New (to me) Shooting Technique - Comments?

[Archie]

But it isn't new. I've heard this described and discussed in the early 1980s.

The downside is very obvious: Uncontrolled rounds downrange.

gvf. if this man is a friend of yours and you respect him, I understand. However, this technique - at least as much as been discussed here in context - is a very poor idea and at best will cause you grief.

[Sweatnbullets]

It is a combat proven tactic that the old timers used with very good effect......period.

While I teach point shooting, I do not teach this due to todays liability concerns. I do let my students know about it's combat proven record, but leave it up to them on whether they want to incorporte it outside of my class

Once again.....I do not teach it......but that does not take away from it being a combat proven tactic. I teach that the first shot is taken as soon as the gun clears the holster and it is parallel to the ground.

Many of my students get quality combat hits, from the hip, around five yards, from concealment, in around .9 of a second after a couple of hours of training in EU/ED

Elbow up/elbow down....enough said.

The law of physics and economy of motion is irrefutable.

[BikerRN]

2. (the biggie for me) You are intentionally letting off shots that you don't think will hit him. The potential for collateral damage here is (to me) unaccaptable. It goes against the whole "Be sure of your target" rule, and is effectivly laying down suppressive fire. Short of full scale war, there is not a good reason to use suppressive fire.

Well said.

I am an advocate of using the sights when you can, that's why they put the bloody things on the gun in the first place.

With that said, there are times when you may not fire from a "normal" position, making the traditional use of the sights pointless. Even when firing from a retention position though I do have a form of aiming. I am indexing my body on the target, and the target is close. Remember, the closer the target the easier it is to hit without using the traditional sight picture.

I would strive to use the sights all the time for another reason though. When you are involved in a shooting you may or may not recall seeing your Front Sight, but if you have practiced enough your sights will be online with your target and it becomes a subconcious reaction. In short, you are using your sights without even realizing it.

One way you can practice this is to not look at your sights and "point" the gun at a target, keeping your focus on the target. Then look at the Front Sight. You should be on target even without seeing your sights. BTW, use an unloaded gun that you've triple checked if not doing this at a Range.

I think your Instructor's method is a load of bovine fecal matter and will create more problems than it solves and encourages a "spray and pray" mentality. Wyatt Earp said it best year's ago, "Accuracy is final."

Biker

[xrocket]

"I am an advocate of using the sights when you can, that's why they put the bloody things on the gun in the first place." ...BikerRN

Actually the gun manufactures put sights on for those who can't shoot without them. Just fun'n

I've followed this thread with mild interest in how it would play out. I'm actually surprised that so many have vehemently picked up on a few ill chosen words and went ballistic. Myself, I tend toward a more pragmatic approach to internet speak and less of a literal OMG, He Said That! After all, the concept as relayed by the OP was presented for discussion. I guess I took it to be a subject for theory and not as an all encompassing foundation of conflict resolution.

Anyway ... carry on.

[bds32]

The technique you described has been around for awhile. The famed lawman and pistoleer Bill Jordan dismissed this same theory in his book No Second Place Winner. He wrote,

"The idea of this being that even if those first shots only plow up the dirt between yourself and your opponent they will disconcert him and cause him to miss. In my opinion this theory defeats the whole idea of fast draw marksmanship, which, when reduced to its essentials, is simply to place your shot in a vital spot before you are hit by your opponent. Surely nothing could be more disconcerting to the accuracy of your adversary than a .357 Magnum slug applied judiciously in the region of the belt buckle. No man can afford to spot an opponent the two or three, or even one wasted shots advocated by the exponents of this hair brained theory." Page 57

Of course Bill, one of the fastest men ever, advocated hip shooting from 0 to 3 yards. As soon as the barrel cleared leather, it was leveled toward the target and fired. The barrel would be pointed at the suspect's torso. He could do this in around a quarter to a half a second.

[Sweatnbullets]

Short of full scale war, there is not a good reason to use suppressive fire.

Really!

