BlackwaterUSA Chimes in on Point vs Sight shooting

[threegun]

What has that got to do with my question? The assertion is that point shooting is faster - so fast in fact that you don't have time to use the sights. Also asserted is that at ranges of 7 yards or less, it is sufficiently accurate to do the job.

So if that is the case, why doesn't a single high-ranking shooter who competitively shoots for time and accuracy use this method or advocate it?

If point shooting works so well under "real time pressure" as you assert, then why doesn't it work under competition?

It does work in competition. I have used non sighted fire in threegun and IPSC matches many times. In fact on almost every target that is inside 15 yards and requires two shots my second shot is fired unsighted. I don't use unsighted fire for the first shot because my gun is already out, up, and at eye level after the first target anyway. Also I can't risk a C or D zone hit that could keep me from winning. All the other shooters have to hit tighter as well so the playing field is even.

The difference from competition to real life is that a C or D (zones on target) hit that costs me in a match is the same hit that in real life could save me.

Some folks me included feel that the guy who gets the first hit on his opponent has a huge advantage in winning the gunfight. Simply put I can hit my target before the gun comes to eye level at nominal ranges. At these ranges the time delay in communication between eye and brain from using the sights cost tenths. The time delay from were I fire (again depending on range and circumstances) to the gun being lined with the eye yet another tenth or so.

Now factor in a possible moving target or you yourself moving and getting a sight picture is all but a fantasy. At times getting a front sight only is difficult.

So point shooting has a genuine place in my toolbox.

My original post apparently angered a member and for this I am sorry. I should have worded my point differently as to not personalize what I was trying to say.

[threegun]

I think there is allot more to be said about point shooting than most people understand! Applegate, Fairbain and Jordan put the point shooting method as the primary concern in gunfights. And these are pepole who have been in actual life and death encounters.

How good are you or I going to be able to shoot after being hit? Unless we have had it happen before we will never know.

Why did shootout legends emphasize point shooting? I would argue one reason is because they saw the bad guys ability to return fire crumble after the shooting started and or being hit.

I saw an interview with a highway patrolman who survived a gunfight. He said that while his gun was holstered the bad guy was laughing as he leveled his sights on the lawman. The inexperienced bad guy forgot to turn off the safety giving the lawman the time he needed to draw. Now hear this........once the patrolman began to raise his weapon the bad guy was unable to even manipulate the safety. The smile had turned to sheer horror. The patrolman proceeded to fire multiple rounds into the bad guy killing him.

I think the gunfight experts listed above placed a premium on speed as well as accuracy for this reason.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

I have used non sighted fire in threegun and IPSC matches many times. In fact on almost every target that is inside 15 yards and requires two shots my second shot is fired unsighted. I don't use unsighted fire for the first shot because my gun is already out, up, and at eye level after the first target anyway.

So using the sights for the first shot of a hammer and not the second shot is point-shooting now? See, I was using point-shooting myself and I didn't even realize it.

So point shooting has a genuine place in my toolbox.

OK, let's assume it does. Do you need training to utilize point shooting or will regular practice with sights enable you to use point shooting at the same distances that it is currently viable with no additional training?

[qwman68]

whatever 3gun..you think your the only one who has shot a handgun,really?

[KellyTTE]

Note....*If we leave the holster at the same time (within my limits in range) I will hit you before your arm reaches eye level. It may not be directly between the nipples but it will be a good combat hit. My second shot will be right behind your first shot.........if you get it off. There is no way that less travel to the point of fire by the shooting hand isn't going to save time.*

How many times have you accomplished that shooting feat while someone was shooting at you?

The Spanish have a saying: "It is one thing to talk about bulls, it is another thing entirely to be in the bullring.".

[threegun]

whatever 3gun..you think your the only one who has shot a handgun,really?

I do? Thank you for telling me. Sorry that voicing my opinion drew you to that conclusion.

How many times have you accomplished that shooting feat while someone was shooting at you?

