Anyone ever point shoot?? - Page 2

cje1980 · February 20, 2005, 04:23 AM

For many home defense applications point shooting is a very valuable skill. It allows for a fast shot to be fired and with practice the shooter can be pretty accurate at defense ranges.

Nortonics · February 20, 2005, 08:09 AM

Here's a few good links with lots of point shooting info. The third link has a lot more links at the bottom of the page:

AIMED Point Shooting or P&S For Self Defense

POINT SHOOTING?

Point Shooting / Instinct Shooting

Rob Pincus · February 20, 2005, 11:55 AM

The origins of my belief in instinctive shooting go way back. I was basically given free access to guns at a very young age and rountinely went out shooting in the woods or the back yard at bottles, cans, paper targets, etc...

I learned how to shot with no formal training, looking at the targets.

When I started getting formal training (military, LE, etc...) I first thought that maybe I had been wrong and that the "professionals" were going to teach me how to be a better shooter. What kept happening was that I was having to slow wayyyy down at close distances in order to do what they were describing (sight picture, front sight focus, whatever) in an attempt to attain tighter groups than seemed necessary. Totally Artificial. I paid attention, I tried... I was a good student... I paid proper homage to the "professionals"... and eventually I realized that just because someone has been doing something (or whole groups of people) who have been doing something forever did not make it the best or even right way to do it.

Basically, for several more years, I tried to rationalize front sight shooting and instinctive shooting... not with much satisfaction. I came to the conlcusion that two hits in 1 second that are 6 inches apart on target are infinitely better than 2 hits in 3 seconds that are in the same whole. Medical science seems to agree. At this point, understand that we have completely departed from any Target Shooting endeavors and are talking strictly defensive or dynamic recreational shooting.

With the ubiquitous use of surveillance and dash-baord cameras recording critical incidents over the last decade, we are now able to see what actually happens during critical incidents. Combine this (largely, guys ducking and sticking the gun out in front of their faces while squeezing the trigger and looking at the threat) with quite a bit of behavioral research about what really happens when humans are scared (prompted and largely facilitated by my relationship with Tony Bluaer and study of SPEAR System Research) and I realized that looking at the target while shooting was incredibly important to practice. We are hard-wired to look at a threat. The brain sees threats as a problem and wants to get all the information that it can in order to solve the problem... that means looking at the threat. If we practice our shooting looking at a 3mm wide piece of metal 24 inches in front of our faces instead of the threat, we will hesitate when our instinctive reaction and our trained response conflict with one another.

Oops... wait a minute... all the "best shooters in the world" use their sights or a red dot to win all the competitions... what's wrong with my theory? Nothing. Those targets are not shooting back, they are not causing any instinctive response from the brain and therefore, not causing a confict or signals. Hence my philosophy that Valhalla does NOT teach techniques that were developed on a well-lit square range and proven in competition.

Back to Combat Focus.... When in combat, the brain wants us to focus on the threat... the name was a no-brainer. I must give credit to the California Highway Patrol, who several years ago started teaching instinctive shooting with great documented success under the name "Target Focus".. for all I know they came to the same conclusions I did, but had to be more "PC" when they came up with the name!

The evolution of teaching Combat Focus Shooting as has come a long way since I've been running Valhalla. I repeatedly see people who have never shot a gun before learn "Dynamic Shooting Techinques" and hit reactive and interactive (pop-outs, droppers, steel, etc) effectively while on the move, in low light without using their sights after shooting less than 50 rounds EVER. For years I had been told that instinctive shooting wa something one could only do if they shot 1000's of rounds and practiced constantly. I now know empirically that this is not true. I have had hundreds of "guniea pigs" to test my theories on and most people 90%+), regardless of shooting background, come out of their first or second scenario run convinced and confident in instinctive shooting. I have also found it entirely UNTRUE that you have to shoot 2" groups in practice in order to hit an 8 inch target under stress... the trick is practicing in a more realistic way... it is the paradigm shift that Valhalla is part of: Train for the real world in the real world... or the closest safe facsimile.
The bio-mechanics of instinctive shooting are the same as with any other tool. I ask people who golf if they ever use a tape measure to confirm that their gripping the club the right distance over the ball... of course they say "no." I ask people if they hold a pen or pencil the sam way every time they write.. of course they say, "yes." The point is that if we consitently integrate with a tool, we can predict what will happen when we use it (ie- the Pen or Pencil)... similarly, if we use article gauges to confirm our consistency we might be more accurate, but it might not be practical to do so (ie- the tape measure for the golfer OR the sights on our pistols). Those anologies probably don't read as well as they sound in a class, but the point is that we need a consistent grip, a consistent presentation (gun arm fully extended in front of the face, aligned with our line of sight to the threat) and a consistent trigger pull in order to be consistent in our shooting.

