A Case For Point Shooting.

[matthew temkin]

This is from an article in the latest issue of The Edge, which is the official publication of the National Tactical Officers Association.
The scene is in South Africa in 1996, where a family man is parking his car at home when he is attacked by six gun toting thugs.
"Without warning he (the BG standing in front of his car) fired a shot at me. I felt no sign of impact to my body: I didn't even know that the slug hit me squarely in the middle of my chest. But my subconscious did, because it instantly sent gallons of adrenaline into my system, turning me into a stumbling zombie.
I pulled my own revolver and tried to take cover behind a concrete pillar of the carport and fired off my first round in the direction of the attacker...
...The main attacker was still taking cover at the back of the car, less than two meters from me, and he kept firing at me.
He was constantly changing his position, never standing still.
It was almost impossible for me to correctly aim and shoot. I have been trained to shoot with both hands, but I recall that I fired one handed during this incident.....
..Then, without warning, the attackers turned tail and fled. As quickly as it started, so ended the first phase of my struggle for survival."
OK..lots of lessons here, but I will allow everyone to draw their own conclusions from this incident.

[alistaire]

Do you think he might have hit the bad guys if he used his sights?

[matthew temkin]

I guess we see things differently.
This man had the proper mental attitude to fight back, but found his two handed aimed fire skills inadequate for this situation.
I think a better question would be would he have hit the guy had he had training in one handed point shooting.

[BikerRN]

This drives home the point that I may not be able to get two hands on the gun, for whatever reason. I practice two handed as well as one handed shooting, with both the left and right hands for this reason.

Biker

[AmesJainchill]

The most obvious precaution the story teaches is to wear body armor. Being able to shoot with either hand is another lesson.

[Brian Pfleuger]

South Africa in 1996....attacked by six gun toting thugs



Lessons

1: Don't live in South Africa during times of unrest
2: If you live in America and can imagine 6 gun toting thugs in your neighborhood, MOVE!
3:Being able to shoot with either hand is another lesson.

[Erik]

"It was almost impossible for me to correctly aim and shoot. I have been trained to shoot with both hands, but I recall that I fired one handed during this incident....."

This in and of itself is neither a case for or against point shooting, sighted fire, one or two handed shooting or much else, except as noted, the importance of wearing body armor. For all we can tell, had he received training emphasizing one and two handed holds utilizing sights and incorporating significant stress levels into the training he would have faired well. Which in turn would not be much of a case for or against anything except the importance of inducing high stress levels while training, and that part about wearing body armor, of course.

Erik, a "you'll only fight under stress as well as you train under stress" advocate, regardless of what you're training to do. And lets be clear, I haven't experienced artificial stress levels yet that I expect closely mirror being shot in the chest from the outset.

[Keltyke]

Learn to shoot accurately with either hand, sighted, low ready position, one handed, two handed, moving, and in any other position you can think of.

[Hard Ball]

"I may not be able to get two hands on the gun, for whatever reason. I practice two handed as well as one handed shooting, with both the left and right hands for this reason."

That is an excellnt idea. You never know exactly what will happen.

[Nnobby45]

The incident makes no case for point shooting, to answer your question.

Sounds like the thugs fled when some shots were fired in their general direction by a brave individual who was operating on adrenalin.
after receiving a possible fatal wound.

His heart, and the thugs' lack there of, is what turned the tide, even though his return fire probably didn't rise to the level of "point shooting".

Hard to make a case for a method of shooting that resulted in no bullet holes in the adversaries. The lesson is keep fighting and don't give up.

[pax]

1: Don't live in South Africa during times of unrest
2: If you live in America and can imagine 6 gun toting thugs in your neighborhood, MOVE!


and

The incident makes no case for point shooting, to answer your question.

It makes a case for continuing to fight and not giving up when you've been shot and can't use sights.

Quoted for truth.

Or to quote another truth, this one from Tom Givens at Rangemaster, "When somebody tells you you don't have time to aim, they don't understand the problem. What you don't have time to do is miss. You do not have time to miss."

Maybe it makes a case for better trigger control and more practice with moving targets. Almost invariably, the first time a student encounters a moving target, his or her trigger control goes straight into the toilet. If the student can wrap their head around the necessity of good trigger control even when everything's moving, things get better.

We can't be sure the victim even did that, since point shooting entails bringing the gun to eye level and at least using the sights for a reference.

Not so true. There are different ways to index the gun on target, but many of them are simply a felt index or a geometric index as opposed to a gross visual index or a flash sight picture.

pax

[kraigwy]

Two hands are nice, but as in the incident, not allways possible. Its a lot easier to shoot with two hands when you train with one hand, then shoot with one hand when you practice with two.

Back when I was a LE Firearms instructor, I was a student of Bill Jordon. (read NO SECOND PLACE WINNER, Bill Jordon). He recommend, or LE officers to do most of your practice drawing and firing one shot. Most of the time, in LE thats whats gonna happen. You see a threat, you draw and fire. It's more then likely gonna happen that way. I mean if any LE office knew he was gonna get involved with in a shooting, he'd take a shotgun or rifle. Most are suprised incidents.

I'm a believer in sights, not point shooting. I shoot Bullseye, I train mostly with one hand and sights. I also practice from the holster. Mostly as Mr Jordon says, draw and fire. Over and Over again.

If you can't get on the sights fast enough, then practice, and practice somemore. With practice comes speed, EVEN USING YOUR SIGHTS.

Start slow and smooth, speed up as you progress, using your sights, You will find you can get faster, remain smoth and use your sights. If shots start going wild, then slow down, get back to fundalmentals, and smooth

No one is born a rifle or pistol shot, Shooters are made with hard work, Not just practice, but GOOD SMOOTH practice. And do most of your practice using one paw.

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

JMHO

[Dwight55]

I'm in your camp kraigwy, . . . every weapon system ever designed by man to hurl a projectile (except the sling and the slingshot) have some kind of sight platform built onto them, . . . and not just to increase the retail price.

They're on there, . . . use them!! Reminds me of the boot camp story (cliff notes version) where the DI pits a platoon of shooters on rock and roll against a single sharpshooter. Only 10 ring shots counted. The sharpshooter outshot the platoon by a wide margin.

I teach the few folks I have contact with to use their sights, . . . to start slow and work up, . . . just like you said.

Yeah, . . . it works.

In the lead story here, . . . I'd be prone to believe that the thugs just decided that messing with this guy was likely to get one or more of them hurt, . . . so they just got out of Dodge.

May God bless,
Dwight

[Striker071]

OK... Where was this guys situational awareness that five assailants could get close enough to do this?

[JohnKSa]

OK... Where was this guys situational awareness that five assailants could get close enough to do this?In my opinion this is dismissive.

There is NO way a person living a normal life can keep his distance from everyone he sees. It's simply not possible. YES, SA is clearly important, but it can not be the scapegoat for every situation that goes bad. I think too much is blamed on SA and people count on their SA too much to keep them out of trouble. It's critical to maintain SA, but even if your SA is perfect it can't save you from every situation.

There is a lot of cause and effect being postulated here but there's not enough information to establish which was cause and which was effect.

Did he miss because he didn't point shoot or because he didn't use his sights? Or because he shot one handed instead of shooting how he trained?

Did he shoot one handed because he couldn't get a bead using two hands or because he was wounded? Or was it because he panicked and didn't fight like he trained?

The lesson learned is that you can take a serious hit and still fight back, even survive. More information is needed to dissect the situation further.

[nate45]

Erik, a "you'll only fight under stress as well as you train under stress" advocate, regardless of what you're training to do. And lets be clear, I haven't experienced artificial stress levels yet that I expect closely mirror being shot in the chest from the outset.

I don't think any of us would dispute the superiority of using the sights and a two hand hold. However, no matter how much we have trained or thousands of rounds we've fired, until we are surprise attacked by multiple armed assailants and shot first thing to boot. I don't any of us know exactly what we will do.

