A Case For Point Shooting.

[David Armstrong]

PS..the article also states that SA has over 50 murders a day.
And I recently met a SA police officer who told me that they have over 300 cops killed in the line of duty each year.

Many parts of SA have become literal warzones it seems, and the government seems unable or unwilling to control the violence. Last time I talked with an SA colleague he said the statistics were that 70% of the police would be in a shootout within 3 years. Sad to see what has become of the place.

It has been proven over and over again that sighted fire is superior to unsighted fire.

Yes, it is superior. However, the problem is lots of research has indicated that superiority frequently cannot be utilized during typical CCW incidents, which is the basic issue IMO.

Hmmm he had a wheel gun in the age of automatics. Kind of wonder about him. Please enlighten us.

The age of automatics may be here for LE, military, and games, but in the real world of personal self-defense the revolver is still quite common. Given the difficulty of obtaining handguns in many overseas countries the fact that the driver was carrying a revolver is not at all unusual.

[sesquipedalian101]

Nate45:

Thank you for the thoughtful and well reasoned come-back; I appreciate the time you took, both with framing your opinion and with looking up and posting the links you provided.

You asked several questions; let me try to answer them ad seratim...

Originally Posted by nate45

Are you sure, have you ever timed it? Do you have range timer?

Actually, yes I have verified it. I did, courtesy of a friend, have timer access some years ago…

My best times ever were about ½ second; I averaged (last I checked -- ten years back) about ¾ of a second (buzz to hit) I am afraid that I am considerably slower now -- arthritis setting in and eyesight fading out, coupled with not enough practice time -- being the major contributing factors..

Originally Posted by nate45

The reason I ask is that I've met quite a few people over the years who thought they were fast, but the range timer said otherwise.

Well, you are not meeting someone who "thinks he is fast" here...

My typing speed used to be about 100 to 120wpm (a side benefit of my day job as a "network guy") I am now down to 60wpm on a good day -- a result of decreasing manual dexterity which, though I haven't measured it, I can "feel" has also affected my pistol shooting. (In fact, I am mostly doing shotgun for "fun" -- at least when people can see me; there they think that letting the birds get way downrange is "showing off" rather than the fact that my hands "fumble" more and my eyes track less well than they used to...)

But, I am digressing -- which is a natural tendency I over-indulge...


I'd have to say, no, I am s-l-o-w; odds are, even the slowest folk on this forum are now better than I -- whether they use sights or not…

However, whether or not I am personally "fast" isn't the point (pardon the pun); the issue is whether or not "instinctive shooting" is accurate enough that any "speed advantage" you might gain from it is worth the time, effort, and ammo required to pursue the skill…

I still say, for some people, it is worth it. I am also perfectly willing to admit that it probably is not worth it (or may even be detrimental) for others -- particularly if you are blessed with "fast eyes." I've never been anybody else; I don't directly know what challenges others might face. I do know that "point shooting" has worked for me.

Originally Posted by nate45

How much time is that? Again I'll ask, do you have a timer?

In my case, the differiential was about 1/3 to 1/2 second… Pointing from the hip was last measured at about 3/4 second buzz to shot; bringing the gun to eye level and sighting stretched things out to somewhere between 1 second and 1-1/4 seconds (I had more variation in finding the sight picture than in pointing -- depending on the target and distance). I don't know my personal variation now.

Just so we are clear here, I am NOT arguing that one should never use sights (or even seldom use sights); I am simply claiming that sometimes being able to shoot w/o sights is an advantage. As I said, I am a big fan of Bill Jordan who championed "instinctive shooting" in close and sights for farther away.

I believe a LEO posted earlier in this thread that his department teaches "point shooting" inside of a certain distance & sights outside of that. I would echo that sentiment -- except to say that the appropriate change-over distance varies based on individual capabilities and practice levels rather than on a set measurement. Lots of "mass training" is predicated on what works "best" for the "average" person and neglects what works "best" for the "worst" person or "best" for the "best" person; often these techniques are dramatically different.

With the "optional" use of sights in mind, and even if you think him a charlatan as many do, I still find this Bob Munden clip (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=woILVt30QV8&NR=1) "instructive" -- you will note, for example, that Mr. Munden uses his sights when going for accuracy. We also know (right?) that "balloon busting" is done "shotgun like" with powder residue and lots of times the guns are specially modified (aluminum barrels, et cetera) to increase speed.

