Jeff Cooper on Point Shooting

[matthew temkin]

Many years ago Carl Cestari loaned me a book written by Jeff Cooper called Fighting Handguns which was published in 1958.
With a wink Carl asked me to turn to page 97 and read what Cooper had to say about "pointer fire".
Quite frankly I was stunned, especially since this was the height (1992) of the anti point shooting push in the gun rags.
Anyway, Paladin just republished the book, so let's hear about point shooting in Cooper's own words....
....."It's an axiom that hitting your target is your main concern, and the best way to hit is to use your sights, but circumstances do arise in which the need for speed is so great, and the range so short, that you must hit by pointing alone, without seeing your gun at all.
...Pointer fire is not as hard to learn as sighting, once you realize it's range limitations. using the 1911 auto-pistol I have found that I can teach the avjerage infantryman to stay on a silhouette at 10 yards--using pointer fire in two shot bursts--more easily that I can get him into that 25 yard bullseye using slow fire and sights.
Of course this sort of shooting is strictly a way of obtaining body hits at essentially indoor ranges ( 30 feet and under)..
..But up close pointer fire can be murderously effective, and it's mastery is often the difference between life and death."( pg 97-98)

[Sarge]

"It's an axiom that hitting your target is your main concern, and the best way to hit is to use your sights, but circumstances do arise in which the need for speed is so great, and the range so short, that you must hit by pointing alone, without seeing your gun at all....

Cooper had an excellent grasp of these things and I agree with him entirely on this point. I have been teaching this concept for about 17 years and it has saved two officers I trained over the years. One in particular resisted it, but I ran him through the yank & blast drills despite his grumbling- and it was precisely that skill that saved his bacon when his 'personal elephant' came calling.

I also recall the period when it was fashionable to deride this type of training. Like many fads in law enforcement training and equipment, I simply ignored it and held fast to things proven to work.

[Scattergun Bob]

This is not an earth shaking statement by Cooper. Those who actually know, understand regardless of sights or no-sights the first to hit with the most force usually wins.

Recently Eric, said it the best, Sights when you need them, point when you need to point.

In my humble opinion practical shooters have gotten overly consumed by the sighted/pointed debate. The titans of this business of defensive shooting had a lot of very important thing to say about gunfighting BESIDES "fight the front sight onto the target" or "point the muzzle onto the target".

By the way, I read your stuff first, just keep writting, Butch:).

[Hammer1]

Jeff Cooper often said one could learn how to do many things if one took the dedicated time to do so.


At Old Gunsite, we learned to shoot after dark, without light, without tritium sights, and to hit pepper poppers with good consistency. We couldn't see our sights, but we still used them because the Weaver stance with "Front Sight - Press" was well programmed.

Though if the flag flew, would appreciate some light on the subject.


In daylight, we learned to hit our targets at 100 yards with a 1911, but would like to close the distance if we could.


Point shooting was done with 2 x 4 sticks as targets at distances of 3 yards. We did see how difficult it was, but it could be mastered. There was serious debate if it was really any faster than sighted-fire.

And then there was another drill -- think it was the Mozambique Drill, but my memory ain't no good -- slam the target head with your fist, fire two shots into the body, then turn 90 degrees and engage another disappearing target. Some of us got pretty good at it. For me, at least, the two shots to the body were point shooting. Actually, they accused me of putting three shots into the body, but I never could count.



.

[matthew temkin]

Sarge..you sound like my kind of old school copper.
Right on!!

[Deaf Smith]

At Old Gunsite, we learned to shoot after dark, without light, without tritium sights, and to hit pepper poppers with good consistency. We couldn't see our sights, but we still used them because the Weaver stance with "Front Sight - Press" was well programmed.

Exactly! That is one of the most important parts of the "Modern Technique" he taught. One did not ADJUST the sights, just VERIFIED them. And one used the presentation to align everything in an instant, and use a 'supprise break' to control the trigger.

You could shoot quite well in the dark using this concept (as I've demonstrated in indoor ranges before and posted about it.)

When Cooper wrote his book, "Fighting Handguns" in 58, it was before he had put together his "MT". I've got his book as well as others he has wrote. He progressed as time went on and found there were other ways of doing things.

[nate45]

Exactly! That is one of the most important parts of the "Modern Technique" he taught. One did not ADJUST the sights, just VERIFIED them

Unless it is a weapon retention situation, the difference in time that it takes between firing as soon as the weapon clears the holster and firing when the weapon reaches eye level is infinitesimally small, the accuracy however is much superior.



matthew temkin I'm going to ask you this one more time, if point shooting is superior in speed and accuracy to bringing the pistol up to eye level, why has no major competitor in IPSC, IDPA, PPC or whatever ever won using this technique?