[sesquipedalian101]

We can't be sure the victim even did that, since point shooting entails bringing the gun to eye level and at least using the sights for a reference.

Not so true. There are different ways to index the gun on target, but many of them are simply a felt index or a geometric index as opposed to a gross visual index or a flash sight picture.

PAX is right about point shooting...

I don't think the story is a "case for point shooting" in the sense that the fellow's attempt at point shooting was wildly successful; however, it may be a case that some people should practice Point Shooting along with their regular regimen.

Hard to make a case for a method of shooting that resulted in no bullet holes in the adversaries.

I submit that depends on whether or not the person doing the shooting was supposed to be "good" at point shooting. By comparison, the fact that the fellow in the story was unable to use his sights to score a hit in no way "hurts" the case for using sights...

You probably shouldn’t pooh-pooh "point shooting" until you've seen someone who is really good at it. Most people can become passable with appropriate practice; the most important thing is a reliable presentation. Some people (unfortunately, not me) can do considerably better than "passable."

For example, I can consistently hit a milk jug at fifty feet; but, that’s about the limit of my "pointing" accuracy. My Dad, by contrast, was nothing short of phenomenal. He used to say it was the same basic skill as driving nails with a hammer -- some people (the "sighters") have to line up the nail, the hammer, and their eye to make it work; some people can drive nails at all sorts of weird, contorted angles and do it better than the people who get positioned "just right." (Dad also used to drive 6 penny nails with one blow --he'd flip them against the wood so they landed point first and strike them just as they made contact.)

When I was but a kid, Dad had a matched pair of nickel-plated Colt's revolvers. I don't know for sure, but based on later family conversations I think they were .38s. Regardless, when he came home from WWII he was pretty banged up and he spent about 20 years on crutches as a result. It wasn't until '65, when a fractious colt took him unexpectedly over a chalk rock slide, that something "popped" in his back and he started walking better -- eventually putting away the crutches…

Unfortunately, about a year before that ride, he decided that the Colts were a luxury he could no longer afford. Money was tight and twin holsters, while fine for riding, didn't work well when a fellow was gimping along on crutches. One of the neighbor fellows won some sort of pistol shooting competition that year (sorry I don't remember the details; I was six at the time) and my Dad sort of took a shine to him. After getting to know him a bit, he sold him the Colts for, I think, about $50 or so (that was 2-1/2 months of groceries for our family in 1964).

Anyway, it wasn't but a day or two and the fellow was back complaining that "neither gun was accurate." My Dad's response was, "Well, it's been awhile since I shot 'em, but they were good when I put 'em up. Let's go out back and you can show me the trouble."

As I recall, Dad went out to the trash bin and picked out a dozen tin cans. (We didn't recycle in those days, but we did "hose off" the cans -- it kept the trash from smelling between bi-monthly dump runs.) He had me help carry them to the fence on the South side of the yard where he set a couple on posts and the extra ten on the top rail between them. He and his disgruntled buyer set up a card table in the shade of a tree up next to the house so they had a place to set the firearms and the ammo. (When, years later, I thought to measure it, it came out at 73 feet -- give or take the width of the card table.)

Dad then suggested the fellow shoot the two big cans off of their posts while he watched to see where the bullets hit in the dust out behind. The fellow stepped up to the table; picked up one of the Colts; and, holding it in both hands, sighted on the first can and squeezed the trigger. The bullet went well wide of the mark. Setting that gun down, he picked up the other Colt and repeated the process -- with essentially the same result. Then he turned to my Dad and said, "See, the sights are off. I don't know how you could have hit anything, much less told me the guns were accurate, with sights like those."

I don't think it was just what he said as much as the tone of voice he used, but my Dad got a bit put out. His response was, "Well, son, I don't think you are using the sights right. If I may borrow your guns, I'll be happy to show you why I thought they were accurate."

Mr. 'Pistol Expert' said, "Sure Pops, go ahead" -- which was like pouring gasoline on a flame. I don't think, at 65, my dad liked being called "Pops"; I remember thinking, "Gee, I can tell my dad is mad; I hope he doesn't give him a spanking." In a way, as it turned out, that is pretty much what he did.

Dad stepped up to the table, ejected the spent shells, then thumbed in new ones. He also rotated the cylinder on each revolver and put a live round in the "empty" under the hammer. After placing them on the table facing the fence, hammers to the center, he turned and squared up with the table and the fence, then braced himself on his crutches, leaning forward slightly, so he had what you might call a "four-point" stance. Reaching out and scooping up the revolvers, he started shooting "from the hip," arms bent at his sides -- but outside of the crutches, alternating left and right between the revolvers. The outside cans disappeared from the top of each post, then he "walked" the rounds towards the center of the rail, picking first a can off the left side, then a can off the right side.

The two center cans were nearly touching and the last shot from the left-hand gun knocked its can slightly sideways taking the twelfth can with it… So, Dad shot that one with the right-hand gun... in the air as it was falling…

The whole process took three, maybe four, seconds. When he was done, Dad turned to the fellow and, best as I can remember, said, "I think you were using the sights wrong. But, I've never cheated a man in my life, so if you still want your money back, come on inside and I'll write you a check right now."

Years later, after I came to appreciate the event more, I wished the fellow had followed us inside and gotten his money back; he didn't. He gathered up his guns and ammo and left without so much as a goodbye. He was long gone by the time I got sent back outside to gather up the cans and fold up the table... In fact, I don't remember seeing much of him after that…

As for my Dad, lest you think it a fluke, he made a better hip shot some years later…

We were out fixing fence on the North line one hot summer day when a stray dog wandered into the pasture. It was staggering and acting strange and we figured it was suffering from the heat -- until it got close enough that we could see it "foaming at the mouth." We immediately thought "hydrophobia" (what you would probably call "rabies"); so, Dad sent Mom to the house to "get the gun" -- and Mom came back with the '94 Winchester.

Now I have to explain that, while we had tons of space between us and our nearest neighbors to the South, on the North side our pasture fence was, maybe, a hundred-fifty yards from the neighbor's house. My Dad was upset that Mom brought a rifle instead of a shotgun because "the rifle wasn't safe to use in such close quarters." While he was telling her to go back and get a shotgun, she pointed out that the dog had wandered to a point where there was a good, solid bank behind it and a rifle shot would be safe.

So Dad raised the gun to his shoulder to sight on the dog; but, without his glasses, he couldn't see the sights on the '94 (its an old model Winchester; the notch in the rear sight is .002" wide); so he lowered it to his hip and drilled the dog through the right eye (he said he was aiming between the eyes) at about 30 yards. Our veterinarian told us afterwards that he should have shot it "anywhere except the head" because they needed brain tissue to test for rabies and there wasn't much left of that...

Dad was 74 at the time…

Anyway, I'm not nearly that good; I don't have the natural coordination and talent necessary; but, some people do. (I also require at least two hits to drive a six penny nail; though I did bend a lot of nails trying to master his "flip and drive" trick.)

Don't assume that sights are "always" necessary; don't assume that point-shooting can't work...



Back when I was a LE Firearms instructor, I was a student of Bill Jordon. (read NO SECOND PLACE WINNER, Bill Jordon). He recommend, or LE officers to do most of your practice drawing and firing one shot. Most of the time, in LE thats whats gonna happen. You see a threat, you draw and fire.


I absolutely love Bill Jordan's work!

I do have one slight difference when it comes to his practice philosophy. He was a "champion" of wax bullets for practice. Those are good, but if you are point shooting there is another trick (again, one my Dad taught me) that I think is even better.

I use a full length mirror. If you are intending to draw and "point-shoot" at an adversary, the full-length mirror gives you a "live" target against which to practice your presentation. It has several advantages also. If you have a large space (we're blessed with a large barn), you can "double" even that by using a mirror. If you are, say, twenty feet from the mirror, your target image(yourself) is forty feet away. Further, you don't need to expend a round, wax or otherwise, to check your aim. If you are pointing right between your "adversary's" eyes, you'll be able to see "down the barrel" in the mirror image. When every draw and point produces a "clean" image of the firearm's bore, change distances. When you are consistently getting the "bore picture" on all presentatons at all distances, take it outside and try it for real... It does work (though, I find I sometimes shoot "right over" the Milk jugs, because they are sitting lower to the ground than the reflected image of my head).