How about where a brick wall is the back stop or you are out in the middle of nowhere and you are so far behind in the reactionary curve you are already taking incoming.

Resetting the adversaries OODA loop with shots as quickly as humanly possible is a combat proven tactic. It has a very good track record.

This stuff is not new......it has been around for a very long time. The old timers knew more about gunfights than most of the modern guys.....and that wealth of information is making a huge come back now that the training is combat focus and not just competitioned focused.

Everything has it's place inside of the fight continuum. Precision shooting or suppressive fire.....and everything in between. You just have to open your mind and see that the situation is the dictating factor......not the technique.

[Rifleman 173]

Bad idea BUT he may have been talking about the very old way to richocet birdshot or buckshot, not handgun ammo, off of cement or blacktop. That was actually, in the early 1970s, that this technique was tried and used for some riot conditions. If he was talking about richoceting shotgun ammo he may have left the wrong impression with you which has you believing it was done with pistol ammo. One state police group I know of tells its troopers that every time that they fire their gun off of a range, that's a million dollar lawsuit waiting to happen. A shooting technique like the one he describes is not a good idea because it actually lacks good shot placement to let the bullet work. Remember, you really do want "the bad guy backstop" to catch your fired rounds.

[stephen426]

Originally Posted by Keltyke

1. You're wasting rounds you might need.
2. Your firing without aiming, indiscriminately, and there's no telling where the round will go, especially if you fire into a hard surface like concrete.
3. There's a good chance you'll shoot your own foot off.
4. You're expecting a reaction from the attacker you might not get.

Never forget the first two rules of shooting.

1. Never point your gun at anything you're not justified in shooting.
2. Never put your finger on the trigger until you're ready to shoot.

1. If the bad guy is already on top of you and has a contact weapon, you won't need any rounds because you will either be severely injured or dead.

2. I don't believe that the original poster called for firing indiscriminately at all. He mentioned letting off shots while the gun is on the way up (30 and 60 degrees). Assuming that this really is a life and death situation and the bad guy is practically on top of you, the 60 degree shot just might hit the attacker.

3. You will only shoot your own foot off if you shoot straight down (duh). If you practice shooting at 30 degrees and 60 degrees, you have little to no chance of shooting yourself.

4. There is NO expectation here. The idea is to get shots off before you even have time to get the gun level. If you hit the attacker on the way up, it will certainly slow him down or at least diminish his ability to attack.

As the original poster said, this is life and death and reacting from behind the curve. My initial reaction was also to question firing off shots that may not hit your attacker. I'm pretty sure what was described was the zipper technique.

You guys also mention that you can draw and fire in 1.5 - 2 seconds. Have someone time you with a stop watch and see how much ground you can cover taking off from stand still and how much gound you can cover if you are already at a run. If I recall, that is called the Tueller drill. It was explained in my concealed carry calss that 21 feet is an acceptable distance for a self defense shoot against an attacker with a contact weapon due to his ability to close that distance so quickly. In fact, some say that a holstered gun at 21 feet is useless since the attacker can be on top of you before you can draw and shoot. Could the zippering technique allow you to get shots off before the attacker makes contact? I think so. It is not exactly unaimed shots, but low shots made on the way up.

The other comment about backing up is wrong in my opinion. Unless you have eyes on the back of your head, backing up could cause you to trip and fall. How many feet can you move backwards compared to someone moving towards you quickly (forwards obviously)? I doubt it is significant and as I mentioned, could cause you to trip.

If you guys take the technique as what it was probably intended for, it is not so bad once the initial shock wears off. It may not have been described perfectly and many of you have read into things and added things that were not said. In a dire situation where the attacker is practically on top of you and you are ate to react, I think this is a valid technique.

[obxned]

I really doubt that the few thousandths of a second between when your first shot would be in the dirt and when your first shot would be COM will make any difference in the outcome. I am also not comfortable with bullets bouncing around the scene.

A far, far better plan: Practice your draw and shoot at 3, 5 or 7 yards.

