Playing around with point fire as opposed to aimed fire, and thoughts on CCW training - Page 2

markj · January 19, 2012, 04:30 PM

Man my carry piece dont have any sights

the new colt new agent has trench sites. Yeah they work but Ifind point shooting it to be fast and accurate at close distance. Just got it last year and have practised shooting it both ways. Point aim seems to work well like the old squirt gun shooter days

get a 22 and practise it, it feels very natural.

Like wingshooting, I dont look down that barrel at the site, if I did i would miss. My eye is on the bird, the gun follows thru and I have a meal

got pics of the game I shoot in my album, it goes back like 45 years now.

BlueTrain · January 20, 2012, 07:27 AM

I said there's still a valid reason to practice shooting at 25 yards, the simple reason being it's hard enough to hit something at that distance even using sights (with a handgun). Point shooting or not, it is a point target, not an area target. You pretty much have to practice at every range.

Another point not mentioned is that, like with formal target shooting, point shooting will be easier with some handguns than with others and it will be entirely a personal thing. Some writers spoke of adapting your gun to your hand, usually with the grip, and that will help a lot. To be both fast and accurate, you have to be smooth, practiced and "natural," whatever that might be. Shooting with your other hand probably wouldn't be natural, for instance, but mostly it means what you've become accustomed to over the years. It's mightly hard to unlearn something you've been doing for years.

K_Mac · January 20, 2012, 11:19 AM

Over the last couple of years I have tried to work on point shooting at least a little each time out. I have also worked on the mechanics over and over during dry-fire drills. I am not as consistent as MLeake, but he is a better shot than I am regardless of technique I imagine. My consistency has improved though. Point shooting has caused me to focus more on my grip. It has shown me that a slight change in grip can make a big difference in accuracy. It has also shown me that at typical self-defense distances I can point and shoot with reasonable confidence if required. Being more aware of the mechanics of shooting has made me a better shot, with or without sights IMO.

MLeake · January 20, 2012, 11:44 AM

Consistent grip will definitely help, whether aimed or not.

You'll find that most of my traditional guns have aftermarket grips or grip panels. My polymers have interchangeable backstraps. My old S&W Model 18 wears a Tyler T-grip adapter.

Every gun I own is tailored to fit my hand the way I like. This helps both with getting a consistent grip, every time I draw, and with giving me a better tactile feel for where the gun is pointed.

In other words, in addition to practice, I cheat wherever possible.

ltc444 · January 20, 2012, 02:01 PM

As a Bullseye shooter, Point shooting Techniques are BAD HABITS. It was not until I joined an AR Sheriff's Deprartmen did I begain using them.

To me the only difference between point shooting and Precision shooting is eye focus.

In Point shooting your eyes are focused on the target and you adjust your aim by bullet strike.

In precision shooting your eyes are focused on the front sight and you adjust your aim by use of the sights.

Everything else is done PRECISELY the same. This precision is achieved by repition. Most training can be done without fireing a shot.

Holster in the same position, grip the but the same way, draw, assume your stance. Breathing, muscle tension, shoulder position, rthym and finally shoot.

If the elements are practiced individually and in combination to a point that they are unconious, then you will be able to point shoot successfully. Until then use your sights.

MLeake · January 20, 2012, 02:32 PM

ltc444, I guess the question would be, how does that work if you can't assume a stance?

For instance, while moving behind cover, or while fending off an attack, what happens when you can't assume your long-practiced posture?

Seems to me that might pose its own challenges. Have you experimented with any of this?

BlueTrain · January 20, 2012, 03:09 PM

In firing a 105mm howitizer one can sometimes actually see the projectile in flight from behind the gun. But I somehow doubt one could see the strike of a bullet fired at a living target ten feet away while you're (presumably) shooting as fast as you can, and of course as precisely as you can. In any case, I can see what you're driving at but I don't think a typical armed civilian is going to be able to practice enough. And as I've pointed out before, probably in this thread, no one here seems to think one ever gets enough practice.

MLeake · January 20, 2012, 03:11 PM

BT, that's because no matter how good we may get, we can most often find somebody who can humble us.

I tend to compare myself against people who are good at things, not the norm, and so most of the time I am trying to improve, rather than satisfying myself with how things are.

Call it a competitive streak.

BlueTrain · January 20, 2012, 03:34 PM

All of this stuff is possible. None of it is easy.

