Point shooting: Useful tool, or reckless fool?

[AK103K]

I was being a smart ass (sort of).

Im not saying Im Speed Racer, nor am I saying Im faster or better than anyone else, Im simply saying, for me, I shoot faster and more accurately while moving, when I point shoot. Cant help you beyond that.

[45_auto]

Im simply saying, for me, I shoot faster and more accurately while moving, when I point shoot.

How fast and how accurately do you shoot when aiming while moving? You can't tell us.

How fast and how accurately do you shoot when point shooting while moving? You can't tell us.

Enter a few local IDPA or IPSC events and find out how fast and accurate you really are using each method. Even better would be some force-on-force (Simunitions) type training, but it's more expensive and harder to find. There's a good chance that you'll find out why the good shooters use what's called a "flash sight picture" any time there's enough room to extend their arms when they're moving.

On the other hand, you may be the bestest, most natural point shooter that the world has ever seen. No way to know without real data!

[Pond, James Pond]

How fast and how accurately do you shoot when aiming while moving? You can't tell us.

How fast and how accurately do you shoot when point shooting while moving? You can't tell us.

Unless the results are very close indeed, I am quite capable of judging if my shooting was faster one way than my shooting another way. After all, I'm the one shooting.

So, if AK says that his shooting on the move is faster with point shooting than with aimed shooting, I don't see why we should not believe that.
If the claim was that his point shooting was faster than someone else, that'd be a different story.

[AK103K]

Your right, I cant tell you exactly how fast.

I can see how accurate, and the difference in accuracy between the two, although I dont have that set of targets to show right now.

Still, assuming all things are equal, time wise, Im still ahead with point shooting while moving.

I have done a bit of force on force, and at close range, I dont use the sights in the traditional manner. Mostly a meat and metal index. I do understand a "flash sight picture", and its use though.

As I said earlier, Im not claiming to be the bestest, or even anything remotely close. Unless aimed sighting enters you into some sort of time warp Im unaware of, and I actually do somehow shoot faster that way, Im still going to point shoot, as I shoot more naturally and accurately when in motion doing so.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Originally Posted by James Pond

Unless the results are very close indeed, I am quite capable of judging if my shooting was faster one way than my shooting another way. After all, I'm the one shooting

I used to think that myself until I bought a shot timer. A few tenths of a second can be a long time in shooting, yet it is hard to count.

Originally Posted by AK103K

Were you moving and shooting when you shot them?

I wasn't though I don't know what difference it would make. I've got more than a few timed runs that required movement, including shooting at targets 90 degrees to me at a full run. I used my sights there as well, though obviously the sight picture was coarser.

I really think your personal training would benefit from a shot timer. If nothing else, you'd have objective data about whether or not you are faster point shooting.

Two other things to consider, break out the old WWII standby "Kill or Get Killed" by Rex Applegate. Look at his position for point shooting (half hip). Then flip to the section on disarming someone with a pistol - does that stance look familiar? You are also teaching yourself to bowl your draw and lessen the amount of time you have to align sights when you do want to use sighted fire.

[Dragline45]

Point shooting is perhaps one of the most useful tools you can practice, and with enough practice it becomes instinctive and natural. If you have the time to line up your sights, go for it, chances are most of the time you won't.

I remember back when I was younger and I worked landscaping, the crew leader who was a Marine and a Vietnam vet. got to talking about shooting since he knew I was big into guns. One of the things he said was they barely used their sites unless they were picking off a target from a great distance. He then went on to say that they fired their rifles in basic and in combat enough that their rifles pointed so naturally for them that they almost negated the use of sites at all. He said that most of the engagements were pretty damn close so were not talking about 100yd+ gun battles here. Now this is one guys stance on the matter, and while I do agree with him, who would I be to argue with him, he walked out of the war in one piece so he had to be doing something right.

One of the things I practice at home is to pick a target, draw from my holster, and without initially looking at my sights see how fast and how close I can get them on target. Do that enough and you can draw and fire a COM shot all day without ever looking at your sights.

[45_auto]

Originally Posted by Pond, James Pond

Unless the results are very close indeed, I am quite capable of judging if my shooting was faster one way than my shooting another way. After all, I'm the one shooting.

