PDA

View Full Version : For those who think sighted fire won't work at close range


Deaf Smith
March 16, 2009, 07:18 PM
From John Farnam.

http://www.defense-training.com/quips/10Mar09.html

10 Mar 09

A student emerges victorious from a dangerous confrontation:

"Back in 2000, you provided handgun training to a large class, including me. I had been a target competitor for many years, but your class changed my paradigm to serious, tactical application, rather than casual recreation. Two things stuck with me most: (1) Spin your OODA Loop quickly, and (2) when a fight is unavoidable, be stitching and moving!

Thank you! That philosophical shift saved my life this last February!

Late on a weekday afternoon last month, two home-invasion suspects kicked in the front door of my home, as I sat watching television. I was alone in the house at the time. There was no warning, nor did I have any reason to suspect such a thing would happen to me that day, or any day. I remember being astonished as I saw the bottom of a foot still raised as my door lurched open, amid a shower of splinters!

The door-kicker, and an accomplice, burst in, and, seeing me, rushed toward me. I was wearing my G38 (45GAP) in a Comp-Tac holster. It was loaded with WW 230gr Ranger ammunition. I sprung to my feet and drew my pistol simultaneously. At a distance of less than eight feet, I found my front sight and began firing at the closest suspect, while I was still in motion.

As it turns out, I fired seven shots. All seven struck the first suspect (the door-kicker). His accomplice was behind him and immediately fled, unharmed as far as I know. In fact, he fled in such haste that he abandoned his getaway car, leaving the engine running! Police subsequently found much stolen property in the car.

The suspect I shot stumbled backward and fell in the doorway, never moving after he went down. I scanned, reloaded, took cover behind a corner, and checked myself over. When police arrived, they found the suspect I had shot, DRT. The second suspect has not been arrested as far as I know. I was unhurt.

Of the seven hits on the first suspect, one in the neck and one in the chest proved fatal. I was told that either of those two shots would probably have been fatal by itself. Being cold at the time, both suspects were wearing heavy clothing, and multiple layers of clothing frustrated expansion, and penetration, of the other five. They may have been effective, but I'll never know.

Here is what others among your students can learn from my experience:

(1) When at home, stay armed! If my gun had been locked in a safe, or even in a drawer and unloaded, I never could have reacted effectively in time. Be armed all the time, no matter where you are!

(2) Multiple shots from your pistol will probably be necessary to stop any fight decisively, no matter what caliber or brand of ammunition you're using. As a category, pistols are poor fight-stoppers. Accordingly, pistols that hold lots of ammunition, and that can be reloaded quickly, represent a real advantage!

(3) Be prepared to react instantly! Sometimes, there are warning signs. Sometimes, there are none! In order to live through your next lethal encounter, you'll have to be able to spin your OODA Loop fast.

(4) Finish the fight! Don't relax too soon. Scan, reload, get distance, get cover. Be prepared for anything!

(5) Whatever you do, it won't be perfect! Don't worry about being perfect. Just act decisively, without hesitation. Do what has to be done, with grace and enthusiasm. Don't look back, and don't worry about what might have been!"

Comment: I'll add:

(5) Use ammunition that penetrates adequately! Your bullets may have to plow through many layers of clothing before ever reaching flesh, as was the case here. There are many fine, high-performance rounds available, but Cor-Bon DPX tops the list, because it penetrates and expands, without fail! It's what I carry.

My student is a real hero. He dared, and he won.

Victory!

/John

The Great Mahoo
March 16, 2009, 08:46 PM
Wow, simply amazing.

Good to see things worked out for our friend here. Not as good as not happening at all, of course, but a lot better than it could have.

+1 to the good guys.

G-man 26
March 16, 2009, 09:15 PM
"(1) When at home, stay armed! If my gun had been locked in a safe, or even in a drawer and unloaded, I never could have reacted effectively in time. Be armed all the time, no matter where you are!"

AMEN! AMEN! AMEN! It keeps the kids away from the loaded firearm as well.

"What are you afraid of that you carry a gun every where?"

"I'm not afraid. I have a gun!"

David Armstrong
March 16, 2009, 09:59 PM
I'm a bit confused. Who are these people who think sighted fire won't work at close range? AFAIK, most everyone supporting target-focused shooting always says to use the sights whenever you can, close or far, and use target focus when you can't use the sights.

onthejon55
March 17, 2009, 12:32 AM
Great story. Rele shows the need to carry around the house.

I'm a bit confused.

Wouldn't be the first time:eek:

Wildalaska
March 17, 2009, 12:41 AM
Be armed all the time, no matter where you are!

Heeeeeeeeeeeeere we go again....

WildbunsofpolymerAlaska TM

matthew temkin
March 17, 2009, 06:14 AM
Thank you, Dave, for stating the obvious.

Mr. Davis
March 17, 2009, 10:24 AM
Heeeeeeeeeeeeere we go again....

WildbunsofpolymerAlaska TM

Still tightly clenched? Good.

Brian Pfleuger
March 17, 2009, 10:28 AM
Those boys picked the wrong house, didn't they.:eek::)

David Armstrong
March 17, 2009, 10:31 AM
Wouldn't be the first time
True. People frequently make claims and statements that either don't agree with the facts, or try to establish problems that don't exist or similar silliness. That always confuses me.

Keltyke
March 17, 2009, 12:06 PM
I'm a bit confused. Who are these people who think sighted fire won't work at close range?

+1 on that.

I've never heaard anyone in TFL say sighted fire won't work at close range. What HAS been said is you may not HAVE TIME for sighted fire and you should practice "point and shoot", too.

A BG can cover 20 feet in less than two seconds. Draw, sight and fire in that time? Try it.

LeopardCurDog
March 17, 2009, 12:09 PM
different trainers are tripping over each other trying to get credit for having trained this guy to carry at home, gotx, shootem to the ground, etc. pretty comical to read some of what they write.

NRAhab
March 17, 2009, 01:44 PM
A BG can cover 20 feet in less than two seconds. Draw, sight and fire in that time? Try it.

Actually, it's not that hard. There is a training technique called the "progressive draw drill (http://gunnuts.net/2009/02/05/progressive-draw-drill/)" which is a great way to increase your draw-to-shot time. While I'm by no means a top level competitive shooter, I can draw, get the front sight, and have a my first round downrange in a little under a second using a Serpa holster, and a little faster when I use a holster without the Serpa lock. Sighted fire at short ranges in small amounts of time is simply a matter of training and practice, as was aptly demonstrated by the referenced story from Mr. Farnam's student.

Wildalaska
March 17, 2009, 02:09 PM
Those boys picked the wrong house, didn't they.

Asssuming it even happened:p

WildbutheywhateverAlaska ™

Mr. Davis
March 17, 2009, 02:11 PM
Good point, WildAlaska. Is there other information out there corroborating this story?

Dingoboyx
March 17, 2009, 02:28 PM
Great for the GG to win. Which news chanel can I check out the full story on? I'm interested to see if the GG, the shooter has ant problems, I read a post earlier on when its ok to shoot (and what trouble (legal) you might get into? :)

Or is it just an advert for a tactical training school? ;)

Stevie-Ray
March 17, 2009, 02:50 PM
(1) When at home, stay armed! I concur. Maybe you should have titled the thread: For those that think being armed at home is paranoia.

Wildalaska
March 17, 2009, 02:54 PM
Maybe you should have titled the thread: For those that think being armed at home is paranoia.

:D

So I, as a seller of head mounted lightning rods, should post a story about a man who survived a strike 'cuz he was wearing one, with the title being:

For Those Who Think Wearing a Lightning Rod on their Head is Paranoid?
:p
WildiknewitweareoffandrunninghereAlaska ™

Stevie-Ray
March 17, 2009, 03:01 PM
WildiknewitweareoffandrunninghereAlaskaYeah, you get a gold star.:rolleyes:

NRAhab
March 17, 2009, 03:29 PM
Well, there were really two options for this thread, which were either "carry at home all the time" or "aimed-fired vs. point-shooting". I'd have preferred the latter, but that's only because the aimed-vs-point shooting debate roflols my copters.

Double Naught Spy
March 17, 2009, 04:23 PM
A BG can cover 20 feet in less than two seconds. Draw, sight and fire in that time? Try it.

Yeah, but he has to know where he is going, first. A guy kicking in your door that doesn't know the layout of your home and furniture is going to be slowed down quite a bit by his attempts at identifying what is in the room in order to navigate, identifying threats, and deciding on a course of action.

Actually, it's not that hard. There is a training technique called the "progressive draw drill" which is a great way to increase your draw-to-shot time. While I'm by no means a top level competitive shooter, I can draw, get the front sight, and have a my first round downrange in a little under a second using a Serpa holster, and a little faster when I use a holster without the Serpa lock. Sighted fire at short ranges in small amounts of time is simply a matter of training and practice, as was aptly demonstrated by the referenced story from Mr. Farnam's student.

Uh huh. Draw and with sighted fire hit a target at what distance in under a second? That is a full half second faster than what Farnum considers to be a good draw time...

A good draw time for this is in the 1.5 second range, ...

Of course, that is being ready to fire and knowing what your target is and having made the decision to fire before the drill ever starts. Things don't usually work that way in real life, when you are sitting in your living room, watching TV.

Let's see, for the average human adult, it takes 0.20 seconds for the brain to process the stimulus indicated the "go" signal and for the signal to be sent for the hand to start moving. So in less than 0.80 seconds, you are able complete all the movements required for drawing, sighting, and firing your gun? That is extremely impressive, especially for a person that isn't a top level shooter. The only folks I ever see doing that, that ever hit anything, are the ones with the fancy race holsters.

Contrary to Mr. Farnum, just because you blow the draw does not mean that you should end up blowing the string.

Tom Givens
March 17, 2009, 06:03 PM
Lilburn, Georgia

From WTVM of February 27, 2009
Lilburn homeowner shoots, kills intruder at door

The Gwinnett County police say a homeowner shot and killed 1 of the intruders when two men kicked in his front door.

The incident happened shortly after 5 p.m. Friday when the men knocked at the door and when no one answered, kicked it in.

Police spokeswoman Illana Spellman said the resident fired, striking and killing one in the doorway. She said the second man ran away and police using search dogs were unable to find the man.