Never thankfully. That isn't relevant however. My quote was simply to point out that the first round can be fired before the gun reaches eye level. That isn't possible with sighted fire. If you don't have to complete the draw stroke logically you save time. Oh and of those who have been shot at and survived the best among them embrace point shooting....wonder why?

So using the sights for the first shot of a hammer and not the second shot is point-shooting now? See, I was using point-shooting myself and I didn't even realize it.

I tried LOL. Guys are using the fact that it appears competition shooters are always using their sights and that is simply not true at least for you and I anyway. We may not be "point shooting" but we ain't exactly using sights either. I have used classic point shooting at close targets even in tourneys. I have done hammers only with no sights for the first or second shot just arms at eye level. I know calling the second shot of a hammer..point shooting is a bit of a stretch but it is un sighted fire.

OK, let's assume it does. Do you need training to utilize point shooting or will regular practice with sights enable you to use point shooting at the same distances that it is currently viable with no additional training?

For traditional point shooting I have to train. For a hammer not so much.

[pax]

Deleted a couple posts for uncalled-for snark.

This is the reason I always cringe when a pointshooting thread comes up. Too bad, because it's endlessly fascinating. But I sure hate to ban, or even threaten to ban, otherwise-good members who simply cannot avoid personal attacks on pointshooting threads.

Let this stand as a warning. No more snark, please. Stick with the topic and avoid personal remarks & personal attacks.

pax

[KellyTTE]

Never thankfully. That isn't relevant however.

It is relevant. When some ITG says:

*If we leave the holster at the same time (within my limits in range) I will hit you before your arm reaches eye level. It may not be directly between the nipples but it will be a good combat hit."

My first retort is:

No plan survives contact with the enemy. - Helmuth von Moltke

Case in point where you said:

"Now hear this........once the patrolman began to raise his weapon the bad guy was unable to even manipulate the safety. The smile had turned to sheer horror. The patrolman proceeded to fire multiple rounds into the bad guy killing him."

In the big scheme of things, no one knows how they're going to react when someone acts to take their life. To comment or postulate otherwise is pure 100% weapons grade baloneyium.

[MLeake]

... is why people get so emotional about this debate.

For those who don't feel they can shoot well until the gun is at eye level, don't. Just realize it may cost you some fraction of a second that could matter.

For those who think getting a flash sight picture is too slow, realize you too are talking about some fraction of a second; it could matter, but being a fraction faster only helps if you get a hit.

Seems to me that practicing at both would be worthwhile.

As I've noted earlier in the thread, though, I'm really not sure how one could practice point firing in most cases. Most of the ranges I've been to require aimed fire - it can be rapid, but must be aimed. I suspect most would ask one to leave, should one practice firing from retention positions, etc.

To those who advocate point shooting, where and how do you practice?

(Caveat: the possible use of laser training aids for this purpose has already been pointed out; now I'm looking for an answer from people who practice with live ammo.)

[pax]

MLeake,

Lots of us have access to private property and private ranges. Sure, not everyone is so fortunate. But a lot of people are.

Kelly,

Stand down a little, please. Given the very careful disclaimers surrounding that paragraph, I think perhaps a little less heat would be in order. And maybe a careful re-reading too; I think perhaps threegun meant something less specific and less braggy than the way you're reading it.

Thanks,

pax

[KellyTTE]

Yes ma'am.

[Deaf Smith]

Are you saying a tenth of a second is unimportant in a gunfight, because there might be a delay in in the impact that fired round might have on the BG?

mddevildog ,

Do you really know how long one tenth of a second is? That's mousetrap speed. The human body won't ever react to a gunshot in that time unless a CNS shot was made.

That amount of difference would not be in any way a determination of the fight. Your reaction time alone will be anywhere from .9 second to three or more depending on where your mind is.

Trying to use .1 second is splitting hairs very very fine. BUT, making solid heart/lung shots is far more important than .1 seconds! So more important one can even risk the 'maybe' .1 second of time.

I'd be curious to see if anyone could point shoot their way through one of Paul Howe's Pistol classes. Either the instructor or student one. Seriously, if point shooting/unsighted fire/whatever the term is this week worked and is so god awful fast, why isn't anyone using this wonderful panacea in USPSA, IDPA, the Olympics, you name it?