That said, there is still accuracy required; lots of the folk who do this sort of stuff (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnu4P0Y-JAk) can do nearly as well with wax bullets and (first shot at least -- before recoil has to be compensated) with full-power ammo… I know because I've seen it done. Am I that good? No. Was I ever really good? Not anywhere near the skill level of the people around whom I grew up -- Not in my wildest dreams.

Just to anticipate some follow-on questions... Have I ever had to shoot "under stress" at close (less than 30 feet) range? Yes. Did I "point shoot"? Yes. Did I miss? No. Was it luck? Maybe. Do I want to go back and try it again? Not today. Was I fast? I don't know…

The "opposition" certainly didn't shoot faster than me, but that might be because both situations involved four-legged critters who wanted to "mess up my day" on a very personal level -- so all they had were teeth (or in one case, tusks) and attitude.

I also cannot comment on my "speed" because I have no objective sense of time for either incident. Based on subjective memory, the first seemed to take half a minute; the latter about ten seconds… There were no bystanders on the first occasion, but witnesses to the second event said it was "unbelievably fast" -- so I think I must have done "okay" -- particularly since I made the "draw" out of someone else's hands. Regardless, both seemed slow to me -- kind of "stuck in cement" slow --sort of the time-dilation-effect mentioned elsewhere in this thread.


-101-

[sesquipedalian101]

Closed Circuit to PAX:

I take a break from the main theme of this thread for a couple of things:

1) It may appear that I have "picked on you" a couple of times; please know that I only chose some of your verbiage because it provided a better "jumping off point" for some of my ramblings than other's posts -- not because I was necessarily taking issue with what you said or how you said it...

And...

2) Before my last post, I took a moment and followed the "corneredcat" link in your signature... You have some really good stuff there! I haven't had a chance to peruse it carefully, but plan on going back. Thank you for the time and effort you have put into your pro-firearm online presence. I only wish the rest of us were as articulate...


-101-

[Sweatnbullets]

Man, am I thankful that I no longer need to take part in stupid debates like this.

Every person default should be to get to his sights. But do not try to get to something that is simply not going to be there. We must realize that when the "fight or flight" response activates the Sympathetic Nervous System (SNS) the pupils will dilate and make it impossible to focus on anything up close. Therefore we must train within the reality of a truely reactionary life threatening situation.

For anyone that believes that point shooting is not necessary.....then you have zero retention skill sets and you are in need of some serious, properly structured FOF. Inside of properly structured FOF, I have yet to witness anyone that did not point shoot.

Everyone with any decent amount of training point shoots (yet they may feel the bizzare need to call it something other than what it is.) The question all comes down to how far you want to take the skill set.

It is nice to fill up my courses with people that have no idea what they are really physically capable of and showing them exactly how all of the dogma of the recent past is nothing more than emotional ignorance.

I have had a couple of guys sign up for my courses to try to prove me wrong. They are now some of my biggest supportors.

Be very careful about "not knowing what you do not know" because the truth will make you look the fool. This has happened on epic porportions over the last ten years. So many experts painting themselves into a corner only to discover the error of their ignorance. Regretting the years of bad mouthing a skill set that they did not understand and now try to teach today.

Do not be that closed minded expert that "did not know what he did not know", because the world is watching and they will remember the emotional dogma that was clung too so tightly.

Yeah.....we will point and laugh!

[nate45]

Man, am I thankful that I no longer need to take part in stupid debates like this.

Yet here you are big as life.

We must realize that when the "fight or flight" response activates the Sympathetic Nervous System (SNS) the pupils will dilate and make it impossible to focus on anything up close. Therefore we must train within the reality of a truely reactionary life threatening situation.

For anyone that believes that point shooting is not necessary.....then you have zero retention skill sets and you are in need of some serious, properly structured FOF. Inside of properly structured FOF, I have yet to witness anyone that did not point shoot.

I came across this article last week while debating this topic.

Sighted Fire vs. Point Shooting.

Argument “A” contends that reliable hits cannot be achieved without awareness of the front sight. Mounds of anecdotal and scientific evidence show that it is possible to be involved in a life-or-death battle and still maintain situational awareness and sharpness of faculties, allowing complex motor skill engagement and sighting system awareness. Further, one of the last things the bullet passes on its way to the target is the front sight. If it is not in line with the target, the bullet will miss the target.
Argument “B” portends that during sympathetic nervous system activation, sighted fire is not likely or is perhaps even impossible, therefore it is necessary to train without using the sights.

