A Case For Point Shooting.

[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?

[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

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…

Originally Posted by pax

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 ) 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…

Originally Posted by pax

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_-0...eature=related

El Presidente in 3.02 seconds.

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

Cajun Machine Gun 2

I'd rather use the sites like this though.

Blake Miguez Triple Bill Drill including target

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_jL...eature=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.