BlackwaterUSA Chimes in on Point vs Sight shooting

[kraigwy]

Tip of the Week:

Sighted Fire vs. Point Shooting

What makes a good shooter is being able to be consistent, by doing the same thing over and over under stress. If you practice both sighted fire and point shooting, under stress you will revert back to point shooting because it requires less mental thought then using your sights. This is why most tactical teams that teach both sighted fire and point shooting are getting less than 20% hits on target. That's 80% of total shots fired not hitting their intended targets. When ask if they had seen their sights, the answer is usually no. Where are these rounds going, the answer is nobody knows. This has the potential of hitting innocent bystanders or other teammates and that is unacceptable. Also, civilians that use their weapon for home defense and train to point shoot have the potential to hit a family member. You need to have an acceptable sight picture for every round fired out of your weapon. Why? Because, you are held accountable for each one of those rounds. There is minimal time difference between picking up your sights rather than point shooting. What it will give you is a higher hit probability on your intended target. On the range you need to practice sighted shooting and become consistent so under stress you are better able to get your hits.

Joseph Scolly
Firearms and Tactics Instructor

I subscribe to Using the Sights, I've pushed that when I was a LE Firearm instructor, coaching NG Marksmanship teams and in SD or CC classes.

I dont beleive there is the delay in getting on the sights, I do believe you revert to your training or habits in stressful situations. Good habits are as hard to break as bad habits. I just couldnt say it as well as Mr Scolly.

[45Gunner]

I agree. Sight shooting is paramount for taking out a threat and minimizing unwanted damage.

The Agency I worked for was very unique in that if we, as Agents, were to be engaged in a firefight, it was going to be in close quarters, usually with lots of innocent people in the vicinity. Accuracy and time were the qualifying factors when it came to training. All training and qualifying range sessions were timed with X number of points for specific hits and -X number of points for other than specific hits or bullets left in the magazines during the time allowed. If you were to qualify, you had to be fast and you had to be accurate.

If you train yourself to be accurate, the speed will follow. I couldn't think of a worse outcome than think you neutralized a threat only to find you took out a family member in the commotion and confusion.

[Trigger Finger]

I think there is allot more to be said about point shooting than most people understand! Applegate, Fairbain and Jordan put the point shooting method as the primary concern in gunfights. And these are pepole who have been in actual life and death encounters.

This is from a N.Y.P.D. study of 6,000 incidents.

In 70% of the cases reviewed, officers reported that they used instinctive or point shooting.
It was used for a variety of reasons: the close proximity of their adversary, rapid escalation of the incident, poor lighting, or the need for the swiftest possible reaction. No sight alignment was employed.

It is an acknowledged fact that very few gunfight survivors ever remember seeing their sights at all during a life-threatening encounter. In other words, regardless of the amount of practice using the sights at the target range, the vast majority of shootout survivors are unable to see their sights when faced with life-threatening stress. One study found that when faced with stress, '93% of officers focused on the threat, not the weapon, and 88% of the officers resorted to binocular vision.’

[Latex Ducky]

To expand on what trigger finger said, we should be practicing point shooting, NOT sight shooting because in intense situations, we don't use the sights so why should we rely on something we haven't practiced?

[NRAhab]

It is an acknowledged fact that very few gunfight survivors ever remember seeing their sights at all during a life-threatening encounter. In other words, regardless of the amount of practice using the sights at the target range, the vast majority of shootout survivors are unable to see their sights when faced with life-threatening stress.

That's called a false correlation. Just because some gunfight survivors don't recall seeing the sights doesn't mean they didn't use the sights. It just means that in the trauma of the gunfight, their brain decided that it wasn't important to catalog the mental image of the sight picture as a memory. Gunfight survivors don't remember a lot of things about their gunfights, including stuff like reloading, the number of shots fired, moving, etc. To suggest that because they don't remember seeing their sights means that they didn't use them betrays a significant lack of understanding of the mechanics of stress incidents.

[fiddletown]

As Clint Smith wrote in theJanuary/February 2008 American Handgunner:



"It's alway argued that in a fight shooters will not look at their sights. I strongly agree -- if no one has ever taught them otherwise. To say that people don't, or won't, look at their sights is wrong. People have, they will in the future, and they'll hit the...target too. The correct alignment of the sights is a learnable skill. Is a textbook perfect sight picture available in every fight? Of course not....In fairness, the sights are only part of the issue -- the jerked on trigger doesn't improve anything."



Even when one has been taught to look at the sights, how much has he actually practiced quickly seeing the adequate sight picture and acting reflexively, without conscious thought, on the rough sight picture? As another trainer, Bennie Cooley, once told me, "It's not that I shoot quicker than you do. It's that I see quicker."

With the proper training and practice, it's amazing how fast one can acquire a flash sight picture and hit accurately. Learning those techniques and developing proficiency in the use of those techniques also gives you the flexibility to deal with targets at pretty much any distance. What would you do if you had to engage an armed threat 10 to 12 yards away and partially behind cover?



The idea behind the flash sight picture is to focus on the front sight quickly and align the sights only as precisely as warranted under the circumstances. At distances on the order of 5 to 7 yards, when the target is the center of mass, a rough alignment will be sufficient to assure good hits (as long as you have good trigger control). As distances increase or the target shrinks, the alignment needs to be more precise.

To expand on what trigger finger said, we should be practicing point shooting, NOT sight shooting because in intense situations, we don't use the sights so why should we rely on something we haven't practiced? First, you should be practicing using your sights -- and quickly. Therefore, you would not be relying on something you didn't practice. You have practiced using your sights and therefore can rely on them.

Under stress, one reverts to one's level of training. So, as Clint Smith (and other instructors like Joseph Scolly quoted in the first post, Louis Awerbuck, Massad Ayoob, Jeff Cooper and yet others) if you have trained to use your sights, you will use them. And if you have trained ot use them quickly, you will use them quickly.

[James K]

I am not sure I would be so analytical in a gun fight, but I think it is a matter of circumstances, mainly distance. The idea of point shooting at 50 yards is scary if any bystanders are in the vicinity. But using the sights and taking aim, no matter how rapidly, at five feet is silly. (It can also be dangerous legally; point and shoot looks like self-defense but taking careful aim may look like deliberate murder.

Note, though, that point shooting is not "shooting from the hip". Point shooting involves holding the gun in front of you, where you can see it and see where it is pointing. You are essentially using the line of the gun as a sighting device. With practice, it can be accurate enough up to about 7-10 yards, and most misses will be high or low, not to the side, because it is harder to judge whether the gun is pointing up or down than where it is pointing in a horizonal plane.

Jim

[Trigger Finger]

Quote
"That's called a false correlation. Just because some gunfight survivors don't recall seeing the sights doesn't mean they didn't use the sights. It just means that in the trauma of the gunfight, their brain decided that it wasn't important to catalog the mental image of the sight picture as a memory. Gunfight survivors don't remember a lot of things about their gunfights, including stuff like reloading, the number of shots fired, moving, etc. To suggest that because they don't remember seeing their sights means that they didn't use them betrays a significant lack of understanding of the mechanics of stress incidents."

But on using the sights isn't that all we have to go by. The fact that they don't remember using there sights is not an indicator that they did. This is the only factor we can use, their memory, however flawed or not it is.

[Deaf Smith]

Paul Howe, who teaches in Nacogdoches, also feels if you do both, point shooting and sighted fire you will tend to default to the one that takes least effort, I.E. point shooting.

I hope some of you take a course from Tom Givens, of Rangemaster in Memphis. He has had over 50 students in gunfights and all have prevailed.

He gave an excellent power point presentation on ten of the shootings (the 10 were not cherry picked. He simply had the most data from the students that he could sit down and debrief.)

His power point presentation also showed how 'flash sight picture' works (it's a non-traditional use of the sights) and why it works so well. His course will teach you how to get very fast, very consitant GOOD hits.

[Mello2u]

Latex Ducky

To expand on what trigger finger said, we should be practicing point shooting, NOT sight shooting because in intense situations, we don't use the sights so why should we rely on something we haven't practiced?
Your statement only makes sense if you do not practice using your front sight.
If you do practice using your front sight what then?

I know I miss a lot more point shooting than when I use my sights, and the time difference is only a couple of hundredths of a second difference more when I take the time to focus on the front sight which more than makes up for the misses.

[oldkim]

I have to put my $0.02

I've seen this question pop up from time to time and the same argument arises (see above). Both sides will chip in and stand their ground.

One of the biggest things newer shooters need to understand is that there are lots of "views" on this topic. Please remember all the experts and "names" of experts are thrown around and also those with lots of experience will stand their ground.

The bottom line that comes up is practice what you are taught or trained.

Either one can be done to a degree of success if one is trained and practiced until it becomes muscle memory.

Each has it's limitations:
Point and shoot is limited to very close quarters shooting (within 3-10 feet in general).

Sight shooting is obviously better for farther distances (greater than 15 feet).

Again these are just distances from my point of view. There may be some that practice at closer and farther distances under each school of thought.



Where do I stand?

For me I am on the sighted shooting as you can increase the speed after lots of practice - which only increases your accuracy and speed while point shooting is limited to very close shooting and what I fear is more spray and pray type of shooting (just hoping by shooting a lot you can hit something you are trying to hit). Sorry no offense. I know there are some that can do it justice but I see quite more that cannot (just go to a shooting range). They are trying to aim and can't shoot.

Another point that many do not ask is how do the Grand Masters in IDPA and USPSA - now that is a good level of stress in those competitions, do it? All the teachings from the winners of these shooting events are sight shooting. Their accuracy is hands down "X" and their speed is un questioned. I just don't see any point shooters at this level of competition. Of course, these guys are shooting 50,000+ rounds a year so their muscle memory is right on. So, their ability is in the extreme range of the spectrum.

Again, this is just my 2 cents.

[fiddletown]

...Point shooting involves holding the gun in front of you, where you can see it and see where it is pointing. You are essentially using the line of the gun as a sighting device....If you can see the gun, you can see the front sight. And if you train and practice you can see it very quickly.

...His power point presentation also showed how 'flash sight picture' works (it's a non-traditional use of the sights) and why it works so well. His course will teach you how to get very fast, very consitant GOOD hits....Remember that the flash sight picture is not the precise, meticulous alignment of the sights as one might do in Bullseye competition. It can be done very quickly -- with practice. But it must be practiced diligently. Then again, if you hope to be able to consistently hit anything much beyond contact distance using point shooting, you'll need to practice that diligently as well.

Personally, I think you get a greater "return on investment" putting the effort into practicing the flash sight picture. If offers the greatest versatility.

...the time difference is only a couple of hundredths of a second difference more when I take the time to focus on the front sight which more than makes up for the misses.... +1

"Fast is fine, but accuracy is final." (Wyatt Earp)

...Another point that many do not ask is how do the Grand Masters in IDPA and USPSA - now that is a good level of stress in those competitions, do it? All the teachings from the winners of these shooting events are sight shooting....Exactly.

Consider the standard IPSC exercise called "El Presidente." Three standard IPSC targets are set up 1 meter (or yard) apart 10 meters (or yards) from the shooting position. The shooter starts facing up range (back to targets) with his hands held above his shoulders. His gun is loaded and in his holster (in condition 1 if it's a 1911 or BHP). On the audible start signal, the shooter turns, draws and engages each target with two rounds, reloads, and engages each target again with two rounds. I've seen good shooters complete this exercise with 12 center hits, in the Limited Division (no comps or optics), in 4 to 6 seconds; and I guarantee you that they were using their sights.


[ISC]

This is from a N.Y.P.D. study of 6,000 incidents.

In 70% of the cases reviewed, officers reported that they used instinctive or point shooting.
It was used for a variety of reasons: the close proximity of their adversary, rapid escalation of the incident, poor lighting, or the need for the swiftest possible reaction. No sight alignment was employed.


Seriously, you're using stats from a department that is notorious for multiple incidents where their officers fired hundreds of rounds at their opponents at less than 25 yds and only achieved a couple hits?

[armsmaster270]

In my shooting ny triggerguard was touching my side when I fired, there is no way I could see the sights. However I had trained this way and knew I could do ii I fired one shot. D.O.A.

http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff207/armsmaster270/Police%20Dept/CoronerDiagram.jpg

[Deaf Smith]

Personally, I think you get a greater "return on investment" putting the effort into practicing the flash sight picture. If offers the greatest versatility.

My feelings to. I'm well on record here and at GT (in fact everywhere I've posted) the basics are having a form of retention shooting and a form of sighted fire. Once mastered that's really all you need. BUT, if you want to go farther and learn other methods, that's fine with me to. The key is the core. Master it first.

[matthew temkin]

It is unfair to claim that point shooting is not accurate due to the NYPD SOP-9 stats.
After all, the NYC police are not taught how to point shoot.
What the stats do prove is that a lot of these officers are not using the aimed fire skills that they have been trained to use.
Not surprising, since the typical NYPD gunfight distance is 0-7 feet.
If you guys think that you can always use your sights in a super close range, low light situation, then more power to you.
However, once you get some quality point shooting instruction, then you will see just how fast AND accurate this method can be--and with minimal training/hours/ammunition.
One last thing..if officers who claim not to see their sights are mistaken (as some here have suggested) then can the reverse also be true?
Or is a miss assumed to be be via point shooting and vice versa?

Once again, here is a point shooting home study course that I wrote awhile back for those so interested.
I also shot a point shooting video with Paladin Press last June which should be coming out in a few months:
http://kilogulf59.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=handgun&action=display&thread=114

[Japle]

I've used the sights in training and competition for about 40 years. Still there have been IDPA stages where targets were so close that using the sights wasn't necessary. There was no concious decision made; I point-shot without thinking about it and always got good hits.

On the Steel Challenge stages, the sights are needed by most of us for all stages except Smoke and Hope. On that stage, the 1st 4 targets are big and close and using the sights is a waste of time. If you've trained using the sights and have a good index, you can just hose 'em. At least you can do it in practice! :D

A shooter who's had lots of training and experience using the sights doesn't really have to train for those super big and close targets. Anything beyond that, though, and real training is necessary, training that, IMHO, would be better spent on fast sighted fire.

[Deaf Smith]

If you guys think that you can always use your sights in a super close range, low light situation, then more power to you.

If it's 'super close' then it's retention shooting. If it's low light, then you either have night sights OR you simply use the same technique AS IF YOU CAN SEE THE SIGHTS (as per Jeff Cooper's instruction.)

The use of the 'flash sight picture' is only part. Again, as Cooper said, "the body aims, the sights confirm".

[matthew temkin]

To me retention shooting is a form of point shooting.
(W.E. Fairbairn called it 1/4 hip way back in 1942)
And what you quoted by Jeff Cooper is EXACTLY the same as Applegate's point shoulder method.
After all, if you CANNOT see the sights then some type of alternative must be used.
Glad to see that we agree on everything except the exact semantics.
Once again, for those so inclined to make up their own minds on this so called debate:
http://kilogulf59.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=handgun&action=display&thread=114

[fiddletown]

...you will see just how fast AND accurate this method can be--and with minimal training/hours/ammunition....I"m sorry, but I have great difficulty accepting the "minimal training/hours/ammunition" part. I'll grant that some shooters can be very accurate without the use of sights. Bill Jordon was an example. But those who are very fast and accurate point shooting, AFAIK, have spent a great deal of time and ammunition practicing. I just tend not to believe in magic bullets or short cuts.

Consider that the majority of shooters I see at the range can't put two rounds within 2 feet of each other, on a B-27 silhouette, slow fire, with sights, at 7 yards. Their problem is, of course, primarily trigger control. But good trigger control, consistently, under stress and at speed takes considerable practice to develop.

I'll stick with the way I've been trained: flash sight picture (and shooting from retention at contact distances).

[serf 'rett]

While I am a firm believer in using sights in all possible situations, I can remember the years I was a "point" shooter. I owned the most accurate BB gun in our neighborhood (dad always believed in buying high quality firearms), but at some point the sights got knocked off; therefore, I guess I was point shooting from there on.
Was I able to hit? You bettcha! Why could I put the BB on target?
In those days, my primary expenditure of my limited funds was the purchase of ammo (funny how some things haven’t changed in the last 40 years). Even though my rifle didn’t have sights, I could hit distance targets because I shot thousands of rounds and the repetition made shooting almost automatic.

[TailGator]

Interesting discussion with valid points on both sides.

The only contribution I will make is to offer a way to practice drawing and quick sight acquisition on a daily basis. In the interest of safety, make sure that you have a mirror in a location that makes this safe (like on an outside wall), and to keep the finger out of the trigger guard, but when you are ready to take your pistol off your belt when you get home, why not practice your draw and put the sights in the middle of the chest of that ugly sucker in the mirror? You have to pull the pistol anyway, so it takes like one extra second to make it a practice session.

FWIW.

[Deaf Smith]

Matt,

Semantics are alot of the issue. The main emphasis is on wither to ignore the sights in training or not.

Cooper, Givens, and Howe, find that practice with the sights is the best way to get the skills and not the other way around.


Tallgator,

Instead get a 'Red' gun that matches your carry gun, drill a hole in the barrel and empoxy some lead bullets, In the grip, drill a few holes and do the same. That makes the plastic red gun weigh like your carry gun. Use that Red gun to do all your quick draw in the house. That way, no chance of an accidental discharge.

[troy_mclure]

i practice heavily for point shooting on my kel tec p32. i start to fire as soon as the gun reaches my hip, and continue to fire as i extend my arm towards the target.

i practice this way because it is a "short range" gun, and all likelihood the "target" will be verry close, and every fraction of a second i can get im gonna use.

[saltydog452]

Ketchup, Mayo, or Mustard?

Full time corrective lenses or 'readers'?

What McGivern, Brice, or Bill Jordan could do has about as much relevance as Ford/Chevy Nascar choices vs. your daily driver.

salty

edit. Mr McClure nailed it. Learn to work with what you got.

sd.

[fiddletown]

...when you are ready to take your pistol off your belt when you get home, why not practice your draw and put the sights in the middle of the chest of that ugly sucker in the mirror?...I would not recommend this. You're performing this exercise with a gun you know to be loaded. One of these day one is likely to pull the trigger and get a nasty surprise (and seven years bad luck).

