Quote:
|
I think Mr. Fairbairn had enough experience to know what he was talking about.
|
I don't think anybody doubts Fairbairn's experience; but rather the application of it to personal training. This is something I see a lot on firearms boards - a certain respectable person or unit adopts X piece of gear or training tactic and everybody automatically assumes that is the hottest thing going and adopts the same tactic or gear without asking themselves:
1) Why did they adopt that technique or gear?
2) Do I have substantially the same needs so that this technique or gear will work as well for my personal circumstances?
If my goal is to train a bunch of Shanghai policeman with minimal prior firearm experience how to hit a man-sized target in a fight and I've got minimal ammo and training time to do it with, then I can see where point shooting would be a great advantage.
However, I'm presuming that we are discussing personal advancement with a pistol here and most of us have more time and money to devote to training than the type of programs Fairbairn administered. To give just one more example,
Paul Howe has some different thoughts on use of sights in pistol shooting; but then again he comes from a background where he had considerable time and money available to develop his skills.
And finally, let's look at some classic Fairbairn/Applegate/Sykes demonstration of point shooting from that era:
http://www.bobtuley.com/applegate_psp_200.jpg
http://www.suarezinternationalstore....pioneers02.jpg
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_xpE1FpQmWu...12_80_p119.png
OK, so our opponent is close enough that speed is more important than accuracy. Hundredths of a second matter. Now, tell me, what position offers you a better chance of maintaining control of your pistol in a close fight? The positions shown above or an index on the pectoral muscle?
Apparently,
even Fairbairn recognized the problem with his approach.