So, the moral of the story is that if you give someone a tool and make them figure out how to use it effectively, they probably will. That's what happened when I was running around in the woods with a gun and no formal training. Combat Focus is just an affirmation and codification of that process. A new shooter here gets to do what I did at the age of 8 in a much safer and very comfortable setting. Armed professionals and serious students get to "do what comes naturally" in our scenario rooms and tend to leave with an increased confidence in their ability to react effectively and efficiently to a lethal threat.

Valhalla is about Efficieny... which requires EFFECTIVENESS first, but wants it as fast as possible (yes, I do occasionally utter the tired, but accurate phrase "You can't miss fast enough."). Tactics is the name of the game, not technique:

"The Athletic Ability to draw fast and shoot straight is not nearly as important as the ability to recognize an attack as soon as possible and respond as efficiently as possible using the environment, training and tools available."

(the preceeding post is the crux the Combat Focus(tm) book which I will probably never have enought time to write

)

Sweatnbullets · February 20, 2005, 07:32 PM

Rob,
Thanks for taking the time to respond. This defintely sounds like something I would be very interested in.

Quote:

I have also found it entirely UNTRUE that you have to shoot 2" groups in practice in order to hit an 8 inch target under stress... the trick is practicing in a more realistic way... it is the paradigm shift that Valhalla is part of: Train for the real world in the real world... or the closest safe facsimile.

Very nice quote! I've been known to say type of thing. Doesn't make me a lot of friends in some circles, but when we're talking about possible saving someones life, who cares.

Lion In Winter · February 20, 2005, 08:12 PM

"the trick is practicing in a more realistic way... it is the paradigm shift that Valhalla is part of: Train for the real world in the real world... or the closest safe facsimile. "

"Safe". therein lies the rub. If everyone knows the training is "safe" there is no mind shift. Without the reality of death, the "message' does not imprint so as to be a reflexive action in application.

The old saw remains true;, " Experience is the best teacher". For those that aspire to be teachers, they must have had some "experience".

Of course, along with this is another truism; experience is what we call the mistakes.

Harry Bonar · February 20, 2005, 08:44 PM

ROB:
I think you're on target; I've run a 3/8 ball end mill through my NOVAKS lo-mount rear and and have a white dot front, This gives me a clear view of the threat and at the same time a "flash" picture of threat and sights.
It just takes too long to line up a bunch of "dots", tritium or otherwise, in a real gun-fight. I work for NOVAKS on special projects now, being retired.
I think most who have, "seen the elephant" and survived agree with you! Of course, as you well know gunfight ranges are getting out close to 25 yards now and then I do use the sights.

February 20, 2005, 08:09 AM	#27
Nortonics Senior Member Join Date: December 2, 2004 Location: Murderapolis Posts: 521	Here's a few good links with lots of point shooting info. The third link has a lot more links at the bottom of the page: AIMED Point Shooting or P&S For Self Defense POINT SHOOTING? Point Shooting / Instinct Shooting __________________ Tom.