So now you have my thoughts on this topic -- which are worth exactly what you are paying for them :)

-101-

[JohnKSa]

I don't think anyone's arguing that point shooting doesn't work, only that this particular case doesn't prove anything about point shooting or using your sights.

[Nnobby45]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nnobby45
Hard to make a case for a method of shooting that resulted in no bullet holes in the adversaries.

I submit that depends on whether or not the person doing the shooting was supposed to be "good" at point shooting. By comparison, the fact that the fellow in the story was unable to use his sights to score a hit in no way "hurts" the case for using sights...


I have no idea what that statement means. If he wasn't good at point shooting, it was ok to miss?


If your target is moving and you can't get your sights on his hide, do you thing point shooting is better? I don't think so.


We should all be so lucky that our would be murderers run away because we shoot back and hit nothing. The victim did well to keep fighting after receiving a life threatening GSW, and I offer no criticism under those circumstances.

Oh yes, the point shoot vs. sights debate was settled years ago and---MAYBE except for spittin' distance, sights win (the debate and gunfights).:cool:

Yes, I know: It's possible to practice enough to get good at point shooting, and it has it's advocates.

[Brian Pfleuger]

"Point Shooting" as it's called here is, I would say, the same as "Instinctive Shooting" of a long bow.

Anyone can get better at it with practice but some guys got it, some guys don't.


Have you ever seen the guy shoot Aspirin out of the air with the long bow? Practice all you want, MOST of us will NEVER do that.


I can definitely see the reasons to practice but I wouldn't want to rely on it unless it was do or die.

[R1145]

Given the opportunity, I will always use the sights. That said, both self-defense shootings I've been involved in happened very fast at very close range, point shooting, fortunately for me with immediate results.

We're talking about large targets at almost touching distance. That's what it's about, not trick shooting. My hand-eye coordination isn't that great.

My agency teaches aimed fire outside of ten yards, point shooting inside of it.

[Double Naught Spy]

A Case For Point Shooting.

So you think if the bad guys had been point shooting that they would have finished off the story teller?

I think a better question would be would he have hit the guy had he had training in one handed point shooting.

Why not one-handed aimed shooting?

Funny thing, from the story, the only shot that we know that was landed was by the bad guy on the good guy. It was the only shot in the fight where the shooter was able to determine when and where to shoot. There is NO indication of any other shots hitting any targets.

So would point shooting have changed the events? Maybe they would have for the bad guys. Since the story teller could have done nothing to prevent the first shot via point shooting (since he didn't even know the bad guys were there or that he was going to be shot) and since he and his family were not reported to be hit by any other shots, I am not sure how point shooting would have done anything more for him or his family.

As near as I can tell from the story as posted here, the good guy fired 1 or more shots (not stated) without apparently hitting a single bad guy (and he had 6 potential targets) and yet he was able to be victorious in the fight against multiple threats without ever hitting one. So this sounds like an excellent example of how you can miss fast enough to win a fight and to win it against overwhelming odds. Point shooting would not have lessened his injuries. In the end, he was still injured and won the fight.

More information is needed to dissect the situation further.
I do agree with John on this point, but thought it might be interesting to show how the same limited data could be used to refute the original claim.

[Brian Pfleuger]

So this sounds like an excellent example of how you can miss fast enough to win a fight and to win it against overwhelming odds. Point shooting would not have lessened his injuries. In the end, he was still injured and won the fight.

Goes back to being armed and willing, the act of resistance had ended as many confrontations without bloodshed as with, I would guess.

[matthew temkin]

I see many here with the assumption that point shooting is..

A) Not accurate.

B) Takes too long to learn.

C) Requires natural talent to master.

All of which are false assumptions, BTW.

Yes, he found himself in a bad situation, and was taken by surprise.
As any of us can be, especially when coming home with our wives and children.
Body armor?
How many non LEO's are actually going to wear body armor in our day to day lives?
It is a shame that he had no training for this type of reactive situation, since this is the norm--multiples, low light, close range, etc, etc) for the vast majority of gun owners.
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.

[leadbutt]

I am more than likely short of Matt one of the biggest proponents of the "PS" method, but I think more info needs to be forth coming here,,from what little is reported it appears he is just damn lucky his "sounding" shots drove them off

Funny post on Mr.Jordan he all ways thought that "PS" had a reason for being.

I have the highest respect for all the newer warriors and instructors out there, but no matter what is taught "PS" has saved the bacon for eons and will continue to so even Mr.Bryce used his sights "when needed" but it wasn't often:p

Dave James

[nate45]

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

I can see he value of point shooting with your first shot at very close range (3 yards or less), but if all possible then acquiring the sights will lead to more precise shot placement.

Is not the main thing we all stress shot placement? If you want your shots to be well directed at the sternum and brain, use your sights.

[Erik]

"I have the highest respect for all the newer warriors and instructors out there, but no matter what is taught..."

What is typically taught is sighted fire and point shooting, with an emphasis on the sighted fire. Typically taught as in I cannot think of anyone teaching otherwise; even the most ardent sighted fire proponents teach some point shooting solution to managing close-in threats, after all.

[matthew temkin]

I just think a gunfight is the wrong time to discover that your training is incomplete.
I never said that point shooting is superior to aimed fire--why does everything have to be either or?
Leadbutt is correct that Bill Jordan was a big fan of point shooting for situations
when aimed fire is nearly impossible.

[Stone Cold]

Since most confrontations occur at 7 yards or under, I'd say instinctive shooting (I believe that's what Bill Jordan called it) is a wise practice routine. Annie Oakley rarely used the rear sight of her levergun and hit some pretty small targets with amazing regularity. I practice drawing my weapon to a ready position and to full extension and firing the first shot towards where I'm looking. Under 10 yards, It's not hard for me to nail the center of mass. One hole drills are good for developing that instinctive alignment.

[threegun]

What I took from this case is a lack of situational awareness and the importance of getting the first good hit on a bad guy.

I didn't even know that the slug hit me squarely in the middle of my chest. But my subconscious did, because it instantly sent gallons of adrenaline into my system, turning me into a stumbling zombie.


Stumbling zombies don't point shoot or use sights very well. Getting good hits fast is very important as it could cause your attacker to miss were he otherwise would have hit.

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


Question....If you can get really good hits point shooting very fast or very good hits sighted but not as fast.....what do you do?

A point shooter will likely get his bullet out first and possible turn the sight fire guy into a "stumbling zombie".


There is NO way a person living a normal life can keep his distance from everyone he sees. It's simply not possible. YES, SA is clearly important, but it can not be the scapegoat for every situation that goes bad. I think too much is blamed on SA and people count on their SA too much to keep them out of trouble. It's critical to maintain SA, but even if your SA is perfect it can't save you from every situation.


Six guys walking out of a McDonald's as you walk in vs.......The scene is in South Africa in 1996, where a family man is parking his car at home when he is attacked by six gun toting thugs.
.........six guys in or around a car in front of your home. This guy was not using his BG radar. Had he done so he might not have been shot. There are times when SA won't give you valuable time to react however if I see six guys bailing out of a car parked in front of my home I can promise you that I won't have to worry about accessing my gun and preparing for trouble.

[matthew temkin]

Stone Cold..I could not agree more.
Threegun..some very good point indeed.
But, if one is shot first which method--point or aimed fire-- would give him a better chance of hitting his mark?
For those interested, here is a link to a point shooting home study course that I wrote a few years back.
http://kilogulf59.proboards80.com/index.cgi?board=handgun&action=display&thread=114

[threegun]

Matthew, Don't know as I've never been shot. I do practice both just in case.