You act like you have discovered some lost magical shooting skill that us slow front site people have never heard of or tried. Well, I have tried it and 25+ years ago when the .357 revolver was my primary defense side arm, all my fast draw shooting from seven yards and less was done by point shooting. When I learned to properly run a 1911 and the modern technique, the superiority of it was more than apparent.

[gordo b.]

Well Glory be to the Holy Khaki, the crew here right now actually seems to get it!:)
BTW back in 1979 at Gunsite, under the Colonel's eye, I demonstrated the "point shooting" technique I was taught a few years earlier in the DEA academy. I ripped 3 shots into a target at about 5 yards from below eye level and kept them all on the shilo, but NOT in the x ring. The Colonel responded: "have you ever had to shoot at anyone ?" I said affirmative "where did you hit?" the arm, a leg and a hip, I responded, from about 20 feet. "well you were lucky, here you will learn to index your sights and get ACCURRATE hits".

[bufordtjustice]

"but circumstances do arise in which the need for speed is so great, and the range so short, that you must hit by pointing alone, without seeing your gun at all."

The key to this statement is "range so short" That is why you practice the speed rock and other close drills. Usually they are at a distance of around 3 yards and in. Anything farther and you are probably going to be able to get the gun up before you fire. At this point, you should be able to acquire a flash front sight picture and start launching rounds.

[Swampghost]

My Dad called this 'instinct' shooting and I learned it as a child with a bow, later with firearms. Basically, hitting a point that you are focused on. I started very young so it is natural to me, starting later in life may be more difficult.

Offhand, I use paper plates for targets and 100 ft. for distance and figure if I can keep a full clip or cylinder on the plate I'm good.

[nate45]

Offhand, I use paper plates for targets and 100 ft. for distance and figure if I can keep a full clip or cylinder on the plate I'm good.

6 to 10 shots all on a paper plate 33+ yards away without sites?

I would really like to see that, why don't you make a you tube video of this exploit so we can all see it, or better yet go around the putting on exhibitions.:p

[Deaf Smith]

Nate,

I have nothing against point shooting. I can actually do it quite well and I love to hip shoot.

BUT, I feel the core is a form of sighted fire and retention shooting. This can be the 'MT' version of speed rock and 'Weaver/flash sight picture", or SouthNarc's position 1 (of the 4 point draw) and Isosceles with a wrap around grip and type 2 focus, or soft focus or whatever. There are many ways of using ones sights and holding the weapon!

This is the core. One can cover the spectrum with it from zero to well out past 25 yards or more.

Once it is mastered then one branches off and learns other ways to round out their skills if they so desire. This incudes long range handgun shooting as well as point shooting.

The only reason to learn point shooting as ones core is because their eye sight is so bad that using the sights would be very difficult (either very short sighted or far sighted without glasses) or their weapon has a very poor set of sights (and that was not uncommon before WW2 and even later.)

And Nate,

Yes one can shoot at 33+ yards without sights. Practice enough and get the right hold and it can be done. Some of the Steel Challenge masters really don't even look for their sights they have done it so much. They have memorized their hold (just as Cooper said to do.)

[BikerRN]

I have a Detective buddy that is almost blind.

He can't see the Front Sight on his Duty Weapon. When he went to qualify last year he only dropped three rounds, and that was at the 25 Yardline. He's shot so much over the years that he knew where to stand and how to hold his gun to get hits.

Since then they have taken his Driver's License away and he is on "Limited Duty" and looking at a Medical Retirement. I think it's kind of funny, sort of. He can't see to drive, but he can still put bullets in a target.

The only reason they discovered his "eye problem" was because of the three rounds he dropped. So yes, practice can allow one to do things that one wouldn't normally be able to do. If I have time, I'm using the sights. If I don't have that time, I hope my training will carry me through and allow me to "index" the weapon where I need to in order to be able to get consistant hits.

Biker

[Tim Burke]

Seems to me that, as Col. Cooper put together the MT doctrine, his opinion of the utility of point shooting diminished.
This in spite of the fact that he was an accomplished point shooter, and apparently had a fair amount of experience teaching it.
A clue, I think.
I shall ponder what this means.

