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]

Originally Posted by Erik

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]

Originally Posted by pax

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.

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...

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...

Originally Posted by kraigwy

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).

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

Dave James