I base which to use on distance and position in the reactionary curve. If I'm ahead, no need to rush. If behind and within my ability to hit.........I'm point shootin.

[nate45]

Question....If you can get really good hits point shooting very fast or very good hits sighted but not as fast.....what do you do?

A point shooter will likely get his bullet out first and possible turn the sight fire guy into a "stumbling zombie".


If you can really get better hits faster with point shooting, why don't top level IDPA and ISPC shooters use this method to trounce their slow sighted fire opponents?

I've shot both ways and know from experience which method is superior and has been proven to be superior.

Since 1986 I have used a range timer to measure just how fast I can draw and fire, draw and fire quality hits. Prior to that time I used point shooting, I could draw and fire all six rounds of full power .357 from my Model 66 in 3 to 3.5 seconds and some of them were in the A-zone some of them weren't. In fact I had no idea how slow I was till I started using a timer.

Now I typically do Mozambique Drill's in 1.5 seconds or less and can draw and fire an entire magazine from my 1911 in less than 2.5 seconds, I have done it in less than 2.
I always use the sights, my hits are in the A-zone.

http://i267.photobucket.com/albums/ii296/nate45auto/100_0200.jpg
I drew and fired the above 8 rounds from 5 yards in 2.31 seconds.

In regard to the OP in my mind the main question still is, can any of us put our training into practice, after being shot and attacked by six assailants.

Firstly I hope I never have to find out, and secondly with all the speculation and armchair quarterbacking aside, I don't think any of us will truly know until it happens.

[matthew temkin]

Nate45..from what I have read many competitors do use target focused/point shooting techniques on some of the closer close range courses of fire.
Brian Enos is a classic example of hard/soft focus techniques.
Which just reproves that there is a place for both.
Then again, what a professional shooter can accomplish compared to the typical Joe may not be a fair comparison
And quite a few writers who have been shot at also sing the praises of both shooting methods

[threegun]

If you can really get better hits faster with point shooting, why don't top level IDPA and ISPC shooters use this method to trounce their slow sighted fire opponents?


I didn't say better hits faster. Let me clarify. You can get good COM hits faster by point shooting. Your first shot is faster point shooting and your splits should be faster because you don't have the micro second delays involved with using the front sight. Its not for every situation and sighted fire should be used when ever possible. For me PS will only be used when I'm behind in the reactionary curve or when shooting from a retention position.

Also when talking about fighting with the gun there is a line of thought that suggests speeding up until your groups open up a bit. Your all A zone hits while beautiful and fast could be A & B zones hits even faster while still being effective.

Personally I don't use the sights on the real close action shooting targets.

[nate45]

I have read the works on point shooting before that you site in the article you wrote Point Shooting Lesson Plan (http://kilogulf59.proboards80.com/index.cgi?board=handgun&action=display&thread=114) By Matthew Temkin before, I read No Second Place Winner in the 70's, I taught myself to draw and point shoot before I learned the Modern technique, there is a place for point shooting I fully agree. I just don't see how it would have helped the subject in the OP from the description of events.

[nate45]

Also when talking about fighting with the gun there is a line of thought that suggests speeding up until your groups open up a bit. Your all A zone hits while beautiful and fast could be A & B zones hits even faster while still being effective.

In a competition I would whole heartedly agree with you and I know for a fact that the top competitors give up A-zone hits in exchange for speed.

In a real life or death situation, given the relatively puny nature of handgun rounds and what it actually takes to incapacitate someone. My opinion is that the more well directed the shots are at the sternum and brain the better your odds are of success.

[SAWBONES]

Oh no. Not another thread degenerating into a "point shooting vs. sighted shooting" argument.

Both are necessary. It's not either-or but both-and.

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


Bunko.
The point (obvious pun:rolleyes:) is to get adequately-accurate and adequately-fast hits on target, on a life-threatening adversary, at relatively close range. Point shooting does this faster, in hands that know how to accomplish it, faster than sighted shooting.
At longer distances, sighted shooting excels point shooting for accuracy, no doubt about it, but that isn't the condition under discussion here.

[nate45]

At longer distances, sighted shooting excels point shooting for accuracy, no doubt about it, but that isn't the condition under discussion here.

What is the condition under discussion? If you can ascertain the time and distances involved in the shooting from reading the OP, please enlighten me, then we can determine whether point shooting may or may not have helped.

[Slopemeno]

(opening can of worms..) uh, exactly what IS the delay with using sights? How much time exactly?

[JohnKSa]

six guys in or around a car in front of your home.The article doesn't say that. It says he was parking his car when he was attacked by 6 men.six guys bailing out of a car parked in front of my homeIt says nothing about a car being visible nor does it say the men were visible when he drove up.

It's highly unlikely that even the most brain-dead thug would think that a good way to take a person in a motor vehicle by surprise would be for a half-dozen men loiter in front of a residence in full view. The point is that given what the article actually SAYS, there's no way to blame this on SA just like there's no way to say that sighted shooting was the cause of the misses or that point shooting would have saved the day.

What I was getting at with my comment about SA is that it's commonly used as a convenient "out" or as a "scapegoat". I hear people recommending ill-advised courses of action and when the problem is pointed out they blithely respond that their excellent SA will prevent their poor tactics from biting them in the nether declivities. I hear people immediately assuming that SA was the problem in scenarios even when there was no evidence to suggest that it was.

The fact is that NO one manages to ALWAYS have perfect SA, and even those who have excellent SA are not immune from having bad things happen to them. SA is very, VERY important, but it's not always the problem when something goes wrong and it's not always going to save you from trouble.

[nate45]

(opening can of worms..) uh, exactly what IS the delay with using sights? How much time exactly?

It's a fraction of a second and in my opinion worth expending in order to use the sights.

[Playboypenguin]

I love gun mag stories. It is almost as good as the letters section of Penthouse. They give some guys erections for very different reasons but they are almost always made up. :D

My favorite was one I read recently about two campers being rousted from their sleeping bags by two "hippies" clad in flowered shirts and bell bottoms wielding knives and bats. Luckily both men had headed the advice to always sleep with your firearms inside your sleeping bag. :)

Although, I am a big supporter of both point shooting and being able to shoot with both hands. At least of my practice time is done point shooting.

[Double Naught Spy]

But, if one is shot first which method--point or aimed fire-- would give him a better chance of hitting his mark?

LOL, you can't honestly being asking this question and expect a realistically useful answer or that there is a universal truth, do you? That would be very naive.

Don't you think that would depend on where a person was shot, maybe?

FYI, from the description YOU provided in the OP, it sounds like the story teller was using point shooting...

It was almost impossible for me to correctly aim and shoot. I have been trained to shoot with both hands, but I recall that I fired one handed during this incident.....

[Deaf Smith]

"Without warning he (the BG standing in front of his car) fired a shot at me. I felt no sign of impact to my body: I didn't even know that the slug hit me squarely in the middle of my chest. But my subconscious did, because it instantly sent gallons of adrenaline into my system, turning me into a stumbling zombie. I pulled my own revolver and tried to take cover behind a concrete pillar of the carport and fired off my first round in the direction of the attacker...
...The main attacker was still taking cover at the back of the car, less than two meters from me, and he kept firing at me.
He was constantly changing his position, never standing still.
It was almost impossible for me to correctly aim and shoot. I have been trained to shoot with both hands, but I recall that I fired one handed during this incident.....
..Then, without warning, the attackers turned tail and fled. As quickly as it started, so ended the first phase of my struggle for survival."

So at 2 meters he fired (six feet), not sure if he hit the guy or missed (no mention of blood or any kind of wound) and one thinks one handed fire was in some way superior to two handed fire (or point shooting for that matter.) The other guy just bugged out.

I don't see how this validates anything. Misses with one hand are about as good as misses with two hands.

On the other hand, I'd read Paul Howe's work on the subject. Might see other thoughts on this.

Say brownie, how much experience did the writer of the article have? Hmmm he had a wheel gun in the age of automatics. Kind of wonder about him. Please enlighten us.