Neither the Argument “A” camp nor the Argument “B” camp are necessarily wrong. In fact, both sides provide scientific and anecdotal data that show two sides of the same coin. The reconciliation of both arguments lies in the fact that if your mind interprets the stimulating event as fearful and you undergo sympathetic nervous system activation, then the physiological arousal factors may have a negative effect on performance. In the absence of training to counteract these factors, complete failure is possible. However, if your mind does not process the event as fearful and your sympathetic nervous system is not activated, then many of the detrimental physiological factors may either be inconsequential, or possibly not even present. Time, distance, cover, superior skill, and confidence in your abilities (all of which can be quickly developed through the use of high-quality simulation training) will go a long way to ensure the sympathetic nervous system does not take a heavy toll on performance.

To me the best solution at close range is to begin firing as soon as the pistol comes level with the target and continue to fire as I bring the pistol to eye level. Some thing like this.

Now if you are very close these look like sound tactics. Close Range Gunfighting - Defending SUL

I'm not an either or person, but personally if I've got six feet of distance, I'm bringing the pistol up to eye level.

[matthew temkin]

Nate:some call that the zipper.
Others call it vertical tracking.
A very good method, BTW, which combines the best of both.
I should add, however, that all of those shots in that video could have been made with point shooting.
Still, a very good example of what I consider to be the most useful combat shooting method ever devised for "in your face" distances.
PS:SweatnBullets:I would not call this a stupid debate, but rather restating a position for those who are new to these forums.
Some will agree, some disagree and others will do their own research/testing.
Which is how it should be.

[Playboypenguin]

Nate,,some call that the zipper.

I did a quick fire test of my Seecap using that exact method once and this was the result. I can see why they call it "the zipper" method. I will probably never be able to recreate this effect again as long as I live.

[nate45]

That is very good at 20 ft PBP. At 2 or 3 yards I don't see how you could miss.

[matthew temkin]

Very good shooting indeed--and I am sure you will have no problem doing the same over and over again, since it really is quite simple and natural.
And 2-3 yards is where most handgun encounters occur.

[SAWBONES]

To SB and all other trainers of and advocates of point-shooting who believe that:

...we must realize that when the "fight or flight" response activates the Sympathetic Nervous System (SNS) the pupils will dilate and make it impossible to focus on anything up close

...this is simply false. It may seem a fine point, but let me offer an observation.

There are records of a number of up-close assault victims, whether they came out afterward as winners or losers, who recall very clearly being able to see the gun muzzle pointed at them from only inches to a few feet away, in exquisite, almost magnified detail, such that they were afterward able to describe, quite accurately, the details of things like nicks in the muzzle crown.

The argument here isn't that of being physiologically incapable of seeing the sights because of inability to focus on near objects, in turn attributable to unavoidable pupillary dilitation. That doesn't apparently actually happen, even though a degree of pupillary dilitation does occur.
Rather, the issue is the near-unavoidable occurence of "threat focus"; in a life-and-death situation, most people will focus on the threat to the exclusion of other nearby objects, such that in defending oneself, the ability to remove ones attentional and visual focus from the threat and transfer it to the (intermediate) visual object(s) of the sights may prove to be simply impossible. Sympathetic nervous system responses such as sweating, pupillary dilitation, blood pressure elevation and blood volume redistribution are aspects of this but do not, in themselves, account for the interesting (and apparently "hard-wired") phenomenon of threat focus.

Jeff Cooper said "blessed is the man who, in the face of death, thinks only of the front sight", and that may well be true, but I would suggest that most folks simply won't be able to do it on demand in a true life-and-death attack, even with training in "The Modern Technique".
Some may, but I believe that most won't.

[kraigwy]

In reality, when stress takes over, so does training. If you spend years upon years training using your front sight, you're gonna use it when stress kicks in wheather you realize it or not.

I never shoot my pistols or rifles without using the front sight. (the exception is a very little time playing with the crimson sight on my 642 making sure it would work in no light situations.

In Combat, I found my self looking down the sights of my M16 (Vietnam). Even the few times I couldnt get out of being volenteered to crawl down some slimmy tunnel, I had my 1911a1 up so I could see my sights. In LE, (20 years w/APD) in situations I thought I may have to use my service revolver I found my self looking down the sights of my Model 28 Smith.

Its training. If you train using your sights, you're gonna use them, if you dont train you're just gonna blast away wheather you choose sights or point shooting.

Its training, constant training. No one is a born shooter, no one can learn to shoot and maintain their abilities unless training is constant. Shooting is not like riding a bike, you loose the edge if you dont keep at it.

[CzCasull]

What I draw from the story is that the family man had gone into shock- at which point he lost steady reflexes. When one is shot it is important to stay calm. ..