Instead, I recommend formal dry practice a few times a week 5 to 10 minutes at a time. Clear your gun. Triple check that it's unloaded. Remove all ammunition from the area. Practice presentation and sight/target acquisition, through the trigger press. Use something to aim at against a solid backstop (for extra safety). You can perhaps add in some movement -- turning and drawing, drawing while moving forwards or backwards, etc.

...all likelihood the "target" will be verry close,...And if it's not all that close, what's your "plan B"? Are you prepared for "plan B"?

[troy_mclure]

And if it's not all that close, what's your "plan B"? Are you prepared for "plan B"?

if hes that far away, run away/to cover of course!

[Wagonman]

I would opine that your muscle memory of aligning your sights during practice and quals would make "point" and "aimed" fire a distinction without a difference in CQB---right now shooting. If you have time to aim you have time to tactically retreat. of course YMMV

[fiddletown]

..if hes that far away, run away/to cover of course...If you can.

[1] He doesn't necessarily have to be that far away, especially if he has a gun.

[2] Maybe you have an incapacitated companion. Do you plan to abandon him/her?

[3] Maybe you don't have a good retreat path. Maybe there's little good cover.

Sure all of these possibilities may be low probability. But having to use your gun is low probability too.

The point is that you can't know ahead of time what your problem will be -- what may happen or how it may happen. If you have only one way to deal with things, one tool, it may wind up being the wrong tool for the particular problem. The more versatile your skill set, the better off you're likely to be.

...If you have time to aim you have time to tactically retreat....Using your sights -- the flash sight picture -- is not really "taking aim." It is quick and reflexive. It really takes no appreciable time.

[Dragon55]

At 7 yds the very best speedy handgun shooter I ever saw had been an Orkin man for over 20 years.

He could shoot a golf ball until the mag was empty and never sighted the gun.

With enough ammo anyone could develop this skill.

..... I'm just sayin'.......

[Deaf Smith]

Using your sights -- the flash sight picture -- is not really "taking aim." It is quick and reflexive. It really takes no appreciable time.

And that's the truth of it. Given's PowerPoint presentation showed this. It 'flashed' the sight pictures several types, some with the sights dead on, some with the front sight high, or left, or low, or right, or a combo of that, to .1 second and each of the viewers guessed where the shot would land. All of them gave the right responses. It just took .1 second (or less cause we didn't go any faster) to verify the sight alignment.

At very close range you do not need a perfect sight alignment, but by verifying every time you shoot and practice, you will ingrain that response and align the gun properly. What is more, the hits will be GOOD hits. No peripheral hits. It takes just a flash sight picture and a good surprise break (another Cooper idea).

The surprise break is trigger control folks. Another must if you want to hit well, and I don't care what method of shooting, trigger control is a must.

With enough ammo anyone could develop this skill.

And that's why I'm a big proponent of IDPA. That's were in practice you burn up alot of ammo to get that very skill Dragon. You not only get more trigger time but you practice good technique and tactics.

[MLeake]

... the ones along the lines of, "if you have time to aim, you have time to retreat"...

... I have to wonder how long people think it takes to aim? I'm not all that fast, and I have knocked down six 8" plates at 11 yards in 4.5 sec for my current personal best. (Average so far is just over 6 sec) No way I could hit those at that range without a flash sight picture, pointing would just not quite cut it. Yet I don't think .75 sec per target is that all that glacially slow... and even 1.07 sec per target isn't all that bad.

Beats the heck out of missing 3 out of 6 (or worse) to shave off a second or two.

[Wagonman]

Using your sights -- the flash sight picture -- is not really "taking aim." It is quick and reflexive. It really takes no appreciable time

That is pretty much what I am refering to, not hip shooting. Get that front sight on threat squeeze the trigger repeat as needed.

[fiddletown]

...The surprise break is trigger control folks. Another must if you want to hit well, and I don't care what method of shooting, trigger control is a must...Ain't that the truth. If you jerk the trigger, you're going to miss (or get a peripheral hit) no matter what.

When the front and rear sights are aligned, wherever the front sight is, whether or not you see it, when the shot breaks is where the bullet will hit (at least within an inch or so at handgun distances). If the trigger gets jerked and the front sight moves as the shot breaks, where the front sight has moved to is where the bullet will hit; and it doesn't take much to move the front sight off target entirely.

One thing I learned in my Cowboy Action Shooting days was that no target is too close or too large to miss. We shot large metal targets close in (probably too close). Yet sometimes even experienced shooters missed completely.

[troy_mclure]

[1] He doesn't necessarily have to be that far away, especially if he has a gun.

[2] Maybe you have an incapacitated companion. Do you plan to abandon him/her?

[3] Maybe you don't have a good retreat path. Maybe there's little good cover.

Sure all of these possibilities may be low probability. But having to use your gun is low probability too.

The point is that you can't know ahead of time what your problem will be -- what may happen or how it may happen. If you have only one way to deal with things, one tool, it may wind up being the wrong tool for the particular problem. The more versatile your skill set, the better off you're likely to be.


then i close the distance, since that would be the only option left.

[fiddletown]

then i close the distance, since that would be the only option left. I guess that would be your only option, unless you want to now take the time and trouble to give yourself another option -- by learning to use your sights to be able to shoot quickly and accurately and get hits over a wide range of distances to your target.

I have that option, and I like it better than closing on a guy whose trying to kill me.

[Deaf Smith]

One thing I learned in my Cowboy Action Shooting days was that no target is too close or too large to miss.

That reminds me fiddletown of an IDPA match I ran. I had as a surprise gun a J frame chief's .38. I asked everyone if they knew how to shoot one. Everyone raised their hands and said, 'Yep'. Savvy bunch those shooters with all their fancy 1911s and Glocks and 'photo vest tactical' gear.

Well after they ran their gun dry they ditched their gun and grabbed the Chiefs. FIVE OF THE SHOOTERS MISSED THE WHOLE BACKSTOP! At least that's how many did it before I stopped them and read them the riot act. I told them they signed a no-sue statement but anyone that got shot a half a mile away didn't! I told them to AIM and hit the target. Most of them shot all over the target. That DA pull and the kick of that little gun was just too much for them. So much for their trigger control!

Well that was my education as to what people think they can shoot but can’t. I know some of them pack little .38s all the time!

[mavracer]

My question is for the close ranges you need point shooting/retention skills is this something a person even needs to practice? I've shot a lot in my life and have always used sights for all practice and I've never had any problems with retention drills in IDPA. I can't imagine a situation that would require point shooting where my natural gun-handling from 30+ years wouldn't be adaquate.

also I'm not saying don't practice I'm saying I belive point shooting will be a byproduct of signifigent training and practice with the sights.

[Deaf Smith]

mavracer,

Yes it needs practice. Renention shooting can be from 0 on out to say, 3 yards. It may be while you are grappling with an opponent. It may be while you are moving backwards or to the side. You may be defending yourself with the other hand in the process (or using the other hand to shield another.)

The hits have to still be good hits. Sold COM, high COM (upper chest) or pelvis if thats all you can aim for at the time.

You have to make sure your off hand and arm are out of the way when firing least they get shot in the heat of the enguagment.

You have to practice, if wearing a coat or jacket, to cant the gun to one side (presuming it's an simi-auto) to keep it from malfunctioning due to your coat or bullet proof vest.

It has to be practice at odd angles in case you are off balance when you had to use it.

And again, good hits.

So yes, retention shooting needs to be practiced and here is a way:

1. Soft air guns that match your carry gun.
2. Make a laser gun like I did out of a soft air gun.
3. Use 'red' or 'blue' training guns and partners and practice grappling attacks to hone both your H2H skills and retention shooting skills (and that includes drawing the gun from under your concealment while being attacked.)
4. Get a .22 unit for your carry gun and practice live fire on the range at retention distance.

I use options 2, 3, and 4 myself.

[mavracer]

You have to make sure your off hand and arm are out of the way when firing least they get shot in the heat of the enguagment.

You have to practice, if wearing a coat or jacket, to cant the gun to one side (presuming it's an simi-auto) to keep it from malfunctioning due to your coat or bullet proof vest.
good points and I would say practicing from retention is important but I'm not worried about my accuracy at these ranges.

[ECHOONE]

The problem is most confuse the principle shooting tactics implied for military with that for a civilian. Unfortunately there's a percentage of people that get a permit and go Gunho! They Get ready to take on WW111 yet never Had any real Tactical training let alone experience!
Point shooting as related to military, You have to remember and realize it's a must they in most cases have to lay down a field of fire. It doesn't matter if those rds are hits as long as there close enough to keep the bad guys head down so maneuvering can take place! This does not apply to civilian point shooting were more sight alignment is necessary due to responsibility of each rd fired and need for more accurate fire.Civilian Point shooting or the way I do it anyway is more of just keeping my front sight aligned on my target but not taking the time to totally align with the rear sigh,of course if time would allow I would,it all depends on the incident on hand!
Nothing in Life is 100%,there's certain things that aren't going to pertain Tactics developed for LEO/Military that are then adapted for civilian Sd. You have to adapt and figure out what makes logical sense to use and what to drop out of the system and not just take everything for face value.

[zombieslayer]

I didn't know there was a "BlackwaterUSA" anymore, I thought they were xi or xe or something?

[NRAhab]

The military/contracting arm of Blackwater is now "Xe". The training and instruction facilities now operate under the name US Training Center.

[mddevildog]

Time for me to step on some toes. Do you guys read what you type, or use spell check or check your grammer before you submit it? By and large, I agree with Matt Temkin, but I also have thoughts of my own.
First, there are several different levels of focus you need to be aware of, but like anything else, learning how they affect you is a matter of practice.
There are in fact distances where sights are not needed, giving you that .01 second you think is not very important, and as you know, these distances will vary from person to person. There are also distances where you need to focus totally on the front sight, this too will vary from person to person.
To me, none of the competetive shooting sports are geared towards preparing for a lethal confrontation, but I think they are fun and do help to improve fundamentals.
There is not enough room here to address everything, and I'm sure there will be comments about the things I don't touch on, so be it.
Misses are obviously the result of many variables, but not using the sight at CQB distances is not the primary cause. Pre ignition push, lack of understanding or application of the grip, to include setting the wrist and elbow, and a lack of practicing these things to an acceptable level on a square range are at the forefront. After that, I firmly believe the largest portion of survival skills "training" needs to occur in a FOF environment. Slowly at first, so you can observe and think about what you are doing and what you need to be doing. Obviously, all training is false, because nothing can replicate the stress of a real life encounter, but FOF does help to bridge that gap and "training" in this environment is the only way (unless you participate in the real thing) to reach a skill level where you are able to respond the way you want to, rather than the way your stressed brain forces you to. Understand, from extremely close, to relatively close confrontations, dynamic movement is a absolute neccesity. This movement, makes it extremely difficult to focus on the sights, especially using a two hand grip. Using a one hand grip will help smooth, or reduce the bounce as you move, therefore, making sight acquisition somewhat easier, if you can revert to the thinking side of your brain after the initial startle response. In my opinion, the only advantage to a two hand grip is it's ability, when applied properly, to get the weapon re-aligned more quickly with the target, which in turn, equates to some faster follow up shots, and no, it's not just as fast to acquire a two hand grip from the holster as a one hand grip and first shot. Use the timer and prove it to yourself. Sorry, I got a little off subject there. There were a lot of valid observations made here, but I think we were focusing on handgun fighting here, not just handgun shooting. Don't be afraid to step outside the box and try something different, not just for a few repitions, but long enough to see how it works with some level of competency. You might be surprised at the result. Hope I did not bore you, I know it was long. Stay Safe!
RB

[troy_mclure]

Quote:
Originally Posted by troy_mclure
then i close the distance, since that would be the only option left.

I guess that would be your only option, unless you want to now take the time and trouble to give yourself another option -- by learning to use your sights to be able to shoot quickly and accurately and get hits over a wide range of distances to your target.

I have that option, and I like it better than closing on a guy whose trying to kill me.

using my sights doesnt give me any more range than point shooting from a "mouse gun", and they have to come close to get my wallet/money.

[domininance]

Everyone here has made many valid and great points, so rather than be redundant i will give what unique input I feel I can. I recieved some very serious (read "expensive") training from the US Training Center, formerly Blackwater Training Center (with the name change to XE Int'l they changed the training center facility name as well, same staff and teachers, all the employees were still calling it blackwater too)

I was an passable shooter before i attended those classes. i mangaed to qualify for a firearms carry guard card, but thats not saying much. I am a remarkable shooter after attending those classes. We learned first hand that it takes only a fraction of a second more time to get sight alignment then to instinctively shoot, but your accuracy goes through the roof! everyone one in the class was shooting at least 100 percent better by the weeks end.

at 21 feet i will consistently put a bullet in an 8 inch target, from holstered, in 1.5 seconds all day long. we timed it. i promise you i am looking through my sites. when not properly sighting we typically shaved a .25 of a seconds time and also usually missed. follow up shots will always take longer than properly sighting and hitting the first time. and i have more ammo left than you.

Blackwater teaches the modern isosceles method of pistol shooting. one of the main reasons for this/strengths of this style is that it enables some of the fastest reacquisition of sites on follow up shots. and it works really well.

[Deaf Smith]

mddevildog,

If you are referring to type 1,2,3,4 focuses this is well know (Brian Enos.) But with flash sight picture it's not about how well you focus on the sights, but seeing the relationship of the sights. As long as you can see the relationship then you have the 'picture' and have verified the sight alignment.

FOF is best used to find out what deficiency you have in a particular area so you can train to overcome that deficiency. When used as a laboratory to find out what works and not works it then tends to be limited by the experience of the participants. If the only participants are inexperience, you will only see techniques that are limited, limited by their lack of experience. This can give a false view.

This is particularly true of both sides of the FOF scenario are inexperienced.

And that is why one must be careful how they run FOF scenarios and keep in mind the abilities of those involved.

As for sights .vs. point shooting, as I posted about Tom Givens classes, 50 of his students have been in gunfights and all have prevailed. That is no 'game' or competition.

For those with limited budget/time a form of retention shooting and a form of sighted fire covers all bases and no need to learn a third form of shooting.

[Photohause]

Yes, I agree.

[armsmaster270]

At over 7 yards I will use flash sighting and at a point I will use aimed fire but there are cases where using them is impractical. at point blank range you do not want to stick your weapon out far enough for the other guy to grab it, at that point he can actually get a better grip on it than you and it is useless. in those cases you want to keep it close and protected by your body when you fire and in that position sights are useless. Use sights at times but know how to shoot without them also,

[kraigwy]

To me, none of the competetive shooting sports are geared towards preparing for a lethal confrontation

I disagree, every time I shoot a bullseye match, my scores or groups of my carry pistol goes up.

After a 2700 where I spend the day hanging on the front sight carries over to my carry pistol. When I dont shoot bullseye for a while my shooting of my carry pistol gets worse. That concentration carries over, now I just need to shoot more 2700s.

[matthew temkin]

Mddevildog--not much to add to your excellent post.
Echoone--I disagree that point shooting is military based.
W.E. Fairbairn developed his system for a large police department where he spent 33 years.
I personally know several PD's--Mass State Police, Akron OH PD, The Swedish National Police to name some--that are having excellent hit rates/gunfight wins since implementing point shooting in their programs.
Point shooting is capable of punching dime-fist size groups in extreme rapid fire
at ranges out to 10 yards( and in many cases out to 50 feet) with minimal instruction and practice.
Here is a review posted on Lightfighter from a free class ( I quite often offer free classes for law enforcement/military personnel) that I put on for some N.J. SWAT officers in 2005.
The class was for just a couple of hours and shows the ease and accuracy point shooting can offer:

The Calverton LI, NY After Action Report:

Date: Oct. 1, '05
Location: Calverton Pistol and Rifle Range, LI, NY
Time:1000 hrs
Weather: clear, sunny, 75F, breezy
Weapons: Glock 23(.40 cal), Rem. 870 pump action 14" barrel
Instructor: Matthew Temkin

Matt offered a pointshooting seminar in Calverton on Saturday for free. Looks like me and two of my guys from work were ther only ones able to make it out. I drove two hours from NJ to see what he was about. I think it's my duty to fill you guys in on what went down and to give Matt much due credit on his level of skill in pointshooting and his overall presentation.

I'll start by reminding everyone the seminar was free, I didn't pay Matt a dime, he didn't have an agenda. Matt brought two friends of his; one a retired agent from a three letter agency, the other a firearms instructor from a multi-juridictional Police Department.

Matt started the day with a 30 min. lecture on the history of pointshooting and its founders. He talked about the gunfighters of the West, WW II, the OSS, Shanghai and the FBI. He talked about the FBI style, Elbow up/elbow down, weapon retention and arms extended pointshooting. The man is very knowledgeable.

We go to the firing line where we had set up three targets at about 4-5 yds. Matt lets us know he's going to fire a couple of rounds then proceeds to machine gun his Glock 9mm from the hip into a target. He fires about four to the Q then three to the head, then five more to the Q. He runs dry, changes mags, then starts at the other target (about 6 yds away). Belly, head, belly, head, switch targets, belly, runs dry. "what do ya think? Pointshooting works?" he asks. I said to myself, "If that's a parlor trick, I want some of that."

He started us off easy then quickly got us moving at a faster pace. He said we were good students and picked up fast. I had never spent more than 10 mins. pointshooting, it was fun to get your mind away from proper shooting fundamentals and let your body do what comes naturally. After no more than 30 mins. we were all shooting with consistent acuracy. I had no more than a four inch spread on my rapid fire bursts, my freind had consistent two inch speads with many going in the same hole. I was jealous. We were shooting from the 5 yd line.

Matt spoke about combatives and echoed the words others have said of fighting and fighting with a handgun is and should be intergrated.

Interesting point; although I know Matt is an avid fan of pointshooting and teaches it zealously, I did hear him say on at least three occassion, "Look this is for in close fighting, where most gunfights are going to happen. If you're 15 or 20 yds away you need to be getting behind some cover and using your sights." Matt never says pointshooting is the only method one should use and belittle any style, school or train of thought. He is opinionated but will end all arguments by saying, look this works for me you can do whatever you want.

We moved over shotgun where we continued to use the techniques discussed for the pistol.