[threegun]

The article doesn't say that. It says he was parking his car when he was attacked by 6 men.


That section of the post was responding to the victims lack of situational awareness. The article said the bad guy was standing in front of his car.

"Without warning he (the BG standing in front of his car) fired a shot at me.

The point is that given what the article actually SAYS,

It says bad guy standing in front of HIS car. If all six guys were out of the vehicle the victim had poor SA. If the lone exposed bad guy was standing in front of his car filled with other bad guys his SA failed. I did speculate in my post but that doesn't change the poor SA by the victim.

[kraigwy]

Ok I'm sold, I'm gonna file off all the sights on my pistol.


LOL not likely, they put those sights on pistols for something.

[JohnKSa]

I took that to mean the victim's car, but I believe you are correct.

Nonetheless, the article doesn't say that the men or the vehicle were present or visible when the man pulled up. In fact, it sounds like they pulled up behind him based on the description of the article. If you take the statement to mean that the BG was in front of the BG's car then the next statement which seems to say that the BG was at the back of the victim's car supports that idea.

It's still building a lot on a little. It's too bad that the OP didn't post the entire text of the article, or at least the entire text of the pertinent section of the article.

[bds32]

One of the things that I took out of the brief information given about the confrontation and from the other training experiences in my LE career is this: When someone is shooting at you at very close range, you don't have the ability to make a conscious choice. That part of your brain is out of operation at that moment. The good guy in this case went one handed instead of two. This was not a choice but simply a reaction. The same will happen with the use of the sights. His mammilian (mid-brain) had taken over and he was powerless to make any sort of decision while being shot. Once time and distance are established and gunfire is no longer striking you or very near you, I think you can make some choices.

I train to use the sights most of the time but I believe with 100% certainty that if I have to shoot someone who is shooting at me or is pulling a gun for that purpose, at distances of around 10-15 yards or less, I will not see the sights. I know this because it's happened to me on numerous occassions while conducting Force on Force Simmunitions training. Despite the bazillions of rounds of sighted fire I've shot, my experience is that I focus exclusively on the target trying to shoot me and not on sights. A SWAT commander and trainer named Randy Watt confirmed that this is likely to happen to alot of officers in an experiment he conducted a couple of years ago. In that experiment, sighted fire shooters outshot point shooters on static targets(no surprise). When participants were put in a position where someone started shooting them with Simunitions while they engaged a target (with live guns and ammo), the sighted fire shooters still outshot the point shooters even though not a single sighted fire advocate could remember seeing his sights while being shot at. Why? When you train to use your sights, you are training your body to put the gun in the right place. When being shot at, the gun is still lining up just like it has many many times, whether you see the sights or not. It makes perfect sense to me.

[nate45]

When someone is shooting at you at very close range, you don't have the ability to make a conscious choice. That part of your brain is out of operation at that moment.

Exactly, the adrenal gland would go into overtime and there's nothing any of us could do about it. I still contend that not a single one of us knows for sure exactly what we would do or be capable of doing in a similar situation.

Just the fact (if it is a fact) that he drew his weapon and returned fire, is fairly impressive in and of itself.

[threegun]

In a real life or death situation, given the relatively puny nature of handgun rounds and what it actually takes to incapacitate someone. My opinion is that the more well directed the shots are at the sternum and brain the better your odds are of success.


To me it is more important to get a hit somewhere between the nipples, neck, and solar plexus, aka a center of mass hit, as fast as possible, than it is to get a perfectly placed hit to the dead center of the target. If you can get this faster without the sights....why not?

Slopemeno,(opening can of worms..) uh, exactly what IS the delay with using sights? How much time exactly?

Sighted fire can be very fast and real close to point shooting but it isn't possible to be as fast using the sights. When using the sights you must allow for the signals between brain, eye, and finger. With point shooting you eliminate the eye to brain communication. Don't know the time difference for the record but it is noticeably faster without recording devices.

[Slopemeno]

My point is- you can't miss fast enough.

[pax]

threegun ~

If the person using sighted fire is using the sights to align the gun in the first place, that's noticeably slower.

But if they're using the sights only to verify the alignment, looking at the sights adds no extra time and might very possibly prevent a miss.

Misses add a lot of extra time...

pax

[threegun]

BDS32,

The time I thought we were in the process of being robbed I went into auto pilot mode. I drew, raised my pistol while taking up the slack on the trigger, and then abruptly stopped the firing sequence when I realized that the would be robber was in fact an idiot trying to scare a coworker while wanting to pawn a crossman bb pistol he pulled from under his shoulder alla shoulder holster carry. I thought it was going to be a shoot out. I got tunnel vision and experienced hearing loss. Everything felt slow motion.

I do remember looking for my front sight and repeating front site front site over and over, thinking that the guy was very skinny, hoping that I wouldn't miss, and realizing his gun was a bb gun, all in less than half a second (my draw time back then). I was aware of feeling slow motion at the time although my coworker said my draw was smooth and fast.

Some will say that this doesn't count as reacting under pressure because it turned out not the be a robbery but just a man being very very stupid. I will say this......in my mind and my coworkers mind we believed our time had come. My coworker froze up and just looked at me as he had been reading to me an article from shotgun news and was bent over the counter caught completely off guard. I was sufficiently fooled into thinking this was real to get tunnel vision, hearing loss, and slow motion. I was utterly amazed at how much information my brain processed in such a small amount of time.

[threegun]

But if they're using the sights only to verify the alignment, looking at the sights adds no extra time and might very possibly prevent a miss.



For me if I use my sights at all whether it be both, front only, or as you put it use the front hump to gain verification of the muzzles direction......I was not as fast as throwing the gun up and pulling the trigger.

If you have a proper grip you don't need to spend the milliseconds worrying about front sight. The gun will point for you and misses are very very rare.

Misses add a lot of extra time...

In a match....its over you aren't going to win......in a shoot out it could mean death. They are time consuming for sure.

[Brian Pfleuger]

Some will say that this doesn't count as reacting under pressure because it turned out not the be a robbery but just a man being very very stupid.


"Realness" doesn't make pressure, PERCEPTION of "realness" makes pressure.
You thought it was real, it was pressure.


BTW, did you whip the dog snot out of the idiot, or did he wet himself when he saw you draw?:D

[Glenn E. Meyer]

You can't make a case for technique 1 vs 2 or 3, with a vivid instance or two.

Actual analysis of such takes controlled studies to sort out the different variables. Such is known in most other human performance fields.

However, this idea is slow to sink into to gunfighting in the popular gun outlets. Some folks - like the Army and police reserch are starting to study such.

As John pointed out, too much is uncontrolled to decide if one thing or another is the 'answer'. In fact, the real answer probably would just indicate different probabilities of success based on varying factors.

However, the gun world likes to have yes or no, black or white dichotomies. A change in technique might mean a major change in success ratios or even a small change. That would have to be empirically demonstrated as compared to anecdotes.

[nate45]

From any distance past arms length out to 3 yards, I can draw and bring my pistol up to eye level with a two hand hold and hit the head A-zone in 1 second or less. I don't know what handgun method would more effectively neutralize a threat better than that.

If someone is the fastest gun in the West and can draw their single action army and hit me in the chest in a quarter of a second. Unless they get lucky and hit my spine, even if I eventually die, with the above method I'll take them with me.

On top of that, somehow I don't think the odds of me ever facing a world class gunfighter in a deadly confrontation are very high.

I'm not a criminal, but if I was going to ambush someone with the intent of killing them, they would never know I was anywhere around or what even happened, unless they found out in the next life.

[threegun]

BTW, did you whip the dog snot out of the idiot, or did he wet himself when he saw you draw?

My coworker, embarrassed by freezing, scolded the guy with some foul language and ridicule. The idiot could care less how close he came to being shot. Back then it was a G-20 with Glaser safety slug followed by Winchester 175 grn silver tips.