Are you also quite capable of judging how accurate you are when shooting one way than another way without a target? Unless the results are very close indeed, why even worry about a target? You don't need any actual time data to evaluate your performance, why worry about actual accuracy data? Must be correct if you "feel" that one is more accurate than another.

If you're happy believing that you can evaluate your skills with no physical way to compare performance except "I think this one is better", good for you! I would expect that you'll always be very impressed with your skills, although you'll most likely be in for a VERY unpleasant surprise if you ever have to compare them to someone who actually has analyzed and focused their performance using real data.

Originally Posted by Pond, James Pond

So, if AK says that his shooting on the move is faster with point shooting than with aimed shooting, I don't see why we should not believe that.

I've been running pistol matches, High Power (rifle) matches, and conducting training classes for almost 20 years. I've seen too many people badly surprised by the results of their actual measured performance compared to their perceived performance to even consider believing what someone says or thinks about their performance is a fact.

No big deal, feel free to believe anything you like. After all, it's on the internet and you're not allowed to lie or be wrong on the internet (that's from a humorous TV commercial, you probably (luckily) don't have it in your part of the world)!

Just as a matter of curiosity, what do you consider "very close" results time-wise? I personally consider .5 seconds to be HUGE, most people can easily do shot splits (multiple shots) with less than .25 seconds between shots. I wouldn't want to give anyone 2 extra shots at me. I would consider less than .1 second to be "close". Do you really believe that you can perceive a difference of even .5 of a second (huge, not even close) when running and shooting?

[Pond, James Pond]

Are you also quite capable of judging how accurate you are when shooting one way than another way without a target?....If you're happy believing that you can evaluate your skills with no physical way to compare

This is about telling other people their own experiences are wrong just because they don't match yours. I much prefer Bart' Roberts approach of suggesting the use of a timer, rather than the implication that if someone hasn't they must be wrong.... or lying.

You claim AK lacks physical data to back up what's been claimed. In other words personal experience.
Yet you also lack physical data to say what you seem to claim is true: that AK is wrong and deluded in his conclusions.
In other words personal experience.

In the absence of said data, I am happy to trust what a member claims about their own shooting and the possibility that data would support it based on their being there, and not me. Likewise I am happy to trust your own claims about results in your matches.
However, I don't see why those two conclusions need be mutually exclusive.

I've not thought about what a big time difference is, but then I am not a fast shooter; not fast at all.
So my splits are well within the range of human judgement.

I will doubtless use a timer, if I can get hold of one, but I am certainly going to add point shooting to my practice regimen.
Given my personal applications for it, I think it useful.

[JohnKSa]

Not retention shooting. My arm is more extended than that: my elbow is not in contact with my body.

In the picture, the gun is already so high that it's hard to imagine bringing it the inch or three higher that's required to line up the sights would cause a significant delay.

I used to think that myself until I bought a shot timer. A few tenths of a second can be a long time in shooting, yet it is hard to count.

I watch a lot of competition video and I find that it can be difficult to gauge how fast a shooter is actually putting rounds on target without a timer. Sometimes the cadence can make one shooter sound very fast while another whose cadence seems slower to the ear actually ends up with the better time.

[smokehouse4444]

Not sure why this is soo hard. The OP asked if point shooting is a useful tool. Of course it is a useful tool. I practice using my sights all the time, but I also practice point shooting at every session. I really point shoot as well, meaning I'm not "cheating" to make the target look good. I'm thrusting the handgun out, looking "over the top", and firing. On some of my handguns, I doubt I could even see my sights in many situations.

[Deaf Smith]

Jeff Cooper opined that if you used sighted fire, like the Modern Technique, or Isosceles, then if you could not see the sights, you just still brought the piece up AS IF YOU COULD SEE THE SIGHTS, and the indexing you normally practice while seeing the sights would keep the gun aligned on the target, AT CLOSE RANGE, as good as anything.

That way you just learned a form of retention fire (speed rock or other methods) and a form of SIGHTED FIRE.

Makes the training easier and quicker as you don't have to learn a third method of delivering fire.

Deaf

[AK103K]

I really think your personal training would benefit from a shot timer. If nothing else, you'd have objective data about whether or not you are faster point shooting.

I agree, and Im working on it.

You are also teaching yourself to bowl your draw and lessen the amount of time you have to align sights when you do want to use sighted fire.