[ronc0011]

Many years ago when I was about 22 years old I was working at a car lot. All of the dealers had multiple hand guns on or about their person and the property. One night me and the lot manager and one of the dealers sons were sitting around shooting the breez and the discussion turned to how fast the youngster could bring a gun to bare. To prove the point I bet him I could take the gun away from him before he could get it pointed at me. He had a 1911 and we were both sitting in swivel type desk chairs. I was sitting basically in front of him and he already had the pistol in his hand ( it was unloaded and had been checked as such by everyone individually twice). Joe, the manager says go and I very easily took the gun away from the kid (18 year old).


I think it is a common mistake to believe you can get a gun up and leveled faster than you really can. Plus the added effect of watching your time run out as your attacker closes the distance. Most if not all people seriously under estimate how badly this ruins your ability to get a gun into the game.

[threegun]

The other comment about backing up is wrong in my opinion. Unless you have eyes on the back of your head, backing up could cause you to trip and fall. How many feet can you move backward compared to someone moving toward you quickly (forward obviously)? I doubt it is significant and as I mentioned, could cause you to trip.

If you move backward properly tripping is minimized. Also, one of my practiced options against a charging BG is to fall backward and fire while using my legs to fend off the attack.

While it is true that a person can move forward faster than backward, moving backward can buy you extra precious tenths of a second. In the tueller drill you will never reach me before I draw and fire several shots if I can move backward. Even if I muff the draw I could still recover and fire before contact. We used to practice this at work (just for kicks) to pass the time. I never lost while able to move backward. My partner who was way slower on the draw never lost while moving backward. So there is much to be gained by even the slightest of movement IMO.

[c4v3man]

I see several problems with this option.
1. Bullets may hit innocent civilians, in which if you killed one, would ruin your life.
2. The time difference between shooting at the ground 3' in front of you and firing properly from retention is minimal.
3. Firing at such a strange angle with an unconventional grip may invite 'limp wristing' or other problems to occur, possibly jamming the pistol in the process. I'd rather make the best of my 1 chambered shot, as there are no guarantees that you will get another (no matter how flawless your pistol is. I've never had a problem with thousands of rounds through my USP Expert, but you never know if you'll get a bad round, or a weak magazine spring, or any other "impossible" problems).

Practice firing from retention, perhaps throw your offhand onto your shoulder to shield your head with your arm from the attacker, and hope it's enough.

[gvf]

One-handed, perhaps pellet gun, but a visual:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcc8DVRO_TU

[M1911]

gvf: You are responsible for the final resting place of each and every round you ever fire. Purposefully firing the gun when you do not know where it is pointed seems to me to be grossly negligent. And as others have pointed out, you are throwing away a round that you may need.

I don't have a problem with point shooting. I don't have a problem with John Farnam's "zipper" technique (John Farnam's "zipper" technique does NOT include shooting the ground and hoping it ricochets into the perp). I don't have a problem shooting from the retention position.

I do have a problem shooting when your muzzle is not pointed at the target.

[Frank Ettin]

[1] Yes, suppressive fire has it's place. Yes, throwing lead around may be okay/useful/ desirable in unique circumstances. These techniques are for use in special circumstance. If one wants to promote or encourage their use, he should be clear about when and where they should and should not be used.

[2] Yes, an attacker can cover 21 feet in about 1.5 seconds. That's why the next phase of training might includes moving back, diagonally or to the side as the gun is presented. And yes, you can trip, but practice and training help minimize that risk.

[3] If the BG is close, various point shooting techniques, including shooting within the gun in a closely held "retention" positions may well be in order. These techniques should be learned and practiced. But you are still intending to hit the target.

[4] So I still think it's recless to suggest that one routinely and as a general practice begin firing as soon as the gun clears the holster and without any real intention or expectation of necessarily hitting the target with the initial rounds fired.

[Sweatnbullets]

One-handed, perhaps pellet gun, but a visual:

Yeah, that's me with my G19 airsoft. It works the exact same way with live fire.