Perhaps if he had more practice with his firearm it would have been natural to acquire his target.. but I wouldn't know, I've never been shot :P

- - - the attacker was moving around and not standing still. Most likely he was afraid and unable to make the decision to run, or stay and fight. - meaning he did not expect the family man to retaliate with his own firearm. He didn't think that such a person would be dangerous.- in addition he could have thought he had a bullet vest on since he was still moving after being shot. haha

shooting innocent civilians is stupid.

[matthew temkin]

I must agree with SawBones.
For whatever reasons many focus on the threat in close range, surprise combat
situations, I do not think that physical reactions are the culprit.
I will also disagree with Kraigwy---too many well trained sight shooters have failed to use their sights during actual combat and in quite a few FOF sessions.
Some may, but others will not always use the sights.

[SAWBONES]

---too many well trained sight shooters have failed to use their sights during actual combat and in quite a few FOF sessions.
Some may, but others will not always use the sights.

And that's about the size of it.
I believe that both point shooting and sighted shooting have their proper places in combat or defensive close-quarters shooting.

It's not "always one and never the other", but it's definitely my observation that devotees of sighted shooting almost all seem to denigrate point shooting, and that while there certainly is a lot of sighted shooting taught on the "square range" (most of it involving making holes in stationary targets seven yards and more away), there is almost no training in point shooting readily available, and this in spite of the fact that most assaults take place within inches or a few feet! Why?

[threegun]

When the threat is further away (than point blank) and your subconscious focuses on that danger it becomes difficult to focus on your own sights close up (possibly).

For me I remember seeing my front sight (can't recall if it was a blur or not). Then I remember focusing in on the bad guys gun (which turned out to be a bb gun). So detailed my view that I knew it was the same bb gun I had as a kid....I could see it from 10 yards away. I did both (focused close and far) however I can't remember if I did them at the same time.

[matthew temkin]

Why?
Because many are brainwashed into believing that they, "Will do as they train"
under stress, which is not always the case.
Because point shooting has been bashed as either not accurate "spray & pray"
or something that takes years of practice by a gifted few.
None of which is the truth, BTW.
One thing with your statement that I must disagree with..
Sight shooting does not denigrate into point shooting, but rather results in a lot of missing due to the unability to use the sights in some stressful situations.
IMHO unless one has trained/practiced point shooting then he is just plain missing.

[David Armstrong]

Every person default should be to get to his sights. But do not try to get to something that is simply not going to be there. We must realize that when the "fight or flight" response activates the Sympathetic Nervous System (SNS) the pupils will dilate and make it impossible to focus on anything up close. Therefore we must train within the reality of a truely reactionary life threatening situation.

that is essentially the main issue that needs to be recognized. The reaction may not come to everyone every time. The raction may come at different times for different people, or even at different times for the same person in similar situations. But AFAIK ALL the available evidence indicates that we are all subject to it given the right set of circumstances.

[Brian Pfleuger]

I did a quick fire test of my Seecap using that exact method once and this was the result. I can see why they call it "the zipper" method. I will probably never be able to recreate this effect again as long as I live.

PBP, 2 things...

1) If you've been reading that knife vs gun thread, you should be glad that guy didn't have a knife, that little Seecap would be no match.

2) You missed the heart by a GOOD 3 inches, gotta do better when your life depends on it....

[Deaf Smith]

Because many are brainwashed into believing that they, "Will do as they train" under stress, which is not always the case.

I sure hope someone tells the miltary. Looks like for many decades the USMC, SF, Rangers, and the like have been mistaken.

You fight as you train for the simple reason it's all your body knows (presuming it's good training and very through.) The habits are ingrained.

It works like this:

1. No training. Expect nothing. Just nothing. No self confidence.

2. Little training. Expect nothing, hope to be lucky. Little self confidence.

3. Casual training. Expect some of the most basic defense techniques to be tried (I didn't say work, just attempted.) Might even succeed.

4. Steady training. Expect the basics to be tried and some of the techniques to work. Fair self confidence.

5. Rigorous training. Expect some advanced techniques to be tried and the basics all work. Strong self confidence!

6. Long term rigorous training. Actually expect some of the advanced techniques to work! Lots of self confidence.

Deaf

[7677]

I'm not sure if the technique he attempted to use was the problem or the fact he was not mentally prepared for the incident he stumbled into and was in the process of regaining control over his body so he could do what he was trained. I have personally observed this happen to soldiers in combat and if they survived long enough the shock wears off and anger takes over.