[David Armstrong]

matthew temkin I'm going to ask you this one more time, if point shooting is superior in speed and accuracy to bringing the pistol up to eye level, why has no major competitor in IPSC, IDPA, PPC or whatever ever won using this technique?
I'm not Matt, but the answer to that one is easy. Those games are designed around very precise shooting to include fairly long distances. It's sort of like asking why has nobdy in an acrobatic biplane ever won a high-speed air race. Just not designed for that particular problem. Doesn't mean they aren't real good for another problem.

[Chui]

I don't know why Point Shooting causes so much controversy. There is a time and place for everything. Learn the skill. It may or may not be needed in your travels. It won't matter because it's a TOOL SET. End of story.

[Deaf Smith]

Those games are designed around very precise shooting to include fairly long distances.

David, IDPA states most targets must be inside 15 yards or less. They also specify that past 15 yards is to only be used occasion to test shooting skill.

And in IDPA speed shoots have to be within 7 yards.

Furthmore the 'O' ring is 8 (eight) inches.

Not exactly 'precise' shooting and not exactly fairly long distances.

At our local IDPA matches virtually every match has targets from 2 yards to 7. Fifteen or more yards is a rareity.

IPSC is different, but IPSC can give alot of feedback for defensive use of firearms.

[cohoskip]

I point shoot pretty good - at night - with my laser sight... ;)

[matthew temkin]

Nate 45..perhaps that question should be directed to Cooper.
Then again, hasn't D.R. Middlebrooks won a lot of competitive events with point shooting?
As as Robin Brown in AZ.
Does Enos not say to see what ones needs to see?
Don't a lot of sport shooters admit to not using the sights at close range, relying on "muscle memory" instead?
Then again ( as David Armstrong has stated here time and time again) there are quite a few serious hombres who feel that sport shooting has as much in common with combat as chalk does to cheese.

[Shane Tuttle]

Nate 45..perhaps that question should be directed to Cooper.

And what good would come of this? More importantly, HOW would one direct this question to Col. Cooper?

I don't know why Point Shooting causes so much controversy. There is a time and place for everything. Learn the skill. It may or may not be needed in your travels. It won't matter because it's a TOOL SET. End of story.

I like your way of thinking, Chui. I'm personally not fond of point shooting. However, I do think there's a time when certain techniques are best when others aren't....and vice versa.

[Brit]

Time to place a bullet on a place you wish to hit, in sport or fighting, is paramount.

The best place to hit on a human target, is that spot, at the distance the individual (individuals) is/are, from you. Simply put, the left eye is a great place to hit, from the holster with a 127g +P+, but realistically, at 20m?

So say your adversary is at 15 feet, the fastest way to hit, IMHO, is to draw and punch the pistol forward in to two hands, and the shot break as the two hands reach the end of their forward travel. Probably the thoracic area.

The front sight in recoil tells you where the shot went! Not where it is going!

[David Armstrong]

David, IDPA states most targets must be inside 15 yards or less.
Yes, Deaf, I know. For about the 100th time I've shot IDPA, I was the local IDPA club President, I was the local rangemaster for IDPA, all that sort of stuff. But the post did not refer to IDPA in particular, it also included IPSC and PPC. And of course while the rules suggest most targets must be inside 15 yards they do not prohibit a significant number being beyond 15 yards. As those targets are also included in the scoring equation, they must be considered in the discussion even though it tends to make your point irrelevant.
Furthmore the 'O' ring is 8 (eight) inches.
And the PPC "X" ring is 50x75 millimeters. And in IPSC the "A" zone for the head is 10x5 centimeters.
IPSC is different, but IPSC can give alot of feedback for defensive use of firearms.
Which has nothing to do with the question, which was , "....if point shooting is superior in speed and accuracy to bringing the pistol up to eye level, why has no major competitor in IPSC, IDPA, PPC or whatever ever won using this technique? "
IPSC is different, but IPSC can give alot of feedback for defensive use of firearms.
Yes, just like all shooting games can. Again, not sure what that has to do with anything under discussion here.

[bofe954]

In regard to action shooting and it's relation to point shooting:

I just thought I would add this- I'll either paraphrase or quote from Practical Shooting Beyond Fundamentals with quotation marks. According to Brian Enos you need to see what you need to see to make the shot, that is it. He breaks this down further into 4 types of focus:

Type 1- "For the single target at extreme close range where I need an extremely fast hit, there is no directed focus on the sights or target. There may be some focus on the sights or the target, but it doesn't really matter. In other words I may be looking for the sights to come in to my peripheral vision, but I may not wait to see them."