February 20, 2005, 11:55 AM	#28
Rob Pincus Senior Member Join Date: October 9, 1998 Location: Hotels Posts: 3,668	The origins of my belief in instinctive shooting go way back. I was basically given free access to guns at a very young age and rountinely went out shooting in the woods or the back yard at bottles, cans, paper targets, etc... I learned how to shot with no formal training, looking at the targets. When I started getting formal training (military, LE, etc...) I first thought that maybe I had been wrong and that the "professionals" were going to teach me how to be a better shooter. What kept happening was that I was having to slow wayyyy down at close distances in order to do what they were describing (sight picture, front sight focus, whatever) in an attempt to attain tighter groups than seemed necessary. Totally Artificial. I paid attention, I tried... I was a good student... I paid proper homage to the "professionals"... and eventually I realized that just because someone has been doing something (or whole groups of people) who have been doing something forever did not make it the best or even right way to do it. Basically, for several more years, I tried to rationalize front sight shooting and instinctive shooting... not with much satisfaction. I came to the conlcusion that two hits in 1 second that are 6 inches apart on target are infinitely better than 2 hits in 3 seconds that are in the same whole. Medical science seems to agree. At this point, understand that we have completely departed from any Target Shooting endeavors and are talking strictly defensive or dynamic recreational shooting. With the ubiquitous use of surveillance and dash-baord cameras recording critical incidents over the last decade, we are now able to see what actually happens during critical incidents. Combine this (largely, guys ducking and sticking the gun out in front of their faces while squeezing the trigger and looking at the threat) with quite a bit of behavioral research about what really happens when humans are scared (prompted and largely facilitated by my relationship with Tony Bluaer and study of SPEAR System Research) and I realized that looking at the target while shooting was incredibly important to practice. We are hard-wired to look at a threat. The brain sees threats as a problem and wants to get all the information that it can in order to solve the problem... that means looking at the threat. If we practice our shooting looking at a 3mm wide piece of metal 24 inches in front of our faces instead of the threat, we will hesitate when our instinctive reaction and our trained response conflict with one another. Oops... wait a minute... all the "best shooters in the world" use their sights or a red dot to win all the competitions... what's wrong with my theory? Nothing. Those targets are not shooting back, they are not causing any instinctive response from the brain and therefore, not causing a confict or signals. Hence my philosophy that Valhalla does NOT teach techniques that were developed on a well-lit square range and proven in competition. Back to Combat Focus.... When in combat, the brain wants us to focus on the threat... the name was a no-brainer. I must give credit to the California Highway Patrol, who several years ago started teaching instinctive shooting with great documented success under the name "Target Focus".. for all I know they came to the same conclusions I did, but had to be more "PC" when they came up with the name! The evolution of teaching Combat Focus Shooting as has come a long way since I've been running Valhalla. I repeatedly see people who have never shot a gun before learn "Dynamic Shooting Techinques" and hit reactive and interactive (pop-outs, droppers, steel, etc) effectively while on the move, in low light without using their sights after shooting less than 50 rounds EVER. For years I had been told that instinctive shooting wa something one could only do if they shot 1000's of rounds and practiced constantly. I now know empirically that this is not true. I have had hundreds of "guniea pigs" to test my theories on and most people 90%+), regardless of shooting background, come out of their first or second scenario run convinced and confident in instinctive shooting. I have also found it entirely UNTRUE that you have to shoot 2" groups in practice in order to hit an 8 inch target under stress... the trick is practicing in a more realistic way... it is the paradigm shift that Valhalla is part of: Train for the real world in the real world... or the closest safe facsimile. The bio-mechanics of instinctive shooting are the same as with any other tool. I ask people who golf if they ever use a tape measure to confirm that their gripping the club the right distance over the ball... of course they say "no." I ask people if they hold a pen or pencil the sam way every time they write.. of course they say, "yes." The point is that if we consitently integrate with a tool, we can predict what will happen when we use it (ie- the Pen or Pencil)... similarly, if we use article gauges to confirm our consistency we might be more accurate, but it might not be practical to do so (ie- the tape measure for the golfer OR the sights on our pistols). Those anologies probably don't read as well as they sound in a class, but the point is that we need a consistent grip, a consistent presentation (gun arm fully extended in front of the face, aligned with our line of sight to the threat) and a consistent trigger pull in order to be consistent in our shooting. So, the moral of the story is that if you give someone a tool and make them figure out how to use it effectively, they probably will. That's what happened when I was running around in the woods with a gun and no formal training. Combat Focus is just an affirmation and codification of that process. A new shooter here gets to do what I did at the age of 8 in a much safer and very comfortable setting. Armed professionals and serious students get to "do what comes naturally" in our scenario rooms and tend to leave with an increased confidence in their ability to react effectively and efficiently to a lethal threat. Valhalla is about Efficieny... which requires EFFECTIVENESS first, but wants it as fast as possible (yes, I do occasionally utter the tired, but accurate phrase "You can't miss fast enough."). Tactics is the name of the game, not technique: "The Athletic Ability to draw fast and shoot straight is not nearly as important as the ability to recognize an attack as soon as possible and respond as efficiently as possible using the environment, training and tools available." (the preceeding post is the crux the Combat Focus(tm) book which I will probably never have enought time to write ) __________________ I.C.E. Training Company. LinkedIn Profile for Rob Pincus

February 20, 2005, 08:44 PM	#31
Harry Bonar Senior Member Join Date: December 5, 2004 Location: In the Vincent, Ohio general area. Posts: 1,804	re-point shooting ROB: I think you're on target; I've run a 3/8 ball end mill through my NOVAKS lo-mount rear and and have a white dot front, This gives me a clear view of the threat and at the same time a "flash" picture of threat and sights. It just takes too long to line up a bunch of "dots", tritium or otherwise, in a real gun-fight. I work for NOVAKS on special projects now, being retired. I think most who have, "seen the elephant" and survived agree with you! Of course, as you well know gunfight ranges are getting out close to 25 yards now and then I do use the sights.

February 20, 2005, 04:23 AM	#26
cje1980 Senior Member Join Date: November 15, 2004 Location: Colorado Posts: 1,412	For many home defense applications point shooting is a very valuable skill. It allows for a fast shot to be fired and with practice the shooter can be pretty accurate at defense ranges.

February 20, 2005, 08:12 PM	#30
Lion In Winter Member Join Date: January 22, 2005 Posts: 67	"the trick is practicing in a more realistic way... it is the paradigm shift that Valhalla is part of: Train for the real world in the real world... or the closest safe facsimile. " "Safe". therein lies the rub. If everyone knows the training is "safe" there is no mind shift. Without the reality of death, the "message' does not imprint so as to be a reflexive action in application. The old saw remains true;, " Experience is the best teacher". For those that aspire to be teachers, they must have had some "experience". Of course, along with this is another truism; experience is what we call the mistakes.