Nate45, From any distance past arms length out to 3 yards, I can draw and bring my pistol up to eye level with a two hand hold and hit the head A-zone in 1 second or less. I don't know what handgun method would more effectively neutralize a threat better than that.

Thats great on paper but hitting the MOVING head of a bad guy under gun fight pressure might be a tad more difficult.

If someone is the fastest gun in the West and can draw their single action army and hit me in the chest in a quarter of a second. Unless they get lucky and hit my spine, even if I eventually die, with the above method I'll take them with me.


You are speculating since that first hit might turn you into a "stumbling zombie" as it did the victim in the OP's post. What happened to the OP's victim is precisely the reason I want my lead to hit first. I believe your attitude is the proper one needed to face grave danger though.

Question you aren't faster if you don't use the sights?

[nate45]

Question you aren't faster if you don't use the sights?

Not at making consistent hits and the difference is a fraction of a second. I know I have a timer.

Thats great on paper but hitting the MOVING head of a bad guy under gun fight pressure might be a tad more difficult.


Yes, but I don't know how much or how far thet can move in a second or less.

You are speculating since that first hit might turn you into a "stumbling zombie"

This whole thread has turned into wild speculation, speculation about a scenario that I don't even know actually took place.

I've stated several times that none of us know what we will or will not be capable of doing if attacked in such a manner as outlined in the OP.

[Playboypenguin]

This whole thread has turned into wild speculation, speculation about a scenario that I don't even know actually took place.
That has bothered me a bit about this thread too. Most of it is simple fun but a lot of it is bordering on Rambo-ism.

The thread started by discussing an almost certainly fictional account from a magazine and then evolved into people, most of whom have never truly been shot at in their lives, talking as if they are experts on the situation. I hate it when gun "experts" or gun mag writers do that. Not everyone is guilty of this but some are.

People are also confusing what they can do at the range with what they will do in real life a whole lot. Being great in a simulation is one thing but being able to not crack under true pressure is another thing all together. Practice is great and essential but don't start thinking you know all there is to know because you can put small groups on a piece of paper. Practice all you can, realize you have no idea what will happen in a true fire fight, and hope for the best. A lot of men qualify as expert on the range in the military but in a true fire fight a whole lot more bullets miss their mark than actually hit them.

People also love to talk about split second reactions and not having time to think. Every time I hear someone say that I know they have never been in a life or death situation. Your perceptions alter greatly in such situations. You will be surprised at what you can think of in that split second. Ever hear victims of tragedy speak of how it seemed like the world was moving in slow motion? That is a very real phenomenon and not one your can recreate at the range. The trick is being focused and thinking the right things.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Actually, some research indicates that you really don't see things in slow motion during the incident but you remember it as being in slow motion as you recreate the incident. Folks have done some timing perception tests during some really stressful simulations that have the folks reporting slo-mo after the fact but their actual judgements are regular 'mo'.

Interesting, isn't it.

But as usual, PBP makes a good point.

[Playboypenguin]

Actually, some research indicates that you really don't see things in slow motion during the incident but you remember it as being in slow motion as you recreate the incident
I would like to see that research. It would run contrary to accepted scientific opinion. Actual testing methods have shown that you do indeed speed up your thought processes in a panic situation. They way they do the tests is quite ingenious.

They fit you with a digital display and then flash a series of numbers (a five digit series separated by a solid flash) on the display. The flash random series of numbers faster and faster until they become a blur and the subject can no longer discern individual numbers and cannot make out the series. It just looks like a fully lit display blinking. They then increase the speed of the series even further. They then take the subject and suspend them high in the air from a crane and drop then a great distance into a net. On the way down they flash the numbers at the speed which was even greater than the point where they became unreadable in a regular situation. Consistantly the subject is then able to make out the numbers while falling.

[Brian Pfleuger]

My coworker, embarrassed by freezing, scolded the guy with some foul language and ridicule.


Which is what MOST people will do. Hence the need to train away that behavior. Obviously, your training has equipped you with the proper reaction. I have to say, Well Done.

The idiot could care less how close he came to being shot.

I am continually amazed at peoples ability to be stupid. The % of people who go through life mindless and confused without even knowing it astounds me.

Somebody in this forum has a signature like "The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has it's limits." Nothing truer has been said.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

A researcher out of Baylor - don't have the reference in front of me and I'll be out of town for awhile.

I'll search it out in a week or so. Interesting to see if he is correct. Most of the reports I see are anecdotal. So to the data bases but later.

[threegun]

In my incident there is not doubt in my mind that things were in slow motion. As it was happening I was conscious of how slow I was moving. I was really surprised when my coworker told me that my draw was smooth and fast. As we discussed the incident I was amazed at all the things that went through my head in such a short period of time. I thought about it for awhile and am now convinced that "slow motion" is really the brain speeding up to the point that everything else seems slow. Its the only way to explain being able to process so much in so little time while feeling as if you are moving slowly.

Nate45,

Not at making consistent hits and the difference is a fraction of a second. I know I have a timer.


If you could make consistent hits a fraction of an second faster why not? I'm gonna dust off the old timer and hit the range soon I'll try to get some video.

Yes, but I don't know how much or how far they can move in a second or less.

It doesn't take much distance to make a good head shot a clean miss. Its one of the reasons many pro's urge us to shoot for the much larger vitals in the upper body. The same movement that caused a clean miss to the head would only cause a less than perfect hit in the vitals.

I've stated several times that none of us know what we will or will not be capable of doing if attacked in such a manner as outlined in the OP.

Agreed especially if hit from the start.

[Stone Cold]

I recently went through a shoot, no shoot live fire house. After going back through the course to examine targets and discuss strategy, I realized that I didn't remember aiming most of the shots. I imagine that's pretty normal.

[nate45]

It doesn't take much distance to make a good head shot a clean miss. Its one of the reasons many pro's urge us to shoot for the much larger vitals in the upper body. The same movement that caused a clean miss to the head would only cause a less than perfect hit in the vitals.


No, but we are talking about a distance of six to nine feet. I also practice Mozambique Drills and a modified one to the chest one to the head. Look if you can draw and do a Mozambique Drill in less than 1.5 seconds without a flash sight picture from the hip or chest level or what ever it is you do thats great. I'm going to keep using the sights unless it is a weapon retention situation.

I draw and fire double taps in around 1 second flat, Mozambique Drills in around 1.5, I can draw and empty a full mag, of full power .45 ACP in 2.5 seconds or less, I've done it in less than 2. I feel like this is fast enough given that my shots are accurate.

The big question is can I do it with someone shooting at me or already having shot me and the answer is, I don't know.

[sesquipedalian101]

Boy Howdy, a lot of text has been "fired" since I checked in last :D

On a previous page, someone took my statement that some people have a "natural talent for point shooting" to mean that one cannot become good at it, even with practice, unless they are "talented." I want to take a moment to clarify that such is not my meaning. Practice (at least Good Practice) does indeed improve one's skills -- either with or without sights. I will contend, however, that one will not become "great" at point shooting (or, arguably at sighted shooting) unless they have some "natural ability" to back up the practice.

To illustrate with a non-firearm example: I can run; practice, to a point, makes me a better runner; but, I'll never be Olympic (or even Special Olympic) caliber.

Is Point Shooting better or worse than sighted shooting? Well, in my opinion, point shooting "fits" some people in some situations better than sighted shooting. For other people, it just doesn't work… There is a lot of variability in the individual and in the situation. I would never suggest that people who have found "nervana" with sights abandon their sights; I would not suggest that excellent point shooters start using sights all the time because somebody else gets better results with that technique…

A lot of the variability comes from the firearm and the method of carry too. My middle son started practicing point shooting (by the way, we call it "hip shooting" around here) several years ago. We have a "family thing" for single action revolvers; however, much to his embarrassment, he found himself to be far better with his big brother's little semi-auto than with any of the revolvers in our collection.