Type 2-"When I'm faced with multiple targets at extreme close range and, as above, I need extreme speed, I first confirm correct body and gun alignment (my index) on the first target, then I simply focus on the scoring surface of each target. The sights may or may not be in my peripheral vision. Once I confirm my index, then the gun just appears wherever I look."

Keep in mind that this is for "arm's reach" types of shots. He refers to type 3 shooting as "standard" and it requires focusing from target to sights, type 4 requires "seeing the front sight lift".

I would say Enos is definitely an authority on action pistol, and that he is definitely describing point shooting.

There was a fairly successful practical shooter who shot a 1911 with no sights, but you could argue he still aimed.

In sport or otherwise, the fastest way to hit the target is the goal right?

[Shane Tuttle]

In sport or otherwise, the fastest way to hit the target is the goal right?

I personally have a hard time entangling sport and "otherwise" together. What may be effective technique in sport may not necessarily be as effective in the "otherwise" category. My example of "otherwise" would be self defense.

Although not absolute, I think the most accurate way to hit the target is my goal.

I don't know Brian Enos from the next guy. But an element to keep in mind is that no matter what technique is taught, quite often this phrase pops in my head:

"You won't rise to the occasion....you'll default to the level of training." by Barrett Tillman

And I don't think he was stating in context to the level of training that you just learned that day. I believe that he meant the most comfortable level of judgment and skill that you can process and execute under dire circumstances.

People react very differently under true stress than manufactured environments.

Understanding exeptions to every rule: If I have the ability to fire my gun in defense without emminent danger of the assailant overtaking my firearm, I'm using my sights. If I can't gain sufficient distance from my assailant and I have that cold sweaty feeling my life is going to end if I don't immediately fire my gun to stop, then point shooting is in play.

Of all the supposed scenarios and techniques out there, I've learned that the fundamentals and sound judgment is what it all comes down to, not how fast I can whip out my gun and fire a shot.

[Bogie]

Guys, one thing is paramount for this to work.

Make sure your gun fits you ergonomically. That it points naturally for you. For instance, I can dump magazine after magazine into a pie plate at 7 yards, pretty much as fast as I can pull the trigger, from a 1911... It's just naturally -there- for me.

If I try to do that with a J-Frame Smith, I'm about 24-30" low...

Make sure the gun fits. Then start working on tightening the cone of fire. You -will- be amazed at what happens. Do not knock point shooting. And while "front sight" is fine, it's good to be able to skip that part if you absolutely have to.

[matthew temkin]

Excellent points, Bogie.

[Swampghost]

Nate45, like I said, it becomes natural. I've been doing it for over 50 yrs. My .44 SBH doesn't even have sights, I had them taken off back in the '70's for quickdraw competition. Heck, I can't even see the sights well enough to line them up today, rifles or pistols. I've NEVER used the bead on a shotgun but have enjoyed many a meal of Dove and Quail.

Learning your weapons is the key and the mind is the worlds best computer. Ergonomics for pistols helps a lot but the brain compensates. The grip on my SBH is really too small for my hand and it should fire to the left but over the years my brain has compensated. My S&W fit perfectly from the beginning and will always be my 'go to' weapon. Shotguns are pretty much a natural.

Just get out there and do it! Lots of rounds are required.

[nate45]

Well, I'm convinced, I'm going to abandon the Modern Technique, the Weaver stance, the flash sight picture and all the rest of it. All these years the teachings of Cooper, Taylor, Smith and the rest of them were wrong. They tried a system and it failed.

What we all need to do is go back to the pre WW2 techniques. I'm going to start carrying my SAA and practice drawing and shooting it from the hip. It is obviously much superior in terms of speed and accuracy, to a two handed hold, a flash sight picture and a 1911.

[Deaf Smith]

Whoa... Just get out there and do it! Lots of rounds are required.

I thougt it was 'natural'. Swamp, if it's that natural why so many rounds?

Think about this guys. Walk before you run. Learn the basics, that is sighted fire first. And then, once you are quite good with it, try other methods.

But don't tell me it's 'natural' yet takes lots of rounds to get good with it. Sighted fire takes rounds to, and since it's eye-hand coordination, it's 'natural' to.