I think we might be back to "what" point shooting is, or perceived. Ive have and have read "Kill or Get Killed" (on a number of occasions), which I believe is really the "primer" for this type of shooting, and know what youre referring to, but its not mostly what Im referring to when I say point shooting, although I have, and occasionally still do shoot that way, if for no other reason to have that feeling in my brain.

Normally, when I draw the gun, its driven straight towards the target, sights or no sights. No "bowling" involved. If Im moving with the gun out in SUL, then there are different possible scenarios for different levels/modes of point shooting, which I think some are mistaking for "all" instances. You can rock the gun out of SUL at contact distances and fire, or at any point on the way out to full extension. In those instances, except coming towards the end, the gun is well below the line of sight and you use your body as the index. You dont point or "aim" with the gun.

Something you said early on keeps coming back to me, and I think is one important reason to have "unsighted" shooting ingrained in your psyche. You said when shooting FOF early on, you didnt initially use the sights. I understand the theory of under stress, you fall back on your training, and it sounds as though your have trained to find and use your sights while moving, which is great, its just Im not convinced that when the targets are shooting back for real, that your brain wont over ride you and focus on the target, especially closer up.

Ive read and heard enough accounts of exactly that happening, even if later in the fight, the shooter did in fact start looking for the sights (lack of ingrained point shooting skills, and loss of focus on the front sight in a time of stress).

I find that at close range, I do focus on the target, and do better when shooting over the gun, when doing so. The sights are actually more of a distraction to me then, as its breaking my focus on the important thing. As I said earlier, all things being equal, time is really meaningless, if the "unaimed" hits on target, are better than those that are "aimed". The goal is simply good hits, is it not?

Not sure why this is soo hard. The OP asked if point shooting is a useful tool. Of course it is a useful tool. I practice using my sights all the time, but I also practice point shooting at every session. I really point shoot as well, meaning I'm not "cheating" to make the target look good. I'm thrusting the handgun out, looking "over the top", and firing. On some of my handguns, I doubt I could even see my sights in many situations.

I dont understand either, but Im thinking we're all learning a little more here, and in all directions.

Jeff Cooper opined that if you used sighted fire, like the Modern Technique, or Isosceles, then if you could not see the sights, you just still brought the piece up AS IF YOU COULD SEE THE SIGHTS, and the indexing you normally practice while seeing the sights would keep the gun aligned on the target, AT CLOSE RANGE, as good as anything.

It does.

Just think shooting in the dark with unlit sights, or looking at the target as you start to present the gun and close your eyes before you do, but shoot at the end of the presentation.

One thing Ill ask here though is, what is considered "close range". Seems there are some differing opinions.

[DT Guy]

The 'Hit Triangle' is always the same:

Distance to target x Size of target x time to shot

If you're only measuring groups, and not time, you're not really gaining any data, IMHO. Subjective impressions of 'that felt fast!' are notoriously unreliable.

I was taught point shooting as an LEO many years ago; my instructor was very 'old school', with the elbow bent and gun held at chest level, the genuine 'point shooting' as it used to be taught. When I kept putting sighted shots on target faster than his pointed shots (and with better hits) he finally left me alone.

The confirmatory 'flash sight picture' is the short range alternative, and, FOR ME, generates better hits, FASTER, than actual point shooting. But again, this requires both a target AND a timer; you have to measure the three sides of the triangle, to get actual data.

Larry

[Deaf Smith]

what is considered "close range".

AK,

Simply what each person considers it.

Jerry Miculek might consider it 20 yards. The once a year shooter might consider it 2 ft.

So it will be hard to quantify except maybe for us average shooters 5 yards or so, and that's a maybe.

Just depends on the person and their skill level.

Deaf

[2damnold4this]

Jeff Cooper opined that if you used sighted fire, like the Modern Technique, or Isosceles, then if you could not see the sights, you just still brought the piece up AS IF YOU COULD SEE THE SIGHTS, and the indexing you normally practice while seeing the sights would keep the gun aligned on the target, AT CLOSE RANGE, as good as anything.

That is a good point. Using proper technique while practicing sighted fire is training for point shooting.