We shot alot that day. The things that most stuck out was: #1. The speed that one could/should be firing your gun. Matt would not be satisfied until it sounded like we were firing automatic weapons. #2. The aggression Matt wants his shooters to have when they fire on a target. We all got alot out of the day with Matt and are going to be looking to do some more training with him, pointshooting, combatives or both. I would recommend Matthew Temkin's training, I found him to know his stuff and be an engaging instructor. I'm going to take back the lessons learned from Matt and add the skills to my normal sighted fire training.

Matt: Great time.


TF out.

Posts: 66 | Location: New Jersey | Registered: 15 February 200
« Last Edit: Sept 13, 2009, 8:40pm by mtemkin » Link to Post - Back to Top IP: 74.101.29.102
[Search This Thread] [Add Bookmark] [Add Poll]

[Hard Ball]

Should you learn piont shooting?

YOU BET YOUR LIFE YOU SHOULD!

[mddevildog]

As I said, there would be responses to the things I did not cover. Based on the response about levels of focus, you do not really understand them.
I think "flash" sight picture says what it is.
You are correct about what is included in FOF, but much can be learned regardless of your experience level if you take the time to analyze the results of each practice scenario. Not trying to step on toes here, I know everyone is espousing their thoughts and experiences and want nothing but the best for all who carry a gun for protection of life. I have my opinions and they have come after many years of training others, being trained by others training myself with self annalization of performance and effectiveness of techniques used, but then through presentation to trusted colleagues. Much like politics, I often find myself asking myself when reading an article, watching a video, or even listening to someone during a training class, how some of you continue to believe the only way to shoot during a fight is to use the sights. I will not go so far as to say no one can focus on the front sight, even in a "flash", but I will say it will not happen for the largest majority. Why is that? Because in order to have even the slightest chance of doing so, one must have been immersed in an environment where he or she becomes, if it's at all possible, more or less "comfortable" in a highly stressful confrontation. I don't care how much you shoot and practice using a "flash" sight picture, you will not use it, at least initially, during a close, or relatively close spontaneous lethal attack. Neither will you produce a smooth trigger yank without a little horizontal movement of the muzzle, but that's OK. Something else I don't do, don't recommend and do not teach, is maintaining contact with the trigger, with the trigger finger when trying to manipulate the trigger as rapidly as I can during close in fighting drills. I've had it happen to me and I've seen it happen to others on numerous occasions. What I'm talking about is "short stroking" the trigger, a hiccup if you will, but none the less time consuming and if you think even .001 of a second slower is acceptable during a gunfight when it could have been done quicker, I question your sanity. Again, not trying to alienate anyone here, I just don't hold back, one reason I don't post much. One more thing and I'll drop this. During my basic program, using a two hand hold is not addressed until we attain an acceptable level of competence with one hand and sight alignment with sight picture is not addressed until an acceptable level of competence is reached without them and all the above must be done from a stationary platform up through dynamic movement, laterally and to the obliques. I've not had the opportunity to train with Matt Temkin yet, but I will as soon as I get the chance. Matt, we've been "point" shooting here continually since my academy days circa 1971. Again, as I've already said, try training outside your box or comfort level, you might be surprised.
Stay Safe
RB

[matthew temkin]

Mddevildog--which part of the county do you hail from?
I am giving presentations next month in Va, August in Reno ( at Wes Doss's 1 inch to 100 yard conference), in September in Boston for the Mass Assoc of L.E. Fireearms instructors and some programs in Az, maybe Fla and perhaps Ohio.
Send me a PM for further details.
Looking forward to sharing some range time with you.

[ursavus.elemensis]

Crimson Trace laser grips
If I ever have to shoot at anyone, I'm going to be firing the instant that the gun clears the holster and long before the sights are in my line of sight. With the laser, I can do that, quite literally, upside down and backwards.

[threadbare]

Matt Temkin, was wondering if you have any plans to teach in Texas sometime. Just trained with R. Phillips (PSP) and had my eyes opened so to speak. Have always felt that "point shooting" was an important skillset to acquire and training with Roger showed me how far that might actually be taken. His lectures on the "fight continum" (which I believe he credited to you) are just flat out common sense. I'd bet if the majority of posters on this thread just had a taste of what could be done with point shooting/dynamic movement and "seeing what needs to seen" as far as sighted fire goes (in the fight continum) then there would be no debate here. Anyhow, missed training with you in AZ earlier this year, maybe we'll see you in TX sometime.

[Latex Ducky]

threadbare: this is some amazing aiming without sights: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYdkt7yIFLY

He also made a 200YD shot with a snubnose (aiming of course)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tied-t1fFsk

[threadbare]

cool

[matthew temkin]

Threadbare--myself and the two other gents who trained Roger Phillips ( Brownie and 7677) will be co teaching a class this winter in AZ.
7677 is from Texas and we plan a class in Dallas sometime next year.
Here is a review that Mr. Phillips wrote of our class in 2005:

Sightless in Tucson

Here is a review I posted on another forum about the pointshooting course I took last October with Matt Temkin, 7677, and Robin Brown in Tucson.

First off, Robin Brown did an outstanding of putting this together. The facilities at Desert Trails Gun Range and Training Center were perfect for the course. Our range was out in the back away from everyone else. The class room, training room, and bathrooms were all clean and air conditioned. Rick the owner or the range was an excellent host and unbelievable shot. While we were working on elbow up/elbow down at the three yard mark, he was shooting next to me. From the hip, in well under one second, he was shooting a one hole drill. When the hole got to the size of a quarter he started on another hole. At the end of the drill he put about forty rounds through two perfect quarter size holes. I want some of that!

Robin Brown, 7677, and Matt Temkin were all very knowledgeable and each had the ability to pass on their knowledge. Each were excellent teachers and very passionate about what they were passing along. Not only were they great to learn from they were just plan good guys. The times that we had outside of the training environment were a lot of fun and was like hanging out with old friends. They all went well beyond the call of duty and gave and gave and gave.

We got into town at about 10:30 PM on Friday and put a call into brownie. He was down in Bobby's room going over the knife. Yeah, that's right, the course had not even started and we got about two hours of knife work in. Brownie trained for eight years under James Keating and really seemed to know his stuff. Brownie loves passing along his knowledge and would have trained in knife all night if we would have let him. He is also one tough SOB and as hard as a rock. I accidently caught him with a stick in the head, did not even blink and eye or hurt me..........seriously.

Saturday morning Matt Temkin started Fairbairn/Applegate/Sykes (FAS) form of PSing. It was divided up into two seperate forms, Applegate first and Fairbairn and Sykes second.

Matt is an absolute expert when it comes these two forms of PSing, let alone the historical context of the two systems. He started with the Applegate method first due to the fact that it was less involved. Applegate did not teach shooting from the hip as Fairbairn did. Applegate taught the three quarter hip and the point shoulder.

The three quarter hip is shot one handed, with a bent elbow, with the HG about 6-10 inches below the line of sight, out of a crouch. The accuracy with this technique is quite (amazingly would be a better word) good and I was making good hits out to about ten yards with it.

The point shoulder is done with the same crouch, shot one handed, with the HG held with the arm locked and up in the line of sight. This is very close to what I have been doing in FOF while moving and shooting to the firing side. The accuracy once again is quite good. I was making good hits out to 17 yards (51 feet)

Many of you know that I had been studying this form of PSing well before this course. The truth be told is that I was pretty damm good at it even before the course. Matt took that skill level and made me twice as good as I was before. He did some minor tweaking, but what really made the difference was the "convulsive grip" and the "making your HG sound like a machine gun."

You really have no idea what is possible with these PSing systems until you have been trained in them. There is no way that you will believe the things I saw and did, until you do them yourself. For instance, do you think it is possible to use three quarter hip (see above) and empty your 17 round magazine, as fast as you can pull the trigger, into a fist size group, from five yards?

The rest of Saturday was spent with the Fairbairn system. The biggest difference between the two systems is the shooting from the hip in the Fairbairn system. This skill is by far the most amazing part of FAS PSing.

The position is called half hip and the description of the draw is EU/ED "elbow up/elbow down." The elbow comes up as you clear the holster, then the elbow is crashed down into the ribs. The trigger is pulled as soon as the elbow hits the ribs. This is by far, the fastest way that I have seen to get hits on target as soon as possible. We did not have a timer but we put it to the test in FOF. My training partner, who has always been better and faster than me, and probably always will be was to do a standard flash sight picture and I was to go EU/ED. At the buzzer we drew and shot. I was consistantly able to get two hits on him before he got a hit on me. Everyone was amazed at how fast he was (hell, he's always been that fast) but there was no way for him to beat EU/ED down. Remember this was a Modern Techniques/competition guy with 15 years experience going against a guy that only had 15 minutes of formal training in EU/ED. I had spent a couple of hours playing with EU/ED before the course, but found out that I had been doing it incorrectly.

Once again, the convulsive grip and the "make your HG sound like a machine gun" made this technique remarkable. The accuracy was VERY GOOD out to three yards and the speed of the technique from the draw to emptying your magazine is something you are just going to have to do and see to believe.

My Modern Techniques buddy knew about my fascination with threat focused shooting and he came to this course on my recommendation. I was a little worried about what he was going to think about the FAS PSing. He came with an open mind with a "I'm just going to do whatever they tell me to do" attitude. After this segment of training his quote was "This is amazing!" Yeah, "No $h!t Sherlock!"

FAS PSing is an excellent addition to my Modern Techniques tool box. I admit that I have such a big investment in my tool box that FAS PSing will only be an addition. Now if I had it to do all over again, or if my son was going to become a Police Officer, FAS PSing would be the very first discipline I would train myself or my son in.

BTW, FAS does cover two handed sighted fire, but this was a threat focus course.

Saturday night we worked with WWII Combatives with Matt and knife with brownie. These we introductory sessions where we learned a handfull of simple and effective techniques.

Both Matt and brownie are very good at what they do. These sessions made me very interested in training with these two men again, but this time with the focus on combatives and knife.

Sunday morning we started in on Quick fire. 7677 taught this block of instruction. I have been following 7677 posts on a number of forums for over three years now and have learned quite a bit from him. Only tackdrivr has given me more usefull knowledge on the net. I was always a bit ****** off that he was an LEO only instructor, and I swore that if I had a chance that I would train with him.

Quick fire is a two handed threat focus shooting system. It works within the Modern Techniques default drawstroke and seems to be a threat focused solution to a Modern Techniques problem. Shots can be taken throughout the drawstroke, from when the hands come together, all the way to full extention. This is where zippering comes in. Whether you hands come together at abdomen level or at chest level you start getting hits at the compressed ready and continue to fire until extension.

The first shot at compressed ready is the key and the most difficult to get to hit, but with a little practice and the use of the centerline with HG parrallel to the ground, you will be good to go in short order. After that just punch forward while firing. A good four-five shot zipper is opimal with the first two hitting before your first shot on your default drawstroke would.
__________________
"Situations dictate strategy, strategy dictates tactics, tactics dictate techniques.....techniques should not dictate anything."
Roger Phillips, Suarez International Specialist Instructor http://www.suarezinternational.com/
Sweatnbullets is offline Report Post

[Maromero]

In my neck of the woods that's called fuked fire which means you were caught off guard and your desperately trying to catch up or get ahead.

Such scenario is inevitable and should be practiced.

[CGSteve8718]

The Border Patrol qualification is point shooting more or less out to at least 7yds. I still try to get a flash sight picture though because I was never that great of a shot, and I believe that having some sort of sight picture is better than none, although I don't doubt there are great point shooters out there.

[cop-out]

I am a firm believer in surviving a gunfight, of which I have on three occasions. Of the first and third, the range was five yards and eight yards. If I had taken the time to use sights on either one of those instances I'm sure I would have at the very least taken a hit. At that range, I am much faster and very accurate shooting from the hip,(I know I'll be called a cowboy) but that is the way my grandfather who was a sheriff taught me to shoot, and the firearms instructor on the PD where I served my time found it perfectly fine after watching me shoot.

During the second incident, I used the sights as the range was about twenty yards. That was also a legacy from my grandfather who started my handgun training when I was five years old. And he taught me to pick up the front sight and canter it over the mass of the weapon, not worrying too much about a fine sight picture until you are reaching out way there. He gave me some sound advise that I always thought came directly from him until I heard it attributed to Wyatt Earp in latter years, and that was "In a gunfight take your time in a hurry". If you practice, and I mean really practice under pressure and against time, when it hits the fan you will use what works as long as you don't panic.

Not bragging, but with practice you should be able to shoot as well as I do which is to hit six out of eight inside a paper plate at fifty yards with a 1911 .45 in just under or just over seven seconds from the signal to draw and fire. The misses won't be more than five inches from the rim of the plate.

[Deaf Smith]

I am a firm believer in surviving a gunfight, of which I have on three occasions. Of the first and third, the range was five yards and eight yards. If I had taken the time to use sights on either one of those instances I'm sure I would have at the very least taken a hit.

If you learn flash sight picture there is no 'time'. There is no hesitation. Try to find a class were they teach that.

[DainBramage]

In my experience with close quarters combat, there is another factor that should be considered along with range. And that is the type of encounter. If you are being bum rushed by an assailant with a knife within 21 feet, you most likely will not have the opportunity to draw your weapon and fire. A man can cover that distance in less than a second. Defense from this assualt may require utilizing your ready assets first (your hands) before even attempting to reach your weapon safely. This being done, the assailant is well within your safe zone and possibly struggling with you, the only option for fire is a point and shoot from your hip, while attempting to keep the suspect at bay with your non-weapon hand.

Also, one could consider the type of encounter, as a surprise encounter, and encounter with another (you are protecting another), or a closing and imminent attack from a distance. A surprise CQC attack is going to demand a point and shoot situation, where the other three will allow for time to gather a proper sight picture. And immediate bystanders also come into play. If you are being rushed from a distance, and there is a dirt hill behind the perpetrator, the old spray and pray might be the best option. Where as, if there are school children in the danger zone, you will have to steel yourself and take careful aim. What you are firing matters as well. Are you loaded with tactical ammo that will most likely remain in the body cavity, or over penetrating ball ammo that will most likely exit the perp and travel almost anywhere. Even time of day matters. I've had to fire at sound and muzzle flash before. There are many factors involved in a shoot. Are they shooting at you. Or, are they about to shoot at you. Is there attainable cover first, and time to gain a sight picture, or are you laying a supressing fire trying to reach cover.

This is just my opinion from my limited experience on a gang task force. You guys are the experts and all have presented very compelling arguements. My belief has always been to train doing things tactically correct, so in the field the risky short-cuts we take generally come with a favorable outcome. With this in mind, I train by acquiring a sight picture. I do train with a hip shot, however, and shooting from a laying down on my back position. But for the most part, sight acquisition is my predominant form of firing, at the range and otherwise.

[matthew temkin]

Mike Conti of the Mass State Police has just published a new book on police training and makes some interesting points on when to use the sights--even if the range is just a matter if inches.
http://www.sabergroup.com/prod01.htm
( Yes, he has a real world example of an officer doing just that to save a hostage)
If the range is close and the threat is directed at you, then there is a strong possibility that you will not use the sights.
However, if the threat is directed at a 3rd party, then there is a strong chance that the sights/flash sight picture can be used.
(This ties in with DainBramage's excellent post.)
I just read this book a few days ago and explained something that I did two weeks ago.
I was teaching at a Mass police conference and had a chance to go trough 20 FATS scenes--live fire via a mobile FATS truck that was on the scene.
I had a partner next to me and all of the scenes were police related in which we did all of the challenging.
Distance to the screen was about 5 yards, but the targets were not lifelike and were actually smaller that a bowling pin.
I noticed that when the bad guy was pointing his gun at someone other than myself I was able to get a front sight index and used it when shooting in these situations.
However, when I reverted to two handed, arms fully extended point shooting, I was faster and much more accurate than when using the front sight.
Because of the distance and small targets I shot every round--be it front sight or threat focused--with two handed point shoulder position.
Which just gives more evidence for the need to learn BOTH aimed and point/threat focused shooting.

[Dragon55]

mddevildog--->>

Time for me to step on some toes. Do you guys read what you type, or use spell check or check your grammer before you submit it?

Spell check for some yes..... but are you familiar with the concept of a paragraph??

[Dragon55]

You are correct about what is included in FOF, but much can be learned regardless of your experience level if you take the time to analyze the results of each practice scenario. Not trying to step on toes here, I know everyone is espousing their thoughts and experiences and want nothing but the best for all who carry a gun for protection of life. I have my opinions and they have come after many years of training others, being trained by others, training myself with self analyzation of performance and effectiveness of techniques used, but then through presentation to trusted colleagues.(no predicate)

Much like politics, I often find myself asking myself when reading an article, watching a video, or even listening to someone during a training class, how some of you continue to believe the only way to shoot during a fight is to use the sights. I will not go so far as to say no one can focus on the front sight, even in a "flash", but I will say it will not happen for the largest majority. Why is that? Because in order to have even the slightest chance of doing so, one must have been immersed in an environment where he or she becomes, if it's at all possible, more or less "comfortable" in a highly stressful confrontation. I don't care how much you shoot and practice using a "flash" sight picture, you will not use it, at least initially, during a close, or relatively close spontaneous lethal attack. Neither will you produce a smooth trigger yank without a little horizontal movement of the muzzle, but that's OK.

Something else I don't do, don't recommend and do not teach, is maintaining contact with the trigger, with the trigger finger when trying to manipulate the trigger as rapidly as I can during close in fighting drills. I've had it happen to me and I've seen it happen to others on numerous occasions. What I'm talking about is "short stroking" the trigger, a hiccup if you will, but none the less time consuming and if you think even .001 of a second slower is acceptable during a gunfight when it could have been done quicker, I question your sanity. Again, not trying to alienate anyone here, I just don't hold back, one reason I don't post much.

One more thing and I'll drop this. During my basic program, using a two hand hold is not addressed until we attain an acceptable level of competence with one hand and sight alignment with sight picture is not addressed until an acceptable level of competence is reached without them and all the above must be done from a stationary platform up through dynamic movement, laterally and to the obliques.(This sentence is 62 words long... too many!)

I've not had the opportunity to train with Matt Temkin yet, but I will as soon as I get the chance. Matt, we've been "point" shooting here continually since my academy days circa 1971.

Again, as I've already said, try training outside your box or comfort level, you might be surprised.
Stay Safe

[MLeake]

... if you're going to correct grammar and spelling, why turn annalization into analyzation, instead of analysis?