[NormOps]

I have to agree with the statement in the first post: the best way to hit a target is by using your sights. Of course, at a certain distance sights become irrellevant. One merely looks where he wants to shoot, and shoots.
I forget the author, but I believe the name of one book I read on the subject was 'Bullseyes Don't Shoot Back'. It had to do with the Fairborn/Sykes method which, put simply, is 'raising the gun to eye level [whilst looking at your target] and firing'. this is natural; and very effective, whether one actually uses the sights or not, depending on the distance.
Basically, this is the method I use, but in a two hand configuration. The strong arm straight, without a bend in the elbow, creates a natural sight path on which one lines up the sights; or at short distances, simply the barrel axis on the target. The second hand/arm, with a bend in the elbow, provides the "back and forth" pressure between the fist of the strong hand, and the palm/fingers of the off hand. The main, and important function of this is repeated target acquisition; that is, keeping the alignment during multiple shots.

Eli W.

[Bogie]

Guys, it's not "do this -or- do that."

Why not do both?

Here's a concept - Next time you're at a range where you feel comfortable with the backstop, try drawing, point shooting as fast as you can -while- the gun is coming up, and for the second shot, go for the front sight... You might surprise yourself.

Don't get too hung up on one single style. Because you may get in a situation where a weaver stance just won't work - where you're having to shoot and move, maybe shooting one handed, etc...

[NormOps]

Indeed, there is more than one way to skin a cat, and what works well for one guy may not so well for another.
Personally, I am more comfortable with spending an extra split second to bring the gun up to eye level at anything further than three yards or so...

[nate45]

You know guys we went over this all before with Matthew. In this thread A case for point shooting (http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=305684&highlight=A+case+for+point+shooting), look at this post (http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2995678&postcount=80) I made and others, I'm well aware of almost every different way to use a defensive handgun. I'm not against other ways, but just read the OP, he quotes Cooper from a 1958 book, if thats even when he wrote it and seems to discount the next 30 years and make it seem like the father of the modern technique taught point shooting as the preferred method.

But up close pointer fire can be murderously effective, and it's mastery is often the difference between life and death

Up close lets define up close, I say its 3 yards and less. I agree that knowing how to make hits up close without sites might prove to be a valuable skill, but I also believe bringing the weapon up to eye level you will always be able to deliver more precise shots. Body hits anywhere on the torso won't get the job done, handguns are puny in power and well placed shots are going to take a determined adversary down, not random hits to the body.

[Swampghost]

Y'all can do what ever you want and listen to whoever you want. I'm just telling it like it is. Just a little input. It gets a little different when th VC start tripping your wires or a big hog busts through the brush. It's not fun and games anymore, it's life or death and you have to be ready for the outcome.

Almost 60 yrs. and guess who lost every time.

[nate45]

It gets a little different when th VC start tripping your wires or a big hog busts through the brush.

I'll take well aimed sighted fire in those situations over 'instinct' shooting any day. Lets go to the range and shoot at some 25 or 30 yard targets with our ARs, you use 'instinct' shooting and I'll use the aperture sight and see who gets faster, better kill zone hits.

[Bogie]

Guys, this is NOT a religion.

And it ain't sex either.

It's okay to try both ways.

I'm a precision shooting nut... I have always been a fan of aim small, miss small. HOWEVER, for a serious social encounter, which will likely happen at a fairly close distance, a split second spent trying to aim may be the difference between you, or your assailant, getting off the first round.

Get a gun that FITS you. Get one you don't have to think about. Then practice until it doesn't just fit, but it's a part of you. Browning knew what he was doing with the 1911.

I can hit bullseyes at 25 yards. I can also buckshot-pattern paper plates at 7 yards.

Those are BOTH useful, survival, skills.

DO NOT DISCOUNT EITHER, and do not exclusively practice one method over the others.

It's about probabilities.

Aiming increases the probability that you will hit.

Practice spent point shooting with a gun that fits will also increase the probability that you will hit.

Also, a side effect of the point shooting practice will be that you'll benefit from an instinctive "retargeting" even when using sights. Been there, noticed that folks...

Combine the disciplines.

Be one with the gun.

[Rob Pincus]

Excellent Post, Bogie.

Nate, many of your points above are well made as well.

D.A., Keep fighting the fight.... (PM me if you want a powerpoint slide I use in Instructor Courses to define the difference between gaming and fighting).


FWIW: This podcast (http://www.switchpod.com/f45936.html?puser=none) contains my thoughts on the "debate" about sighted/unsighted shooting.


****

[Swampghost]

I know where this is going and the mods will probably shut the topic down or maybe just shut me down. Either one is acceptable to me.

Use your sights if you need them. Most are difficult to see in the dark. My S&W go to is in a holster and in a place without light, has been in the same place for years. Does anybody think that those Tritium (sp?) sights are going to hold up for 25+ yrs.? I'm certainly not going to depend on them.