[JeffK]

Does anyone practice quickly pointing without using the sights, but using a laser? I used to fence epee, and epee fencing is all about point control - put the tip of an epee blade exactly where you want it to go, just by looking at that point. You get good at that by practice, practice, practice and more practice. Seems to me you could build up that sort of muscle memory with a handgun using a laser sight to give you the feedback on where you pointed it vs. where you wanted to point it - without firing it.

[kraigwy]

what is considered "close range"

Depends on what you're shooting, Rifle, 200-300 yards. But I think we are discussing pistols/revolvers so I'll address that.

Its different in competition and self defense. I don't use or practice point shooting for competition as I do for SD. Competition its 10 yards or so. In SD its much shorter.

I teach a Lady's Firearm Safety and Self Defense class. 90% of the shooting is 3 yards or less. The remainder is 25ft.

Self Defense is just that, mugging, car jacking, or sex assaults, all occur in relatively short distance.

I have a young lady who helps with my class as a tech. advisor. She is a forensics firearm investigator and has a Masters from Syracuse Unv. in Forensics firearm investigation, based on her education and experience involving hundreds of shootings.

She tells us that a huge majority of SD shootings is about 5-6 ft. That calls for the speed point shooting gives you.

How I came up with the 25 foot distance is at the first of each class, I tell the girls to go home, and measure the longest straight line distance they can see in their homes. I had one that came up with 28 ft. She lives in a large house, the rest, we under 25 ft.

At 25 ft. I teach the use of sights.

[DT Guy]

While I agree the majority of SD shootings are short range, it doesn't take much effort to find situations where that would not be the case:
Can You Shoot Well Enough?


Larry

[45_auto]

Larry, the problem with that article is that it recommends that people actually use timers (imagine that) and compete against other people (oh no!)to evaluate their skills. The VAST majority of shooters will NOT engage in any type of comparison that will prove how bad they really are. People tend to feel pretty silly when they're point shooting but the guys using their sights are shooting twice as fast AND twice as accurately! As long as the vast majority of people can "feel" that they are fast and accurate that's good enough. Proven by this entire thread!

the skills gained from any of these competitions are simply too valuable to pass up, and difficult to gain elsewhere. They include the ability to shoot under the pressure of time, reloading under pressure, shooting from various positions and at a variety of distances.

But the single most important thing you'll gain from competitive shooting is becoming familiar with what you can and cannot do with your defensive pistol in a wide variety of situations. You'll be able, with time, to gauge your chances of successfully making a difficult shot at a distance, target or in a time frame that will test your ability. When confronted by an attacker, this can easily be the difference between successfully defending yourself and a tragically misplaced shot.

For example, AK103 posts:

Most were multiple double and triple taps (6-8 rounds fired each draw), fired quickly at COM-head, and varying back and forth, from target to target as I went. Distance was 5-7 yards and mostly moving forward.

I have NEVER seen anyone point shooting at 5-7 yards who was even close to as effective as someone using their sights. At 5-7 yards you're bringing the gun up anyway, it takes no additional time to confirm a flash sight picture. But who knows, as long as AK103 is careful not to actually compare his technique against others, he may be right. Could be that he's the best point shooter in the world.

As kraigwy (someone who both competes and teaches, therefore has some valid reference points) points out, point shooting is very effective at 1 or 2 yards. But at 25 feet (8 yards), he teaches use of sights.

Best thing for most people here to do is keep shooting the way you are, believe that it's the best thing possible, and be very careful NOT to take any classes or participate any activity that would actually evaluate your technique!

[Pond, James Pond]

Best thing for most people here to do is keep shooting the way you are, believe that it's the best thing possible, and be very careful NOT to take any classes or participate any activity that would actually evaluate your technique!

Look, as thread OP, I am interested in all opinions that come to the table whether I agree with the content or not, but I don't see a great deal of benefit in sarcasm and condescension.

I don't recall seeing the same tone from other posters so far.

I don't doubt that you have useful insight to share, given your background, but how you say it can have a great deal of influence on whether people see it as useful or belligerent.

[WW2]

Just watch a SASS fastdraw competition. You will see EXTREMELY fast and effective point shooting. The competitors in this competition that use their sights rarely move beyond the first couple of rounds. You must HIT the target to move on. A miss means you are "dead" and out of the competition.

See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MBj8PPnZtm0 as an example.

I enjoy fastdraw and have not used my sights when doing so. Typical distance to target is 5 to 7 yards. It has been many years since I participated so I don't know the actual distance used today.