Cheers,

M

[mddevildog]

To All, please accept my apologies. I should not have posted anything about others spelling and grammer, but should have focused entirely on the content of the post. It won't happen again. As for my post, it is what it is.
Stay Safe
RB

[NRAhab]

Not bragging, but with practice you should be able to shoot as well as I do which is to hit six out of eight inside a paper plate at fifty yards with a 1911 .45 in just under or just over seven seconds from the signal to draw and fire.

Uh huh. Man, if it was that easy, a lot more people would shoot The Practical Stage at Bianchi Cup clean.

See, the 10 ring on a Bianchi target is 8 inches, which is surprisingly about the same size as a paper plate. If you're shooting 8 rounds in 7 seven seconds at a target at 50 yards and you're getting 6/8 in the 10 ring, then that would make you a better shooter than Robbie Leatham.

Color me skeptical.

[Deaf Smith]

See, the 10 ring on a Bianchi target is 8 inches, which is surprisingly about the same size as a paper plate. If you're shooting 8 rounds in 7 seven seconds at a target at 50 yards and you're getting 6/8 in the 10 ring, then that would make you a better shooter than Robbie Leatham.

NRAhab,

You didn't subtract the time to react and draw either.

But, if using a very very accurate .45, light loads, perfect weather, and some warm up, might could be done, with or without sights. I dunno. It does translate to 4 inch 25 yard, or 2 inch groups at 12.5 yards and down to a one inch group at 6.25 yards (about 19 feet) I believe.

But I'd sure hate to try it with a street Glock .40 or Smith K .357 and full loads.

[oldkim]

Hmm,

If you can hit targets at 50 yards in under 7 seconds? Why aren't you competing??

Just curious?

Ya, I'm skeptical.

[smince]

If you merge this 'point-shooting' thread with the thread on 'moving and shooting' you guys will be onto something:cool:

[kraigwy]

I dont buy this, 'NO TIME FOR SIGHTS " BS.

I would recommend one take in a ISU Rapid fire match. I normally consist of shooting @ 25 yards. You have 5 targets, you start with the gun at ready, or about 30-45 degrees to the target. One handed. The targets turn, and you have 7 seconds to hit all five targets. This is repeated at 5 seconds and again a 3 seconds. Its dern near impossibe to do it with 22 LRs you pretty much have to use shorts because of the recoil. Try it point shooting, then try it using your sights. If you can get on your sights at 25 yards, and engage five targets in 3 seconds you can pretty much assure youself you can get on the sights on one target at 7 yards.

If you develope a habbit of getting on our sights you wont be able to meassure the time differance between point shooting and using your sights.

I know I notice my sefl defence or combat type practice gets a lot better afther I re-inforce the fundementals by shooting a bullseye match. One just has to have the WANT TO, and be willing to put in the effert to learn and practice the fundementals.

JMHO

[Deaf Smith]

If you develope a habbit of getting on our sights you wont be able to meassure the time differance between point shooting and using your sights.

As long as we are talking about shooting from eye level and not 2/3 hip or 1/2 hip, this is correct. Using non-traditional 'flash sight picture' does not add time at eye level shooting.

And at 1/2 hip you can use retention shooting do fine out to 2-3 yards. And that is why a combination of sighted fire and retention will cover all bases.

BUT, even then, I'll say knowing how to shoot from 2/3 hip has it's uses. It's a 'nice to have' skill.

[mddevildog]

On the square range, where you know you are going to shoot, you might possibly be correct. But, you will see a difference if you need to identify a weapon prior to firing, because at that point, you will need to change your focus from the threat (weapon) to the sights and regardless of how fast you can do this, it is still a delay. That's just like telling people to aim center mass, that's great for qualification and has possibilities from behind cover. Remember, there needs to be a reason for shooting in the first place (I'm referring primarily to a close spontaneous attack here), and that reason will be verified through sight. Trying to shift your focus to the front sight and COM takes time, and anything that slows the shooting process beyond what's necessary is wasted time and perhaps deadly.
Stay Safe
RB

[smince]

If you can get on your sights at 25 yards, and engage five targets in 3 seconds you can pretty much assure youself you can get on the sights on one target at 7 yards.If you can 'get on the sights' at 7 yards or less, while dodging the knife, club, fists, or incoming fire, my hat's off to you sir.

Good luck with that:rolleyes:

[Deaf Smith]

If you can 'get on the sights' at 7 yards or less, while dodging the knife, club, fists, or incoming fire, my hat's off to you sir.

If it's fist or knife, it sure ain't near 7 yards and retention shooting takes care of that.

If it's incoming fire, sure you can use the sights while moving. That is what flash sight picture is all about. You don't adjust a thing with the sights, you can even focus on the target and see the sights as a blur, as long as you do see the relationship of the sights and fire at that instant.

Flash sight picture is not about adjusting ones sights. Your body does the index, the sights mearly verify there is enough rough alignment to get a good hit.

And even if you can't see the sights (darkness, lost glasses, poor sights) then you still use the same technique AS IF YOU COULD SEE THE SIGHTS, and at close range you will get the hits.

All this is above part of the Modern Technique (MT) Cooper came out with.

While I'm not crazy about the Weaver Stance (I perfer a form of isosceles and managing the recoil instead of fighting it), I do find it is quite sound.

[matthew temkin]

If you can 'get on the sights' at 7 yards or less, while dodging the knife, club, fists, or incoming fire, my hat's off to you sir.

Good luck with that

My feelings exactly, Smince.

[smince]

If it's fist or knife, it sure ain't near 7 yards and retention shooting takes care of that.I totally agree, and that's why I added 'or less' to the original quote. However, you will probably have to deal with the contact weapon or getting off the line of attack before going to guns.

I posted in another thread about a co-worker of mine. His only gun training was what he got in the Army 10 years ago. He was in a gunfight recently. He had a Ruger LCP w/6 rounds. He says he never saw his sights, it was night, less than 10 FEET, both parties were moving around parked cars. My co-worker scored 1 shoulder and 3 upper stomach/lower chest hits.

This is the reality of a gunfight. Do you really believe ISU Rapid Fire techniques would have worked in this situation?

(BTW, the lowly .380 did the job)

[matthew temkin]

The fight that Smince describes is so typical of most handgun encounters.
Distance is, quite often, measured in a matter of feet (or even inches), low light, both parties in motion and the body going into life or death mode.
For example, here is a report of a very recent police shooting that happened 4 miles from my home:
http://www.newsday.com/long-island/nassau/cops-fatally-shoot-molester-from-new-hyde-park-1.1512708
Is there any competitive events which really simulate such conditions?
Should we really be teaching competition proven techniques as opposed to combat proven techniques ( such as point shooting) to deal with such a situation?
In fact, in such a close range fight the ability to shoot is just one factor to consider.
Others, such as mental attitude, the will to survive and blending hand to hand with your shooting is probably more vital than the ability to shoot tight groups at long distances--distances that rarely occur in the real world, BTW.
Just a thought.....

[Deaf Smith]

I posted in another thread about a co-worker of mine. His only gun training was what he got in the Army 10 years ago. He was in a gunfight recently. He had a Ruger LCP w/6 rounds. He says he never saw his sights, it was night, less than 10 FEET, both parties were moving around parked cars. My co-worker scored 1 shoulder and 3 upper stomach/lower chest hits.

smince,

Read my post above on how to use flash sight picture. It ain't ISU.

If you need more info, try Tom Givens and Rangemaster in Memphis. His students have been in over 50 gunfights and all prevailed.

What is more, he gives a power point presentiation of 10 of them in his classes and at the Rangemaster/Polite Society Tactical Conference at the United States Shooting Academy (USSA) Tulsa, Oklahoma.

http://www.rangemaster.com/

All that they teach is a form of sighted fire using FSP and retention shooting.

[smince]

My last post wasn't directed at you, Deaf.

It was for Kraig;)

I still maintain you have to solve the original attack problem before guns come into play at the ranges we are discussing (measured more in feet than yards).

[matthew temkin]

Are some here actually suggesting that Smice's co worker would have done better had he used a front sight index/flash sight picture?

[Deaf Smith]

Are some here actually suggesting that Smice's co worker would have done better had he used a front sight index/flash sight picture?

No.

Suggest it works just as good and cuts down what one needs to practice. That gives them more time to practice the essential. The more techniques you have to master the longer it takes and more ammo it takes as well as more 'decision' in the OODA.

BUT, if you do have the ammo and time, sure learn point shooting to.

The use of sighted fire and retention shooting is, to me, the essence. The core. Everything else is secondary. Once the core is mastered and the student wants to learn more, then I'm all for it.

That's ok smince! My fault.

[mddevildog]

I guess maybe I should stop posting. Deaf, I viewed your short profile, sorry, you have your priorities bass ackwards. As someone with your background........Never mind, you have it backwards nuff said
Stay Safe
RB

[matthew temkin]

Deaf and I have been going around in this circle since GlockTalk in 2003.
He is entitled to his opinions but we are entitled to question the source and the validity of such opinions.
'Nuff said.."

[MLeake]

... you can't miss fast enough to win a gun fight?

I'd say if you can practice point shooting, you should. However, many people will not be able to practice it, due to the limitations in place at the ranges available to them for practice.

I'd also say that trying point shooting for the first time in an actual gunfight would probably not yield very high odds of success, and in such a case using flash sight technique is probably the safer overall bet.

OTOH, if you are confident in your point shooting, and the ranges involved make it viable, that's a different story.

[Deaf Smith]

I'd say if you can practice point shooting, you should.

MLeake, are you saying you can miss fast enough to win?

mddevildog,

If you don't think using a form of sighted fire will work, then argue with Tom Givens of Rangemaster. He has had over 50 students in shootings and all have pervailed.

His students have a way past 90 percent hit rate. All he teaches is sighed fire (flash sight picture) and a form of retention shooting. But do note, I did NOT get my ideas on this from his teachings, even though I've been to several of his classes.

It just turned out Tom, as well as Paul Howe, pretty much say the same thing as I do.

And yes, Matt and I have had this discussion for years. It's not all that different as long as we talk about bring the weapon up to eye level, since you index with the body.

[MLeake]

... where on earth did you get that idea? I actually like that quote, thanks.

Did you not read the rest of my post? Was it not obvious that my point was that speed is good only if you score hits?

Are you just looking for people to argue with?

[pax]

Hey guys,

A little less heat, please. It's a contentious topic, but that's no reason not to tread gently with each other.

Thanks.

pax

[greensteelforge]

With a slower than rapid rate of fire, the sights make allot of sense, and should be trained with. Rapid fire makes more sense without the struggle to regain sight picture. Pistol training is all about body geometry and muscle memory, which allows for precision at speed without the need for any visual reference but your target. I don't think that it works well to train solely in one discipline, each has it's strengths, and weaknesses, but most make perfect sense under the right circumstances.

[mddevildog]

OK guys, I certainly do not know everyones training, experience or background and I certainly do not have all the answers, but I do have some knowledge and experience on these topics. I'm also sure those who preach front sight under all circumstances have knowledge and experience as well, but sometimes it's hard for me believe that. I guess that's why arguing this point is pretty fruitless, non the less, here goes. Through the years, I've come to believe there are those who can find the front sight during a spontaneous real life threatening event, but I can assure you they are few and far between. I can also assure you, even if you were to train everyday for several years in using a flash sight picture on a square range, when the first real spontaneous life threatening event occurs, (I'm being conservative here) the very largest majority of those who train that way will point and shoot, and that will occur at distances greater than what we commonly refer to as CQB distances. I'm sure there are at least a few, who remain calm in a scenario such as this, but again, they are few and far between. Obviously our mental state plays a role here and we all like to think we fall into that category, but we don't. First and foremost, movement is absolutely critical during one of these events. Where and how far will be dictated by the environment. Whether to go hands on first will be dictated by distance and/or identification of a weapon. In order to identify a weapon, where are we focused? Hands! Where will we be trying to concentrate our fire, center mass? I happen to think time, regardless of the length is of extreme importance. It takes time to change two points of focus. One from the hands to center mass and then to the sight, even if the sight just appears between our eyes and where they are focused. It's not the square range, where you know center mass is going to be your aiming point, so that's where you start. Why do you think there are so many hand shots during FOF training and even real world shootings. Not because they are poor shooters, because that's where the focus is. There is so much more that needs to be said, but this is getting way to long for a forum post and I'm getting tired (I'm old). My best advice is to train to a competence level with point shooting and dynamic movement using one hand, equal to your skill level using your current preferred method. Then, evaluate them both during realistically scripted FOF scenarios. If you're not convinced by then, you at least evaluated both in hopefully an objective way. In the end, we have to train in and use what we believe in. I do, and I will continue to train myself and others the same way.
Stay Safe,
RB

[the357plan]

Everything I carry is equipped with a laser. It's on automatically when I grip the gun and works for both methods.

[smince]

Here is my experience on the subject. I'm former USAF, former NRA instructor, shot IDPA-type matches. I've shot literally thousands of rounds downrange in a Weaver stance with a perfect sight picture.

In Feb 2007, Gabe Suarez came to a town 45 miles from me teaching Extreme Close-Range Gunfighting. I couldn't pass up the chance to take a class so close to home.

By the afternoon of the first day, we were drawing, shooting, and moving (all at the same time). Then came the Force-on-Force part. Using gas blow-back AirSoft for training, we did actual gun-on-knife/club and gun vs gun.

Not one of the students ever said they saw the sights in the less than 7 yard attacks, yet we were moving off-line of attack and getting good COM hits. Indeed, if these FoF drills are a realistic simulation of what happens in a fight (and I believe it is as close as we can get), you don't have time to get on your sights in that short amount of time. When in APR 2009 I took his 0-5 Feet Gunfighting, the same lessons were shown again, at even closer range.

What I found for me was, that at close range, under pressure, I didn't use the sights and still got good hits quickly. If the pressure wasn't on, or as the distance got back out to 7 yds or greater, I would revert back to sights.

Another observation (again, somewhat controversial, and maybe off-topic) is the draw. I carried at the 4 o'clock position for decades. But, even with thousands of draws, I was slow getting out my gun from this position while moving and evading the knife/gun attacks. He asked us to try Appendix IWB.

I started experimenting with this carry method. It took me a few weeks to get used to it, but I carry there exclusively now. And this year, in 0-5 class and in another instructors class, my speed of draw and my hits were even quicker because I didn't have to reach around so far for my draw. Everything is centerline now, and much faster to get to. I know it's not for everybody, but I'm 5'10, 220 pounds (was 238lbs when I first started carrying AIWB) and it works for me.

These are just my experiences. As usual, your mileage may vary.

[mddevildog]

Smince, you just made my point. These types of things cannot be objectively evaluated through just the mental process. You're not the first person to see the light, so to speak. Just because something does not "feel" right, or you don't gain a personally acceptable skill level in the time frame you think it should happen, does not mean it may not be a better choice or better technique in a given situation. We are all guilty of being impatient from time to time, especially me. I won't say nothing comes easy, but certainly all things do not.
Stay Safe
RB

[mddevildog]

the357plan,
If for some reason your laser were to malfuncton and you did not see the dot on your intended target, would you still shoot as soon as your weapon was on target, or would you hesitate, even ever so slightly while trying to see where the dot is, or verify alignment with the sight?
RB

[matthew temkin]

I don't think many understand just how accurate point shooting can be out to 50 feet or so.
And with minimal practice/training/ammo.
No need to trade off accuracy for speed when you can have both.
As to a laser...Applegate felt that the dot was just another thing to look for that could slow you down.

[NRAhab]

How many documented gunfights was Applegate in again?

[matthew temkin]

Very few of his gunfights were documented.
It was a different world back then.
And he was not a man to talk much about his past.
A very common feature in the been and done men who I have met in the past 40 years.
His most famous is what led to the development of the S&W Model 40.
In private he told me of a few more that he was in.
But his instructors, Fairbairn and Sykes, were in over 200 personal gunfights.
But their greatest asset was the large scale training they provided to thousands of men/women who were going into military & police combat, as well as the feedback they observed/obtained from AARs.
Such experience will probably never be obtained again and for those who want to dismiss this wealth of knowledge are welcome to do so.

[NRAhab]

I was talking to a fellow writer a while ago about this whole "point shooting" nonsense, and he finally figured out why it came into existence. Have you seen the sights on the pistols that were around during the Fairbairn/Sykes era? To call them "vestigial" would be overly complimentary; adjectives such as "abhorrent", "wretched", and "an insult to sighting systems" would be more appropriate. Which is why this whole "you don't need the sights thing" kind of makes more sense when you couch in the terms of the weapon systems that were around at the time. It was so much that you didn't need the sights, but rather that the sights on pistols of the period were just so ridiculously bad that they offered no advantage in their use.

The problem is that now that we have better, faster sights on our guns, instead of moving forward into the future people are still clinging to an technique designed for 80 year old guns.

Completely unrelated, this is probably one of the best examples of circular logic that I've seen in a while:
But their greatest asset was the large scale training they provided to thousands of men/women who were going into military & police combat
By that reasoning, we should trust their training systems because they trained a lot of people with their training system. Awesome.

Editorial note: I have no dog in this fight. It's fun to watch Matt and Deaf spar over this though, but for my purposes (YMMV) point shooting is pretty much useless. You don't win matches if you don't use the sights.

[smince]

You don't win matches if you don't use the sights.True.

But I don't carry a gun to win a match.

[pax]

Ohhhhhh, now you've done it.

What, pointshooting vs sighted fire wasn't controversial enough for you? :D :D :D

(Seriously -- if you guys are going to head down the competition vs self defense road, please take it to another thread. Preferably one where some other moderator will be the one on the hook! ;) )

pax

[NRAhab]

No worries, the "match" thing was more a disclaimer than anything. I was more interested in the historical observation that point shooting seems to have sprung out of finding a method to compensate for the mechanical deficiencies of period firearms more than any sort of tactical expediency.

[matthew temkin]

It was not because the sights were small that point shooting was adopted by Fairbairn & Sykes for the SMP.
After all, they themselves placed shotgun beads on their pistols, yet still taught point shooting as a vital skill.
If better sights were the answer--and they were readily available back then then-- I am sure that all SMP pistols would have been so equipped and point shooting dropped for aimed fire only.
Then again, Applegate died in 1998 and was well aware of improvements in sights, optics and lasers, yet he still felt that point shooting was a vital skill for combat.

