I think I've had it wrong all these years

[Ruthless4christ]

Most "real handgun" fights last no more than 3 rounds.

that is not always the case. In the USA it is most often but not always, in most other parts of the world, it is a horse of quite a differant color,)see my thread
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/...d.php?t=289522

although people might be thinking, yeah but that kind of thing does not happen here...well thats why we have guns right? to be prepared for the unusual.

down ehre there are weekly, gunfights that last up and over ten minutes, and involve sometimes dozens of people against eachother, or one against dozens. i say the more lead you can pump out the better.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by stephen426

...the whoe idea behind the thread is to convince poeple to move on from the typical "shoot for pretty little groups with slow aimed fire" mentality and to practice drawing quickly and getting lead on their target quickly.

I'll go along with that as long as we can agree that we still want to stay in the A zone (or in an 8.5 x 11 piece of paper). And we must learn to make those hits quickly. If you can't shoot fast and also keep all your shots on an 8.5 x 11 sheet of paper, you need to train until you can do so both quickly and consistently. A shot timer can be helpful. One of the standards is to draw and get two A zone hits in 1.5 seconds. Faster, with the same accuracy, is better and doable.

Another standard is a 10 to 11 second El Presidente* (with all A zone hits). This is not a tactically correct exercise but is primarily a way to test quickness of draw, shooting, target transition and reloading.
_____________
*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 and engages each target with two rounds, reloads, and engages each target again with two rounds.

[David Armstrong]

So far you have stated this as fact several times in several ways. But you have not produced one shred of evidence to support this contention.

If you need evidence to support a statement of common knowledge in DGU incidents, I'd suggest your understanding is lacking something pretty big. Do you really think that most gunfights are stopped because of CNS hits?

I guess we'll just need to assume that you have no such evidence and that your statement is merely your unsubstantiated opinion.

One can make all sorts of assumptions. I guess we can assume you are not familiar with the basics of DGU incidents and that when you say "Bad hits will most likely not slow the BG down at all; he probably won't even notice them. Only good hits are likely to slow and stop the attack" it is merely your unsubstantiated opinion and you do not have one shred of evidence to support it.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by David Armstrong

...If you need evidence to support a statement of common knowledge in DGU incidents, I'd suggest your understanding is lacking something pretty big. ..

Interesting approach to disputation from someone who claims to be a Ph. D. and a teacher. I guess you'd accept that sort of a response from one of your students when you've asked him for evidence. And if my understanding is lacking, kindly educate me with evidence, as befits a teacher, rather than simple bombast.

I base my opinions that bad hits probably won't necessarily stop an attack on my readings of, among others, Jim Carrillo, Dave Grossman, David Klinger and Massad Ayoob, classes at Gunsite and elsewhere with various instructor including Louis Awerbuck, Massad Ayoob and Jeff Cooper, and other reports of DGU published in books such as The Best Defense and Guns Save Lives and the "Armed Citizen" column in American Rifleman. Information from these sources lead me to the inference that while sometimes mere display of a gun or mere discharge of a gun or weak hits with a gun may sometimes break off a fight, one can't count on it. There are certainly enough credible reports of criminal assailants pressing an attack even after suffering serious wounds, and ultimately requiring multiple, solid hits to be put down, that I am motivated to train and practice to make multiple, good hits quickly.

Originally Posted by David Armstrong

...Do you really think that most gunfights are stopped because of CNS hits?...

Of course not, and I don't necessarily discount the psychological effects of being shot. But am I willing to count on the effectiveness of the psychological effect? No, I'm not. Do I think others should? Well that's up to them, but I'd recommend against it. The fact that in a certain number of DGUs, the effect of simply being shot is enough is no guarantee that it will work out that way in your encounter. There are too many other variables. Among other things, we know that physiologically the adrenalin dump that accompanies high stress can significantly dull the sensation of pain and give one great strength.

So I would not to want to rely upon, nor train for, delivering quick, peripheral hits and thus counting on the psychological effect. I'd want to train having the greatest physiological effect as quickly as possible. The CNS offers too small and mobile a target, so I'm left with attempting to cause as much disruption as quickly as possible to blood flow.

[David Armstrong]

Interesting approach to disputation from someone who claims to be a Ph. D. and a teacher.

No approach, no disputation. I've made a statement, you've made a statement. You want me to offer proof for my statement you can offer some sort of proof for yours first. BTW, I make few claims that are not easily provable as facts.

guess you'd accept that sort of a response from one of your students when you've asked him for evidence.

I would not ask my student for evidence of what is common knowledge.

I base my opinions that bad hits probably won't necessarily stop an attack ...

Should you make the statement in that form I might join with you, but that was not the statement originally given and which I addressed, which was "Only good hits are likely to slow and stop the attack." That is very different from "bad hits probably won't necessarily stop an attack". Bad hits won't necessarily stop the attacker, but they are likely to stop or slow.