Both point and sighted fire are necessary components of shooting and I have used both for real. When people get out from behind the keyboard and actually learn these skills (point and sighted fire), the gaps in their training becomes very apparent.

Combat shooting is not about scoring "A" hits but about winning a fight against an opponent that is focused on killing you first.

[sesquipedalian101]

Originally Posted by Deaf Smith

I sure hope someone tells the miltary. Looks like for many decades the USMC, SF, Rangers, and the like have been mistaken.

I am NOT commenting on the quality of military training in this post; however, after having consulted for graduate-level research statistics for a number of years, I feel qualified to spot "sample bias." I have heard personal testimony for years, in multiple contexts, that "training matters." There is a catch however... If we assume, for the sake of argument, that the defensive techniques taught, when followed correctly, dramatically increase the odds of survival, then there is a self-selection factor going on... Those who were able to respond in the manner that they were trained will, naturally, credit their training for their success. Those who fail to follow their training, for whatever reason (maybe the training was not appropriate for their personal circumstance), will tend to be under-represented in the final tally -- because they will be "structurally unable" to report.

Further, there is a tendency to stop the inquiry once the "Did he follow training?" question is answered without necessarily finding out why the training was ignored (lack of good practice? circumstances not covered in training? panic? equipment failure? physiological failure? psychological failure? plain Bad Luck? et cetera?).

Back when I was diving regularly, I used to follow the accident/injury/fatality reports pretty closely. Most "accidents" and/or fatalities were deemed a result of failure to follow procedures properly. Regardless of the cause, seldom was the victim able to provide a "reason" for his departure from training ("So tell us: Why did you hold your breath and shoot to the surface from 60ft of depth?"). The bottom line is, in most hazardous endeavors, we know more about why someone sticks to their training successfully (because they get to report) than about the things that cause deviation there from.

I remember a sky diver who accidentally left his parachute aboard the aircraft on his 500th jump; we'll never know why for sure (though the new video camera with which he was playing likely had an effect).

-101-

[Swampghost]

This is one thread that I kinda skipped over so I may have missed some things such as INSTICT SHOOTING.

My Dad taught me this from the beginning with a bow, he was a tri-state archery champ at the time. Point and shoot comes pretty naturally to me, I've never used any sights on a shotgun but come out of the field with my fair share of game. When hunting larger game (rifle) I usually just have to adjust a minimal amount for the breadbox shot.

It's really pretty easy. Buy a brick of .22's and a cheap semi-auto and just go out and pop off the rounds. Pick anything at the spur of the moment, a rock, a tin can, what ever is safe and shoot it FAST. Eventually you'll get it.

[nate45]

There is only one way to settle this reduced loads, body armor, ballistic collars and eye protection.

[matthew temkin]

The military is constantly evaluating and changing what it teaches.
Quite often it is discovered that what works well in training during peacetime tends to fall apart during actual combat.
This trend has probably been going on since Cain killed Abel.
And quite often the old, proven methods are brought back into service due to a pressing need.
Back in January in Mississippi I ran a US Army soldier ( 18 years in service, two tours in Iraq and a close quarter rifle/H2H instructor) through the WW2 point shooting/unarmed combat syllubus.
Here is his review which was posted on another forum:http://www.warriortalk.com/showthread.php?t=34500


I spent this last weekend with Matt Temkin, his friend Paul and Southnarc. Southnarc was a great host to all of us! Those of you who are still wondering about the Fairbairn-Sykes/Applegate PS concept, let me tell you: it is valid and it should be a part of any gunmans reportoire.

We worked on PS with rifle and pistol; going through the whole of what Matt has been talking about for a while now. For the close fight, which as we all know, is close, quick and violent, these are some of the best techniques I have seen for dealing with a situation of this type. My goal now is to work out for myself where they fit in my bag of tricks along with what I have in there already.

Matt also beat me up for a while using the WWII combatives out of "Get Tough" and "Kill Or Get Killed." Yeah, it hurt. But, I'll be showing it to my LTs when I get back to work in a few weeks. It is extremely effective, and isn't the watered down, PC crap that passes for fighting skills these days.

I want to thank these guys for letting me hang out with them, and pick their brains for a while. Train with Matt if you get the chance. Just bring lots of ammo, Matt likes to shoot...a lot!

[threegun]

There is only one way to settle this reduced loads, body armor, ballistic collars and eye protection.

Isn't that FOF? I mean if you know you aren't going to be killed then its just a more painful FOF training.