PS to Pax--I have never seen anyone who preaches point shooting ever dismiss aimed fire in conjunction with threat focused skills.
To me it is not VS but two vital skills that should be mastered and then let the situation dictate which method should be used.
PPS: D.R. Middlebrooks has used his system of point shooting to win quite a few matches.
Here is a link to his forums
http://www.tacticalshooting.com/

[Deaf Smith]

But do remember guys, Tom Givens DOES have over 50 documented shootings by his students. At the Polite Society, were alot of trainers give lectures and demos, he gave a power point presentation of 10 of them. The 10 were NOT cherrypicked. He used the 10 because he had very exact information, not only from the police but the students themselves, and thus gave a very detailed view of each shooting.

And in the presentation he showed how to use flash sight picture. Something a lot of people seem to have misconceptions about.

The next conference will be at United States Shooting Academy, Tulsa, OK, April 24-25, 2010. I have no doubt he will have the presentation, hopefully expanded, at the conference.

The Polite Society ain't IDPA or any kind of match. It's totaly about self defense.

[the357plan]

mddevildog,
I shoot just as good with or with out the laser and practice both ways. The laser just provides a quick visual confirmation of where the weapon is pointed. It also helps solve problems when using it in conjunction with snap caps while practicing. I’m sure that extreme stress or the immanent fear of death will override any hesitation concerning the laser or sight alignment.

[mavracer]

To me it is not VS but two vital skills that should be mastered and then let the situation dictate which method should be used.
the problem I have with your position is I can't think of a situation where point shooting at 50 feet would be the right answer.matter of fact can you give me a situation where point shooting would be the best answer at a distance beyond what would be concidered retention drill distance?

[matthew temkin]

There is no best answer to your question.
I have point shot at 15 yards or so just to see if it could be done--and was very pleased with the results.
The only time I "had" to point shoot at 15 yards was when I was shooting to score at my NRA police instructors class back in 1994.
I was shooting my Model 10 at 15 yards ( aimed fire) when, after 3 shots, the target began turning because the allowed time was running out.
Figuring I had nothing to lose I dropped into a crouch and got off three rapid shots from the two handed, point shoulder position.
After I was done my instructor, who was observing through field glasses, commented that my last two shots went through the same hole and the third one would have been close except it bounced off the side of the target which had already turned.
I too was amazed at the distance/pinpoint accuracy that two handed point shooting allowed.
I have had students get back to me with some amazing point shooting results in actual combat.
One, a police training SGT in a large Ohio department told me of one of his charges ( who he trained in point shooting) took out a rifle armed bad guy--at night--at 20 YARDS by point shooting his 9mm pistol.
A Swedish police SWAT officer who I trained used his AimPoint equipped MP5 to point shoot and kill a rifle shooting bad guy at 100 meters.
Turned out that his dot was set to it's highest setting and fully covered the bad guy at such a long distance.
So he looked over the sight, focused on the bad guy's chest and fired a few shots on semi automatic, all of which struck home.
Another Swedish police officer who was trained by one of my students was working patrol when he stopped a car.
When he was reaching in the open window to grab the driver's papers ( yes, big mistake) the driver took off with the cop still stuck in the door and being dragged away. ( In fact the officer was airborne)
The officer took out his Sig 225 and point shot at the only target he was focused on--the drivers foot which was on the gas pedal--which found it's mark and caused the driver to stop the car and surrender.
Although I have never fired a shot in anger I have been in my fair share of armed encounters.
Until one has "been there" they do not realize how fast these situations develop, and what happens to the body under stress.
It is IMHO that to dismiss point shooting because it does not work in competition ( even though quite a few combat sport shooters admit to not using the sights at 3 yards or so) is a mistake.
The fact that point shooting can be mastered in such a short time and low ammo count makes not looking into it more so of a mistake.
Again, just IMHO.

[mavracer]

It is IMHO that to dismiss point shooting because it does not work in competition ( even though quite a few combat sport shooters admit to not using the sights at 3 yards or so) is a mistake.

inside 10 feet IMHO is retention drills.and practicing shooting without any sight reference at ranges much greater than that is IMHO (and apparently other's as well) a mistake might as well grind the sights off if your not going to train with them.

BTW I once shot a sparrow off a phone line with a 10/22 at well over 200yards I just held the crosshairs way over it so we should employ this training to our snipers and get rid of all them range finding gadgets.

[matthew temkin]

I was going to ask you what distance you consider retention shooting to be, and we will have to agree to disagree on this.
For the record, I do not call retention shooting retention shooting unless the distance is less than two feet or so.
To me retention shooting is with the gun held way back, probably in contact with your body.
I would not use this out to 10 feet, but would go into to a type of hip, semi hip or point shoulder position instead.
Again, why would I grind the sights off my gun when I fully understand there can and will be situations when a sighted shot is required?
Then again, since a vast majority of handgun encounters happen within 10 feet you are making a very good case for point shooting.

[matthew temkin]

Here is a partial review of a class that I taught for Gabe Suarez in 2007.
As you can see, those who have trained in the subject will disagree with the many doubters here:


Quote:
Originally Posted by gojira357
Sighted fire has widespread appeal and point shooting is put down as voodoo science, I think because every aspect of sighted fire can be quantified and explained. Point shooting is more ambiguous, but I can tell you that within its envelope of effectiveness, point shooting is accurate, and more importantly, FAST. It really shines when the shooter is behind the reaction curve and have to deal with a bad guy who has intitated action. Funny, that sounds like what most private citizen shooting scenarios entail.

The class will dispel a lot of myths that are circulating around. "Point shooting is no good at distances further than arm's length." "You can't point shoot while you're moving." "Point shooting is spraying and praying."

Point shooting is a controversial subject in the shooting community, and having experienced it firsthand, I am ready to make my own controversial statement. Ready? Here it is:

Point shooting is not for p@#$#@

There, I said it. Now let me explain.

What does this mean? It's not that the "techniques" are only for HSLD secret squirrel He-Men. It's not that there's some secret, that once revealed, will be so shocking that your hair turns white and your heart will stop in three days. What it means is this: the key in owning this and doing your best using point shooting as taught in this class is pure aggression. If you take this trying to learn techniques, or taking each exercise as only a drill to sharpen skills, it will only take you so far. However, if you apply it by taking the fight to the enemy without thought you will achieve almost superhuman feats.

Okay, now I sound like I've joined the Point Shooting Cult. All I can say is that the targets don't lie. Matt was trying to clarify the statement that point shooting was "instinctive." As a twist to that, in light of what I said above, I would add that point shooting is primal. You can't think about. You can't be timid about it. Put on your warface and just do it.
Can I get an AMEN?!?!?

This was a revelation for me in this class - the essential, heartfelt attitude that I WILL KILL THIS SONOFABITCH NO MATTER WHAT - EVEN THOUGH I MIGHT DIE IN THE PROCESS, I WILL NOT FAIL. Unleashing this primal, controlled fury is the heart and soul of combative point shooting. It's not about punching nice, small groups in a target from a distance - it's all about KILLING YOUR ENEMY BEFORE HE KILLS YOU. Even though your enemy might be represented by a piece of paper, you still unleash the beast within and KILL YOUR ENEMY.

Once Matt finally kicked the Modern Technique out of me after Day One, I shocked myself by squaring off on a photo target at about 3 yards and watching a hole appear as if by magic when Matt blew his whistle - right in the heart where I was focused, and I didn't care where my sights were. It got even better when I planted several more shots within 3 inches of the heart, shooting one-handed from 3/4-hip, at 7 yards.

But, what was REALLY cool was watching Gojira357 drill his target one-handed, again and again, two shots sounding like one, all the way out past 12 yards, WITHOUT USING HIS SIGHTS...ALONG WITH 6 OF 8 OTHER SHOOTERS ON THE SAME LINE.

You can learn the exact same material that Matt taught us from reading Fairbairn and Applegate, and you can try it for yourself within the restrictions of your local range...and you might get disappointed because your groups are so much bigger than your sighted-fire groups, and give up on combative point shooting. Matt WILL NOT let you give up, and he WILL instill the attitude of focused aggression in you, and you WILL succeed in hitting without using your sights in positions, situations and distances that you never imagined you could have before.
Reply With Quote

[mavracer]

To me retention shooting is with the gun held way back, probably in contact with your body.
I would not use this out to 10 feet, but would go into to a type of hip, semi hip or point shoulder position instead.
call it what you want still same thing.
Then again, since a vast majority of handgun encounters happen within 10 feet you are making a very good case for point shooting.
yes, But I still contend that you don't need to practice it, as it is muscle memory that will naturaly occur with sighted practice as I said earlier in this thread.And yes I have tried it and have no issues hitting COM even out past 7 yards matter of fact I can from a low ready raise the gun and find COM with my eyes closed.

[mavracer]

Okay, now I sound like I've joined the Point Shooting Cult. All I can say is that the targets don't lie. Matt was trying to clarify the statement that point shooting was "instinctive." As a twist to that, in light of what I said above, I would add that point shooting is primal. You can't think about. You can't be timid about it. Put on your warface and just do it.
oh I see you agree.however if point shooting is "instinctive" what exacticly do you teach?

[mddevildog]

the357plan

"I’m sure that extreme stress or the immanent fear of death will override any hesitation concerning the laser or sight alignment."

Actually, that statement, to me, opens up areas for argument. The original point of my post to you was, if in fact you were using the laser and if in fact you did not see the dot on your target, would you hesitate somewhat, for whatever reason. You say not, but to my way of thinking, your mind would not allow you to just slap the trigger anyway. I'm not saying lasers are inappropriate in all circumstances, but if you are attempting to use it and it fails, or is off target, in an environment where you can clearly see your adversary, and there is no clear and absolute bullet stopper directly behind your target, do you shoot anyway? Or does your statement mean because of the stress generated from the possibility of death, you're just going to point and shoot even if you don't see the laser, or the sights. Is that not then "point shooting"? Maybe I misunderstood your previous post, maybe you are a proponent of point shooting and you were just stating you had lasers on all your carry guns as an option. Maybe I'm just being argumentative.
Stay Safe
RB

[the357plan]

mddevildog,

The original point of my post to you was, if in fact you were using the laser and if in fact you did not see the dot on your target, would you hesitate somewhat, for whatever reason.

Honestly, I won't know until I've had that experience (which, I hope is never). However, I keep everything in good working order and the laser is always tested prior to strapping on a CCH or before I go to bed.

My preference? The flash sight picture. I was using it (or something similar) thirty years before I ever heard of it. I’ll also admit that when using the laser, I’m primarily point shooting. I think the laser pays off in extremely dark, low light encounters. For Example: In the middle of the night, when my night vision is good, the laser will light up my bedroom and makes it very easy to get the gun on target fast (and I don’t care if the BG gets a heads-up that bad things are about to happen to him).

I think the most hesitation I will ever have is with the evaluation of: Is this really a bad guy? Is this really a bad situation? Once I decided the answer is yes, whatever happens will be fast.

[matthew temkin]

I never claimed it was instinctive--that was the student's perception, not my statement..
The only instinct is the ability to point one's finger at an object.
That's it.
As to what I teach see my home study course located here:

http://kilogulf59.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=handgun&action=display&thread=114


yes, But I still contend that you don't need to practice it, as it is muscle memory that will naturaly occur with sighted practice as I said earlier in this thread.And yes I have tried it and have no issues hitting COM even out past 7 yards matter of fact I can from a low ready raise the gun and find COM with my eyes closed.

If this is what you believe then we will have to agree to disagree and move on.
I have stated all I can on this matter and now it is up to the lurkers to decide for themselves.
Have a good one.

[smince]

But I still contend that you don't need to practice it, as it is muscle memory that will naturaly occur with sighted practice After my first point-shooting training experience with S.I., I made the comment:I don't think I would have did as well if I didn't have the experience of thousands of rounds aimed downrange.
Since then, I've seen amateur shooters brought to an impressive level of point-shooting ability in a couple of one- and two-day class, Now I think muscle memory has little (if anything) to do with it.

[mavracer]

Since then, I've seen amateur shooters brought to an impressive level of point-shooting ability in a couple of one- and two-day class, Now I think muscle memory has little (if anything) to do with it.
I'm not sure how you would get my saying you don't need to practice point shooting IF YOU PRACTICE SIGHTED FIRE A LOT to mean practicing point shooting won't make you better at it, because that is just stoopid of course practice (esp. with instruction) should make improvements.
I'm saying I agree with blackwater that to actually dedicate training to not using your sights is teaching a bad habit. sure retention drills are a good thing so you learn to not shoot your weak hand or cause a malfunction from having slide hit your body. However getting hits at the ranges these skills should be used at should be no problem for anyone who has enough sighted training that they should be adding this skill. you should to learn to walk first.
Also for a good example of practicing shooting wrong and being good at it watch Tom Knapp some times I'm sure shooting guns up side down is a skill I don't need for SD but he's damn sure good at it.

[smince]

I'm not sure how you would get my saying you don't need to practice point shooting IF YOU PRACTICE SIGHTED FIRE A LOT to mean practicing point shooting won't make you better at it, because that is just stoopid of course practice (esp. with instruction) should make improvements.You read a lot into my post that isn't there.

You saidBut I still contend that you don't need to practice it, as it is muscle memory that will naturaly occur with sighted practice...However getting hits at the ranges these skills should be used at should be no problem for anyone who has enough sighted training that they should be adding this skill. And all I added was that amateurs can get very good hits with point shooting after a one or two-day class. How do the new students do this, if they are beginners, and haven't had time to develop 'muscle memory' from 'sighted practice' or 'sighted training?

[mavracer]

How do the new students do this, if they are beginners, and haven't had time to develop 'muscle memory' from 'sighted practice' or 'sighted training?
it's one or two days instructed training muscle memory so that you train your muscles to point the gun where your looking.
proper grip will become muscle memory same for sighted fire training.
proper stance will become muscle memory again same as sighted fire training.

Bottom line if your going to get hits your going to have to have the sights lined up on target might as well use the sights. If you don't have time pull the trigger he's too close and you won't need sights.

[threegun]

How can using sights be as fast as point shooting if I don't have to bring my gun to eye level to fire?

Do/can fractions of a second equal living or dying in a shootout?

How important is getting the first hit in?

[mavracer]

How can using sights be as fast as point shooting if I don't have to bring my gun to eye level to fire?
you can't miss fast enough to win anything.
Do/can fractions of a second equal living or dying in a shootout?
no less than missing does.

How important is getting the first hit in?
extreamly important. that why it's important to train to use the sights.

[Microgunner]

My old friend Threegun....threegun....threegun.....You can't effectively hit your target point shooting. Oh...wait a minute...I forgot...I've seen you shoot. YOU can hit consistently whilst point shooting. I guess practice does makes perfect.

[threegun]

you can't miss fast enough to win anything.

Statement while 100 percent correct assumes a miss is guaranteed with point shooting and a hit guaranteed with sighted fire. Consistent and good hits are easy at close ranges point shooting with practice.

no less than missing does.


Again you assume a PS miss and a SF hit.

extreamly important. that why it's important to train to use the sights.

I train to use my sights as well. However I refuse to disregard a tactic that allows me to put lead on target faster. I must ask why would you disregard such an important tactic?

BTW my 10 year old son can point shoot and consistently hit silhouette targets with good hits out to 3 yards. Its not hard it just requires a bit of practice.

Now at retention distances out to 3 yards if you refuse to acknowledge the benefits of point shooting thats fine......you are responsible for you. I know what I can do with point shooting. I know what friends can do with point shooting. I know what my boys can do with it. It with out a doubt is a valuable tool in my box. Not the only tool mind you. I just don't understand why some folks refuse to acknowledge the benefits of this tactic when used within its limitations.

[threegun]

Micro, Your opinion is bias my friend.

[mavracer]

threegun I'm sorry apparently you have not read any of my other posts.
I have stated retention drills are important and should be practiced.
my contention is that if you need to practice to hit COM at 3yards you haven't practiced shooting with your sights enough yet.
and I'd bet a ton of money my daughter who's never fired a round without sights can put the first round COM from 3/4 hip at 3 yards.

[threegun]

and I'd bet a ton of money my daughter who's never fired a round without sights can put the first round COM from 3/4 hip at 3 yards. I have stated retention drills are important and should be practiced.


Then why on earth would you recommend using sights over point shooting at appropriate distances? Your daughter can do it so can others. Three yards is not retention distance so do you advocate only using sights at distances beyond retention distance even if they are well within the high percentage range of point shooting? If so why?

I mean anyone who is serious about defending themselves with a firearm will use sighted fire albeit flash front or full sights at distances beyond their capabilities with point shooting or any time that high speed is not needed. Only a fool would choose point shooting over sighted fire if the nano second advantage point shooting gives was not likely to make a difference in the outcome. However only a fool would completely disregard the technique except at retention distances for those times that the nano second might make a difference in the outcome.

For you to arbitrarily suggest that point shooting guarantees a miss is silly.

[amd6547]

Guys, it really isn't an "either/or" choice. Both aimed fire and point shooting are required skills for self defense.

[MLeake]

... and this isn't an attack, and I'm not anti-point shooting...

... is where do you practice? Most ranges I've been to either list "aimed fire" as a requirement in the form you sign in order to shoot, or post it as a requirement on the rules notice signs.

So if I want to practice point-shooting, I have three options:

1) Find a different venue (in my case, the back yard, so I sometimes play with this) - defensive pistol school ranges probably would fit the bill, but I imagine that would get expensive, fast;

2) Get permission from range management at my regular ranges;

or

3) Break the rules of the range and hope I shoot well enough that nobody notices (I am NOT advocating this at all, just saying it's the only remaining option other than not practicing point shooting)

So how do you all practice point shooting?

[Microgunner]

The only question I have for the point shooting backers... ... is where do you practice?

I don't know if I should be speaking of Threegun's private affairs but, Threegun is a Range Officer and after hours the range becomes a completely different place for the RO's and their guests.

[MLeake]

That's not a surprise. Same logic is why some RO's who know me have let me shoot rapid fire or from the draw when no other customers were on the line. (Concern being that others might try to emulate, thinking it was generally ok to do, so don't do it in front of anybody)

But it still begs the question: People are saying how important it is to train at point-shooting, but not really acknowledging that it may not be easy or even possible to practice.