So I would not to want to rely upon, nor train for, delivering quick, peripheral hits and thus counting on the psychological effect.

Don't see where anybody has suggested that is something anyone should do.

[Deaf Smith]

But deaf, once you get off the range and into real fights you'll find that you CAN'T always bring the weapon to the same position every time, along with assorted other issues we've been over dozens of times. Of course, as we've also seen, target-focus allows one to achieve that goal with less training, which is also a good thing.

And any idiot who has studied 'point shooting/target focused' knows you have to bring the weapon to the same place everytime. Guess you never understood Lucky McDaniel or Applegate or Fairbrain or any of those people, do you david.

Once again, deaf, your inability to understand basic issues in actual gunfights is showing. Most gunfights are over without any shots. Where shots are fired the usual response is for the fight to stop without any CNS hits. Perhaps you are Superman and being shot doesn't effect you at all, but for most folks it seems to have a detrimental effect to varying degrees..

You said "ANY HITS" david. Guess you don't have stats do you? Never heard of people taking 10, 15, 20 or more hits and still keep going have you? You have not one drop of research to back you up, right? That Phd and hedge talk you give shows.

[ZeSpectre]

I'll go along with that as long as we can agree that we still want to stay in the A zone (or in an 8.5 x 11 piece of paper). And we must learn to make those hits quickly. If you can't shoot fast and also keep all your shots on an 8.5 x 11 sheet of paper, you need to train until you can do so both quickly and consistently. A shot timer can be helpful. One of the standards is to draw and get two A zone hits in 1.5 seconds. Faster, with the same accuracy, is better and doable.

Fiddletown and I may argue here and there, but this time I'm in agreement with him.

Here's what I consider an acceptable-to-great slow fire target.
(21 ft on 8.5x11 Sheet of paper)





Here's what I consider an acceptable self-defense/rapid fire target.
(50ft on 8.5x11 Sheet of paper)

[Frank Ettin]

David, thanks for continuing to be evasive. I can now write you off.

[Shane Tuttle]

I posted this to hopefully get this thread back on track and remind myself what the subject matter is:

I'm not suggesting spray and pray by any means, but rather getting so used to your primary defensive gun that you don't rely on your sights.
What do you guys think?

Originally Posted by David Armstrong

But deaf, once you get off the range and into real fights you'll find that you CAN'T always bring the weapon to the same position every time, along with assorted other issues we've been over dozens of times. Of course, as we've also seen, target-focus allows one to achieve that goal with less training, which is also a good thing.

In reality, one won't necessarily be able to have the same stance. But whether you're taking cover or only using one arm, don't you still lift the gun up to your sightline? I don't see where that necessarily changes often.

ZeSpectre,

I have a hard time agreeing with you on your version of acceptable self-defense/rapid fire target. Generally speaking, faster fire does induce larger patterns. But I believe that if I can't keep my shots in the vicinity of center mass or soft cavities, I have no business firing my gun at that rate. Some of those shots could very well glance off or easily pass through.

I'm sure if my life is in imminent danger of ending I wouldn't give a rats behind at the moment and will desperately do whatever it takes to stop the assailant. However, if I live through the confrontation I must be accountable for every shot fired...especially collatoral damage.

I'm arguing with myself here and I know rule #4 of Cooper's gun safety....

[stephen426]

Guys... (you know who you are)

Cut the petty arguements please. If someone does not agree with your position, you're not going to convince them... Especially by insulting them. No one has to offer proof to anyone and no one has to believe what anyone else is posting. If the posts makes sense to you... Great! If you disagree, state why and then move on. Are you egos so fragile that you have to be right all the time are have you taken on the "responsibility" to ensure there is no false information passed along on the Internet? I have seen plenty of good threads that could have benefitted many people get closed down for petty argueing such as this. If you feel compelled to make personal attacks or "lead someone out of their ignorance", please do it through pm's.

Rant off.

[Threefeathers]

fiddletown, if only people realized how nice you are. As Mas told us, we always grow when we listen and try to put different techniques to our best use. That said, as a wrestling coach I guarantee there are certain muscle movements that will automatically come into play when the action gets hot and expereinced athletes and locked in combat. Being a pistolero is no different.

[ZeSpectre]

ZeSpectre,

I have a hard time agreeing with you on your version of acceptable self-defense/rapid fire target. Generally speaking, faster fire does induce larger patterns. But I believe that if I can't keep my shots in the vicinity of center mass or soft cavities, I have no business firing my gun at that rate. Some of those shots could very well glance off or easily pass through.

I'm sure if my life is in imminent danger of ending I wouldn't give a rats behind at the moment and will desperately do whatever it takes to stop the assailant. However, if I live through the confrontation I must be accountable for every shot fired...especially collateral damage.