No charges have been filed in the incident

NRAhab
March 17, 2009, 06:44 PM
DNS, I never said that it was easy, just that it takes training and practice. My fasted draw and shot combo in practice was 0.98, but as these things often go, no one was there to see it - just me and my CED7000. In dry fire practice, I did one once in about 0.6 seconds, but that's just dry fire.

The point though is that while difficult, speed is often just a factor of training. If the average guy with a little practice can draw from an unconcealed holster in 1.5 seconds, then with even more practice all they're going to do is get faster.

Double Naught Spy
March 17, 2009, 07:07 PM
I never said it was easy either. However, what YOU said was...

Actually, it's not that hard.

Not that hard sounds like it is either easy or middle of the road difficult, but certainly "not that hard".

The point though is that while difficult, speed is often just a factor of training.

So now we go from "not that hard" to being "difficult."

Got it. I am starting to understand the backpeddling. It isn't that you can do it, but you have done it in the past. Got it.

We are all very good when we dry fire.

Deaf Smith
March 17, 2009, 07:11 PM
http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/gwinnett/stories/2009/02/27/lilburn_homeowner_shoots.html?imw=Y

http://www.learnaboutguns.com/2009/03/02/lilburn-ga-homeowner-shoots-home-invader-in-self-defense/

I just wish they hadn't published the street number (but then, who want's to mess with him anyway, right?)

There are many things to learn from this incident.

1) A gun in the hand beats 10 in the bedroom.

2) Even are extreme close range, if you keep your wits you can use your sights (100 percent hit rate ain't bad.) And even if you can't see them, bring the weapon up to the same place AS IF YOU CAN SEE THEM will work well at such close range.

3) Do something the BG does not expect (and a hail of gunfire is something they don't expect.)

4) Notice he scanned, reloaded, and took cover AFTER the BG was DRT. That was training, not just plinking on the range.

5) Note he fired 7 rounds. His Glock 38 holds, fully loaded, 9. He almost emptied it. What would have happend if the other BG still tried to take him? The old saying, "it's better to have and not need...." comes in here. Remember it.

6) Notice most of the JHPs didn't expand. Don't count on the 'magic bullet'. Count on shot placement (and pray the bullet does expand, as advertized.)

7) Improvise! Adapt! Overcome! But don't just sit there dumbfounded.

NRAhab
March 17, 2009, 07:46 PM
We are all very good when we dry fire.

Fair enough, I did backpedal from the difficulty level. I suppose I should have said "it's not easy, but it's not super hard either, and if you practice enough most people are capable of doing it and repeating it."

It can be done with practice and repetition. Your mileage will vary with training and practice of course, and not everyone will get under that 1 second mark, because not all people are physically equal.

Skyguy
March 18, 2009, 11:58 AM
Something 'very' fishy in this story.

He says he was surprised, yet the newspaper account says "the homeowner had his gun out and was ready for them". Maybe he even knew that he was being hunted.
I've been around too many shootings/killings in my Chicago days to just buy right into the perp's account. Especially if the only witness is dead.

Anyway, he fired at 'less' than 8 ft. Therefore, by 'finding his sight' he needed his arm extended by 2 ft. That's 5 ft to target!

He claims that he used his 'sights' at 5 ft from the intruder? C'mon, that's total bullcrap!
He instinctively pointed metal at meat and fired away.
.

curt.45
March 18, 2009, 01:42 PM
could someone please tell me what the heck "Spin your OODA Loop" means?


thankyou.

BuckHammer
March 18, 2009, 04:50 PM
When people are using two seconds as a benchmark in this scenario for whether or not a person will be able to use his sights, I gotta wonder. How long does it take the bad guy to finish kicking down a door, assess you as a threat, start making his way towards you, and finally reach you? Two seconds seems a bit fast to me... Unless I misinterpreted that debate as about that particular instance, in which case, forget what I said.

Also, did the guy retreat or try to? How can we be sure that the BG wasn't just trying to get to the TV the guy was watching :rolleyes:? (That last part was sarcastic, in case I didn't lay it on thick enough)

Deaf Smith
March 18, 2009, 08:42 PM
could someone please tell me what the heck "Spin your OODA Loop" means?

Curt,

OODA means Observe, Orient, Decide and Act.

Col. John Boyd, USAF, coined the term.

http://oodacycle.com/OODA.aspx

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OODA_Loop

and about a billion other hits if you use Google for 'OODA'.

It's not really a new concept, but Boyd went so much deeper than anyone else to understand and codify it. If you read his bio you will end up with great respect for him.

Swampghost
March 18, 2009, 08:53 PM
Dad always called it 'instinct shooting'. It's something that I was taught from a small child. First with bows and later with firearms, it's something that I still practice today. Simply, it's being able to hit a point that you are looking at.

Inside of a house, with anything that I own you will be DRT.

bds32
March 19, 2009, 09:29 AM
A couple of observations:

If the news story is the same as the student's story, this doesn't appear to have been a "home invasion" robbery. According to the news story, the suspects knocked on the door and after receiving no answer kicked it in. This is a very common "method of operation" for residential burglars who have no desire to find someone inside. That is why I believe you should always immediately check to see who is knocking at your door.

Neither the shooter's depiction or the news account mention anything about a weapon in the suspect's hands. The news story says he shot one at the door. But, according to him, they rushed at him. Either way, he is probably justified. But, in keeping in line with the post topic, I say all of that to say that I believe it is a lot easier to "keep your wits" and find your front sight when no one is pointing a gun at you or worse, actually shooting at you. In instances of the latter, the front sight might not be so easily attainable.

Double Naught Spy
March 19, 2009, 09:41 AM
Anyway, he fired at 'less' than 8 ft. Therefore, by 'finding his sight' he needed his arm extended by 2 ft. That's 5 ft to target!

He claims that he used his 'sights' at 5 ft from the intruder? C'mon, that's total bullcrap!
He instinctively pointed metal at meat and fired away.


<8-2 = <6 feet, unless you assume that less than 8 feet means 7 feet and then the answer is 5. :D

And he certainly may have used his sights. I don't doubt it. Now, the question is, how did he use them? Did he just index off the sights without actually aligning them properly in the traditional sense? That would still be using them. Or, did he just use the front sight and pull the trigger, which can work if a target is that close. The shot will be higher than the front sight, but at 5-6 feet, the misalignment of looking over the rear sight to the front sight isn't dramatic. If he aimed COM, it would be terrific.

curt.45
March 19, 2009, 02:47 PM
thanks Deaf Smith for answering me and belittling me in one post. :D


many acronyms used here don't google well.

Deaf Smith
March 19, 2009, 07:44 PM
Sorry Curt.

OODA is one of the things I teach in CHL classes. Though not anywhere near the depth Boyd did.

Deaf Smith
March 19, 2009, 07:55 PM
Skyguy,

Now to call someone who is not even here to defend himself a liar, especially after he offed a BG at very close range, is well, beneath you.

Let's get something strait. There are plenty of examples of pilots having do do all kinds of cockpit intensive things, real fast, as they are about to crash/collide with other aircraft/get shot down/etc.... and they had to concentrate quite a bit and focus on what needed to be done.

There is also the likes of Jim Cirillo, who in one of his shootouts, when HE was suprised by the BGs at the door, did write how he saw his sights while shooting.

If all you do is train to point shoot, I have no doubt you won't use the sights. In fact, Paul Howe and Clint Smith feel, if you learn one way, don't be surprised if you use that way when the chips are down (but they are actually talking about sighted fire.)

Oh, and another thing, the guy who did this (the one I posted here at the first of the thread) apparently is a graduate of at least two schools. Farnam and Gabe Suarez. Do some research and you will find what he trained to do. He was no newbie with few skills.

Skyguy
March 19, 2009, 11:25 PM
Now to call someone who is not even here to defend himself a liar, especially after he offed a BG at very close range, is well, beneath you.

Ouch! Reread my post. I don't use the word 'liar'.

The homeowner says he was surprised, yet the newspaper account says "the homeowner had his gun out and was ready for them".
Somebody's not telling the truth.

There is also the likes of Jim Cirillo, who in one of his shootouts, when HE was suprised by the BGs at the door, did write how he saw his sights while shooting.

Back in the day when I was with the Cook County gang unit, Jimmy Cirillo and I compared notes more than a few times. He was fascinated with viet nam and my combat experiences with the 173rd.

Jimmy said a lot of things. And of course he used sights, but he also believed strongly in his method of close up shooting. He called it silhouette sighting; put the shape of the gun on the target and shoot.

Later in his life he became a 'very' strong believer in using CT lasergrips.

As an aside to all this, we had a 73 year old lady out here, with only basic revolver skills drop a home invader with 2 to the chest.
She hadn't shot a gun in over 40 years.
.

scorpion_tyr
March 19, 2009, 11:42 PM
From what I get from the student's story and the news story is that the BG's knocked, but he didn't hear them for some reason. After he didn't answer they kicked the door in.

Here's what I don't get... if he killed one BG and the other was never caught... and he didn't hear them knocking... how does the reporter know they knocked?

The second news link seems to say that he did hear them knocking and that's why he got his gun, and that is opposite of what the student's account was. Hmmm.... something fishy indeed...

Great stroy though. Since it seems something did happen and a BG caught a few in the chest and the innocent victim survived without a scratch, I'm very happy. The first BG probably never even knew saw it coming. I'm suprised they didn't find the second one. Did they try following the urine trail?

My theory is that the reporter was the other BG.

Deaf Smith
March 20, 2009, 06:21 PM
Skyguy,

A question. Since when are newspapers 100 percent accurate. Especially when it relates to anything about guns and violence?

Think about that.

Does one believe a newspaper written by who knows, or the actual man who was there?

Skyguy
March 20, 2009, 07:21 PM
A question. Since when are newspapers 100 percent accurate.

Newspapers get a lot of things wrong....for sure.

But in my experience, reporters get their information about home invasions and killings from the police dept...and the detailed reports made by the investigating detectives and officers.
.

David Armstrong
March 20, 2009, 11:24 PM
But in my experience, reporters get their information about home invasions and killings from the police dept...and the detailed reports made by the investigating detectives and officers.
Yep. Some folks seem to think that newspapers never get stuff right, but when it comes to crime reporting they are usually pretty good about accurately relaying the information from the police. And I'll bet the police interviewed the shooter to a much greater degree than the little snippet John posted.

matthew temkin
March 21, 2009, 06:40 AM
The premise of this thread is by someone who for years has been bashing something that he himself does not fully understand.
As someone who has been researching and teaching point shooting for decades
let me state that:

1) Point shooting is very accurate.