People do not understand that the fundamentals of combat shooting have nothing to do with the fundamentals of marksmanship. Therefore, training in combat shooting with your airsoft is just as valuable as training with live fire.

"Grip it and rip it!"

But I make the first shot of my zipper count. Parallel to the ground gives me hits right in the gut. One of the "oldtimers" favorite target.

[gvf]

[4] So I still think it's recless to suggest that one routinely and as a general practice begin firing as soon as the gun clears the holster and without any real intention or expectation of necessarily hitting the target with the initial rounds fired.

This must be the 20th poster who didn't read what I actually said, especially a clarification several posts past the original. Fine if you don't want to read every post, but then don't restate text of the posts. What I said can be found. I'm not re-posting it.

[exprt9]

quote:
I teach that the first shot is taken as soon as the gun clears the holster and it is parallel to the ground.

+1

follow up shots while bringing the gun up to eye level. Of course, this depends on how far the attacker is and what's beyond. If pressed for time shoot as soon as gun clears and is parallel to the ground and pointed to the attacker. If not pressed for time, aim the shots! Just my .02 cents!




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

[Erik]

Another critic.

And to be clear, it isn't a criticism of point shooting or suppressive fire. We're talking the about the willful firing of rounds without the reasonable expectation of hitting an assailant which won't have the effect of keeping him behind cover or with his head down, after all.

The advise given to the OP, specifically the part between the draw and the third (or forth? or fifth?) intended shot, is very bad advise, beginning with the dogmatic acceptance that the two opening shots may miss, that by missing you will ulimately be faster when your rounds eventually make it on target, and that all rounds including the missed ones will have any sort of measurable, telling effect.

[ronc0011]

and that all rounds including the missed ones will have any sort of measurable, telling effect.

Well I think anyone would have to agree that as soon as shots are fired everyone in the immediate vicinity is going to show some sort of effect. That is the sort of thing that will get your attention in a hurry.

As to whether the effects will be to your advantage or not is another question.

[gvf]

Here is what I said that few bother to read:

"
The suggestion was not to blast the ground but to shoot starting low, (and in the event it was way too low that a ricochet might have an effect anyway). It also wasn't suggested to shoot indiscriminately, but to shoot twice - point shooting - on the way up, in an arc, at the perp - and a quick follow-up at center - at the perp. It's rapid point-shooting along a "string" - as the term was used here - moving up the target to gain a pause in the attack hopefully, so as to recover control of aim when one is about to be literally "over-run".

That's not to say this makes it a good technique, but that it is the technique described to me. If something other than that came through in my description -- my error in composition."
------------


Here is what I said that few bother to read:

"
The suggestion was not to blast the ground but to shoot starting low, (and in the event it was way too low that a ricochet might have an effect anyway). It also wasn't suggested to shoot indiscriminately, but to shoot twice - point shooting - on the way up, in an arc, at the perp - and a quick follow-up at center - at the perp. It's rapid point-shooting along a "string" - as the term was used here - moving up the target to gain a pause in the attack hopefully, so as to recover control of aim when one is about to be literally "over-run".

That's not to say this makes it a good technique, but that it is the technique described to me. If something other than that came through in my description -- my error in composition."
-------------
Here is what I said that few bother to read:

"
The suggestion was not to blast the ground but to shoot starting low, (and in the event it was way too low that a ricochet might have an effect anyway). It also wasn't suggested to shoot indiscriminately, but to shoot twice - point shooting - on the way up, in an arc, at the perp - and a quick follow-up at center - at the perp. It's rapid point-shooting along a "string" - as the term was used here - moving up the target to gain a pause in the attack hopefully, so as to recover control of aim when one is about to be literally "over-run".

That's not to say this makes it a good technique, but that it is the technique described to me. If something other than that came through in my description -- my error in composition."
------------------
Here is what I said that few bother to read:

"
The suggestion was not to blast the ground but to shoot starting low, (and in the event it was way too low that a ricochet might have an effect anyway). It also wasn't suggested to shoot indiscriminately, but to shoot twice - point shooting - on the way up, in an arc, at the perp - and a quick follow-up at center - at the perp. It's rapid point-shooting along a "string" - as the term was used here - moving up the target to gain a pause in the attack hopefully, so as to recover control of aim when one is about to be literally "over-run".