[Nnobby45]

Dec. 08 issue Combat Handguns: A Jeff Cooper Retrospective. Page 98

In order to avoid plagerism, I've paraphrased as best I can.:D

Jeff Cooper points out that unsighted fire is a very high art, and is learned, rather than instinctive. While one can instinctively remove his hand from a hot stove, one cannot instinctively shoot, since it's a programmed response.

It should not be encouraged except in people who are prepared to devote a great deal of time and ammo to it. Jeff said they used to practive it a lot, but stopped when they started teaching. :cool:

[BillCA]

"You won't rise to the occasion....you'll default to the level of training." by Barrett Tillman
Sadly, so very true.
And if your training is deficient, you may die. Four California Highway Patrolmen learned this lesson too late in 1970.

"The gunfight you get into will not be the gunfight you trained for." -- Clint Smith
In the 80's, the Santa Clara Sheriff's department trained officers only in modern tactics with two-hand holds at eye level, arms extended. A deputy checking a house on a prowler call found his right forearm suddenly broken by a pipe wrench when the prowler turned out to be real. Fortunately the officer retreated and drew a backup gun to defeat the prowler who was now armed with the deputy's revolver. Today, they teach several different holds for different purposes.

Fact: Your attacker controls the time and place of the encounter. He also controls the direction of the attack and its speed. Mr. Murphy dictates that he will attack when it's least opportune for you - a bag of groceries in one hand and car keys in the other.

Close range: I prefer 6 yards (or less), since that's about the length of my pick-up from front to rear

Close range encounters are likely to initially start out as frantic furballs and degenerate from there.

Yeah, IF I have time, I prefer to use the sights. In reality, if he's close enough to threaten me without others hearing him, he's close enough to get lucky. My best chance is to do unto him first, fastest and with the most I can muster.

[Hondo11]

.......

[bds32]

Good discussion.

It's interesting how alot of officers involved in close quarter pistol fights will say they never saw their sights. I know one personally and he trains all the time to use his sights, many times a year. Is sighted fire best? I think it is. But, I also believe that even after many thousands of rounds of using my sights on the range, in a gunfight at distances under 10 yards, I'm not very likely to use the sights. This has been confirmed on many occassions using Simunitions in Force on Force training. This is not a conscious choice on my part because I would prefer to use my sights, I just don't. For those of you who don't think you would ever point shoot in a gunfight, get a buddy with a paintball gun with projectiles moving at about 300 FPS, then simulate a gunfight at about ten yards. This will give you a better idea what you'd do. It could go either way.

This seems to be the one exception to "you fight like you train" for some individuals. For some, the brain just won't let you take the eyes off of an immediate lethal threat. I envy those individuals who can stay on the sights in such a deadly situation.

[matthew temkin]

Nate 45--you may define up close as 0-3 yards, but Cooper defines it as 30 feet.
Which is 10 yards.
And ten yards--heck, even 3 yards--will encompass 90% of armed encounters involving both law enforcement and armed citizens.
So, why not embrace "pointer fire" along with methods for the occasional long shot?
Unless, of course, it is no longer "murderously effective" and easy to learn.

[nate45]

...."It's an axiom that hitting your target is your main concern, and the best way to hit is to use your sights, but circumstances do arise in which the need for speed is so great, and the range so short, that you must hit by pointing alone, without seeing your gun at all.
...Pointer fire is not as hard to learn as sighting, once you realize it's range limitations. using the 1911 auto-pistol I have found that I can teach the avjerage infantryman to stay on a silhouette at 10 yards--using pointer fire in two shot bursts--more easily that I can get him into that 25 yard bullseye using slow fire and sights.
Of course this sort of shooting is strictly a way of obtaining body hits at essentially indoor ranges ( 30 feet and under)..
..But up close pointer fire can be murderously effective, and it's mastery is often the difference between life and death."( pg 97-98)

He never calls 10 yards 'up close' in the text you provide.

Remember he said all that at least 50 years ago and the sights on the issue 1911 were pretty bad. Notice he never says it is superior to sighted fire and he says it was just away of obtaining body hits at 30 feet and under.

You may think that firing a two shot burst and obtaining a hit 'somewhere' on the body is great, but I think it is mediocre at best.

[David Armstrong]

Well, I'm convinced, I'm going to abandon the Modern Technique, the Weaver stance, the flash sight picture and all the rest of it. All these years the teachings of Cooper, Taylor, Smith and the rest of them were wrong. They tried a system and it failed.
Strange, nobody has said that anywhere, or even suggested it AFAIK, so why you would be convinced to do that seems rather strange.