2) Point shooting can be learned in a matter of minutes and then refined for as long as the shooter cares to.

3) Once learned point shooting requires very little practice to maintain.

After saying all that let me add that point shooting is not a REPLACEMENT of aimed fire but a COMPLIMENT to it.

I know of no one who states that aimed or semi aimed fire will not work at close range.
But I know dozens who do claim that point/threat focused skills are a valuable addition to one's skill set for the times that aimed fire is not possible.
So, once again, I fail to see the relevance of this thread.

Skyguy
March 21, 2009, 09:44 AM
So, once again, I fail to see the relevance of this thread.
To me, the relevance of this thread is that there are lessons to be learned....for all.

There are newcomers joining this forum continually. And then there are old dogs who hesitate to learn new tricks. Those folks don't necessarily know what others know and it's our responsibility to share our knowledge.

This forum is filled with learning and teaching opportunities; to ask, to tell and to share. For example: there are those who still believe that stand and deliver and sights only and/or fastest first-shot wins. Silly, I know.
But here, folks learn that movement off the x, instinctive shooting and shot placement are more important to survival in a deadly encounter.

It's threads like this one that pique peoples interest in point shooting, laser sighted shooting, low light shooting, cover, concealment and on and on.

To those who already know these things it's old news. To a newbie or an old dog, it's a wealth of information and discussion. All for free.
.

Deaf Smith
March 21, 2009, 06:43 PM
I know of no one who states that aimed or semi aimed fire will not work at close range.

After saying all that let me add that point shooting is not a REPLACEMENT of aimed fire but a COMPLIMENT to it.

Ok Matt, since you want to turn this into a point shooting thread (and I started this thread just to demonstate sighted fire can work at all but retention range... and as for point shooting, just today, teaching an armored car guard how to shoot, I did a bunch of hip shooting with a Glock 26. So it's not like I hate it or anything.)

Let me ask you this. Sighted fire can work at close range, sighted fire can work at long range, and it defiantly can be used for precision, long or short range, right?

But can point shooting be used for precision at long range?

Just curious Matt.

Oh and david, just how many times have reporters talked about 'automatic revolvers' and '90mm pistols' and, oh wait... 'Assault rifles'! And tell me, if you have ever talked to Massad Ayoob about cops who write down just the jest of what happened and not every fact the victim/suspect said? You do know cops do that alot, right?

I think I believe the guy who told Gabe and Farnam what happened long before I'd believe what a newspaper man got second hand.

David Armstrong
March 21, 2009, 07:19 PM
(and I started this thread just to demonstate sighted fire can work at all but retention range...
Why would you start a thread based on an invalid assumption? I'm still waiting for somebody to identify who these people are that think sighted fire won't work at close range. I've been in this business for a long time and I've never heard anybody suggest that.
Oh and david, just how many times have reporters talked about 'automatic revolvers' and '90mm pistols' and, oh wait... 'Assault rifles'!
Well, given that the term "assault rifles" is one that is misused regularly by those in the shooting fraternity, I'm not sure that is a reporters issue. And yes, reporters can and do make mistakes in terminology. All of which has NOTHING to do with what was being discussed, which was "..reporters get their information about home invasions and killings from the police dept...and the detailed reports made by the investigating detectives and officers."
And tell me, if you have ever talked to Massad Ayoob about cops who write down just the jest of what happened and not every fact the victim/suspect said? You do know cops do that alot, right?
I realize you have absolutely no field experience and little to no knowledge about how police work in things like this, but you are confusing some very different concepts. If you take down a victim statement, or you interview a person at a crime scene for information regarding a shooting, you are not going to write down the gist (not jest) of what happened. You are generally going to have a word for word statement from the victim, often written by the victim, and you are going to have detailed information about the issues relevant to the crime. You do not leave out or change facts that are relevant.

armsmaster270
March 21, 2009, 08:00 PM
In my shooting the perp was charging me and when I shot him I couldn't see my sights as my fist was in my back and the triggerguard was actually against my hip, keeping the gun where he couldn't grab it.

matthew temkin
March 21, 2009, 08:10 PM
Deaf...I would be very interested in what you mean by long range.
IMHO long range and precision usually infer a scoped sighted rifle.
But---I have been able to get consistent hits on silver dollar sized objects out to 15 yards with two handed point shoulder point shooting with service sized handguns. ( With me that means a 4 inch Model 10-8 revolver.)
But to take your logic to extremes, since a rifle can be used for both long and short distances, why bother with handguns?
I too train armed guards---probably over 3000 in the past 10 years-- and I get them where they can empty an 11 round magazine--10 plus 1-- from a Glock 19 ( yes, in NY we still have an assault ban) in 3-4 seconds, on the move, in very dim light with point shooting at about 4-7 yards into a fist sized group.
Not from the hip, (although they learn that as well) but from what Fairbairn called the (one handed) 3/4 hip position, which places the pistol at mid chest level.
I get them there within a few minutes of point shooting training after a day or so of aimed fire instruction.
If you feel that this is an unnecessary skill then you practice whatever turns you on.

Armsmaster270--maybe you should start a thread titled, "Point/Hip/Threat Focused shooting works at close range"
But then again, perhaps 95% of the shooting world already accepts that as a fact.

Deaf Smith
March 21, 2009, 09:08 PM
Deaf...I would be very interested in what you mean by long range.

That could be anywhere from 15 to 25 to 50 yards. CNS shots, partial exposed body shots.

Now these "silver dollar sized objects" at 15 yards. That's you, but can you get most students to do that? And if so, why use sights at all and still tell all of us here that point shooting is just a 'COMPLIMENT' to sighted fire?

I mean, is it just a COMPLIMENT or can it do all sighted fire can? It's a simple question Matt.

matthew temkin
March 22, 2009, 05:31 AM
25-50 yards?
You gotta be kidding me!!
Yes, I have shot handguns at those distances and well beyond--with sights, of course--but if you think that this reflects reality then you and I will, once again, have to agree to disagree.
No, I do not think that point shooting can do it all.
Just like I do not think that hand blows alone will "do it all" in unarmed combat
Which is why we also learn kicks, knees to groin and elbows,--as well as throws and rips-- so as to be better prepared for the varying distances in a hand to hand struggle.
I do, however, think that point shooting will serve one well in 90% of all handgun encounters, which usually occur within a few feet.
If point shooting took thousands of rounds and untold hours of practice then I could see value in your argument.
But is does not and, since point shooting flows with the body's natural instincts during a life or death ordeal then I see no reason not to add it to one's skill set.
For those seeking more information from a very qualified source, check out LT. Mike Conti of the Mass. State Police
at: http://www.sabergroup.com/video_clips.htm

Re4mer
March 22, 2009, 07:54 AM
There are many fine, high-performance rounds available, but Cor-Bon DPX tops the list, because it penetrates and expands, without fail! It's what I carry.

Great story, however this last part sounds more like an advertisement.

NRAhab
March 22, 2009, 11:28 AM
they can empty an 11 round magazine--10 plus 1-- from a Glock 19 ( yes, in NY we still have an assault ban) in 3-4 seconds, on the move, in very dim light with point shooting at about 4-7 yards into a fist sized group.

That's pretty impressive shooting for anyone, sights or otherwise. When you're doing this drill, are they moving forward, backward, or laterally? What technique do you teach to overcome the natural bobble of the gun while the shooter is moving?

On top of that, 3-4 seconds for 11 rounds is pretty fast - assuming that your trainees can draw from the holster and get the first round out in 1.5 seconds, that leaves a maximum of 2.5 seconds to fire 10 rounds, or 1.5 seconds to fire 10 rounds if they're hitting that 3 second mark. For the moment, I'll assume that the guys who do it in 3 seconds are a statistical outliers, and that the average student completes the drill in 4 seconds. If you work out the math on that, assuming the aforementioned 1.5 seconds for the 1st round from the leather, then that means that your shooter will have to have an average split time of 0.25 seconds per shot, while moving, in low light, and keeping all their hits in a fist sized group (my fist covers about a 4 inch group).

The fastest split time on earth is owned by Jerry Miculek, when he fired 5 shots from a revolver in 0.57 seconds for a split time of around 0.11 seconds. A "great" split time in competition is 0.15-0.20 depending on the shot you're taking, and then you're looking at A class (or Expert Class in IDPA) and above shooters to hit those splits.

I'm very interested in your training technique, especially your training window, i.e. how long it takes to get shooters to this level, because it sounds like you're minting state-champion level competitors out of an armed guard class.

Skyguy
March 22, 2009, 12:36 PM
sounds like you're minting state-champion level competitors out of an armed guard class.

Any self defense trainer worth their salt trains their students in the ways they will probably fight. Matt seems to have all that covered.

A gunfight is usually an ambush giving the aggressor the advantage. Therefore, the target of the aggressor should practice by crouching, moving off the x as they draw and shoot. Hit or miss, just shoot.
If you've ever been shot at you totally understand.

If seconds are to count....then moving is paramount followed by accuracy. Neither is a guarantee of survival because people rarely stop or die as soon as they are shot. Only a cns shot drops someone.
Even a direct shot through the heart leaves a determined shooter alive for 10 or 15 seconds....enough time to kill their opponent.

So don't get too hung up on seconds to target unless it's just a shooting game.
.

NRAhab
March 22, 2009, 01:12 PM
You're missing the point. What I was obliquely driving at was that it appears, based on matt's post that he is training shooters to complete a task (fire 11 shots on the move in 3-4 seconds at a target 7 yards distant into a 4 inch group) which would present a challenge for experienced competitive shooters. Since subtlety seems to be out the window, I wanted to know how long it takes to train his armored car guards to this level of proficiency, because I'm skeptical to say the least.

