)
The LAST thing I want in a movie is REALISM.. geeze, the real world is the last place I want to be.. give me a gangsta style side shot anyday! lol.
In the real world, things dont fall over dead,
I had to shoot a raccoon over the winter with a 9mm. The dang thing kept rising up like some zombie from the grave!
) The LAST thing I want in a movie is REALISM.. geeze, the real world is the last place I want to be.. give me a gangsta style side shot anyday! lol.
In the real world, things dont fall over dead,
I had to shoot a raccoon over the winter with a 9mm. The dang thing kept rising up like some zombie from the grave!
But only imperial stormtroopers could be so precise!
Yeah, Obi Wan spent a little TOO much time in the desert....
I have to disagree. Lets say you have an 1873 Single Action Army clone, using the sights with a six 'o clock hold you fire a round and miss the bull. That's because on those old revolvers the point of aim is virtually NEVER the same as point of impact. So what do you do? Spray and pray? Perhaps, but then you're the equivalent of a storm trooper.
The answer is to manipulate the gun in a way that puts the round where you want it every time. The only way to visually guarantee this is through A.) Practice and B.) Looking at the gun in relation to the target. The latter may be referred to as the Sight Picture. Though it is not be the webster definition it is still accurate.
The same applies to a gun without sights (i.e. a blow dart gun or a shotgun held upside down). You still have to look at the target, and look at your gun in order to know where the bullet would go.
Just conjecture, but I also keep the target/bad guy/game animal in focus. In case the situation changes before or after I press the trigger. Cops/military/target champs all do the same.
Apology accepted
I thought Lucky Hardwood was correcting you on the terminology not ideology.
So everything you said could still be true, it's just it's not called "sight picture".I'm just saying, cause i know nothing about guns...
That may or may not be correct. It's relative. There's literally only two things in this world I know a lot about 1.) Guns 2.) My Daughter... nobody wants to have a conversation about my daughter.
I've noticed this too. There are a lot of trends throughout the years when it comes to guns. In black and white movies they would aim from the hip, in the 60s they would hold it in front of their face with their arms bent.
Holding the gun sideways in the late 90's
The trend lately is actually closer to a real shooting stance, and I actually think Kiefer Sutherland made that cool in 24.
Even rifle stances have changed throughout the years. Rambo made the guitar stance as I call it popular in the 80s, where they would hold the stock of the rifle or shotgun under their arm instead of against their shoulder. These days people hold it closer to a combat stance.
I think these days, the weapon expert is what is cool in action movies. In the 50s, cowboys were in so people tried to hold their guns like a cowboy.
Shooting styles have also changed throughout the years. Pistols were generally shot one handed for the longest time, then in the 20's two handed shooting became popular.