That's not to say this makes it a good technique, but that it is the technique described to me. If something other than that came through in my description -- my error in composition."
-------------
Here is what I said that few bother to read:

"
The suggestion was not to blast the ground but to shoot starting low, (and in the event it was way too low that a ricochet might have an effect anyway). It also wasn't suggested to shoot indiscriminately, but to shoot twice - point shooting - on the way up, in an arc, at the perp - and a quick follow-up at center - at the perp. It's rapid point-shooting along a "string" - as the term was used here - moving up the target to gain a pause in the attack hopefully, so as to recover control of aim when one is about to be literally "over-run".

That's not to say this makes it a good technique, but that it is the technique described to me. If something other than that came through in my description -- my error in composition."

-------------
Here is what I said that few bother to read:

"
The suggestion was not to blast the ground but to shoot starting low, (and in the event it was way too low that a ricochet might have an effect anyway). It also wasn't suggested to shoot indiscriminately, but to shoot twice - point shooting - on the way up, in an arc, at the perp - and a quick follow-up at center - at the perp. It's rapid point-shooting along a "string" - as the term was used here - moving up the target to gain a pause in the attack hopefully, so as to recover control of aim when one is about to be literally "over-run".

That's not to say this makes it a good technique, but that it is the technique described to me. If something other than that came through in my description -- my error in composition."

[Erik]

You're right:

"The technique the instructor explained was firing very quick shots in the arc of the gun being brought up, AS IT IS BEING RAISED, say at 30 degrees, 60 degrees and 90 (the usual shot point); the first would be quite low, might even ricochet off the sidewalk but perhaps into his body, second also low but a possible leg/low-groin hit, the last though very quickly following might well get a hit somewhere in center. The hope is the phyisical -or if even none hit - just psychological reaction to such an overwhelmingly quick opening- fusillade will cause a pause of shock in the attacker. In the pause you now have a breath to more carefully get control of the situation and aim for other shots, at about the same time your normally would be firing your first shot anyway. Perhaps the threat falls wounded or runs in the slight pause. (Not the point of the technique to monitor this, but who knows.)

In other words, you're shooting "before your first shot", so to speak.

If it doesn't work, you're no worse off than you would have been save for the 3 less shots, but in a semi-A., at least, you have quite a few left for one person. (A revolver might be more problematic this way.)"

---

"...the first would be quite low, might even ricochet off the sidewalk but perhaps into his body..."
Might as in might not. Perhaps as in perhaps not.

"...second also low but a possible leg/low-groin hit..."
Possibly as in possibly not.

"...the last though very quickly following might well get a hit somewhere in center."
Might well as in might not.

You're right. I don't know where we're getting the idea that the intent and advice is to accept missing. If the instructor in question, or you've, poorly described zippering, so be it. I have no problem with zippering, be it with sights or not. But it seems he's described and you have stated what he meant, which can't really be dismissed much better than Jordan did decades ago. (See above.)

And, I fail to see how shooting twice anywhere before the third shot is faster than just shooting that third shot as your first. Same start position, same draw, same arc of movement... But with the dynamics of shooting added. It isn't faster. It cannot be. As fast? Maybe; unlikely, but possible.

"The hope is the phyisical -or if even none hit - just psychological reaction to such an overwhelmingly quick opening- fusillade will cause a pause of shock in the attacker."
The hope seems to be justifying a plan to miss with wishful thinking at best. What about the not so insignificant number of times where there physical and psychological reactions are absent? Then what?

"In the pause you now have a breath to more carefully get control of the situation and aim for other shots, at about the same time your normally would be firing your first shot anyway."
What pause. Oh, the assumed one. What about when there isn't one? What then?