The reason I put numbers and split times in there is because it helps quantify the skill level required to perform the drill. Also, it's important to know what direction the shooter is moving during this drill, because if it's lateral or rearward movement, it becomes even more difficult for the shooter.

matthew temkin
March 22, 2009, 04:35 PM
NRAhab--any time you are in NY I will be happy to put you through this training for free.
Other than that, there is no way to convince you of this.
And, other than hands on, I have no desire to debate this.
But to answer your question I usually have them moving in at first, then they go into motion front/ back/and lateral.
Which is very similar to what Gabe Suraez shows on his videos--which you can purchase directly from him.
And, quite frankly, this only takes a few minutes of instruction/practice.
Maybe if competition shooters started point shooting they would enjoy similar results?
For those interested here is a review of a class that I co taught with 7677 for the Akron OH Police Department back in August 2007
http://www.warriortalk.com/showthread.php?t=26950&highlight=Matt+temkin

NRAhab
March 22, 2009, 04:44 PM
So, how long does it take, a couple of hours of practice before they're moving laterally and doing this? Moving in would be a piece of cake, because you could cover the 7 yards fast and then it's just a mag dump at point blank range. So how long, total time, does it take to for you to train someone to complete your drill, assuming that they're a relatively novice shooter? I mean, a 4 inch group on the move with 11 rounds in 3 or 4 seconds is pretty impressive, so I'm hoping that maybe you can tell me how long the "learning curve" is for shooters.

Like I said, I'm skeptical; but I'm not looking to argue the point, just nail down the specifics of the drill and the amount of time it takes to teach someone to shoot at this level. I think what really fired up the skepticism drive is the group size. If you had some video or something of a shooter doing this, that'd be neat because I'm interested in the technique, speed of movement, etc.

matthew temkin
March 22, 2009, 07:18 PM
Actually I do not find 11 shots in 3-4 seconds impressive at all.
In fact, with threat focused techniques this can be accomplished by anyone
The only time that I was timed my splits with a 5 shot J frame was .22.
I can empty a revolver in less that a second, and I am faster with a 9mm.
As to my students...
I teach a 6 session class with the point shooting/movement coming in the 4th session.
I place great emphasis on shooting while moving in--especially when facing multiples---since this was hammered into me by all of my combat tested instructors.
Sorry that I cannot be more helpful in convincing you but if you are ever in NYC I will gladly show you how simple it all is.
This is where I teach:
http://www.gunlicense.com/
Click on the range link and the good looking fella in the green shirt--in a Weaver stance no less--is your humble poster.

matthew temkin
March 22, 2009, 07:33 PM
I will also be giving a demo at this class in LI on May 9th:
http://www.mdtstraining.com/services.htm

NRAhab
March 22, 2009, 09:48 PM
Actually I do not find 11 shots in 3-4 seconds impressive at all.

Neither do I. You can teach anyway to jerk a trigger in a hurry, that doesn't require any special sort of skill. If I'm ever up in NY, I'll have to look you up. Actually, I think there's an IDPA match in your area later this year, we get together and pull some triggers.

David Armstrong
March 22, 2009, 10:49 PM
Actually I do not find 11 shots in 3-4 seconds impressive at all.
In fact, with threat focused techniques this can be accomplished by anyone.
When I was training a lot I regularly did 20 rounds in 5 seconds, all in the "A" zone at 5 yards. That was from low ready, not from the holster.

Rich Miranda
March 22, 2009, 11:00 PM
How exactly do you use the sights at close range without losing focus of the bigger picture? I'm not trained, and I'm sure there is a technique. Anyone care to elaborate?

NRAhab
March 22, 2009, 11:39 PM
When I was training a lot I regularly did 20 rounds in 5 seconds, all in the "A" zone at 5 yards. That was from low ready, not from the holster.

Again, the speed itself (20 rounds in 5 seconds is a 0.25 split) isn't the impressive part, it's the combination of speed, movement, and a 4 inch group that made me incredulous. On the other hand, I find nothing unusual or unbelievable about your statement of 20 rounds in 5 seconds all in the A zone (I assume you mean an IPSC target). Instead of the aforementioned 4 square inch group/target, the A zone on an IPSC target is 6 inches wide and 11.02 inches tall, and at five yards from the low ready with no movement, well suffice to say that I'd be disappointed if all the hits weren't in the a-zone. In fact, had Matt said "all hits in the a-zone" I wouldn't have even responded to the thread, because that level of accuracy doesn't stretch the imagination.

To explain it another way - the "X-ring" on a standard NRA Action Pistol target is 4 inches in diameter. The 10 ring is 8 inches, and the 8 ring is 12 inches in diameter. I have seen top level professionals miss the 4 inch x-ring from 10 yards away, while standing stock still using the finest custom guns money can buy, which is why when matt says "a fist sized group" while moving at 7 yards away and shooting 11 rounds in 3 seconds, I am incredulous to say the least.

But 20 rounds at five yards into an IPSC A-zone in 5 seconds? That I believe, because as claims of speed and accuracy go, it's not outlandish or unusual.

Now, what this post doesn't mean is that I think what matt claimed is impossible or that he/his students can't do it - as I've maintained this whole time, just because I'm a disbeliever doesn't mean I can't be converted, it just means I'd have to see it to believe it.

Skyguy
March 23, 2009, 11:38 AM
How exactly do you use the sights at close range without losing focus of the bigger picture?

Given speed and a startle response, at close range, you can't focus on both the sights and the bigger picture.
But don't fret that, if you are attacked it'll most likely be an ambush. Rarely would you be ready.

The closer the threat, the harder it is to use iron sights. Because of fear, you will focus exclusively on the threat. Therefore it is senseless to try to use your sights at stickup range. Use metal on meat or silhouette sighting. Of course, you 'must' move off the x.

Sights come into play when you are not threat focusing and have time....yards not feet. But at those distances it is wiser to seek cover and shoot only if necessary.

In most low light scenarios, projecting a laser dot on the target at just about any sensible distance eliminates the need to use iron sights and allows one to concentrate on the bigger picture, the threat and the poa.

For self-defense, train like you will fight.
.

NRAhab
March 23, 2009, 11:49 AM
The closer the threat, the harder it is to use iron sights. Because of fear, you will focus exclusively on the threat. Therefore it is senseless to try to use your sights at stickup range. Use metal on meat or silhouette sighting.
...
For self-defense, train like you will fight

That's a rather tautalogical line of reasoning, don't you think? You'll do X in this situation so you might as well train to do X, so that you'll do X? It's analogous to saying that "if your car is about to hit something, you're going to naturally slam on the brakes, so you should practice slamming on the brakes so that you'll slam on the brakes REALLY WELL".

I'm not saying that it's necessarily the wrong action, but taking the view that "your natural response is X so train on X" eliminates a lot of solid and beneficial training options. Because I don't know about you, but my natural response to an "ambush" is to sprint away like a little girl, so I guess instead of gunfighting, I should work on my 40 yard dash time.

David Armstrong
March 23, 2009, 12:19 PM
That's a rather tautalogical line of reasoning, don't you think? You'll do X in this situation so you might as well train to do X, so that you'll do X?
Not really. The reasoning is more along the lines of:
"Research has shown that there are certain natural, physical responses that will occur in all of us given the proper stimuli. One of those responses if focusing on the threat during sudden surprise encounters at close range. As this reaction is natural and expected, one should train to incorporate that into your response."

Deaf Smith
March 23, 2009, 06:16 PM
And tell me david, if the 'natural response to this proper stimuli' was to roll over and faint like sheep that have myotonia congenita, would one incorporate that into their training?

Wouldn't be better to train some to overcome some of these natural, physical responses that get in the way of fighting better?

Like I showed at the first of this thread, you can see the sights at virtualy any range you can bring the weapon up to eye level.

And hey, Matt, you still havn't answered the question I posed. I suspect your 'natural response to this proper stimuli' is to not answer questions with answers you know won't agree with your way of thinking.

NRAhab
March 23, 2009, 06:33 PM
Deaf Smith sort of hit on what I was driving at. You see, research has shown that a person is more likely to focus on the target in a threatening situation than on the sights, but what research hasn't (and can't really) show is whether or not focusing on the target is objectively better than focusing on the sights. Not you think it's better, or Rex Applegate said it's better, but if it can be categorically demonstrated that focusing on the target produces more effective results.

That's my concern with point shooting, is that you're training a technique that's built around the body's panic reaction as a "catch all solution". Sure, in some instances of a vehicular incident punching the brakes is the smart thing to do, but just because that's the instinctual thing to do doesn't mean it's the best course of action.

I feel like a lot of advocacy for point shooting reduces itself down to the argument that "science says this is what you're going to do in a fight, so you should train around that", while completely ignoring the fact that science doesn't say if indulging your instinctive response is the objectively "best" or most effective course of action.

David Armstrong
March 24, 2009, 01:09 AM
And tell me david, if the 'natural response to this proper stimuli' was to roll over and faint like sheep that have myotonia congenita, would one incorporate that into their training?
Please, Deaf, try not to be any sillier than you usually are about this stuff.
Wouldn't be better to train some to overcome some of these natural, physical responses that get in the way of fighting better?
Only if you can show that these natural physical responses get in the way of fighting better. They don't. One can use them to improve the fighting ability. That is what Matt, Brownie, and a host of others since the Fairbairn and Sykes days have demonstrated over and over.
Like I showed at the first of this thread, you can see the sights at virtualy any range you can bring the weapon up to eye level.
So what? You confuse what can be done after extensive training with what usually happens to the typical gunowner. You want to spend lots of your time training for winning matches and shooting on the range, go ahead, but some of us prefer to focus on the training that allows most folks to win actual gunfights.

That's my concern with point shooting, is that you're training a technique that's built around the body's panic reaction as a "catch all solution".
But no recognized point shooting instructor that I am aware of trains that point shooting is a catch all solution. IIRC, they all teach that it is one part of a well-rounded shooters options.
..what research hasn't (and can't really) show is whether or not focusing on the target is objectively better than focusing on the sights.
Research has shown that, repeatedly. Research has shown that under the proper stimuli the eyes cannot physically focus on the sights. Thus target focus, which is the more natural response, will give better results. Also, point shooting, especially one-handed point shooting, seems to be faster without any noticeable reduction in practical accuracy at close ranges (5 yards and less).

matthew temkin
March 24, 2009, 06:52 AM
David has hit the nail on the head with this.
The reason that the Fairbairn method of point shooting is so effective is that it flows with the body's natural reactions to danger, rather than fighting it tooth and nail.
And as David points out, there is no evidence that this gets in the way of effective fighting.
In fact, quite the opposite is true.
And that is the key, is it not--effective, accurate and very fast shots at close range with man killing/stopping accuracy?
From any angle, any position and in any lighting--or lack of---conditions.
Actually the real goal of point shooting is to place a burst of bullets in the exact spot that one's eyes are focused within a heartbeat.
This can be learned in a matter of minutes, owned in a matter of hours and refined over the course of a lifetime--should one desire.
Why on earth would a gun owner not want to own this skill?
For those seeking videos on the subject I recommend the series by Rob Pincus, available at:
http://www.icestore.us/servlet/StoreFront

NRAhab
March 24, 2009, 07:20 AM
Research has shown that, repeatedly. Research has shown that under the proper stimuli the eyes cannot physically focus on the sights. Thus target focus, which is the more natural response, will give better results. Also, point shooting, especially one-handed point shooting, seems to be faster without any noticeable reduction in practical accuracy at close ranges (5 yards and less).