[matthew temkin]

Actually he says that it is "murderously effective" out to 30 feet and can be trained in a fraction of the time that it would take to make even a fair target shot.
Which is exactly what Fairbairn discovered in post WW1 Shangahi.
And since most gunfights happen within 10 feet ( as Chuck Taylor mentions in the current issue of CH) the question is why not master pointer fire along with longer range skills?
And no--I do not consider a two round burst anywhere in the body good enough.
I consider shooting the SOB to the ground while rapidly closing in with rapid fire multiple hits to be the objective when the range is close and cover is not an option.

[David Armstrong]

I thougt it was 'natural'. Swamp, if it's that natural why so many rounds?
Much of that depends on what level you want to use. To engage a man-sized target at 10 feet doesn't take many rounds. To engage a popcan tossed on the ground 10 feet away takes more development.
Walk before you run. Learn the basics, that is sighted fire first.
Those are the basics if you want to be a competition shooter. If you just want to survive a shootout, target-focus seems the proper basics. easier and faster to learn to achieve the desired goal.

[David Armstrong]

For some, the brain just won't let you take the eyes off of an immediate lethal threat.
Thta is the real issue, IMO. The more we learn about stress, reactions, and the body the more we realize that that training needs to utilize natural responses rather than go against them for the typical person. Yes, if you train a whole lot you might reduce the level of response, or you might delay it, but it will come and it will come fast for most. Might as well deal with that issue first, then move on to the less likely.

[matthew temkin]

Dave..pretty soon we will be debating what Cooper meant by "murderously effective"
Strange how so many are angry that I began this thread.
To me knowledge is power and the past should be known.

[nate45]

Actually he says that it is "murderously effective" out to 30 feet and can be trained in a fraction of the time that it would take to make even a fair target shot.

Not in the text you provided.

[David Armstrong]

Strange how so many are angry that I began this thread.
To me knowledge is power and the past should be known.
Equally strange, IMO, is the number who consistently (and intentionally in some cases, IMO) twist and distort the position of the target focus camp to try to make it something nobody on that side has said.

[Bogie]

Guys, time spent aiming can be time spent ensuring a hit, or it can be time spent letting the other guy wing a lucky one at you.

I'll take administering a fast random torso shot before the bad guy can manage one himself any day.

Face it - it is NOT that hard to hit a 12x18 target without a lot of conscious thought at under 10 yards.

And if I remember correctly, a few years back, the average "gunfight" was something like 1.1 rounds fired... Which means that there were a LOT of cases where one guy managed to shoot first.

I suspect that it is rather distracting to the bad guy when he finds himself with a sucking chest wound.

This is NOT a method that can be used to shoot tiny little groups. What it is is a method that is used to sling a lot of lead into a specific general area, in hopes that you'll get there firstest with the mostest.

But you're not going to like it if you try it with a gun that doesn't point naturally to you.

TRY IT. It won't hurt. And it can be beneficial.

BTW, I also shoot Weaver, etc., etc... Whatever works. I try to be flexible.

And, FWIW, the Weaver stance, and most of what some folks seem to think is the perfect tradition, was really looked down upon when it was introduced... A man was supposed to hold the pistol out at arm's length, and sight along his arm...

[Deaf Smith]

I consider shooting the SOB to the ground while rapidly closing in with rapid fire multiple hits to be the objective when the range is close and cover is not an option.

Matt,

Not everone will have a 17 shooter and only one opponent.

You know, even Cirillo did have a 'silhouette point' method he developed as an alternative. You ended up having to sort of 'see' the back of the slide to get the index.

But even then, he said alternative, not as the only way to do the same thing at the same range.

Then again, hasn't D.R. Middlebrooks won a lot of competitive events with point shooting?


Not at first Matt. What he did was become so good he could index and not rely so much on the sights. Everything became a sort of type 1 focus for him.

Practice for a time and you can do that, which is one of the things Cooper's presentation was to develope. The abilty for an automatic index. The 'flash sight picture' was to verify that alighment.


Those are the basics if you want to be a competition shooter. If you just want to survive a shootout, target-focus seems the proper basics. easier and faster to learn to achieve the desired goal.

What david? You get this from some dictionary you pulled of the air? Basics not part of suvival of a shootout? Tell that to the military.Tell that to the police. Tell that to.. oh, to your dictionary.