Living out in the country, we get to practice things that are difficult to impossible to do at a "standard" pistol or rifle range. For example, when Middle Son started point shooting, it was at pinecones (the little ones off Lodge Pole Pine). When he got good at hitting them sitting still, he started tossing them in the air with his left hand and shooting them with his right. When that got tame, he started tossing them with his right hand, then drawing and shooting them with that hand. Finally, once he was reasonably sure of not embarrassing himself in front of big brother, he started having Big Bro throw them at "random" times and in "random" directions… Now to be fair, even though he was hitting them consistently, none was more than 30 feet away and all were moving in relatively predictable courses (curve balls aren't easy with pine cones)… On the other hand, all of the shots (and I've seen him do 10 or more in a row w/o missing) are "from the hip."

…Which brings me to the statement on which I want to comment this evening…

If the person using sighted fire is using the sights to align the gun in the first place, that's noticeably slower.
But if they're using the sights only to verify the alignment, looking at the sights adds no extra time and might very possibly prevent a miss.

Using the sights may or may not prevent a miss; however, depending upon the method of carry and the type of draw, it can be considerably slower -- even if all you are doing is "verifying" the alignment. In the target practice I described above, the pistol was drawn from the right hip pocket and the shot taken as the muzzle came level with the target (obviously, or it would have been a miss :D ) but still a good 18 to 20 inches below eye level. The time differential is what is required to raise the firearm that last foot and a half plus the time required to get the "flash" sight picture.

In fact, in this case, it is probably even longer because you are not pointing "at" the target; you are aiming "ahead" of it. There is nothing on which to align your sights because you are shooting at the "point in space" where you expect the pinecone to be when the bullet is done traveling its course. If you shoot right "at" the target, you miss -- thus, if using the sights, you have to check your "lead" on the target a couple of times before squeezing the shot... The "trick" instead is to employ the same "instinct" that lets some ball players run backwards at full speed then "snag" a ball that has passed out of their sight behind their head. You simply "point your finger" at the space where the target will be while watching the target, not the space, and shoot...


As to shooting one or two handed, nearly all our practice rounds, even with the heavy revolvers, are one-handed. Part of the life we lead involves critters and tools and working "out and about." I am not dropping the reins or a lead rope or a running chainsaw to "use both hands" should a "snap shot" become necessary. Further, not all situations allow one to position one's body according to the "Modern" or "Isosceles" or "Bladed" or other stance one has practiced on the "range." Bear or cougar or coyote aren't always willing to to line up conveniently nor are they courteous enough to wait for you to dismount and get set…


Misses add a lot of extra time...

That is well said! Though, since I am thinking of my Dad in this post, I'll share a bit of wisdom he gave me forty-some years ago. I once asked him, "How fast do I have to be? I mean, if I get in a life-or-death situation, how long do I have to draw and fire?" He answered, "The rest of your life, Son, the rest of your life…"

-101-

[nate45]

Using the sights may or may not prevent a miss; however, depending upon the method of carry and the type of draw, it can be considerably slower -- even if all you are doing is "verifying" the alignment.

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

The time differential is what is required to raise the firearm that last foot and a half plus the time required to get the "flash" sight picture.

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

People on this forum often reference Jerry Miculek. Notice when he's setting this world record with a revolver he uses his sights.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gk7LPklNFRw Wonder why he took the extra time to use the sights?

This is what getting hammered with a 1911 looks like. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wX_-0FnRUBg&feature=related

El Presidente in 3.02 seconds. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XAnnK63PqF8&feature=related)

I've been practicing the modern technique for over twenty years and the fastest way, to make reliable hits, is to use the sights.

[threegun]

Nate is that you shooting the El Presidente drill? At the distance in the video (looks to be kinda far for point shooting) I would have to use my sight to insure hits. Thats really fast shooting and smooth mag changing if it was you.

BTW the movement I was referring to is only head movement. A simple dip to the left or right can turn a hit into a miss on a head shot.

[matthew temkin]

Even if there is time to use the sights there may be other factors--such as lighting conditions or close distance--which make sighted fire impossible.
Which is why, IMHO, the man in this story fared so poorly.
I keep hearing people mention on how, "One can't miss fast enough"
Why do you equate point shooting with missing?
What evidence do you have to support this belief?

[Slopemeno]

Well, five years of heavy competition in club-level USPSA type shooting, ten years in paintball (and airsmith to the world champion Ironmen at one point in there), worked for a top 100 pistolsmith for four years, took and assisted in his training classes, and in my humble opinion- missing under heavy pressure is common.

I think Jeff Cooper learned a lot of these lessons back in the Big Bear Leatherslap days. Jack Weaver showed up and rather than point shooting, he used two hands and the sights, and cleaned up.

[bds32]

Threegun,

I encountered a situation close to yours when I responded to a suicidal man with a handgun. I met him coming out of a room at the end of a hallway. I was about six to seven yards away. He had the gun in his hand and was not initially aware of my presence. He froze when I told him to put the gun down. There was a brief stand off and he chose to lower the gun to the ground with the muzzle coming towards me. I almost shot him as I side stepped. Thankfully, the gun continued to the ground. I have no memory of looking at the front sight, but he was in clear focus at all times. That has been my experience over and over again in training and in real life. Everyone is a little different. I have been shot at in another situation. I did go on autopilot and complete my assignment(pulling curtains out of a window), not being in a position to shoot back because I coudn't see the target. The guy next to me was in position and did shoot back, saving the day.

[nate45]

Ok I'll point shoot if I can use the Cajun machine gun. :)

Cajun Machine Gun
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ucFsWuHivYk&feature=related)
Cajun Machine Gun 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xpN3L4sqv8&feature=related)

I'd rather use the sites like this though.

Blake Miguez Triple Bill Drill including target (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdFaqb3c_JQ&feature=related)


Nate is that you shooting the El Presidente drill?

No, I'm not that fast and I hardly ever practice the El Presidente anymore. Not that it's not a great drill.

Look at very close range i.e. inside 2 yards, I might point shoot, but if all possible I'm going to continue bringing the pistol up to eye level.

Something like this. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dv_jLVxPfkM&feature=related

Do you really think that at close range I can't make hits without using the sites?

Even if there is time to use the sights there may be other factors--such as lighting conditions or close distance--which make sighted fire impossible.

Thats why they invented night sights.

[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...


Using the sights may or may not prevent a miss; however, depending upon the method of carry and the type of draw, it can be considerably slower -- even if all you are doing is "verifying" the alignment.
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..


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.



The time differential is what is required to raise the firearm that last foot and a half plus the time required to get the "flash" sight picture.
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!:D

[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. (http://www.imakenews.com/blauertactical/e_article000422882.cfm?x=b11,b6bTMnFJ,w)

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 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dv_jLVxPfkM&feature=related).

Now if you are very close these look like sound tactics. Close Range Gunfighting - Defending SUL (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ykmchwOgqE&feature=related)

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. :)

http://i142.photobucket.com/albums/r89/PlayboyPenguin/Misc/LWStarget1.jpg

[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. :rolleyes:;)

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

[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]

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.

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.

[Deaf Smith]

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,

Now consider this. Most drivers have what for 'training'? Drivers ed? Are they taught say 4 hours of clock time on how to get out of skids? Are they drilled on how to keep brakes by using closed circut roads? Or any kind of real seriouis hands on training of that type? No right. They drive around town doing right turns and left turns and parking and... everything except practicing real emergencys. And we wonder why we have so many accidents on the roads.

Training matters, but as I pointed out, there are levels of training. And of course if you are trained to do the incorrect thing, or some real complacated thing, well you have better be very very well trained to pull it off.

[sesquipedalian101]

Back When I Was diving regularly... <*snip*> Now Consider This. Most Drivers Have What For 'training'? Drivers Ed? <*snip*>

Dear Deaf,

I am guessing, since you mention Driver's Ed, that you figured I accidently left an "r" out of my previous post. This is not an unreasonable assumption, given that I often get my tongue wrapped around my eye-teeth and I can't see what I am saying -- much less typing. This is further compounded by my wireless keyboard -- which often drops letters when the battery is low...