Research by whom, exactly? I'm not picking nits, but actual, quality research into this sort of thing is pretty rare, but there are a lot of people using insufficient data to draw conclusions that are not necessarily scientific or accurate. Hence, when someone says says "research", it tends to activate my "show me the money" reflex.

You could actually test whether or not point shooting produces more effective results than sighted fire, but I'd imagine it's never actually been tested is because the time and expense involved in setting up 3 groups of test subjects (point shooters, sighted shooters, control group). Then you'd have to devise a course of fire which subjects the student to stress so as to activate their natural stress reaction. Too bad I couldn't get a grant from the government to run the experiment.

Ultimately though, the debate over point shooting vs. sighted fire boils down to a matter of bias. It's almost as bad as Glock vs. 1911 debate in terms of the passion it generates on the parts of the people who participate in it. Some guys are going to believe Rex Applegate and Gabe Suarez, and some guys are going to believe the Army Marksmanship Unit and Jeff Cooper. You're probably never going to convince the Applegate fans that sighted fire is better than point shooting, and you're never going to convince the Jeff Cooper/Army Marksmanship Unit/Todd Jarrett/Robbie Leatham/Bruce Piatt/Doug Koenig/Jerry Miculek/etc fans that point shooting is superior to sighted fire.

But it sure is fun to run around in circles.

Edit: matt, the body's natural stress reaction is to run away - which takes me back to the "maybe we should just practice sprinting" instead of gunfighting.

7677
March 24, 2009, 09:55 AM
Edit: matt, the body's natural stress reaction is to run away - which takes me back to the "maybe we should just practice sprinting" instead of gunfighting. This is not true with all people...it is called fight or flight for a reason.

Ultimately though, the debate over point shooting vs. sighted fire boils down to a matter of bias. It's almost as bad as Glock vs. 1911 debate in terms of the passion it generates on the parts of the people who participate in it. I do not look at sighted and point shooting as verses issue because in my book a good shooter will know both and will employ the best method based on the circumstances surrounding the incident. Simply put, it is a incorporated system.

The distance, time, and groups presented by Matt are typical of students that have been trained in threat focused shooting techniques. Some of us are even faster. As far as anyone not believing it can be done, is welcome to come and shoot with me. However, in Deaf's case...shoot against with sims guns.

That's my concern with point shooting, is that you're training a technique that's built around the body's panic reaction as a "catch all solution". Sure, in some instances of a vehicular incident punching the brakes is the smart thing to do, but just because that's the instinctual thing to do doesn't mean it's the best course of action.
Threat focus/point shooting techniques utilize the body's natural fighting stance not a panic stance. No amount of training and/or technique taught by anyone is going to help someone who has lost control of their body period.

I understand your reservations but I can tell you from my own personal experience that when I have used it for real and during stressful training events it has worked and my focus on the target is more intense then it is on the range and my shots hit exactly where my eyes were focused on. I have used both sighted and threat focused shooting techniques while I was in Iraq and they both have their place in the shooting continuum.

David Armstrong
March 24, 2009, 10:06 AM
Research by whom, exactly?
By Whom depends on the research on what, as there are a number of different concepts that come together here. For a good overview of it I recommend Bruce Siddle or David Grossman's work.
I'm not picking nits, but actual, quality research into this sort of thing is pretty rare,...
While I will certainly agree that the quality issue can be debated, as that is a strictly subjective concept, it does not negate the fact that there has been a lot of research done in the area of, and all that research has been fairly conclusive regarding involuntary reactions, stress response, and similar. Admittedly not all, or even much, for that matter, of it was directed at gunfights, but unless one wants to claim that the presence of a gun makes a difference in the responses it is a non-issue.
You could actually test whether or not point shooting produces more effective results than sighted fire,
Thta has been done, with varying degrees of scientific rigor. Plus we have the on-going quasi-experiment of actual gunfights to look at. There was a pretty good article on it in the latest IALEFI magazine, in fact.
Ultimately though, the debate over point shooting vs. sighted fire boils down to a matter of bias.
Why is there even a debate? Target focus advocates all say that you should use the sights when possible, but should also know how to use the gun when the sights cannot be accessed through physiological or environmental factors. Target focused advocates all say that you can train yourself to push the surprise stimulus and its effects down the line, but the distances at which it is needed lend themselves to target focus being as effective so why spend all those resources training to counter a response that works well.
You're probably never going to convince the Applegate fans that sighted fire is better than point shooting, and you're never going to convince the Jeff Cooper/Army Marksmanship Unit/Todd Jarrett/Robbie Leatham/Bruce Piatt/Doug Koenig/Jerry Miculek/etc fans that point shooting is superior to sighted fire.

But that is the problem, again. Target focused shooters don't say that one method is better, or that it is superior. We recognize that they are different, and propose that a good shooter should recognize that difference and be able to utilize whatever skill is best suited for the problem they encounter. We know that sighted fire is an abysmal failure in actual gunfights, in spite of relatively high levels of training. We know that target focus/point shooting doesn't work for most folks out there at 50 yards or so. Instead of pushing the sight focused one-size-fits-all (if all train to an extremely high level) solution, let's work toward the strengths and minimize the weaknesses of the different methods.
Edit: matt, the body's natural stress reaction is to run away
I'm not Matt, but the actual reaction is flight OR fight. The reaction is to prepare the body for either.

Skyguy
March 24, 2009, 10:26 AM
Some folks are beyond learning, especially those who've never been in a fight. But for those who care to learn, see below:

Train as you'll fight means.........Instinctive reaction training.

Face the threat square
Crouch....it's a natural response to an attack
Focus.....both eyes open looking at the threat; binocular vision
Point......arm or arms out in an instinctive posture of repel-create distance
Move......move, seek cover
Aim.........metal on meat
Shoot......hit or miss, just shoot

Practice for a fluid, all in one motion. It comes easy.

Tips:
1. Learn that 'quick draw' is a game.....and 'early draw' is a tactic.

2. Self defense handguns 'need' a laser sight.

3. Train using gross motor skills – threat focused binocular vision

4. The first shot is not the last shot in a gunfight.

Train in the fear-of-dying responses that one 'will' default to in a sudden CQ gunfight, such as; assume a combat crouch, focus with both eyes on the threat and not the sights, point-extend arm/s, one-handed/two-handed, tight grip, instinctively move as you look at the threat and squeeze off multiples......because that's how most people will react to the fight.
.

NRAhab
March 24, 2009, 10:33 AM
Dave Grossman has serious methodology issues, not the least of which is his repeated insistence on "violent video games" desensitizing people to violence, thus making them more prone to violence, an assertion which is of questionable veracity. Of course, that's an entirely tangential topic.

This however is the crux of the point shooting position: We know that sighted fire is an abysmal failure in actual gunfights, in spite of relatively high levels of training.

No, we don't know that, and that's the problem. There are varying degrees of documentation which can suggest that point shooting or sighted fire are superior in life or death encounters; but as has been pointed out, there is not an definitively authoritative position.

I don't have an objection to point shooting, and as David has pointed out, many advocates of point shooting do not see it as panacea for all shooting problem. When you view "combat shooting" as a martial art, then target-focused shooting would have a place in the spectrum of shooting techniques. My concern, as always is the advocating of point-shooting (or target-focused shooting) as a "preferable" solution, when at your own admission it is simply another skill set in the toolbox.

Of course, I'm also a big proponent of using laser aiming devices on defensive guns, which then moves me into the "target focused" shooter's camp, doesn't it?

Edit: it's amusing how skyguy assumes things about people's histories. assume a combat crouch, focus with both eyes on the threat and not the sights, point-extend arm/s, one-handed/two-handed, tight grip, instinctively move as you look at the threat and squeeze off multiples......because that's how most people will react to the fight
Wait, I'm confused - am I supposed to be crouching, then moving, or moving while crouching, or crouching and doing ninja shoulder rolls while firing John Woo style? :D

David Armstrong
March 24, 2009, 10:55 AM
Dave Grossman has serious methodology issues,
Agreed, but it is not just Grossman. In fact, AFAIK everyone who has looked at this issue from a research perspective has pretty much come down on his side with the reactions to stress concept. There may be some out there, but I'm not aware of them.
No, we don't know that, and that's the problem. There are varying degrees of documentation which can suggest that point shooting or sighted fire are superior in life or death encounters; but as has been pointed out, there is not an definitively authoritative position.
We'll disagree. I think when the sighted fire hit rate consistently is in the teens or single digits according to virtually every report, when agency hit rates increase significantly after incorporating point shooting into the trained response, when test after test shows that at close range point shooting is faster and just as effective, I'd suggest we know something about as much as we will ever know it, pending some major shift in the information gathering/processing abilities.
My concern, as always is the advocating of point-shooting (or target-focused shooting) as a "preferable" solution, when at your own admission it is simply another skill set in the toolbox.
As opposed to sight focus shooters advocating? Again, point shooters don't advocate it as preferable, we advocate it as an alternative selection at times. Just because it is another tool in the toolbox doesn't mean it isn't preferable for a particular situation. A hammer and a screwdriver are both tools in the toolbox, but depending on the situation one is preferable to the other.

NRAhab
March 24, 2009, 11:20 AM
I think at this juncture we've exhausted all possible lines of logic and reason that are available to either of us.

I find myself, in a moment of unadulterated narcissism quoting from my own material (http://gunnuts.net/2009/03/24/point-shooting-vs-sighted-fire/): If you’re happy with your training methods and instructors, then more power to you. Since I don’t believe that point shooting is dangerous or is going to get you killed, then as long as people are pulling triggers and buying ammo, I’m pretty happy with the result. Just don’t try and preach to me that your chop-sockey is stronger than mine, okay?

Now you'll have to excuse me, I need to start a Glocks vs. 1911s thread while I practice my combat waddle around the house so I can get off the "x".