[David Armstrong]

What david? You get this from some dictionary you pulled of the air? Basics not part of suvival of a shootout?
Huh?? Deaf, in a long history of posts that are absolutely un-related to what is being discussed or what was said, that has to be at the top. I haven't the faintest idea what "basics not part of suvival of a shootout" is supposed to mean, much less what is in reference to.

[Bogie]

I think it's more important to focus on your target (and see what they're about to do) than to focus on your sights... You can bring the sights to the target, but you cannot bring the target to the sights.

[Deaf Smith]

No doubt you don't david. No doubt at all.

[David Armstrong]

OK, you apparently can't explain it even when you wrote it. That's cool.

[Bogie]

I think that someone needs some range time.

BOTH of y'all.

One of you needs to hang some targets out at 25 yards, and work on your bullseye accuracy skills, and the other needs to stick some pie plates up at 7 yards, and work on your "broad side of a bad guy" skills.

Okay?

Can we agree to that?

Do NOT make me let the whoopass fairy out of her cage.

[andrewskaggs]

Do NOT make me let the whoopass fairy out of her cage.

You owe me a new keyboard. I spewed coke on this one.

[David Armstrong]

One of you needs to hang some targets out at 25 yards, and work on your bullseye accuracy skills, and the other needs to stick some pie plates up at 7 yards, and work on your "broad side of a bad guy" skills.
Well, given that deaf says he works on point shooting regularly, and I regularly practice at the 25 yard line, I don't think you've got it quite right!;)

[Deaf Smith]

One of you needs to hang some targets out at 25 yards, and work on your bullseye accuracy skills, and the other needs to stick some pie plates up at 7 yards, and work on your "broad side of a bad guy" skills.

Bogie,

I'll just say I've got IDPA (current) expert or above in all classifications. When in IPSC I made class 'A' using a P-35 back when we had man .vs. man matches like the Flying "M". I've competed in NRA silhouette, IHMSA silhouette, three gun matches. Been to at least a dozen schools of shooting and FOF. And yea, I do practice point shooting often.

So I might know a bit about shooting, long range or short, slow or fast.

I won't even get into where I'm at in the martial arts....

[Shane Tuttle]

I won't even get into where I'm at in the martial arts....

That's a relief. For a minute there I thought I acidentally typed in monster.com and was reading someone's resume for a mall ninja trainee position.:)

Nice to have the training. But, it doesn't mean jack-squat if you can't follow through using it in real life.

And that's a major point of my posts. It's good to have various training. But unless one has had several different real life defensive situations to truly see if one can follow through, it's all theory on what works best for that specific person.

[Deaf Smith]

It's good to have various training. But unless one has had several different real life defensive situations to truly see if one can follow through, it's all theory on what works best for that specific person.

Tuttle8,

Do you know how many 'real life defensive situations' Rex Applegate was in? Especially before and during the time he formulated his theories?

You know how many times Jim Cirillo was in 'real life defensive situations' before he was a firearms trainer for the NYPD?

Oh, and I have been through two. No I haven't shot anyone but one burgler (at gunpoint) and one purse snatcher. Nothing big, didn't beat up anyone, but I've been in a few.

And were did I mention 'specific persons'?

[Shane Tuttle]

And were did I mention 'specific persons'?

I didn't say you did. I did.

Just because Cirillo, Applegate, and others that you mentioned were apparently able to perfectly execute their skills in a real life combat situation doesn't necessarily mean others will do the same.

All the "fun and games" of shooting different targets at different angles and stances does NOT prove that you WILL fire that gun the most prudent method when your life is about to end.

I honestly don't care who you list as "experts" including yourself. Thrust an average joe like myself and the general population and everybody will act differently....very differently.

Oh, and I have been through two. No I haven't shot anyone but one burgler (at gunpoint) and one purse snatcher. Nothing big, didn't beat up anyone, but I've been in a few.

So, have you or haven't you been through a defensive situation? You claim that you have, then you haven't. You claim that you haven't shot anyone, but then you did...twice.

If you haven't had to pull that trigger to stop an assailant, then you haven't had the dubious honor of proving the theories of your training to yourself.

I won't even get into where I'm at in the martial arts....

I must pry....You must be Matt Hamill. If so, I want your autograph.

[pax]

Three pages seems to be about the extreme outer limit for most pointshooting threads. Mostly not even that long. Dunno why, but there it is.

When we get out the rulers and start measuring the size of everyone's members, it's probably time to do something else for awhile.

Closed.

pax