KellyTTE,

Howe pretty much has the same idea as for retention/sighted fire as I do. I've read his works and have been tempted to go to his class (but Tom Givens and SouthNarc got in my way this year.)

[threegun]

KellyTTE, I never said I knew how I would react. I never said everyone would react as did the patrolman's adversary. What I did do was speculate on why Applegate, Fairbain, and Jordan thought so highly of point shooting. I added the patrolman's story as positive evidence.

I do know that many folks shooting skills deteriorate when deadly force is faced. I also know that respected experts place a high value on getting the first hit. I can only assume that this is because after being hit many folks shooting skills deteriorate.

My statement you quoted was intended only as an example. It angered a few and Pax told me that my wording was easily misunderstood. I removed it and apologized. This is what I was trying to say without making it personal as I originally did. If man #1 and man #2 drew simultaneously and man #1 cleared leather canted his gun and fired while man #2 had to raise his weapon to eye level....both capable of hitting from said position...man #1 would get his hit in first. This clearly shows a potential advantage in speed (however slight) for point shooting. A good thing to have in some situations. I'm not saying one is better just one is faster.

[threegun]

For those who don't feel they can shoot well until the gun is at eye level, don't. Just realize it may cost you some fraction of a second that could matter.

Wow I wish I could have said it this easy LOL.

To those who advocate point shooting, where and how do you practice?

I R.O. at a local range. Its a volunteer thing but it comes with bennys. I get unsupervised use of the private side of the range. Been working on Sweat'n'bullets shooting on the move/run as often as $ allows.

[KellyTTE]

Howe pretty much has the same idea as for retention/sighted fire as I do. I've read his works and have been tempted to go to his class (but Tom Givens and SouthNarc got in my way this year.)

I'm pretty positive that MSG Howe (I think that the man has done enough for this country that he at least deserves to be addressed properly) and you don't have the same view on the subject. I specifically asked him about point shooting/reflexive shooting/whatever you want to call it and he basically said that its a dead end and cited his program to move the Midland, TX PD from their point shooting program to sighted fire as he taught it. He told me in detail how their PD now has a MUCH higher OIS hit rate (80% versus >25%), lower liability claims (from stray bullets), lower training round counts and a few other facts that aren't for public consumption. He had nothing positive to say about reflexive/point shooting as a training system.

[Deaf Smith]

KellyTTE,

Here is how he felt in his article:

http://www.combatshootingandtactics....g_thoughts.pdf

"I won’t knock point shooting, but I will make a few points. First, I don’t believe you can consistently replicate the stress you will be under in a gunfight on a flat range. Your muscles will be different from the first shot to the last, before or after your workout. I learned a long time ago that all good shooting requires is being consistent and doing the same thing every time.

Next, if you practice point shooting and also practice using your sights, you’re using two systems. Remember what I said about using one system that will do everything or handle all situations? It applies here. I believe that point shooting requires less mental discipline than does using your sights every time. So, when it comes to a high stress situation, which system will your mind revert to, the easy way or the disciplined way? Unfortunately, being human, I believe you will revert to the easy method, which is point shooting. I don’t think your mind will say, it is under 10 yards, it is time to point shoot or it is over 10 yards and it is time to use my sights.
You will simply revert to one of two systems and generally that will be point
shooting."

I agree with him on stress in the square range .vs. street. And to an extent with the learning two sighting systems (actually three if you feel retention shooting is a separate sighting 'system'.) That is why for those who don't practice much I feel a form of retention and sighted fire is the best. BUT, if you are out to master the handgun, there are lots of ways to shoot!

I have found that since in most sighted fire AND point shooting your body/arms indexes on the target and your sights are fairely in line, then the difference is in the 'picture' you pick up with your sights or in the case of point shooting the slide of your gun in your peripheral vision (and that's with below the line of sight and 3/4ths point shooting.)

I feel a form of non-tradional use of sights, I.E. 'flash sight picture' is best. I don't care if you use Weaver, Chapman, Isosceles, reverse weaver, whatever, as long as you either 'see' those sights to verify or bring the weapon up as IF you could see the sights.