This is why, in an earlier post, I recommended point-shooting only for people who've practiced it. I don't think we'd like the miss percentages if people who've never done it before, try it for the first time against an assailant.

So how do the regular joes out there practice?

(Possible solution: This is one of the few things I like to use a laser for - practice point shooting in the comfort of your home, as an adjunct to dry-fire practice)

[smince]

So how do the regular joes out there practice?While I learned the technique in two of the SI classes I attended, like most, our public ranges frown upon PS shooting.

I have a couple of gas blow-back AirSoft guns that let me practice my AIWB draw, shooting while moving, PS, and odd angle shooting in my garage at least once a week. I know some of you will say 'it's not the same', but on the rare occasions I get to do these things with my real steel (or polymer) I can tell it has helped me out.

GBB AirSoft will even help you sighted-shooters stay in practice:D

[mavracer]

Then why on earth would you recommend using sights over point shooting at appropriate distances?
I'm not what I'm trying to say is if you really I mean really feal the need to practice your point shooting skills to get hits at 3 yards then you probably haven't dedicated enough time to sighted fire to hit the barn from inside.

also IMHO you better start thinking about retention position at 3 yards cause thats 1/2 step and a lunge. so I'd say 3 yards is well within the range of retention practice.

here is a quote from the original post
If you practice both sighted fire and point shooting, under stress you will revert back to point shooting because it requires less mental thought then using your sights.
For the record again I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THE TACTIC OF POINT SHOOTING at appropriate distances. I think a 2 day class that teaches pointshooting at 50 feet is a bad idea teaching bad habits.

[threegun]

Mleake, You can use a laser to assist in dry fire point shooting practice. I'm lucky in that I can practice both dry and live fire along with shooting on the move in all directions........transitioning from different weapons platforms etc.

With ammo prices at record levels and availability at an all time low I have been using my laser more than I care to recently..........it does work very well however.

Mavracer, I think we probably agree more than we think just missing each others point. I do use my sights whenever possible. I dont need sights to hit close targets at this point. I can get good hits without them even at medium distances. Still if I have the advantage in the reactionary curve or the distances grow farther than my sightless shooting can assure me a hit I will use my sights.

In the only serious time I have drawn my gun to fire (ended up not having to) I remember saying front sight front sight front sight over and over in my head. I also remember that the bad guy looked very thin and his gun (bbgun) looked huge. Microgunner was his intended target (was trying to scare him and pawn the bbgun). The distance was around 10 yards and I had no chance of hitting him with point shooting at that time.

[mavracer]

Mavracer, I think we probably agree more than we think just missing each others point.
I kinda figured that most of my arguement was with Matt about "training" to point shoot at distances beyond 3-5 yards.
You can use a laser to assist in dry fire point shooting practice.
thats a big plus 1
transitioning from different weapons platforms
That brings up another thing about "training" to point shoot. that that training esp. at longer distances may not do you any good if you change weapons.for example a Glock will point higher than a 1911 because of the differences in grip and grip angle.now this won't make much difference a 3 yards but at 50 feet :confused:

[MLeake]

Good point about different platforms, and yet another reason I no longer have any Glocks.

My SIGs, CZs, and DW 1911 all point very similarly.

Manual of arms may vary slightly, but that doesn't bother me. Point and balance are a whole different ballgame, though. I like them to be similar.

[smince]

Since I posted this link in the "moving and shooting" thread, I might as well stir up things here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnrIdpo9odA&feature=player_embedded

[threegun]

I was talking about transitioning from pistol to rifle or shotgun. The only time I use two different handguns is when transitioning to my BUG. I am a firm believer in using a single pistol platform as often as possible.

[cop-out]

Some of you have ask why if I can hit a paper plate at 50 yards, I haven't competed. Number one reason is that when I was in my 20's, the cup was just beginning, and reason two was that I was too busy trying to raise a family and keep a marriage together where one partner is a cop.

I did compete on my department's pistol team until they decided that they no longer would support the team. I for sure couldn't get time off to travel for competition, plus as strange as it may seem, I thought being a street cop was more important than shooting targets. I did practice a lot to stay alive, one of the practice regimens was to walk up jackrabbits and shoot them on the run. I got to where I could hit a good number. Since I am a liar, I will not give the number, but if anyone is interested I can furnish witnesses to shooting silhouette targets at 100 yards with a stock, iron sighted 1911 .45. I don't claim to hit every time, but it is a fair number. And I am now in my late 60's.

[oldkim]

I was one that was wondering. I can certainly understand when you were in your 20's raising a family but as you stated you are in your 60's.

What's holding you back from competing? I'm sure by now you have mastered your technique. Why not give a try and see what your "salt" is worth if you can hit a man target sized target out to 100 yards without using your sights I'd say you need to compete.

Or at the very least advocate your style of shooting and do demonstrations - I'm sure there are several that will pay you to do it on their payroll. I mean a guy that can hit a man sized target out ot 50 or 100 yards without sights.

Now that is a good one - guys with rifles have a hard time shooting out to 100 yards with a scope.

Just saying.... have you seen guys out there zeroing in their hunting rifles?

[Deaf Smith]

In IDPA there are MANY older men (heck... I'm 55 NOW!!! Expert or above in all classifcations.)

And as for rifle.. Try CMP matches. These are 600 yard. You can shoot service rifle class (AR15, M16, M1A, etc..) or F class (they use scopes.) BTW I have shot those matches and yep, there are quite a few that can put every shot in a 10 inch circle at 600 yards! You can guess what they could to at 100!

Or IHMSA (that's International Handgun Metallic Silhouette Association) for handgunning or NRA Rifle Silhouette and try to shoot offhand at 200 to 500 meters for high powered rifle and 40 to 100 yard for small bore .22.

No need to sit back and say you are to old. It ain't cage fighting.

And I assure you, it will make you ten times the shot you are now.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Quick question...

As I understand it, point shooting is for when time is so critical that there is no time to acquire a sight picture.

So why is it that sighted fire or a flash sight picture dominates every handgun discipline that involves getting accurate hits on target under time pressure?

[armsmaster270]

Quote B Roberts:
"As I understand it, point shooting is for when time is so critical that there is no time to acquire a sight picture.

So why is it that sighted fire or a flash sight picture dominates every handgun discipline that involves getting accurate hits on target under time pressure"

How many of those disciplines have an armed felon charging them with a knife or bat and a free hand to fend off or grab your weapon. You don't know real time pressure until you have been there

[Bartholomew Roberts]

How many of those disciplines have an armed felon charging them with a knife or bat and a free hand to fend off or grab your weapon. You don't know real time pressure until you have been there

What has that got to do with my question? The assertion is that point shooting is faster - so fast in fact that you don't have time to use the sights. Also asserted is that at ranges of 7 yards or less, it is sufficiently accurate to do the job.

So if that is the case, why doesn't a single high-ranking shooter who competitively shoots for time and accuracy use this method or advocate it?

If point shooting works so well under "real time pressure" as you assert, then why doesn't it work under competition?

[Deaf Smith]

Flash sight picture adds nothing to the time. It's just as fast unless you use 1/2 hip, and even then the difference is maybe .1 seconds (yes a tenth of a second.) A bullet may very well take more than that time to even affect the other guy.

Point shooting I can see for those with eye sight problems and really can't pick up a sight picture or those with very extreme limitation of ammo. Some LEOs and civilians do fit that.. not because they can't afford the ammo, but they don't want to practice or do have bad eye sight.

[mddevildog]

I just could not help myself. Deaf Smith,

"Flash sight picture adds nothing to the time. It's just as fast unless you use 1/2 hip, and even then the difference is maybe .1 seconds (yes a tenth of a second.) A bullet may very well take more than that time to even affect the other guy."

Are you saying a tenth of a second is unimportant in a gunfight, because there might be a delay in in the impact that fired round might have on the BG?
RB

[armsmaster270]

If you stick your weapon out when you have someone charging you with a weapon as a knife he can grab your weapon before it is on target and remove it from your hand, it's been done, that is why there is retention shooting with the gun against your body to protect it. In a match you won't loose your life if you goof up. just points.

[KellyTTE]

I'd be curious to see if anyone could point shoot their way through one of Paul Howe's Pistol classes. Either the instructor or student one. Seriously, if point shooting/unsighted fire/whatever the term is this week worked and is so god awful fast, why isn't anyone using this wonderful panacea in USPSA, IDPA, the Olympics, you name it?

[LongRifles, Inc.]

I think there is allot more to be said about point shooting than most people understand! Applegate, Fairbain and Jordan put the point shooting method as the primary concern in gunfights. And these are pepole who have been in actual life and death encounters.

Agree.

[threegun]

What has that got to do with my question? The assertion is that point shooting is faster - so fast in fact that you don't have time to use the sights. Also asserted is that at ranges of 7 yards or less, it is sufficiently accurate to do the job.

So if that is the case, why doesn't a single high-ranking shooter who competitively shoots for time and accuracy use this method or advocate it?

If point shooting works so well under "real time pressure" as you assert, then why doesn't it work under competition?

It does work in competition. I have used non sighted fire in threegun and IPSC matches many times. In fact on almost every target that is inside 15 yards and requires two shots my second shot is fired unsighted. I don't use unsighted fire for the first shot because my gun is already out, up, and at eye level after the first target anyway. Also I can't risk a C or D zone hit that could keep me from winning. All the other shooters have to hit tighter as well so the playing field is even.

The difference from competition to real life is that a C or D (zones on target) hit that costs me in a match is the same hit that in real life could save me.

Some folks me included feel that the guy who gets the first hit on his opponent has a huge advantage in winning the gunfight. Simply put I can hit my target before the gun comes to eye level at nominal ranges. At these ranges the time delay in communication between eye and brain from using the sights cost tenths. The time delay from were I fire (again depending on range and circumstances) to the gun being lined with the eye yet another tenth or so.

Now factor in a possible moving target or you yourself moving and getting a sight picture is all but a fantasy. At times getting a front sight only is difficult.

So point shooting has a genuine place in my toolbox.

My original post apparently angered a member and for this I am sorry. I should have worded my point differently as to not personalize what I was trying to say.

[threegun]

I think there is allot more to be said about point shooting than most people understand! Applegate, Fairbain and Jordan put the point shooting method as the primary concern in gunfights. And these are pepole who have been in actual life and death encounters.

How good are you or I going to be able to shoot after being hit? Unless we have had it happen before we will never know.

Why did shootout legends emphasize point shooting? I would argue one reason is because they saw the bad guys ability to return fire crumble after the shooting started and or being hit.

I saw an interview with a highway patrolman who survived a gunfight. He said that while his gun was holstered the bad guy was laughing as he leveled his sights on the lawman. The inexperienced bad guy forgot to turn off the safety giving the lawman the time he needed to draw. Now hear this........once the patrolman began to raise his weapon the bad guy was unable to even manipulate the safety. The smile had turned to sheer horror. The patrolman proceeded to fire multiple rounds into the bad guy killing him.

I think the gunfight experts listed above placed a premium on speed as well as accuracy for this reason.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

I have used non sighted fire in threegun and IPSC matches many times. In fact on almost every target that is inside 15 yards and requires two shots my second shot is fired unsighted. I don't use unsighted fire for the first shot because my gun is already out, up, and at eye level after the first target anyway.

So using the sights for the first shot of a hammer and not the second shot is point-shooting now? See, I was using point-shooting myself and I didn't even realize it.

So point shooting has a genuine place in my toolbox.

OK, let's assume it does. Do you need training to utilize point shooting or will regular practice with sights enable you to use point shooting at the same distances that it is currently viable with no additional training?

[qwman68]

whatever 3gun..you think your the only one who has shot a handgun,really?

[KellyTTE]

Note....*If we leave the holster at the same time (within my limits in range) I will hit you before your arm reaches eye level. It may not be directly between the nipples but it will be a good combat hit. My second shot will be right behind your first shot.........if you get it off. There is no way that less travel to the point of fire by the shooting hand isn't going to save time.*

How many times have you accomplished that shooting feat while someone was shooting at you?

The Spanish have a saying: "It is one thing to talk about bulls, it is another thing entirely to be in the bullring.".

[threegun]

whatever 3gun..you think your the only one who has shot a handgun,really?

I do? Thank you for telling me. Sorry that voicing my opinion drew you to that conclusion.

How many times have you accomplished that shooting feat while someone was shooting at you?


Never thankfully. That isn't relevant however. My quote was simply to point out that the first round can be fired before the gun reaches eye level. That isn't possible with sighted fire. If you don't have to complete the draw stroke logically you save time. Oh and of those who have been shot at and survived the best among them embrace point shooting....wonder why?

So using the sights for the first shot of a hammer and not the second shot is point-shooting now? See, I was using point-shooting myself and I didn't even realize it.


:rolleyes: I tried LOL. Guys are using the fact that it appears competition shooters are always using their sights and that is simply not true at least for you and I anyway. We may not be "point shooting" but we ain't exactly using sights either. I have used classic point shooting at close targets even in tourneys. I have done hammers only with no sights for the first or second shot just arms at eye level. I know calling the second shot of a hammer..point shooting is a bit of a stretch but it is un sighted fire.

OK, let's assume it does. Do you need training to utilize point shooting or will regular practice with sights enable you to use point shooting at the same distances that it is currently viable with no additional training?

For traditional point shooting I have to train. For a hammer not so much.

[pax]

Deleted a couple posts for uncalled-for snark.

This is the reason I always cringe when a pointshooting thread comes up. Too bad, because it's endlessly fascinating. But I sure hate to ban, or even threaten to ban, otherwise-good members who simply cannot avoid personal attacks on pointshooting threads.

Let this stand as a warning. No more snark, please. Stick with the topic and avoid personal remarks & personal attacks.

pax

[KellyTTE]

Never thankfully. That isn't relevant however.

It is relevant. When some ITG says:

*If we leave the holster at the same time (within my limits in range) I will hit you before your arm reaches eye level. It may not be directly between the nipples but it will be a good combat hit."

My first retort is:

No plan survives contact with the enemy. - Helmuth von Moltke

Case in point where you said:

"Now hear this........once the patrolman began to raise his weapon the bad guy was unable to even manipulate the safety. The smile had turned to sheer horror. The patrolman proceeded to fire multiple rounds into the bad guy killing him."

In the big scheme of things, no one knows how they're going to react when someone acts to take their life. To comment or postulate otherwise is pure 100% weapons grade baloneyium.

[MLeake]

... is why people get so emotional about this debate.

For those who don't feel they can shoot well until the gun is at eye level, don't. Just realize it may cost you some fraction of a second that could matter.

For those who think getting a flash sight picture is too slow, realize you too are talking about some fraction of a second; it could matter, but being a fraction faster only helps if you get a hit.

Seems to me that practicing at both would be worthwhile.

As I've noted earlier in the thread, though, I'm really not sure how one could practice point firing in most cases. Most of the ranges I've been to require aimed fire - it can be rapid, but must be aimed. I suspect most would ask one to leave, should one practice firing from retention positions, etc.

To those who advocate point shooting, where and how do you practice?

(Caveat: the possible use of laser training aids for this purpose has already been pointed out; now I'm looking for an answer from people who practice with live ammo.)

[pax]

MLeake,

Lots of us have access to private property and private ranges. Sure, not everyone is so fortunate. But a lot of people are. :)

Kelly,

Stand down a little, please. Given the very careful disclaimers surrounding that paragraph, I think perhaps a little less heat would be in order. And maybe a careful re-reading too; I think perhaps threegun meant something less specific and less braggy than the way you're reading it.

Thanks,

pax

[KellyTTE]

Yes ma'am.

[Deaf Smith]

Are you saying a tenth of a second is unimportant in a gunfight, because there might be a delay in in the impact that fired round might have on the BG?

mddevildog ,

Do you really know how long one tenth of a second is? That's mousetrap speed. The human body won't ever react to a gunshot in that time unless a CNS shot was made.

That amount of difference would not be in any way a determination of the fight. Your reaction time alone will be anywhere from .9 second to three or more depending on where your mind is.

Trying to use .1 second is splitting hairs very very fine. BUT, making solid heart/lung shots is far more important than .1 seconds! So more important one can even risk the 'maybe' .1 second of time.

I'd be curious to see if anyone could point shoot their way through one of Paul Howe's Pistol classes. Either the instructor or student one. Seriously, if point shooting/unsighted fire/whatever the term is this week worked and is so god awful fast, why isn't anyone using this wonderful panacea in USPSA, IDPA, the Olympics, you name it?

KellyTTE,

Howe pretty much has the same idea as for retention/sighted fire as I do. I've read his works and have been tempted to go to his class (but Tom Givens and SouthNarc got in my way this year.)

[threegun]

KellyTTE, I never said I knew how I would react. I never said everyone would react as did the patrolman's adversary. What I did do was speculate on why Applegate, Fairbain, and Jordan thought so highly of point shooting. I added the patrolman's story as positive evidence.

I do know that many folks shooting skills deteriorate when deadly force is faced. I also know that respected experts place a high value on getting the first hit. I can only assume that this is because after being hit many folks shooting skills deteriorate.

My statement you quoted was intended only as an example. It angered a few and Pax told me that my wording was easily misunderstood. I removed it and apologized. This is what I was trying to say without making it personal as I originally did. If man #1 and man #2 drew simultaneously and man #1 cleared leather canted his gun and fired while man #2 had to raise his weapon to eye level....both capable of hitting from said position...man #1 would get his hit in first. This clearly shows a potential advantage in speed (however slight) for point shooting. A good thing to have in some situations. I'm not saying one is better just one is faster.

[threegun]

For those who don't feel they can shoot well until the gun is at eye level, don't. Just realize it may cost you some fraction of a second that could matter.


Wow I wish I could have said it this easy LOL.

To those who advocate point shooting, where and how do you practice?


I R.O. at a local range. Its a volunteer thing but it comes with bennys. I get unsupervised use of the private side of the range. Been working on Sweat'n'bullets shooting on the move/run as often as $ allows.

[KellyTTE]

Howe pretty much has the same idea as for retention/sighted fire as I do. I've read his works and have been tempted to go to his class (but Tom Givens and SouthNarc got in my way this year.)