I'm arguing with myself here and I know rule #4 of Cooper's gun safety....

Just curious, did you happen to pay attention to the distances? The rapid fire target was at 50 feet (16 yards).

If you can do better than a roughly 5 inch group, rapid fire (about 3 seconds total), through a magazine change, at 50 feet then you are a far better marksman than I'll ever be .

[stephen426]

Originally Posted by ZeSpectre

Just curious, did you happen to pay attention to the distances? The rapid fire target was at 50 feet (16 yards).

If you can do better than a roughly 5 inch group, rapid fire (about 3 seconds total), through a magazine change, at 50 feet then you are a far better marksman than I'll ever be .

I also think he failed to notice that your target was printed on a 8.5" x 11" piece of paper!!! Good shooting Z!

[David Armstrong]

And any idiot who has studied 'point shooting/target focused' knows you have to bring the weapon to the same place everytime. Guess you never understood Lucky McDaniel or Applegate or Fairbrain or any of those people, do you david.

Apparently you haven't studied point shooting, deaf, because some of the point shooting disciplines will point out that you cannot always bring the gun to the same point. You might not be able to bring the gun to the same place every time. The repeatable index is only part of the discipline.

You said "ANY HITS" david. Guess you don't have stats do you?

Yes, deaf, I said any hits are likely to slow or stop the attack. And again, if you aren't aware of that or don't understand it you need to get off the range and start looking at the real world shootings.

Never heard of people taking 10, 15, 20 or more hits and still keep going have you?

Yes, I have. Unlike you I realize they are the rare exceptions to the rule, not the more common.

You have not one drop of research to back you up, right?

Actually, most of the research backs me up. You might want to try looking at if you are going to comment on it.

[David Armstrong]

In reality, one won't necessarily be able to have the same stance. But whether you're taking cover or only using one arm, don't you still lift the gun up to your sightline?

Not necessarily. You might be shooting from a restricted position, you might not be able to lift the gun that high, etc.

[Capt. Charlie]

Originally Posted by stephen426

Guys... (you know who you are)

Cut the petty arguements please. If someone does not agree with your position, you're not going to convince them... Especially by insulting them. No one has to offer proof to anyone and no one has to believe what anyone else is posting. If the posts makes sense to you... Great! If you disagree, state why and then move on. Are you egos so fragile that you have to be right all the time are have you taken on the "responsibility" to ensure there is no false information passed along on the Internet? I have seen plenty of good threads that could have benefitted many people get closed down for petty argueing such as this. If you feel compelled to make personal attacks or "lead someone out of their ignorance", please do it through pm's.

Rant off.

I wuz gonna say that. Really, I was! Thanks for saving me the time, trouble, and typing, Stephen.

[Deaf Smith]

The repeatable index is only part of the discipline.

So you now admit the repeatable index IS part of point shooting. The index goes for any of the positions in point shooting. 1/4, 1/2, 3/4. All of them david. So is the body index. Have to have it or it don't work. David this isn't some Clint Eastwood spaghetti western stuff, you do know that?

So yes, target-focus has to have a repeatable index to work, just like sighted fire. I really don't think you know much about it but what's posted here and other boards david.

[stephen426]

Deaf Smith,

What do you feel about firing from the hip? This is used when you are really close to your attacker. Basically you step back with your right foot (if you are right handed) and push the attacker away with your left hand. You simultaneously draw your weapon with your right and line up the gun with your body. This allows you to keep your attacker from grabbing your gun, If you brought up the gun as you normally do, the attacker would be able to wither grab or push the gun away. While it is great to have lots of practice, it doesn't hurt to have flexability in your tactics either.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by stephen426

What do you feel about firing from the hip? This is used when you are really close to your attacker....

It's not actually shooting from the hip, at least as I was taught by Louis Awerbuck.

Three points:

[1] The weak hand that is used to fend off the attacker should be brought immediately afterwards back in close to your body, preferably against the chest. One reason is to keep the hand from being in front of the muzzle when you start firing. The other is to have the weak hand ready and in position to assume its part of the two handed grip when you are able (see point 3).

[2] The gun is drawn straight upward from your strong side hip holster and the muzzle is then rotated to point at the target. The gun here is along side and slightly in front of the chest just slightly below the level of the pectoral muscle. the muzzle may be pointed in slightly since it's held somewhat at the side of your chest and you want the muzzle pointed at the center of your attacker. The gun is also titled slightly outward to assure that the slide (assuming you're using a semi-auto) has room to cycle without hanging up on your body or clothing.

[3] You begin shooting from this "retention" position, and as you fire, you begin moving backwards, or diagonally backwards, depending on the character of your environment. As you are moving backwards and creating distance, you can begin extending your strong arm and assuming a two handed grip on the gun.