If it was truly your assumption that I meant "dRiving" in my previous post, then I want to publically thank you for resisting what must have been an overwhealming urge to put away the hog leg, dig out the flame thrower, and roast me. Your civility and willingness to answer in a reasonable manner, what must have seemed an asinine post comparing firearms training to Driver's Ed, does you credit...

With that in mind, let me assure you that I meant "diving" -- as in S.C.U.B.A. Diving -- as in Open Water I, Open Water II, Underwater Search (not S&R), and various other training opportunities. All told, I spent several hundred hours "blowing bubbles" and the training was, indeed, more intense than Driver's Ed -- especially since I absolutely hate/fear water...

Regardless, thanks (seriously) for the thoughtful and courteous reply.


-101-

[Deaf Smith]

101,

I'm a PADI Divemaster.... the old Divemaster rateing where you had to take open water, advanced open water, rescue, deep diving, salvage diving, and assist at teaching for a 5 star instructor.

Actually I was not refering to your diving in your post, just that most training courses are not all that thorough. I did mean Drivers Ed!

I once parachuted with the 1st Abn. Brigade. We had a 1/2 day ground school where we were suspended under an A frame and did emergency exercises like what to do if things like a Mae West, Horseshoe, streemer, barberpole, etc... happened when we jumped, not to mention the proper way to open the reserve (a T-10 chute), check the canopy, etc... (funny how I remember all those things) plus jumping off the back of a moving truck to learn how to roll (I didn't even fall to the ground when I landed!)

And then we jumped the next day! Honesty if my chute had of failed I dunno if I would have remembered the right procedure for the right failure.

And that's the whole point. A little training isn't enough! Sure there will be people who get by with little or none, but the more training and higher quality training, all other factors the same, will be a big difference.

[threegun]

Deaf,

A little training isn't enough! Sure there will be people who get by with little or none, but the more training and higher quality training, all other factors the same, will be a big difference.

Statistics say that the vast majority of DGU's are resolved without needing to fire the gun.

Doesn't this mean that little or no training is needed to survive all but the most rare events?

[David Armstrong]

Doesn't this mean that little or no training is needed to survive all but the most rare events?
Most of the info I've seen shows little or no difference in survival rates in DGUs that can be based on training. Of course, that might be an artifact of the fact that most of these events don't lend themselves to requiring a high skill level to succeed.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Artifact - now that's an academic for you.

I will opine that training is important in the high intensity events. In two rampages, we see the civilian good samaritan having troubles.

Tacoma Mall - the civilian can't take a shot and is paralyzed. For some reason, he froze at the action moment (I could give an opinion as to why - probably couldn't overcome the tension/fear block on acting against another).

Tyler, TX courthouse - Good Samaritan hits the BG who goes down. Instead of hunkering down and/or approaching cautiously, he goes up to the armored BG who kills him. Bad tactics.

Either might have benefited from more intensive simulation training than they seemed to have had.

In most of the DGUs, showing the gun makes the BG go away. In most of the shots fired ones, the BG ceases action. These are probably the economically motivated crimes where the crime going awry doesn't justify the risk of harm to the BG. In the intense incident with emotionally or more motivated actors, then training is probably needed.

[Deaf Smith]

Statistics say that the vast majority of DGU's are resolved without needing to fire the gun.

Doesn't this mean that little or no training is needed to survive all but the most rare events?

threegun,

Vast majority of incidences don't have shootings. I've even held on guy at gunpoint for the cops, and I didn't shoot him. Just the sight of the gun was enough to make him freeze, no fancy tactics, speed loading, moving off the X, etc...

But, when such as the Miami shootout happens, yea training matters. You think uncle joe with his Taurus .38 is going to do fine against such as Matix and Platt?

You thing Cirillo, if he had not of had the training he had, he could have enguged three BGs at once and hit all three?

Just the last few days a good man in Lufkin Texas was killed defending his girlfriend who was the manager of Catfish King. BG shot the woman in the ankle and Labrozzi, the good guy, drew against a gun. He wounded the BG and the BG, Womack, who is now looking at capital murder.

Would more training have helped? Might, might not. But it takes a very well trained person to out draw a leveled gun. Fast and well trained.

[matthew temkin]

So what are the lesson learned from this incident?
According to the magazine article:

1) Accept the possibility that you may be shot.

2) Be prepared--prepare and train for the worst case scenario.
Make sure the training puts you under pressure so you can react under real life stress.

3) Be vigilant.
Be aware of your surroundings, if you see something irregular, like being followed by a car, then be suspicious, raise your level of vigilance and take action.

4) Never give up.

5) Have something to live for.


Good points, but the author leaves out a lot of the "how to--nuts and bolts" of how to accomplish the above.

[sesquipedalian101]

I'm a PADI Divemaster.... the old Divemaster rateing where you had to take open water, advanced open water, rescue, deep diving, salvage diving, and assist at teaching for a 5 star instructor.
Hey, I'm a NAUI guy myself ;) (note to the firearms-types here: If you think "sighted" versus "pointed" shooting generates controversy, just listen in on a PADI versus NAUI discussion ;) )

When I certified OWI, there was a "controversy" raging about whether or not to still require "buddy breathing" drills -- after all, "everybody" was now packing an octopus, right?

The instructor I had still required multiple hours of buddy breathing practice because "When your buddy needs air, you always know where one regulator is." Later, after reading the afformentioned accident reports, I realized that the octopus often gets dragged through the muck and gunk and may be of questionable operability when needed; so, I started velcroing it in the middle of the "golden triangle" (for you firearm types, that's the CoM location you are taught to aim at). Eventually, I sprung for a SpareAir (tm) to put there as well, figuring it would do me more good should I ever be the one needing the assist (and, that I could also just hand it to my buddy and not have s/he trying to breathe off my tank while in panic mode).

So, your comments about training are not lost on me... I am also not above going beyond training when I see obvious deficiencies (it was a year or more after I started the "velcro it in place" routine that I saw a "NAUI News" article advising that practice; by then many of the people with whom I dived regularly had started doing it as well.)

I have the same basic philosopy with firearms. Training is great! Going beyond training when something is "obviously deficient" is only prudent...

My original point, however, is that post-incident analysis of how training affects performance in life and death situation (both in diving and w/firearms) sometimes has "missing data."

In the Texas case you cite, for example, do we know if Labrozzi was insufficiently and/or poorly trained? Do we know if he knew he would probably die, but read the situation as "we're going to die anyway" and I might be able to save my GF? Do we know if he was excellently trained but something "psychological" or some "physiological" (ever have an arthritic joint "lock up" on you?) happened to interfere? My original point was that, in such cases, the data from one important source (in this case, Labrozzi) may be "missing."

One needs to be careful of generalizations based on such data, particularly if such generalizations start with "Never" or "Always."


-101-

[Deaf Smith]

101,

What we do know is Labrozzi is dead, and thus his training may well have not been enough (or he would not have died, right?) Training includes much more than just shooting, like awareness of the situation so you can see it coming, situational positioning, minimizing exposure, etc...)

I have a few friends in Lufkin and I'll see what I can find out about how much, if any, training he had.

BTW, spare air is the way to go as far as I'm conserned. I never liked the octopus all that much. And spare air can be used for other things (like getting out of a smoke filled room.)

Every time before I go diving I throw the rig, BC Vest and all, in a pool and check everything out. I hate renting equipment at unknown shops.

Did you know fire fighters tanks are mostly fiberglass? At were I work I'm on the ERT team (it's hazmat.. I actually had one employee ask me if it was the bomb squad!) We have such tanks. Real light weight yet over 45 min of air. Catch is they have a very definate shelf life a steel or aluminum tank doesn't. But they are way much lighter than our tanks.

[Deaf Smith]

From what I've found out so far, according to a Lufkin PD 'friend', Labrozzi had just had the Basic CHL, nothing else. And being a CHL instructor, I can tell you the qualification is NOT a defensive test of skills.