I'm pretty positive that MSG Howe (I think that the man has done enough for this country that he at least deserves to be addressed properly) and you don't have the same view on the subject. I specifically asked him about point shooting/reflexive shooting/whatever you want to call it and he basically said that its a dead end and cited his program to move the Midland, TX PD from their point shooting program to sighted fire as he taught it. He told me in detail how their PD now has a MUCH higher OIS hit rate (80% versus >25%), lower liability claims (from stray bullets), lower training round counts and a few other facts that aren't for public consumption. He had nothing positive to say about reflexive/point shooting as a training system.

[Deaf Smith]

KellyTTE,

Here is how he felt in his article:

http://www.combatshootingandtactics.com/published/tactical_shooting_thoughts.pdf

"I won’t knock point shooting, but I will make a few points. First, I don’t believe you can consistently replicate the stress you will be under in a gunfight on a flat range. Your muscles will be different from the first shot to the last, before or after your workout. I learned a long time ago that all good shooting requires is being consistent and doing the same thing every time.

Next, if you practice point shooting and also practice using your sights, you’re using two systems. Remember what I said about using one system that will do everything or handle all situations? It applies here. I believe that point shooting requires less mental discipline than does using your sights every time. So, when it comes to a high stress situation, which system will your mind revert to, the easy way or the disciplined way? Unfortunately, being human, I believe you will revert to the easy method, which is point shooting. I don’t think your mind will say, it is under 10 yards, it is time to point shoot or it is over 10 yards and it is time to use my sights.
You will simply revert to one of two systems and generally that will be point
shooting."

I agree with him on stress in the square range .vs. street. And to an extent with the learning two sighting systems (actually three if you feel retention shooting is a separate sighting 'system'.) That is why for those who don't practice much I feel a form of retention and sighted fire is the best. BUT, if you are out to master the handgun, there are lots of ways to shoot!

I have found that since in most sighted fire AND point shooting your body/arms indexes on the target and your sights are fairely in line, then the difference is in the 'picture' you pick up with your sights or in the case of point shooting the slide of your gun in your peripheral vision (and that's with below the line of sight and 3/4ths point shooting.)

I feel a form of non-tradional use of sights, I.E. 'flash sight picture' is best. I don't care if you use Weaver, Chapman, Isosceles, reverse weaver, whatever, as long as you either 'see' those sights to verify or bring the weapon up as IF you could see the sights.

I also feel the time it takes to bring the weapon up to eye level .vs. 1/2 hip or 3/4 hip, is not significant in 99.99 percent of the altercations (but the hit rate is!)

And Kelly, you ever hear of Clint Smith? Do you know his rank? Do you know what they call him? I know Howe served, and many others served, and I'm impressed with what they did, but don't get overrought cause people don't mention titles.

[KellyTTE]

What MSG Howe writes is his polite way of addressing issues he feels are a dead end and I'll leave it at that. If you want his true feelings on the subject ask him in person, he's more approachable that way.

As for any other instructor out there, I try very hard to be polite and use honorifics when/where applicable, conversely, you don't see me throwing their last names around dismissively.

[MLeake]

And yet, most of us don't get upset when people discuss Eisenhower (by your logic he should be either "General" or "President"); Lincoln; Jefferson; Washington; Reagan; Chesty Puller; or any number of other people whom we respect, without using honorifics.

I'm pretty sure MSG Howe won't object to being referred to as "Howe," in this context. I'm also pretty sure he'd be happy to know that his thoughts on the matter are actually valued and discussed.

I think you're the only one taking offense, KellyTTE.

BTW, when discussing a position paper, treatise, or book on a subject, the norm is to refer to the author by last name only.

[threegun]

I just don't understand why folks cannot see the benefits from having both shooting options.

I can imagine someone firing at me. I believe it will be very difficult to make a good shooting platform and find the sights in the face of fire. The natural reaction or desire of the body to crouch perhaps flee make this method of shooting difficult. The closer the threat the stronger this desire may be IMO. At closer ranges and given the bodies natural desire to duck, flee, seek cover, or otherwise get out of harms way, I feel that point shooting in some form could play a vital role in survival.

In countless police shootouts I have seen on video those officers who come under fire at close ranges always try to get away asap. Cowards????I don't think so! Its a natural reaction I believe. Possessing a skill that can deliver hits while giving in to these natural forces could be priceless. That involves point shooting.

Aimed fire offers a better chance of a good hit....no doubt but it takes longer and requires some degree of stability......I have yet to see an officer under close fire Duck walk. Nor have I been able to use my sights while running, ducking, etc.

[Microgunner]

What MSG Howe writes is his polite way of addressing issues he feels are a dead end and I'll leave it at that. If you want his true feelings on the subject ask him in person, he's more approachable that way.


So, in your opinion, MSG Howe's written offerings are unreliable?

[mavracer]

I believe it will be very difficult to make a good shooting platform and find the sights in the face of fire.
which is why Blackwater and many others are saying this is what is important to practice sighted fire. so that you try to find the sights.

It does work in competition. I have used non sighted fire in threegun and IPSC matches many times. In fact on almost every target that is inside 15 yards and requires two shots my second shot is fired unsighted.
in learning from a couple Grand Masters back in the mid 90s tracking the sights during double taps adds zero time and insures better hits once mastered.

[KellyTTE]

So, in your opinion, MSG Howe's written offerings are unreliable?

Don't troll. Its childish.

[Microgunner]

Don't troll. Its childish.


Yes sir.

[KellyTTE]

I just don't understand why folks cannot see the benefits from having both shooting options.

To reiterate what MSG Howe wrote above:

Remember what I said about using one system that will do everything or handle all situations? It applies here. I believe that point shooting requires less mental discipline than does using your sights every time. So, when it comes to a high stress situation, which system will your mind revert to, the easy way or the disciplined way? Unfortunately, being human, I believe you will revert to the easy method, which is point shooting. I don’t think your mind will say, it is under 10 yards, it is time to point shoot or it is over 10 yards and it is time to use my sights.

Given the choice between accurate sighted fire, along with attendant lower liability OR unsighted fire, I choose the former.

[Microgunner]

I don't get it. Some of what MSG Howe writes is a polite avoidance of his true opinion and some is gospel? How do I tell the difference?

[threegun]

in learning from a couple Grand Masters back in the mid 90s tracking the sights during double taps adds zero time and insures better hits once mastered.


The difference between a double tap and hammer....unsighted second shot. If not for time savings why use it? I mean why risk a miss?

which is why Blackwater and many others are saying this is what is important to practice sighted fire. so that you try to find the sights.


Can you find your sights while RUNNING left, right, backwards, or any other angle for that matter? I can't. Front one yes both and align no way.

I have tried and the best I can do with sights and propulsion is the duck walk. Also the basic turret like movements and such. Once my shooting platform has broken down (running, dodging etc) I simply cannot find, align, and put on target. This is why I practice PS.

[mavracer]

If not for time savings why use it? I mean why risk a miss?
very very good questions.
Can you find your sights while RUNNING left, right, backwards, or any other angle for that matter?
yep they're always right on top of the gun and they point where the bullets going.front sight and flash sight picture are not point shooting.

This is why I practice PS.

and thats what you'll probably revert too under stress even at distances beyond your ability to get good hits point shooting.

[threegun]

Remember what I said about using one system that will do everything or handle all situations? It applies here. I believe that point shooting requires less mental discipline than does using your sights every time. So, when it comes to a high stress situation, which system will your mind revert to, the easy way or the disciplined way? Unfortunately, being human, I believe you will revert to the easy method, which is point shooting. I don’t think your mind will say, it is under 10 yards, it is time to point shoot or it is over 10 yards and it is time to use my sights.

I disagree with him. The time I almost shot a man who was pulling a gun on my coworker I didn't revert to my point shooting. It was high stress. I did, not only, realize the difficulty of the shot but repeated over and over in my head front sight front sight. I even remember thinking how skinny the guy was and hoped that my miss would not lead to my coworker getting shot. So many things going through my head, it was incredible. I had a slowing of time effect as my draw just didn't move. I got tunnel vision as well. All this in about 1/2 second. Coworker said my draw was fast as usual and shop video showed no signs of my draw slowing.

Given the choice between accurate sighted fire, along with attendant lower liability OR unsighted fire, I choose the former.


We all would or at least should IF GIVEN THE CHOICE. Many however (me included) just feel that there may be a time when you cannot access your sights. If you are ever surprised by close range gunfire you might reconsider.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

in learning from a couple Grand Masters back in the mid 90s tracking the sights during double taps adds zero time and insures better hits once mastered.

My splits with hammers are 0.19 to 0.23. My splits with a sighted second round are never lower than 0.33 and have been as high as 0.54. Admittedly, I don't think of myself as a master; but I think for most people this is not true.

[threegun]

yep they're always right on top of the gun and they point where the bullets going.front sight and flash sight picture are not point shooting

Very funny LOL.

Let me explain a drill. Draw and begin running in whatever direction simultaneously while gun is firing once it clears leather. Initial shot/shots are pure shooting as the gun is not at eye level yet. At some point I can see the sights in my view and try from then on to use them until the drill has ended or I am unsafely angled at the range.

Sorry I have such a difficult time putting on to paper my thoughts.

[Deaf Smith]

Can you find your sights while RUNNING left, right, backwards, or any other angle for that matter? I can't. Front one yes both and align no way

threegun,

Yes you can use the sights, unless you are talking about really running, like flat out, and in that case you are not gonna make many good hits at all.

But it's not 'finding your sights' if you are moving and shooting either. When you bring up the gun the sights should be roughly aligned. Even while standing still don't adjust the sights. Lean to bring them up alignend. Your grip of the weapon and how you present it should give you the alighment. The seeing of the sights, again in rough alighment, is all you need for verification to get hits at close range.

[mavracer]

Draw and begin running in whatever direction simultaneously while gun is firing once it clears leather.
sounds like a recipe for a Darwin award to me.
either run or shoot and move don't try to do both.

[threegun]

Yes you can use the sights, unless you are talking about really running, like flat out, and in that case you are not gonna make many good hits at all.


I have been working on this exact thing for a while now. You can make hits running. In thinking about it after mavracer's post I do pick up the front sight at some point but several shots are gone before this happens I'm sure. I will confirm after my next outing.

Like you Deaf, I thought it was not possible. Its uses could be invaluable if ever behind in the reactionary curve with an up close and personal bad guy. You use the bodies natural desire to flee the danger and incorporate return fire into it. Gives you movement and duress two key indigents in reducing the effectiveness of your adversaries fire. It wasn't my idea its part of the fluid threat response.

[threegun]

sounds like a recipe for a Darwin award to me.
either run or shoot and move don't try to do both.

The "Darwin" award usually goes to those who poo poo something without trying it. Here is a link to what I am working on.....http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnrIdpo9odA&feature=PlayList&p=170A69D556504B2E&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=31

I haven't taken the course but moving quickly and hitting in any direction is possible.

[mavracer]

The "Darwin" award usually goes to those who poo poo something without trying it.
NO the "Darwin" award ALWAYS goes to people who get themselves killed doing something stupid.
and watch your video it is not what your portraying the only time he shoots from the hip is at near contact range otherwise he has the gun at eye level before he pulls the trigger.

[threegun]

MAV,

either run or shoot and move don't try to do both

Why? Why not run and shoot?

[threegun]

NO the "Darwin" award ALWAYS goes to people who get themselves killed doing something stupid.
and watch your video it is not what your portraying the only time he shoots from the hip is at near contact range otherwise he has the gun at eye level before he pulls the trigger.


Look again a good view is at the 34 second mark. Clearly the gun is below eye level. Anyway that isn't relevant since you look at those who wish to run and shoot at the same time as Darwin award winners.

The system does use alot of point shooting.

[KellyTTE]

Awesome skillset :rolleyes:

...so long as precision isn't needed.

Here's the problem with a shooting like that. Statistically, you're most likely to be assaulted in a WalMart parking lot, you start throwing lead around like that you're going to put a round into something or someone that you don't want to. If look at the target in the video, easily 25% or more are misses, and about 40% or more are questionable at best (pass thru on the target edges, arms, etc.

God forbid that a critical incident happen in a mall, or on school grounds where there are far more innocents than shooters.

[NRAhab]

Regarding the video threegun posted @ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnrIdpo9odA

1. That's not really "running". That's a fast walk.
2. Magazine dumps into the berm at 5 feet look pretty cool on YouTube, especially when set to really bad rock music.
3. You can't actually see where the bullets are hitting, and that's a problem. The whole system ascribes to the theory that a fast hit outside of COM is better than a slower hit inside COM. That's a debatable theory.
4. Moving at that speed hosing bullets into a target at extremely close ranges isn't really impressive. The most complex skill demonstrated in that video is the footwork involved, the gunhandling skills he demonstrates are something that any half-decent USPSA or IDPA shooter could pull off.

The biggest issue I have with what's being "taught" by classes such as demonstrated in the video is thus: everyone agrees that skills degrade under actual stress. One of the biggest arguments of the point shooters is that under stress, a Modern Technique shooter will not acquire or use the sights on their pistol. By that exact same logic, it also then follows that the skills of a point shooter will similarly degrade under stress, meaning that a shot that on the square range was a peripheral hit on the target to begin with becomes a miss "on the street", as it were. I would be greatly concerned about potential liability issues for someone that's trained in a school of thought where a low hit outside of the COM is considered acceptable on a square range in a non-stressed environment.

On the flip side, people also like to feel like they're getting something for their money when they go to gunschool, so I can see the appeal in doing high round counts at close ranges.

[KellyTTE]

NRAhab makes a good point.

Here's something else that I'll add. I've trained once or twice where the ammo count was way over 1k rounds. One of the things that I found is that there is a lot of 'here are some cool techniques and drills' but we're not going to hold you to any quantifiable standard at the end of all this.

I put 1600rds down range at CSAT, about 1300 of them was to reach a quantifiable standard under difficult time constraints. Given that we all seem to agree that skillsets degrade under stress, which skillset is the one that we would prefer degrade?

A skill set based on slightly quicker fire, but a lesser degree of accuracy?

or

A skill set based on quick fire with higher degree of accuracy?

All things being equal, I acknowledge that it is possible for someone to become an accurate shooter using un-aimed fire. There are many many exhibition shooters that prove this point. However, the round count, physical prowess and dedication make this a near impossible goal for the vast majority of shooters to reach.

I believe that if you took two otherwise equal shooters and gave them equal rounds, training time and one was a unsighted fire shooter and one sighted, that at the end of the experiment, the sighted fire shooter would be as fast, more accurate and therefore more dangerous overall.

[Shane Tuttle]

My stance is there's a time for point shooting and there's a time for sighted fire. Threegun, I reserved my opinion for quite some time, well before I was even a Staff member, if I agree with you or not. I must say if you are trying to make your point by using the example in the video, I must respectfully disagree.

Along with NRAhab's reasonings, I will add the distance the person was from the assailant was sufficient to use sighted fire while on the move. I think the rare occasion where point shooting would be viable is in retention or if your firearm is within reach to overtake it from you. Other than that, I believe sighted fire is in order. We all have to remember we will have to answer for EVERY bullet fired out of our gun. Why it placed in the stomach. Why didn't it hit COM. Why fire to hit the shoulder. The legal battle commencing after the battle. I'll take my chances to spend the extra tenth of a second to assure I used every confirmed known variable available to me to place the shot where I want. Relying on muscle memory alone in the heat of the moment may not be enough for the jury of my peers. History has led me to believe being faster to get the bullet out alone isn't advantageous.

Another point to make in that video is it appears the person's shots on one string looked entirely too low. We're talking below the groin area and he worked his way up to COM. Not good. IMO, he was merely spray and praying to say the least.

To be clear, my intent isn't to demean you. I think you've provided some great posts here over the years. But the bar placement of when to use sighted fire and when to point-shoot is quite different for us.

[smince]

Regarding the video posted by threegun:
That's not really "running". That's a fast walk.:rolleyes:
3. You can't actually see where the bullets are hitting, and that's a problem. The whole system ascribes to the theory that a fast hit outside of COM is better than a slower hit inside COM. That's a debatable theory.
I posted this on the "Shooting and Moving" thread:
While I've not personally trained with Roger (yet), I have trained with 11-12 guys who have. They (and he, I've been told) can keep their shots in a paper plate size group while moving (at whatever speed you consider that on the video to be).Agree or not, a lot of the focus of Roger's PSP and the SI curriculum is to return fire while getting out of the line of fire of the BG. If I can run off line and not get hit, while causing the BG some pain, then I say I win.

What's more important in a gunfight: shooting or not getting shot yourself?
Another point to make in that video is it appears the person's shots on one string looked entirely too low. We're talking below the groin area and he worked his way up to COM. Not good. IMO, he was merely spray and praying to say the least.Zipper technique: getting a few shots into the BG quickly and working your way up, causing his loop to be reset. More holes in=more blood out.

[smince]

In the big scheme of things, no one knows how they're going to react when someone acts to take their life. To comment or postulate otherwise is pure 100% weapons grade baloneyium. So, you might possibly point-shoot in a life-or-death situation?

[KellyTTE]

What's more important in a gunfight: shooting or not getting shot yourself?

The equation is bigger than that. If you define situations in overly simplistic terms, you paint yourself into tactical corners.

Shooting? Not getting shot? Not shooting an innocent? Etc. Etc. Etc.

[smince]

Perhaps controversial, but when it hits the fan, you are not going to be concerned with misses and hitting some bystander. If you are the focus of the attacker...meaning he is specifically shooting at you or at a family member, forget the legal situation, background, everything else. If you do not react immediately, you will die.

In a fight for your life, thoughts of legal entanglements should be at the bottom of the list. If you are dead, legal stuff is meaningless.

[threegun]

You guys make some very valid points many of which I agree whole heartedly with. I shoot with sights whenever possible. The difference is I am under no delusion that I will be able to stand and deliver in the face of gunfire from an attacker at close ranges. I feel that my natural reaction is going to be to similar that of others I have seen on shootout videos and that is to run away from the threat then respond. Since I know that my shooting ability degrades while under duress it also degrades for the bad guy. Hence if I shoot while running away I increase my odds of survival. Movement and distance also makes hitting more difficult.

My goal is to win.....a win is staying uninjured. If my skills degrade and I miss every shot but walk away uninjured I win. Sure I could stand pat like you guys insist and exchange gunfire of which mine hopefully is more accurate. The reality is handgun bullets don't instantly stop except in rare cases and standing pat insures that I give my adversary the easiest target possible. Should my COM hits not instantly stop I am in immediate danger of death until the bad guy succumbs.