Skyguy
March 24, 2009, 11:41 AM
Wait, I know I'm not cute, but I am confused - am I supposed to be crouching, then moving, or moving while crouching

NRAhab, I kinda figured you as a hard learner. :)
I'll take instinctive reaction training a bit slower and step by step....just as I did with Brownie a few years back.

Crouch:

The brain needs to decide in an instant between fight or flight, therefore the body will be squared to the threat, enabling both eyes and both ears and both nostrils to gather as much intelligence as possible to assist the brain to make the correct decision.

The squared position also gives a choice of four weapons (two arms and two legs). The arms will tend to be held out in front of the upper body, which will be leaning slightly forward with the lower back flattened. There is no better position to be in at this instant.

The instinctive crouch reflex is part of the classical fight-or-flight response and a perfect body posture that is consistently reproducible during threat of physical violence.

Your next lesson would have been threat focus. But you've surrendered....so, checkmate.

:)

pax
March 24, 2009, 11:47 AM
Just once, I would like to see a pointshooting/target focus/sighted fire thread die a natural death of old age, instead of needing to be closed early for excessive rudeness among the participants.

Just an observation!

(Think twice, then think again, before posting any personal comments in this type of thread. Please...)

pax

7677
March 24, 2009, 02:17 PM
NRAhab,
I have to agree with you about Grossman. However, I have done the research on this subject and I discovered that LEOs are losing close quarters gunfights. I looked at what caused the officer's deaths and compared it those that survived to what the suspect did and didn't do.

Not surprising, a large number of LEO deaths were caused by the same age old mistakes and the simple fact that action beats reaction. However, the theme that I saw kept reoccurring in majority of cases is that close quarter gunfights usually started as simple fights/attacks that escalated. The knowledge of defensive/offensive h2h tactics and point shooting are needed to deal with this type of fighting.

Notice, I didn't say retention shooting. Retention shooting is something you go to if your weapon is already drawn and a unarmed threat approaches within lunging distance. The weapon should not be drawn until the person have their opponent in a position of disadvantage and where it can be drawn and immediately used. Drawing a weapon to a retention position without having your opponent in a position of disadvantage is just asking to have the gun grabbed and/or diverted before the shot can be made.

From reading this thread you seem more turned off by the messenger then the message itself. I offer this to you, the only way you will know if "it" works is to experience it yourself because seeing is believing and "it" is not as hard as you have been made to think it is by certain trainers.

NRAhab
March 24, 2009, 03:07 PM
The knowledge of defensive/offensive h2h tactics and point shooting are needed to deal with this (extreme close quarters - ed) type of fighting.

I'd submit that this is and should be the fundamental precept of advocacy of "target-focused" shooting, because in that sentence I find no argument. Gunfighting is a martial art, and all too often it's viewed without the component of hand-to-hand combat, and the applications on what to do when the gunfight reaches "phone booth" distances.

7677
March 24, 2009, 03:15 PM
The other useful component of threat focused shooting is being able to move dynamically off the line of attack and still be able to engage targets out to seven yards with fist sized groups. IMHO this is why threat focused shooting techniques so valuable to learn as it fills in the gaps that are not covered by sighted shooting techniques.

David Armstrong
March 24, 2009, 04:57 PM
I'm still waiting for somebody to identify these mysterious "those who think sighted fire won't work at close range" people someone has claimed are out there.

NRAhab
March 24, 2009, 05:32 PM
I'm still waiting for somebody to identify these mysterious "those who think sighted fire won't work at close range" people someone has claimed are out there.

Don't look at me, all I was debating were some of the somewhat specious claims of speed and accuracy, and then after that it was pretty much all a semantic debate about quality of message and training.

David Armstrong
March 24, 2009, 05:51 PM
Don't look at me,
I'm not.:D

Shane Tuttle
March 24, 2009, 06:48 PM
I'm still waiting for somebody to identify these mysterious "those who think sighted fire won't work at close range" people someone has claimed are out there.

I'll take the bait, but you'll only reel in a hook with nothing on it but seaweed...

If pragmatic is your game, I'm your Huckleberry.
Maybe the individuals that don't believe in it has seen the urinating contest and decided it isn't worth their time to post their viewpoint. Maybe they aren't a member of this board. But to really think there isn't anybody out there that may believe otherwise is, well, silly.

Deaf Smith
March 24, 2009, 07:17 PM
I'm still waiting for somebody to identify these mysterious "those who think sighted fire won't work at close range" people someone has claimed are out there.

Well goodie david. If everyone now knows sighted fire can work at any range, then just add retention shooting and you have your core. That is it's all that is needed for defense for most people*.

One method for everything from long range to very short, and a second one for extreme close range. And the two overlap in distance.



*There are those with eye sight problems and other handicaps that will make point shooting their only real alternative. But for most of use, those two methods are the core one needs to master.

David Armstrong
March 25, 2009, 12:57 PM
Maybe the individuals that don't believe in it has seen the urinating contest and decided it isn't worth their time to post their viewpoint. Maybe they aren't a member of this board. But to really think there isn't anybody out there that may believe otherwise is, well, silly.
Not really. I've been in this game for a long time, in a lot of venues, and I have never found anybody, live or in print, who suggests that sighted fire won't work at close range. Some point out, rightly, that there is an alternative that may be better, but nobody says sighted fire won't work.

David Armstrong
March 25, 2009, 12:59 PM
Well goodie david. If everyone now knows sighted fire can work at any range, then just add retention shooting and you have your core. That is it's all that is needed for defense for most people*.
OK, not sure what that has to do with the issue, so I will take that as an admission you cannot identify anyone who thinks sighted fire won't work at close range.

pax
March 25, 2009, 04:19 PM
David ~

Here are two, from this board. There are probably more -- it was a cursory search.

http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2020696&postcount=12

http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=452873&postcount=27

pax

skydiver3346
March 25, 2009, 04:41 PM
Awsome report on how and what to do when someone kicks down your door and comes straight at you.... You hanled that perfectly in my opinion, as what else could you do? Surely not ask him why he just kicked in your door, etc. By then you might be severely wounded and/or killed.

I just watched a police report on TV special recently and the detective was interviewing a burglar/rapist. He asked the bad guy what was the one thing that burglars/home invasion perps feared the most when they enter someone's home? First words out of his mouth were "armed home owners, someone with a gun who is willing to defend his property and himself".

Deaf Smith
March 25, 2009, 05:29 PM
Here are two, from this board. There are probably more -- it was a cursory search.

Well david? Any uh.. comment?

David Armstrong
March 25, 2009, 06:17 PM
Here are two, from this board.
Not quite. Don't see anybody saying that sighted fire won't work at close range. I see two folks saying that under certain conditions sighted fire might not work at close range.
The first one says:
"you wont be able to use your sights under extreme stress".
I would submit that is very different from "sighted fire won't work at close range". If you are at close range and not under extreme stress, one can use the sights. Stress is the defining factor here, not distance.
And the second one says:
"The reason one should learn and practice point shooting is that in many situations you will not be able to se or use your sights. In many situations you will be able to use your sights and far enough away from your opponent that you can safely use your sights and then you should use your sights."
Again, nothing there that says "sighted fire won't work at close range." The writer specifically uses the phrase "in many situations", thus indicating there are situations where the statement is not applicable. Further, the writer indicates that sighted fire can work at close range, but it might not be safe to use it.
So what we have is pretty standard...sometimes sighted fire will work at close range and sometimes it won't, depending on various factors.

David Armstrong
March 25, 2009, 06:21 PM
Well david? Any uh.. comment?
Yawn. I suppose I could comment that you still haven't offered up anyone that says they think sighted fire won't work at close range, but that would be a bit redundant.

matthew temkin
March 25, 2009, 08:28 PM
Explain to me how one can use sighted fire when lighting conditions make it impossible to see the sights?
Would this qualify as a flaw in the "sighted fire for all situations" theory?

NRAhab
March 25, 2009, 08:38 PM
Matt, that's what night sights are for. Or if you're like me, night sights and Crimson Trace laser grips.

matthew temkin
March 25, 2009, 08:53 PM
You are kidding, are you not?
Is it your claim that you, under any circumstances, will always be able to use the sights and or lasers no matter what?
Unless you have been in a few dozen gunfights, say yes, and I am so out of this discussion.
Which is probably a good thing.

Deaf Smith
March 25, 2009, 09:45 PM
Explain to me how one can use sighted fire when lighting conditions make it impossible to see the sights?
Would this qualify as a flaw in the "sighted fire for all situations" theory?

Matt,

You bring the weapon up to the same position as IF YOU COULD SEE THE SIGHTS (in other words the same index you have developed from presentations... i.e. drawing and shooting with your sights.)

Every time you practice using your sights you build an ingrained response to indexing the weapon the same way. At close range the sights (and index) do not have to be in perfect alignment to score a good hit. So when the light is so bad you still use the same presentation and index to make good hits.

This is what I teach my students. From the very first time they hold their weapon and fire a shot I let them know to memorize the hold and duplicate it each time they draw the weapon (I'm a big believer in presentation practice.) I also have them find the grip they need to have the sights in alignment the instant the weapon is at eye level. No adjustment of the sights should be necessary (especially at close range.)

In this way, one technique covers a very wide spectrum. The only part missing is an extreme close range technique. And that's what hip/retention covers.

Blue Duck
March 25, 2009, 10:37 PM
Of course sighted fire will work, and for many years I though it was the only way to shoot, which is it is, when it comes to winning an IPSC Match or even an IDPA shoot, but I now believe that under actual gunfight conditions, espacally if one ends up behind the curve, wheather or not sighted fire will always work or not, doesn't matter, because many people will be so focused on the threat that they won't see their sights, and instinctly revert to point shooting.

Call it poor training, or whatever, it happens, so I think it is smart to practice point shooting in addition to aimed fire. Besides not all guns have night sights or lasers, most of mine don't. So for the last several years I have practiced point shooting, even speed rocks, because I still think they have a place.

matthew temkin
March 26, 2009, 06:42 AM
So it appears that Deaf and NRA are in disagreement?
Deaf...what you describe is exactly what I teach.
For example, if you saw me using aimed fire from the MI or point shooting from the same position you would be unable to tell--especially when examining the target--which aiming method that I used.
So how do we differ--except perhaps in semantics--with what we are teaching/doing?
Blue Duck..you have hit the nail on the head.
For many years it was assumed by the "powers that be" that point shooting was,

1) Inaccurate.