"Perhaps the threat falls wounded or runs in the slight pause."
There's that perhaps again... Again, what about when the assailant deviats from the script? Then what?

"In other words, you're shooting "before your first shot", so to speak."
Who was it that said you cannot miss fast enough to win a gun fight?

"If it doesn't work, you're no worse off than you would have been save for the 3 less shots, but in a semi-A., at least, you have quite a few left for one person."
If it doesn't work you've wasted time and ammunition, perhaps (Doh! There it is again! Lots of mights, maybes, perhapses and ifs... Too many to be taken seriously.) shot and killed others besides your intended target, and might not be in a position to use whatever rounds you have left in a more traditional manner.

But they, thanks for bringing it to the attention of folks who might not have heard of it before. It is always nice to see and/or talk about what is going on the community at large.

[Erik]

Still reading:

"Here is what I said that few bother to read:

"
The suggestion was not to blast the ground but to shoot starting low, (and in the event it was way too low that a ricochet might have an effect anyway). It also wasn't suggested to shoot indiscriminately, but to shoot twice - point shooting - on the way up, in an arc, at the perp - and a quick follow-up at center - at the perp. It's rapid point-shooting along a "string" - as the term was used here - moving up the target to gain a pause in the attack hopefully, so as to recover control of aim when one is about to be literally "over-run".

That's not to say this makes it a good technique, but that it is the technique described to me. If something other than that came through in my description -- my error in composition."

---

Shooting low and indescriminantly appears to be exactly what has been advocated, hence the need for all of the "if you miss at least something positive will come of it" justifications. If your instructor friend said them, then it is what it is. If you added them... well, did he or you? I ask because it sounds like you did a good job describing something many happen to disagree with, as oppossed to the other way around.

[M1911]

Let's turn on the way back machine, shall we?

The technique the instructor explained was firing very quick shots in the arc of the gun being brought up, AS IT IS BEING RAISED, say at 30 degrees, 60 degrees and 90 (the usual shot point); the first would be quite low, might even ricochet off the sidewalk but perhaps into his body, second also low but a possible leg/low-groin hit, the last though very quickly following might well get a hit somewhere in center.

We all carefully read what you wrote, gvf. Perhaps you should go back and read it for yourself.

If you are shooting with the gun barrel pointed at an angle of 30 degrees from the ground, you are pointing at the ground, not at the perp. Deliberately firing a round while your gun is pointed at the ground instead of the perp is not only bad tactics but negligent as well. There is a lawyer attached to every round you fire.

I don't have a problem firing from retention, point shooting, or firing during the extension of your arms. I don't have a problem with John Farnam's zipper technique. I don't know John Farnam. He's not a friend of mine. But this sure ain't his zipper technique.

I do have a problem when you suggest firing while your gun is pointed at the ground.

You can't miss fast enough to make up for not hitting the target.

[gvf]

We all carefully read what you wrote, gvf. Perhaps you should go back and read it for yourself.

Perhaps you should read this then as well: do not make little digs, like the last phrase - to me. It is insulting. I don't care how you think about this, just do not do it.

(No you didn't read what I posted, likely 5 times, plus the first time, a clarification of what the man had said.)
---------
Erik :

Shooting low and indescriminantly appears to be exactly what has been advocated, hence the need for all of the "if you miss at least something positive will come of it" justifications. If your instructor friend said them, then it is what it is. If you added them... well, did he or you?

Yes, then that first low shot is not a good idea. Though, he meant to try and hit the target low. I don't think you care though. You are in a court, and taking down an opponent, so you will pick apart the words, so you can win the argument.

No one needs this, to read much that has been written about yourself or another man that is laced with hostility, for an innocent question/comment about a passing suggestion new to me. And yes it has often been filling in my words with suppositions, - as was commented on by another poster - and worse has been done print-wise to the other man who none were with or know besides me. There is no call to treat people like this, (though this is but some of the posters).
Especially so when it is from behind the comfortable and seemingly anonymous distance of cyberspace.

The question I asked has been answered to my satisfaction.