Yes it carrys a greater risk to bystanders but so does a shoot out period. Just because you are disciplined doesn't mean your adversary is. Your decision to fight back increases risks to all....should you guys throw away your permits? First duty is to stay alive, keeping bystanders safe is a close second.

[threegun]

Perhaps controversial, but when it hits the fan, you are not going to be concerned with misses and hitting some bystander. If you are the focus of the attacker...meaning he is specifically shooting at you or at a family member, forget the legal situation, background, everything else. If you do not react immediately, you will die.

In a fight for your life, thoughts of legal entanglements should be at the bottom of the list. If you are dead, legal stuff is meaningless.


Thank you!!!! Everybody wants a perfect world. Problem is it doesn't exist. Neither does a perfect single shooting system. Fights are dynamic and require many different responses in order to maximize survivability. The more you have the better. I feel that you will fight as you train. I don't believe that you will revert to point shooting during a long distance affair. I also don't believe that my friends who push standing pat and using the sights will do so while a bad guy is shooting at them from 3 yards away. It just goes against everything I have seen from actual footage.

[KellyTTE]

In a fight for your life, thoughts of legal entanglements should be at the bottom of the list. If you are dead, legal stuff is meaningless.

If you prevail and kill a innocent, your victory is pyrrhic. All of these are double edged swords.

[NRAhab]

I think the argument about shooting bystanders and legal ramifications applies moreso to training than the actual shooting. It's a pretty simple logic tree, actually:

1. Prior to any sort of fight, you decide that you don't want to shoot an innocent bystander.
2. You know that under stress, your accuracy will degrade significantly regardless of whether you point shoot or use the Modern Technique.
3. Point shooting places a higher emphasis on speed than accuracy. Zipper shooting, "any hit", etc are all techniques in which "poor" hits are considered acceptible.
4. Knowing again that accuracy degrades under stress, it stands to reason that "training" in a system that encourages poor accuracy means that in a stress environment, your hits will turn into misses.

It then follows quite logically to spend your time in training with techniques that focus on accuracy.

Also, as an aside: you don't win gunfights. You survive gunfights.

[smince]

3. Point shooting places a higher emphasis on speed than accuracy. Zipper shooting, "any hit", etc are all techniques in which "poor" hits are considered acceptible.As I said in an above post: The 'inaccurate point-shooting' instructors I know can and do train people to keep their shots in a paper-plate sized group. I think that compares quite nicely to a scoring zones on most all paper training and LE targets.

[NRAhab]

Yes, but at what range and what speed? The guy in the video wasn't exactly burning up the ground with his trigger or foot speed, and he was basically touching the targets with his muzzle.

[threegun]

Yes, but at what range and what speed? The guy in the video wasn't exactly burning up the ground with his trigger or foot speed, and he was basically touching the targets with his muzzle.

Are you serious? He is at times 7 plus yards. He is moving faster than a speedy duck walk. He is hitting the target one handed while running in all directions.

You guys agree that accuracy degrades under stress yet only seek to increase your ability to hit. Thats only half the equation. Do you not agree that movement keeps you safer (unless behind cover)? Do you not agree that your opponents ability to hit you will suffer once you begin to put lead in his body?

Most gunfights are going to happen under 7 yards......according to the FBI uniform crime report. Imagine standing to deliver while someone is firing at you from this distance or less. If you can you are different than every other human I have ever seen on video in actual shoot outs. They all retreat until they can return fire. Good for the bad guys accuracy bad for your survivability.

[smince]

Check it out yourself:
http://fightfocusedconcepts.com/homeThis course distills it all into one well thought out and extremely applicable system that dovetails neatly into the regular Close Range Gunfighting matrix, presenting the full aspect of the integration of sighted and unsighted fire at CQB distances.

Yes, but at what range and what speed? The guy in the video wasn't exactly burning up the ground with his trigger or foot speed, and he was basically touching the targets with his muzzle. Can you do it:confused:

It's miles ahead of the single step or two to the side, or straight back (still in the line of fire:eek:) like Gunsite or Thunder Ranch teaches.

[Shane Tuttle]

What's more important in a gunfight: shooting or not getting shot yourself?

Not getting shot but not at the expense of allowing bullets to fly without accounting for them.

As I said in an above post: The 'inaccurate point-shooting' instructors I know can and do train people to keep their shots in a paper-plate sized group. I think that compares quite nicely to a scoring zones on most all paper training and LE targets.

I guess this is where the term "inaccurate" is better defined. Sighted fire advocates usually accept COM as accurate which is a fist size (4"), not plate sized (8").

Perhaps controversial, but when it hits the fan, you are not going to be concerned with misses and hitting some bystander. If you are the focus of the attacker...meaning he is specifically shooting at you or at a family member, forget the legal situation, background, everything else. If you do not react immediately, you will die.

I can't think of very many situations where one would be in such a position to recklessly abandoning Rule #4. I can think of countless situations where a responsible person would consider the environment at all times. As it never is a perfect world, you may end up dying in order to keep someone else that's an innocent bystander from being the same due to your choice. It's one thing to see there's absolutely no other option than to fire now and ask questions later, but the number of times this comes about is extremely rare at best. Even so, I question the defendant's ability to exercise their responsiblity of carrying a firearm as well as their posssible failure of situational awareness.

[mavracer]

Are you serious? He is at times 7 plus yards. He is moving faster than a speedy duck walk. He is hitting the target one handed while running in all directions.
Guess maybe therein lies the problem you are impressed by that video.

Can you do it
yes I could run around and hit the berm AND:rolleyes:

[smince]

guess this is where the term "inaccurate" is better defined. Sighted fire advocates usually accept COM as accurate which is a fist size (4"), not plate sized (8").IIRC, the inner circle on an IDPA target is 8", is it not? FWIW, I can do fist size or smaller standing still in a Weaver stance using sights. I personally think keeping your rounds inside an 'official' target score ring while moving is pretty good shooting.
yes I could run around and hit the berm Then I suggest you take Roger's PSP course or one of the S.I. Close-Range Gunfighting classes. Then you can hit the target:)

[threegun]

I guess this is where the term "inaccurate" is better defined. Sighted fire advocates usually accept COM as accurate which is a fist size (4"), not plate sized (8").


Another school of thought is that if your groups are 4 inch tight....you need to speed up a bit.

Guess maybe therein lies the problem you are impressed by that video

No, I do the video is more like it. I practice running and shooting.

yes I could run around and hit the berm

You don't have a clue do you? You are so against anything other than sighted stand and dieliver that one must ask....why. We have already rebutted that hits are good.......While I've not personally trained with Roger (yet), I have trained with 11-12 guys who have. They (and he, I've been told) can keep their shots in a paper plate size group while moving (at whatever speed you consider that on the video to be).....so you are either refusing to believe us or just out of ammo with your argument (pardon the pun).

If you don't want to train this way then don't. Just don't bring up false arguments to try and prove your case. Adults can disagree....really its ok.

I won't argue against sighted fire except for its down side......little or no mobility.

[mavracer]

FWIW, I can do fist size or smaller standing still in a Weaver stance using sights.
that may be but you sure MISSED my sarcasim
No, I do the video is more like it. I practice running and shooting.
You don't have a clue do you? You are so against anything other than sighted stand and dieliver that one must ask....why. We have already rebutted that hits are good.......

I don't have a problem with shooting on the move please point to where I've said moving is the problem.
once and for all I have a problem with the fact you have to PRACTICE to make a video like that.because with the exception of a couple very close shots he brings the gun up to eye level eliminating any speed advantage of PS over a flash sight picture.

thought of another way to put it.I don't feal the need to practice going faster and letting my accuracy deteriorate as that will take care of itself.I practice to be as accurate as I can and let the speed come.
slow is smooth, smooth is fast

[NRAhab]

I'm relatively certain, as I stated above that an average USPSA shooter could in fact replicate the movements done in the video with a modicum of practice.

Mind you, they'd not be practicing their marksmanship, they'd be practicing their footwork. There's nothing overly complicated about the shooting in that video, it's all done at a fairly pedestrian speed, but the footwork is complex. My greatest concern in replicating this drills would be tripping over my stupid feet and putting a bullet in myself.

[threegun]

Mav can you describe your practice regimen?

Mind you, they'd not be practicing their marksmanship, they'd be practicing their footwork. There's nothing overly complicated about the shooting in that video, it's all done at a fairly pedestrian speed, but the footwork is complex. My greatest concern in replicating this drills would be tripping over my stupid feet and putting a bullet in myself.

Thats one of the reasons why we practice it.

I'm relatively certain, as I stated above that an average USPSA shooter could in fact replicate the movements done in the video with a modicum of practice.

You are correct. It is awkward though at first.

[threegun]

I don't feal the need to practice going faster and letting my accuracy deteriorate as that will take care of itself.I practice to be as accurate as I can and let the speed come.
slow is smooth, smooth is fast


When first developing the method in the video it is slow and unsmooth.... awkward. Then as it is practiced, things smooth up and they speed up as you said. Just another way to defend yourself with a pistol.

[MLeake]

... and the sideways walking steps are sort of awkward, if you haven't done them.

But they're really not hard after you've done them a few times. Basic Tai Chi movement drill, that we incorporated in some Aikido classes, and that I've also seen used at Tai Chi / Yoga classes at some of the pricier fitness centers.

Uh oh... yet another tie in to ways in which MA training can improve your shooting and overall SD capabilities...

[guns and more]

In 70% of the cases reviewed, officers reported that they used instinctive or point shooting.
It was used for a variety of reasons: the close proximity of their adversary, rapid escalation of the incident, poor lighting, or the need for the swiftest possible reaction. No sight alignment was employed.
So a pistol grip shotgun for home defense is not a bad idea after all? Hmmmmm?

You anti P/G can't have it both ways.

[MLeake]

The P/G may be just fine for some shooters. Those shooters who will practice with it enough to be able to score consistent hits should be fine.

However, a lot of shooters won't practice as often as they should due to recoil sensitivity.

Shooting from the shoulder, a conventional shotgun's barrel is close enough to your sight line that even though you aren't "sighting" it, you have a very good idea of where it is pointing.

Shooting from the hip, with either a conventional or a P/G, you don't have a good peripheral view of the barrel, so either you've trained enough that point shooting is instinctive, or else you can expect to put shot all over the place.

I've seen very few people who can safely shoot a P/G from anywhere but the hip. There have been a few videos of people smacking themselves in the face with a P/G trying to shoot it from a near eye level. I know this definitely happened at a friend's range in Florida on one occasion.

So, again, if you can actually shoot a P/G well, I don't see any problem with it for HD. The question of whether you practice enough, and can shoot it well, is really something that you have to answer (honestly) for yourself.

[mavracer]

Mav can you describe your practice regimen?
I shoot in an informal bullseye league once a week and shoot IDPA 2-3 times a month, most months I shoot a cowboy match and a NRA rifle match.
I spend most of my outdoor range time shooting rifles for accuracy and load developement (chronographing) and some position practice.If I get to the indoor range other than copmetition it's usually family time and I'll usually have some load/function testing to do.
at the house I will practice my draw,mag changes and trigger controll(crimson traces and a light switch work wonders for this)

My problem once again is if you need to practice in order to get hits point shooting at appropriate ranges you haven't practiced the basics enough and if you've practiced the basics enough you don't need to practice point shooting the ability is already there.

for example I've practiced my draw until I can do it with my eyes closed and open my eyes to the sights being lined up,I've practiced it enough with enough different guns that I can make 4-5 draws before the IDPA match and shoot all 5 classes without a miss on the first shot.then turn around on sat and draw my Vaquero just as fast with the same accurate first shot.

I don't need to Practice not using the sights that skillset is already in the bag.

[MLeake]

... I practice similar drills. I used to use a laser for it, on an empty SP101. Draw and point at a chosen target, then trigger the laser to see how close my point actually was. Generally speaking, at room sized distances, I could pretty reliably put the laser on some part of a fire detector.

I also practice drawing iron sighted guns to point at my reflection in the mirror across the room. When I bring my eye down to sight level (since I want to see where the gun is pointing, not raise the gun), I usually find that I'm pointing pretty well centered on the chest. Inside 10 feet (5 to the mirror, and five reflected back) I can reliably draw and point to near the bridge of the nose.

I suspect a lot of "point-shooting" is simply working with your weapon enough to have a natural index occur whenever you present it.

Will have to find a spot to play with this, using live ammo and targets. (While I can shoot in my backyard, I really can't shoot HIGH, which is a possibility when trying something new.)

[mavracer]

I suspect a lot of "point-shooting" is simply working with your weapon enough to have a natural index occur whenever you present it.
been trying to say that since page 2:confused::rolleyes:;)

[threegun]

I don't have a problem with shooting on the move please point to where I've said moving is the problem.


ok here

either run or shoot and move don't try to do both.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

matter of fact can you give me a situation where point shooting would be the best answer at a distance beyond what would be considered retention drill distance?

Any close range situation that would cause you to want to move away rapidly to escape an attack.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm saying I agree with blackwater that to actually dedicate training to not using your sights is teaching a bad habit.

Disagree due to an actual experience. Plus blackwater expects me to believe that during a high stress situation we are going to forgo some of our training only to revert back to other easier "training". IMO if you are not going to fight as you train at appropriate distances due to stress then you will revert back to none of your training and just pull the trigger at random. This is confused with the victim reverting back to point shooting because it looks alot like point shooting and the victim isn't going to admit that he or she crapped out.

[mavracer]

Quote:
I don't have a problem with shooting on the move please point to where I've said moving is the problem.

ok here


Quote:
either run or shoot and move don't try to do both.
shoot and move IE at the same time notice I didn't say shoot or move also I didn't say shoot and then move.
Any close range situation that would cause you to want to move away rapidly to escape an attack.

and like I said before if you need to practice PS to get hits out to distances where it should be used then you should practice sighted fire more because you haven't mastered it.

[smince]

I'm going back to WarriorTalk. You guys are welcome to come with me and continue this stimulating conversation if you'd like.

[threegun]

and like I said before if you need to practice PS to get hits out to distances where it should be used then you should practice sighted fire more because you haven't mastered it.


You may not feel the potential need to use PS like I do however advocating that I not practice a shooting discipline that I may need simply because I should be able to hit due to my sighted fire practice is silly. I practice it just as I practice other things like jam clears, weak hand shooting etc. I can do both with ease yet I still practice them. Just because I have racked the slide 7 million times and seated a mag 2 million times doesn't mean the I stop practicing tap rack drills or that both the above make a tap rack mastered. I try to practice like I feel I'm gonna need to fight.


either run or shoot and move don't try to do both.

My bad.

[threegun]

4). Excessive focus on long range shooting and over-sighting close range shots.

The vast majority of urban pistol confrontations, internationally, occur within the 7 yards interval. While learning the basics fundamentals of shooting is essential, so is learning to apply those fundamentals in dynamic mock gunfights as soon as they are understood. Gunfights tend toward being close range, high intensity confrontations that often occur by surprise and involve more than one adversary. While hitting the adversary(s) is extremely important, it is similarly important to do so fast enough to make a difference, as well as to do so without you yourself being hit. Marksmanship…acceptable marksmanship that is, is part of the package of necessary skills, but most certainly not all of it.

Students solely trained in classic marksmanship methods do not do well in dynamic close range confrontations. The first time such a student goes through a properly designed force on force event, the glaring holes in his fighting system are brought to light clearly and dynamically. I’ve pointed out the importance of progressive force on force training before, and will refer the reader to those prior articles.


Just lifted this from warrior talk.........thanks Smince. It was title silly gun school things that can get you killed.

[Shane Tuttle]

IIRC, the inner circle on an IDPA target is 8", is it not? FWIW, I can do fist size or smaller standing still in a Weaver stance using sights. I personally think keeping your rounds inside an 'official' target score ring while moving is pretty good shooting.

Didn't say anything about IDPA nor do I care. Don't think an "official" target score ring sets the standard for me. I don't practice for "good enough".

[smince]

threegun-here is a portion of an email Gabe shared recently (from someone who co-instructed a rifle course with him) that is pretty interesting:A year or so ago, I started studying surveillance/dashcam tapes of attacks that justified lethal force. I came to a startling conclusion: my training (LFI and other "conventional" courses) did not equip me to deal with these sorts of sudden, close-quarter attacks. This realization caused me to rethink my training, and to make changes to both my techniques and attitudes.

I really wasn't aware of what you were doing with SI, so in my ignorance I just looked at what the ends needed to be, then worked backwards to figure out changes to my training that would deliver the desired result. Doing some FoF with Airsoft opened my eyes further, and enabled faster progression.

Through the grapevine I learned that what I'd come up with from a "common sense" perspective looked oddly similar to what you were doing - in a very crude way, of course...I liked what I saw.

To learn more I picked up a number of your DVDs, and added a lot of new stuff to my regimen. Most importantly, I threw away a lot of old crap. I've learned more of relevance from one of your DVDs than I did in many days of classes with more "traditional" instructors. (I'm still not a knife guy, but I'm getting there!) I'm hoping to train with you in the future, but in the meantime wanted to say thanks...
I don't practice for "good enough"Me either.

SEE YA'LL:)

[KellyTTE]

Tom Givens has 50+ students that have prevailed in civilian gun fights using his sighted fire system.

Gabe Suarez has ?

Seriously, I've never heard of any of Suarez's students getting into a gunfight.

[smince]

Seriously, I've never heard of any of Suarez's students getting into a gunfight'Avoiding' beats 'surviving' any day

[MLeake]

.... unless you are claiming Suarez' training is the main reason why his students have been able to avoid gunfights, that comment is a complete non sequitir.

[smince]

OK

I know of a couple who have prevailed in fights.

He doesn't use 'saves' as an advertising talking point.

[KellyTTE]

Its also a round-a-bout way of implying that Tom Givens doesn't teach avoidance, deterrence and deescalation. :rolleyes: But simply put, it doesn't address the question at all.

[smince]

Its also a round-a-bout way of implying that Tom Givens doesn't teach avoidance, deterrence and deescalation. I actually didin't mean to imply that at all. Tom is spoken of pretty highly around SI. Gabe even sells some his videos on his store site.

But thanks anyway:rolleyes:

[pax]

My sensei can beat up your sensei...

I think this one's run its course. Thanks for the good conversation, everyone.

pax