2) Hard to learn and demanded thousands of rounds and decades of practice.

3) Would fall apart under stress.

None of which is true, BTW.
All I am saying is there is a place for both, at least IMHO.

NRAhab
March 26, 2009, 09:17 AM
Oh Matt, I thought David and I had ended the discussion, but then you asked:

Explain to me how one can use sighted fire when lighting conditions make it impossible to see the sights?

So I said, "use night sights or a laser", which you somehow interpreted to mean that I thought you'd always be able to use those in any circumstances. Which I never said, but it's cool. The point I was making was that for people who prefer the "sights" method, that there are technological options for them to practice their methods in low light to no light.

As for laser though, I figured any point shooting advocate would be a HUGE fan of lasers. They allow you to maintain a "target focused" presentation, and to be quite frank I can't imagine a situation where you'd be shooting someone using a point shooting technique where you wouldn't want to have a laser on your gun. Rob Pincus, someone whose opinions on point shooting I respect and take seriously advocates for the use of Crimson Trace laser grips.

Skyguy
March 26, 2009, 10:14 AM
You bring the weapon up to the same position as IF YOU COULD SEE THE SIGHTS

That's called point shooting - or metal on meat shooting - or silhouette shooting - or instinctive shooting - or threat focused shooting - or peripheral vision shooting - or indexed shooting, etc.
.

David Armstrong
March 26, 2009, 10:31 AM
In this way, one technique covers a very wide spectrum.
Not particularly wide. It covers standing, in a pre-established stance, with the gun brought to eye level. Target focused cetainly takes care of that and a lot more, in a shorter period of training time.
When one can use the sights one should use the sights. But sometimes that cannot be done. And we have seen over and over that those ordinarily trained in sighted fire seem unable to engage the target with any degree of reliability when they cannot or do not see the sights.

matthew temkin
March 26, 2009, 03:57 PM
NRA: I do feel that a laser has a place in some instances--actually at longer distances and for use around cover--- but I do not like anything on my carry gun that could fail, or cause me to slow down.
Plus the fact that very few handguns are laser equipped.
Here is an interesting post from a student of mine from a seminar ( post # 29) that I co taught at in 2005 from a man nicknamed Geezer concerning point shooting and lasers:http://www.warriortalk.com/showthread.php?t=5654&highlight=warrior+talk+symposium&page=3

Oh dear, don't know where to begin. Re point shooting. Matt sounds just like the radio commentator Michael Savage, and speaks with the same temperate, calm and restrained dignity. Next year, when you are in his class, and he states firmly and and with a reassuring tone in his voice that he won't shoot you with the airsoft gun....., duck.

Within ten muinutes of beginning the point shooting demonstration, the first relay had fired some singles, and then mutliples from about 7 feet into the ten targets in front of them. At that point, all of the debate became nonsense. To those who sneer at point shooting, all I can say is argue with the targets.

I took the course again the second day, and became so confident in the method that during one sequence of shooting mutliple targets on the move, I whipped out my BUG snubbie and firing left handed one handed, still made COM hits with all five rounds.

This is so critically important to me, because my eyesight has reached that point where I can no longer focus on the front sight. Up until Matt's class, my bsolution was to paint the front sights dayglow red, and wait until I saw a flash of red superimposed on the target and then press the trigger.

Roger, you know that I have a laser on my carry S&W 640. By the second course of fire, I was shooting and hitting faster than the laser could stop bouncing. It became totally irrelevant, neither a help nor a distraction, because the shooting was over before I could even become aware of it. Under no circumstances could anyone have ever convinced me this could be true until I experienced it.


Geezer ( God rest your soul) So true!!!

NRAhab
March 26, 2009, 05:57 PM
but I do not like anything on my carry gun that could fail

On the subject of lasers, I find this to be a poor objection to the use of the laser on your gun, because by following that logic, you should not even carry a gun because it might fail. Of course, a proper rebuttal would be to point out that you don't train to become dependent on the laser, you train with the laser to augment your fundamental skills. That way if the laser fails you're not stranded, you're still in the fight.

Additionally, I agree with the lack of utility in a laser at ranges that your student described - at 5-7 feet, you're not in a gunfight, you're in hand-to-hand combat, and I agree with the general assessment that if your muzzle is covering meat you should be shooting as fast as you put rounds downrange. That's called "contact fighting", and is manifestly unpleasant for everyone involved.

Deaf Smith
March 26, 2009, 07:20 PM
You bring the weapon up to the same position as IF YOU COULD SEE THE SIGHTS

That's called point shooting - or metal on meat shooting - or silhouette shooting - or instinctive shooting - or threat focused shooting - or peripheral vision shooting - or indexed shooting, etc.

Skyguy,

That's (what I posted) from Jeff Cooper's Gunsite Field Manual.

Deaf...what you describe is exactly what I teach.
For example, if you saw me using aimed fire from the MI or point shooting from the same position you would be unable to tell--especially when examining the target--which aiming method that I used.
So how do we differ--except perhaps in semantics--with what we are teaching/doing?

Matt,

This is honest. You said pretty much the same thing about a year or two ago on Warror Talk.

Now there are some things I like about the MT (Modern Technique). The flash sight picture, the presentation (draw, I'm a big believer in mastering it), and the suprise break. Now the Weaver stance may work for some, but there are other good ways to use two hands. And the push-pull may work for some, but there other ways (I'm an Enos style as for how I grip my weapon.) And I'm not crazy about the 1911 .45 (but it is a very good weapon!)

Since I'm a JKD man (Jeet Kun Do) as for philosophy, I tend to pick what is useful (for me) and discard what is useless (for me.) And being a teacher I know most of the methods used and understand them.

Yes we undoubtably are doing the same but working to it in different ways. The core, as I call it, simply does not use the 1/2 hip or 2/3 hip. It's either 1/4 th or all the way up.

Now that does not mean you can't learn the others later, just that one can do with the just the two. And as for the sights... well we already see the index is supposed to get the sights where they belong.

I think the major way we differ is you teach them the fundementals of using the sights, and then teach them to ignore them. I, instead, insist one uses them (but only to verify, not to adjust) everytime. But both of us end up with an index on the target.

matthew temkin
March 26, 2009, 08:24 PM
Deaf...my core is the same as yours.
When I teach my armed guard classes I only include one/two handed full extension ( aimed fire first followed by target focused) and shooting from retention.
I don't teach them to ignore the sights--I teach them to cope when a sighted shot is not possible.
The other methods that you mentioned are saved for advanced students/speciality classes.
PS to NRA--5-7 feet is pretty standard distance for most armed encounters.
Which is why the fast majority of my training, practice and teaching involves that range and closer.
And includes lots of other methods other than just gunfire.

NRAhab
March 26, 2009, 09:09 PM
Hey, at 5-7 feet I hope you're teaching a little chop-sockey to go with your shooting techniques. The key word in gunfight is "fight", after all.

GGII
March 26, 2009, 09:28 PM
I purchased an old block home, and all the doors open out! In the south this works out great, no snow...so I hopefully will always know if someone tries to come a kicking. Glad you were ready, quick & safe.

Deaf Smith
March 26, 2009, 09:29 PM
Hey, at 5-7 feet I hope you're teaching a little chop-sockey to go with your shooting techniques. The key word in gunfight is "fight", after all.

5th dan TKD, JDK and Krav Maga practitioner.

And when you are 5 ft or closer, and you are physicaly strong and skilled, the gun may very well be the backup to the hands and feet. As Miyamoto Musashi would say, "The spirit is to win, what ever the method."

matthew temkin
March 26, 2009, 10:23 PM
NRA..my old man was a member of Darby's Rangers in WW2 and was taught some vicious hand to hand combat, knife fighting, stick fighting and general dirty tricks by the British Commandos.
After Anzio he was assigned as an Army silent killing instructor before his discharge in October 1945.
He passed much of this information to his son who includes this in his classes.
Yeah, you are right.
Up close and personal it is a fight, not a gunfight.
And something that very few, at least IMHO, shooting instructors take into account.

7677
March 27, 2009, 02:07 PM
Yes we undoubtably are doing the same but working to it in different ways. The core, as I call it, simply does not use the 1/2 hip or 2/3 hip. It's either 1/4 th or all the way up.
Deaf,
What you think you'll do and what you'll actually do are two very different things. How do I know this? Because, I once made similar statements to later be proved wrong while watching myself on video during fof scenario. I moved. drew my weapon. and engaged the target one handed from 3/4 hip while moving to cover. The gun never made to my line of sight before the incident was over and I hit my opponent three times up his center line.

The draw stroke is not a absolute but a path and a well rounded shooter should be able to shoot any point within this draw stroke depending on the distance to the target. The draw stroke for one handed or two handed with either point shooting or sighted shooting is the same. When the sights are not avaiable, the shooters uses eye/hand coordination to make the shot.

Deaf Smith
March 27, 2009, 07:47 PM
But 7677,

When you did the FOF, were you already trained to use 3/4 or 1/2 hip?

That's the point. The core is for those who don't practice much. Give them just two to learn (retention and sighted fire) and let them spend all their practice time on those. It's more efficient in both time and ammo expense. I'm not the only one who fells that way. Just check out Paul Howe.

Now, if after they have mastered that and they want to learn more, sure skys the limit. Long range shooting, point shooting, weak handed drawing, etc... I do all that and more. And I have no doubt you and Matt do to.

But, the core is for those who are very limited in time, finance, or desire to learn more. And an awful lot of pistol packers are in that category.

7677
March 27, 2009, 08:26 PM
Deaf,
I had been trained 1/2 and 3/4 hip by my grandfather when I was a kid and later quick fire in the army. I used these techniques with success while I was in Iraq and after I returned state side I was assigned to a Training Bn. When I started my law enforcement career in the mid 1990s, I was trained in the modern technique and I shot MT until that fof training occurred.

It was then I realized my grandfather who was at Pearl Harbor, Guadalcanal, and Makin Island with the Raiders was correct that I would do exactly as he taught me when the chips were down. Moreover several other noted anti point shooting instructors have been photographed using 3/4 during fof.