We performed this drill in a class on close quarter combat taught by Louis Awerbuck, and it was very fast to both get the gun into play and to get good hits.

It looks sort of like this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmKR6evZRQQ

From the movie Collateral, I'm told by a colleague I trust that Tom Cruise was trained by someone formerly in the SAS.

[stephen426]

Thats a great clip. The first 2 shots looked like they were from the hip/retention position then the remainder from the extended position. Even though the first shots were not critical hits, it dropped the assailant and allowed the shooter to engage the other assailant.

I may be mistaken, but I believe that quite a few gun fights start with the good guy behind the reactionary curve. Say a guy pops out of a dark alley and sticks a gun in your face. I know most would say to comply, but if the mugger starts talking in a manner that leads you to believe he is going to kill you, you have to act. If he checks you for weapons and finds you are carrying, he might also shoot you or take your gun. This is where the quick draw and quick firing would be very useful.

[Brian Pfleuger]

You might want to leave out the last shot in that movie clip in a SD situation...

[ZeSpectre]

You might want to leave out the last shot in that clip in an SD situation...

Well Mrs. Smith, we might have believed the self defense claim if you hadn't reloaded...twice.

[Frank Ettin]

...Even though the first shots were not critical hits, it dropped the assailant...

Anyway, we know that the reason BG1 dropped the way he did is because that's what the director told him to do. Be that as it may, the clip shows good technique and gun handling.

Notice how Tom Cruise re-holsters: smoothly sweeping his coat back, one handed, without looking, and maintaining muzzle and trigger discipline. He obviously had some good instruction.

[David Armstrong]

So you now admit the repeatable index IS part of point shooting.

Ummm, I've always said that. I also say it is not the only part of point shooting.

So yes, target-focus has to have a repeatable index to work, just like sighted fire.

Sigh. No, deaf, it doesn't.

I really don't think you know much about it but what's posted here and other boards david.

Given that you have regularly admitted that you have never had any training in point shooting, and regularly make statements that recognized point shooting instructors show to be completely wrong, I really don't think you know enough about it to know how much somebody else knows.

[Deaf Smith]

Deaf Smith,

What do you feel about firing from the hip? This is used when you are really close to your attacker. Basically you step back with your right foot (if you are right handed) and push the attacker away with your left hand. You simultaneously draw your weapon with your right and line up the gun with your body. This allows you to keep your attacker from grabbing your gun, If you brought up the gun as you normally do, the attacker would be able to wither grab or push the gun away. While it is great to have lots of practice, it doesn't hurt to have flexability in your tactics either.

stephen,

First there are several 'versions' of point shooting. From Fairbrain/Applegate to Lucky McDanials, even Cirillo with his Silhouette Point had his own verion where you used the back of the slide to index on. All except the extreme close quarter methods bring the weapon into ones peripheral vision (speed rock, SouthNarcs position 1 of the four point draw, 1/4 hip of Applegate.)

They all require indexing of ones body to get hits. In fact, Applegate himself wrote that the 1/4 hip was not good for targets much higher or lower than the shooter (and that shows why peripheral vision plays a part in point shooting, even if you are not 'looking' for the weapon.) One can demonstrate this by blocking out the weapon from view as it is brought forward. You will see shooters, except the most experienced, do poorly. It's even truer if you put a garbage bag over the target so you cannot see the bullets strike and correct on the hits. Then you sort of have to guess if the rounds are striking or not (and with cloths, it is hard to see strikes on the street.)

Hip/Retention is a must. You can use any of the methods above (speed rock, SouthNarcs position 1 of the four point draw, 1/4 hip of Applegate, and others.) The Speed rock, were you lean backwards is to create distance, not do make any contact with the shooter. SouthNarcs method is to expect a grappling move and to take the impact and still be stable as well as protect the weapon. Applegates 1/4 is just to protect the weapon, not take any impact from a grappling person.

All other forms of point shooting have the weapon in peripheral vision. Like it or not you will see it (in fact McDanial emphasized it.)

My view is one learns a form of sighted fire and retention/hip shooting first. It can cover all bases. The retention/hip can go from 0 to 3 or so yards while the sighted fire can go from 1 to however far you can shoot! Yes an overlap. And yes, sighted fire can be used when one cannot 'see' the sights. One just brings the weapon to the same places (index you might say) and the shoots will be pretty good. Not as good as if you could see the sights but good hits.

Once you have mastered this, if you want to learn point shooting, great, but it's not a 'must' except for those with eyesight problems or totaly zero interest in firearms training (and we know how that will work out!!!)

I find point shooting is not as accurate as sighted fire. Those that say 'big deal' don't see you may have a partialy covered attacker, or one with a hostage, or one with armor all requiring a much better shot that just any 'COM' hit. And we all know pistol ammo is not very powerful, thus shot placement (as many posters here have posted) is number 1!!!!