I also feel the time it takes to bring the weapon up to eye level .vs. 1/2 hip or 3/4 hip, is not significant in 99.99 percent of the altercations (but the hit rate is!)

And Kelly, you ever hear of Clint Smith? Do you know his rank? Do you know what they call him? I know Howe served, and many others served, and I'm impressed with what they did, but don't get overrought cause people don't mention titles.

[KellyTTE]

What MSG Howe writes is his polite way of addressing issues he feels are a dead end and I'll leave it at that. If you want his true feelings on the subject ask him in person, he's more approachable that way.

As for any other instructor out there, I try very hard to be polite and use honorifics when/where applicable, conversely, you don't see me throwing their last names around dismissively.

[MLeake]

And yet, most of us don't get upset when people discuss Eisenhower (by your logic he should be either "General" or "President"); Lincoln; Jefferson; Washington; Reagan; Chesty Puller; or any number of other people whom we respect, without using honorifics.

I'm pretty sure MSG Howe won't object to being referred to as "Howe," in this context. I'm also pretty sure he'd be happy to know that his thoughts on the matter are actually valued and discussed.

I think you're the only one taking offense, KellyTTE.

BTW, when discussing a position paper, treatise, or book on a subject, the norm is to refer to the author by last name only.

[threegun]

I just don't understand why folks cannot see the benefits from having both shooting options.

I can imagine someone firing at me. I believe it will be very difficult to make a good shooting platform and find the sights in the face of fire. The natural reaction or desire of the body to crouch perhaps flee make this method of shooting difficult. The closer the threat the stronger this desire may be IMO. At closer ranges and given the bodies natural desire to duck, flee, seek cover, or otherwise get out of harms way, I feel that point shooting in some form could play a vital role in survival.

In countless police shootouts I have seen on video those officers who come under fire at close ranges always try to get away asap. Cowards????I don't think so! Its a natural reaction I believe. Possessing a skill that can deliver hits while giving in to these natural forces could be priceless. That involves point shooting.

Aimed fire offers a better chance of a good hit....no doubt but it takes longer and requires some degree of stability......I have yet to see an officer under close fire Duck walk. Nor have I been able to use my sights while running, ducking, etc.

[Microgunner]

Originally Posted by KellyTTE

What MSG Howe writes is his polite way of addressing issues he feels are a dead end and I'll leave it at that. If you want his true feelings on the subject ask him in person, he's more approachable that way.

So, in your opinion, MSG Howe's written offerings are unreliable?

[mavracer]

I believe it will be very difficult to make a good shooting platform and find the sights in the face of fire.

which is why Blackwater and many others are saying this is what is important to practice sighted fire. so that you try to find the sights.

It does work in competition. I have used non sighted fire in threegun and IPSC matches many times. In fact on almost every target that is inside 15 yards and requires two shots my second shot is fired unsighted.

in learning from a couple Grand Masters back in the mid 90s tracking the sights during double taps adds zero time and insures better hits once mastered.

[KellyTTE]

So, in your opinion, MSG Howe's written offerings are unreliable?

Don't troll. Its childish.

[Microgunner]

Originally Posted by KellyTTE

Don't troll. Its childish.

Yes sir.

[KellyTTE]

I just don't understand why folks cannot see the benefits from having both shooting options.

To reiterate what MSG Howe wrote above:

Remember what I said about using one system that will do everything or handle all situations? It applies here. I believe that point shooting requires less mental discipline than does using your sights every time. So, when it comes to a high stress situation, which system will your mind revert to, the easy way or the disciplined way? Unfortunately, being human, I believe you will revert to the easy method, which is point shooting. I don’t think your mind will say, it is under 10 yards, it is time to point shoot or it is over 10 yards and it is time to use my sights.

Given the choice between accurate sighted fire, along with attendant lower liability OR unsighted fire, I choose the former.

[Microgunner]

I don't get it. Some of what MSG Howe writes is a polite avoidance of his true opinion and some is gospel? How do I tell the difference?