I have not trained with Paul but I've trained with quite a few of the people who trained him and there is more to it then what you read in the books.

matthew temkin
March 27, 2009, 08:45 PM
Actually Deaf makes several good points. Which, to his credit, he has been making for many years.
Applegate wrote that if he only had an hour to train an agent in combat shooting he would do so via one handed AIMED fire at about 5 yards.
This would allow them to hit a man at close range either with or without the sights.
In my armed guard classes I see them go into 1/2 and 3/4 hip during FOF, even though they were only trained in extension and retention shooting.
I now include some close range techniques in my basic classes, usually two handed "3rd eye" hip shooting followed by one and two handed 3/4 hip techniques, but I do not overly dwell on these methods.
Again, there is a limit as to what can be taught in a six session class that goes from basic nomenclature to tactics.
I have a funny feeling that if Deaf, 7677 and myself shared some range time together that we would be a lot more similar than apart.

Skyguy
March 28, 2009, 12:32 AM
I moved. drew my weapon. and engaged the target one handed from 3/4 hip while moving to cover.

You also crouched, used binocular vision and squeezed your weapon.

FOF has a way of teaching people their instinctive reactions and point shooting....no matter how ingrained stand and deliver, first shot wins and sight shooting may be.

Best accuracy is to bring the weapon to eye level (a la Applegate ¾) in order to verify aim, then use point shooting which is actually looking at the threat and shooting through the weapon and not the sights. For example, metal on meat, silhouette, peripheral, instinctive, indexed, etc. It's all the same thing; it's point shooting.

Personally, I have no interest in professional leo tactics such as room clearing, proper draw stroke, suspect control, teamwork, etc.
My interests are self-defense for the ordinary, rarely practiced, physically disadvantaged, weak or elderly citizen....who might also wear bifocals and get caught up in a situation in low light where that citizen couldn't see their sights anyway. Just basic stuff that works.

That's why I always tell folks: Self-defense handguns should be familiar and have a laser sight. Learn to point shoot. Learn and practice your instinctive reaction (crouch, move, etc) because the first priority is to 'not' get shot.
.

matthew temkin
March 28, 2009, 06:54 AM
Check out #2, which is Kyle's take on point shooting.
Then check out the comments and Kyle's responses.
Clears up a lot of confusion---and backs up Deaf Smith's point of view.
Then check out the shooting drills--awesome stuff.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-oYRn_llgo&feature=PlayList&p=F02FF6F844F7DE37&index=0&playnext=1

7677
March 28, 2009, 07:36 AM
Sky guy,
I didn't have time to crouch, I took a drop step moved and shot. What it taught me is even though I had not shot one handed from 3/4 hip for several years that under stress I went back to what worked for me in combat. Yes, I did squeeze the weapon and I was focused on the target.

Point shoulder is what Applegate taught and I agree it is the most accurate position for beginning shooters because it brings the gun up just under the line of sight.

Matt,
The point I disagree with Deaf and a lot of other people on is the building of eye/hand coordination. It is the key to unlocking the ability to hit the exact point one is focused on and once this is mastered everything else is a piece of cake. The draw stroke is no longer important because you don't have to wait until full extension to make the majority of the shots one would expect to encounter in a realistic shooting scenario.

As far as the video goes, I bet I can do that drill with a pistol and within those same times.

Skyguy
March 28, 2009, 09:50 AM
check out the shooting drills--awesome stuff.

Matt, no dis, but that rifle 'drill' is just a beginner's stand and deliver target practice. Tactically, it has no fight value.
That guy wouldn't last 10 seconds in combat or a real fight.
.

Skyguy
March 28, 2009, 10:32 AM
I didn't have time to crouch

Not meant to argue, but review your video and see if you had bent knees. That's a combat crouch. It's very different from the standard drop step and target shooting postures. Fear causes the crouch reaction.
I used to argue the crouch issue with Brownie till he finally figured it out on his own.

If you didn't crouch much it's because in FoF there is only light stress.
There is no startle response and certainly no fear....no fear of dying or injury or even getting your eye shot out.

But, it does teach the basic 'move off the x while shooting' tactic.
.

7677
March 28, 2009, 12:17 PM
Skyguy,
I'm well aware of what the crouch as I teach it. However, when you are dealing with one person and the other guy draws his weapon and to have to deal with it right then there is no use in dropping your base (crouching) but you move and the fastest way to get off-line is with a modified drop step.

This is one of those thing to have to see in person to understand. BTW, when I do fof I do it with eye protection only. I only wear protection when I'm the designated target over and over again. Why because I want to feel the pain if I mess up and to keep from making it into BB or sims fest.

markr
March 28, 2009, 03:34 PM
I haven't bothered reading this whole thing, and you do what works for you, and is applicaple to the situation unfolding before you.

But....

I trained quite a bit in the Army shooting instinctive style (Not aiming with sights) up to 15 yards with a rifle. The drill was to double tap at high ready, followed by a single aimed shot. I can tell you that while moving, facing flip up targets, the aimed shot was rarely needed after some practice. I find that the same applies with pistols. The way we started out was to point at the targets with our non firing index fingers(No gun). Human nature is such that when you point at something with your finger, your aim is pretty good too. Well, slap a firearm into that pointed hand, and start "Pointing" at your targets. For whatever reason, I seem to be able to shoot better while running around and pointing naturally, than standing at a firing line taking aimed shots.

Try it out. Pick a spot accross the room and point at it, and take a look down your finger and check the alignment. A laser sight would be a good way to test this.

Deaf Smith
March 28, 2009, 08:59 PM
The draw stroke is no longer important because you don't have to wait until full extension to make the majority of the shots one would expect to encounter in a realistic shooting scenario.

7677,

The draw stroke is important for several reasons.

a) Consistency of grip. Without that any 'pointing' will not point to where you look, especially if you can't see the gun in your peripheral vision. Just get the weapon in a shifted grip will show anyone why a good grip is mandatory. We all know that when firing at a real threat you will most likely not see the hits and thus no correction feedback. And that means your alignment must be good.

b) Getting the weapon out without fumbling under stress. This is especially true if there is any concealment, straps, snaps, safeties, etc...

c) Even 1/2 or 3/4 hip can be considered part of the draw stroke (the 4 point stroke is not the only way to draw) and thus the alignment needed requires practice. No matter how you do it, you will have to have a consistent alignment, and thus a consistent draw stroke.

So, yes one needs to do everything from the leather to ingrain the correct way to draw under stress for both alignment and consistency.

matthew temkin
March 28, 2009, 09:49 PM
7677,

The draw stroke is important for several reasons.

a) Consistency of grip. Without that any 'pointing' will not point to where you look, especially if you can't see the gun in your peripheral vision. Just get the weapon in a shifted grip will show anyone why a good grip is mandatory. We all know that when firing at a real threat you will most likely not see the hits and thus no correction feedback. And that means your alignment must be good.

b) Getting the weapon out without fumbling under stress. This is especially true if there is any concealment, straps, snaps, safeties, etc...

c) Even 1/2 or 3/4 hip can be considered part of the draw stroke (the 4 point stroke is not the only way to draw) and thus the alignment needed requires practice. No matter how you do it, you will have to have a consistent alignment, and thus a consistent draw stroke.

So, yes one needs to do everything from the leather to ingrain the correct way to draw under stress for both alignment and consistency.

Ye gads, I am agreeing so much with Deaf Smith lately that I may start believing in the Easter Bunny.
(Can peace in the Middle East be far behind?)
Thank goodness someone finally stated that the 4 count draw stroke is not the only animal in the forest.
I fully agree and teach my students to get a firing grip on the weapon before drawing it out of the holster.
This way there is no wasted motion bringing it onto the target, be it close hip, half hip. 3/4, full extension or a combination of them all. (As per this demo:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcc8DVRO_TU&feature=related)
I think that what 7677 is alluding to is to have the gun out in covert ready, so as not to have to do a panic draw.
Out of all the times that I had to draw my weapon only once was I taken by complete surprise and had to draw from complete concealment to get the drop on a bad guy who ( I thought) was reaching for a gun.
Sure did make all those moments practicing in front of a mirror worthwhile.

7677
March 28, 2009, 09:58 PM
Deaf,
Your missing the point...but then again haven't we gone over this in 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003...and now 2009.

For everyone else who is interested...with sighted shooting the draw stroke is the means to the end, i.e. you have to get to the end of it in order to see your sights to make the shot. With point shooting, you draw to the first point within the draw stroke in order to make the shot. The draw stroke is compressed but that does not means the grip initiation is changed.

You draw to the point to your eyes are focused on and fire. You do not have to have this perfect alignment and when you identify a threat and you think you are may need to use your gun it should be in your hand in a covert position such as down by the side of your leg not your holster.

Deaf Smith
March 29, 2009, 05:48 PM
sighted shooting the draw stroke is the means to the end

Retention/hip shooting/'1/4 hip' is most certianly part of sighted fire. Even the MT system has the speed rock.

It's what is between full extension and such as 1/4th hip that we find disagreement as for what is necessary.

And 7677, there are too many surveillance videos where shop owners didn't have time to get their roscoe out before festivities commenced. And that is why you train from the holster.

And Matt, there will NEVER be peace in the Middle East until everyone involved over there has killed each other. Eye for an eye is just their code of conduct. Their lifestyle.

7677
March 29, 2009, 08:36 PM
Deaf,
You are entitled to your opinion of what works however I'm not going argue this with you yet again because I have already put your opinion of what works into its proper perspective...you refuse to put it to the test.

I also don't know what videos you are watching but the ones I've seen the clerk usually draws the weapon from a location by the register after the criminal was stuffing the money in their pockets.

Deaf Smith
March 30, 2009, 06:05 PM
Regardless of what videos you or I watch 7677, they still had to draw the weapon from a location. So it was not in their hand to begin with. And thus an incorrect grip can easily result.

And that is why you train from the leather (or for these store owners who carry off body, as Lance Thomas did, train from the hidden holster below the counter.)

You still don't just hold it in you hand with a perfect grip.

7677
March 30, 2009, 07:54 PM
Deaf,
You are absolutely correct if the gun is not already in your hand you have to draw it from someplace.

matthew temkin
March 30, 2009, 09:22 PM
And Matt, there will NEVER be peace in the Middle East until everyone involved over there has killed each other. Eye for an eye is just their code of conduct. Their lifestyle.

What about the Easter Bunny?

Stevie-Ray
April 1, 2009, 03:19 PM
What about the Easter Bunny?What about him? He lives. Thank God he lives! Ten times ten thousand years from now he will still continue to live in the hearts of...........oh wait a minute, that's somebody else.

matthew temkin
April 1, 2009, 04:22 PM
Thanks, Steve.
I feel much better now.