Also in cowboy action shooting (Also SASS) you do use your sights. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1BwUJ4--Qw the video is only 40 seconds long and starts with 20 seconds of two guys shooting the bull before the need to shoot in "Self Defense" pops up. Ten rounds of .45 Colt from two SA revolvers, 9 or 10 rounds of .45 Colt from a lever action rifle and 5 rounds of 12 gauge from a pump shotgun that started unloaded (only 4 targets, he missed one) all done in under 19 seconds! That's 25 rounds from 4 different guns including loading the shotgun and 10 different targets!

[Deaf Smith]

So why aren't these SASS fast draw shooters in IPSC or IDPA?

Kind of strange.

Now I do know, since I have been in IPSC and IDPA for 30 or so years, that after a while you can develop an index where the draw and 'stance' allows you to form the index even before the sights come into alignment and at the closer ranges that is all you need (it's the old 'see what you need to see'), but I assure you, it takes lots of practice and competition to get that skill.

Unless the shooter is going to dedicate alot of practice to form a index before the sights are even seen, then using the sights is the better way, even if all you see is a rough sight picture.

Deaf

[Bentonville]

I apologize for my ignorance but please explain what "shooting over the gun" means. Thanks. I am really enjoying this thread.

[AK103K]

I have NEVER seen anyone point shooting at 5-7 yards who was even close to as effective as someone using their sights. At 5-7 yards you're bringing the gun up anyway, it takes no additional time to confirm a flash sight picture. But who knows, as long as AK103 is careful not to actually compare his technique against others, he may be right. Could be that he's the best point shooter in the world.

Again, and I am saying it again here, regardless if Im cold molasses slow, or mach II fast, "time" is still meaningless, when I compare the targets I shoot with sights and without, when shot in this specific manner Im shooting them.

When Im moving, and I use the sights, in any manner, my hits on target, are not as good, as my hits when fired shooting instinctively, over the top of the gun, and focused on the target. I could care less what youve "never seen",

Im not saying Im something special or some super point shooter, nothing of the sort, Im simply saying "I" do better when Im moving, shooting instinctively, and not trying to deal with the sights. Thats all. If you can do better using your sights, more power to you.

Im also referring to shooting at speed, while moving quickly off the "X", and engaging the targets as you go, coming up to near full speed. Im not referring to running into a box on the line, and firing from a static position, as a couple of the matches Ive shot here locally are set up. They dont want you running and shooting, nor do they even set their stages up for that.


Those targets I posted above, were shot under full motion, and accelerating as I went. I wasnt standing still from the time I started drawing my gun as quickly moved off the "X", until I stopped shooting. The only target shown that I shot "statically" (4th one down), using my sights, was the one with the small group just above the nose. Every other round on those targets was fired under motion, and coming near to a dead run.

I can shoot tight little groups using the sights if I stand still, thats easy. Its easy shooting instinctively as well. I cant do it while moving, and flash sight picture or not, the harder I try to deal with the sights, the longer it takes, and the results are still not as good. I may not have a timer going to prove it (yet), but I do know the cadence of how I usually shoot when shooting over the gun while moving, and it isnt near the same as when I try to shoot using the sights. Nor do I move as fast across the ground while using them. I find myself slowing my pace to deal with the sights.

If you want to use your sights in every instance, have at it, you seem you seem convinced thats what you need to do, and Im not telling you not to. Im still not convinced that under stress in an actual life and death situation, youre going to focus on those sights, or if you do, you will do as well, than if you have some "instinctive" skills ingrained into your psyche as well.

Id rather be comfortable going from one to the other and back as I (subconsciously) deem necessary, than to find out at an inconvenient time, I should have been practicing some other things that gave me the option to adapt to whatever might pop up.

But, thats why I tend to shy away from the "games" anymore, and seek out things somewhat more "realistic".

All we can do, is keep trying to learn more and keep moving on. If we make the wrong choices, or limit ourselves to one technique, we're the one who pays in the end if we were unprepared to adapt.

[AK103K]

I apologize for my ignorance but please explain what "shooting over the gun" means.

It means the gun is just below your line of sight, and your brain is using the gun and your hands to index it.

You dont look at or focus on the gun, you focus on the target as you shoot and at the point on the target you want to hit.