sigxder · January 24, 2012, 01:40 AM

All the early teachers of point shooting be it Mr.'s Sykes, Fairbairn, Applegate, and later Bill Jordan never taught that it was point shooting vs. sighted shooting. I do not understand why this myth is still perpetuated. The point shooting method was developed by the British/Chinese police force in Shanghi because they were not doing well with the target style method of training that was being taught at the time. The reason being as today most handgun fights were close up affairs.
If one tried to take their time raising the pistol to the classic dueling stance, one eye closed, look for the rght sight picture and so on you were basically dead. The classic technique of shooting simply didn't work n these sort distance, compressed time frame situations. They developed a system for the up close, down and dirty street fights they were in. At close range the balance between speed of firing vs. accuracy changed dramatically. At close range it was found an exact sight picture took too much time and was not needed. Accurate enough and fast enough was the key. It is aimed fire by the way. Aimed by body indexing.
Some encounters were so close you came out of the holster shooting. Others you could get to the 3/4's position. Further out arm fully extended. And with enough distance get behind cover, use two hands, and a good sight picture. In Shooting to Live, Kill Or Be Killed, and the other texts on point shooting all show two handed shooting behind cover when possible. It was just that usually with a handgun it wasn't practical because of the distance. All agreed you should be taught both. The problem is many in the Modern School as it is called try to debunk point shootng as some sort of Pray and spray.
Nothing could be farther from the truth. You are aiming up very close by body indexing. A little further out by pointing te gun as you would your finger. Somewhere you may look over the sights or use the guns outline for aiming. Back far enough and use as muc sight picture as you have time for. This is the question for most civilians. At what ranges are you most likely to use a handgun? Feet not yards.
So if self defense with a handgun is your goal much time should be spent practicing at the distances you will use your weapon. Clos up you will point shoot. you just don't have time for anything else. And it is a method dveloped and proven in combat. It has already been validated for many decades. It is still a system that must be practiced. You can't spend 10 minutes at a range point shooting and think you have mastered it. But it is smple to learn compared to other systems.
One of the goals of point shooting was to train OSS personnel who would be dropped behind enemy lines a fast, effective way to learn to shoot a pistol. That and/or a dagger being the only weapon you're likely to have. Learning codes, languages, and so on encompassed most of your training. You were their to gather information and get it back to where it could be used. If you had to resort to a weapon your cover was blown. But f it was you needd to be able to use your pistol well.
Anyone involved in Martial Arts is vry awar of Bruc Lee's ideas of zones of slf defense. At longer ranges kicking works the best. Closer and hand techniques, knee's and elbows. Nose to nose and grappling comes into play. The lesson has ben learned and that's why Mixed Martial Arts involves it all. If you only believe that kickng is effective, or say grappling you are very mistaken. Point shooting is grappling, knees and elbows. Modern Technique is kicking when you can stay back out of the other guys range. But you better be well versed in all of it if you want to stand a chance of winning.

**Frank Ettin** · January 24, 2012, 02:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sigxder

...The point shooting method was developed by the British/Chinese police force in Shanghi because they were not doing well with the target style method of training that was being taught at the time.

...The classic technique of shooting simply didn't work n these sort distance, compressed time frame situations. ... At close range it was found an exact sight picture took too much time and was not needed. Accurate enough and fast enough was the key. It is aimed fire by the way. Aimed by body indexing

....The problem is many in the Modern School as it is called try to debunk point shootng as some sort of Pray and spray...

On the other hand, the flash sight picture of the Modern Technique of the Pistol is not the "classic technique" with an "exact sight picture." Here's how Greg Morrison describes the flash sight picture (Morrison, Gregory, The Modern Technique of the Pistol, Gunsite Press, 1991, pp 87 - 88, emphasis added):

Quote:

...The flash sight-picture involves a glimpse of the sight-picture sufficient to confirm alignment....The target shooter’s gaze at the front sight has proven inappropriate for the bulk of pistolfighting. However, the practical shooter must start at this level and work up to the flash, which becomes reflexive as motor skills are refined. With practice, a consistent firing platform and firing stroke align the sights effortlessly. This index to the target eventually becomes an instantaneous confirmation of the sight-picture.

...Using the flash sight-picture programs the reflex of aligning the weapon’s sights with the target instantly....

I've trained that way, and it does work that way.

BlueTrain · January 24, 2012, 08:26 AM

I hope I don't repeat myself by saying something I've already written in this thread (or saying something contrary!) but here goes anyway.

I'd say that most of these various techinques have been discussed for longer than most of us are old. Handguns haven't changed all that much in the last hundred years and after all, some people even seem to think they haven't progressed at all since perfection was achieved in 1911. So not a great deal has been discovered about combat with a handgun (in other words, gunfighting) since then. However, the proponents of the different schools, shall we say, have fairly different backgrounds and some, just like myself, have absolutely no gunfighting experience. I don't think Elmer Keith was ever in a gunfight, although he witnessed a few. If he did, I missed it when he wrote about it. For others who did, it is curious that they actually wrote very little about their actual experiences in the event. Perhaps that's just modesty and good manners.

In the old days, the best fast draw artist and trick shooter was probably Ed McGivern. He claimed that he always used his sights. On the other hand, there are several photos of Keither as well as Jordan literally shooting from the hip. The more you learn about what other people did, the more confused you become. I believe only Fairbairn actually allowed than an individual could come up with some good ideas all on his own. But he also admitted that the more he learned, the less sure he was about things. Remember, experts are often wrong but seldom in doubt.

The so-called modern technique of the pistol, which is about 50 years old, originated with, I assume, Jeff Cooper, who did have military combat experience and later got into shooting games back when Western-style fast draw was all the rage in the late 1950s. His epiphany was when a law officer "cleared the deck" by the simple act of using the sights on his revolver and using two hands.

That's pretty much where we are now.

Some writers, many of whom have had gunfighting experience, mention drawing from concealment but it doesn't seem to be the focus of a lot in what I've read. In all of my experiences, that's the hard part.

January 20, 2012, 07:27 AM	#27
BlueTrain Senior Member Join Date: September 26, 2005 Location: Northern Virginia Posts: 6,141	I said there's still a valid reason to practice shooting at 25 yards, the simple reason being it's hard enough to hit something at that distance even using sights (with a handgun). Point shooting or not, it is a point target, not an area target. You pretty much have to practice at every range. Another point not mentioned is that, like with formal target shooting, point shooting will be easier with some handguns than with others and it will be entirely a personal thing. Some writers spoke of adapting your gun to your hand, usually with the grip, and that will help a lot. To be both fast and accurate, you have to be smooth, practiced and "natural," whatever that might be. Shooting with your other hand probably wouldn't be natural, for instance, but mostly it means what you've become accustomed to over the years. It's mightly hard to unlearn something you've been doing for years. __________________ Shoot low, sheriff. They're riding Shetlands! Underneath the starry flag, civilize 'em with a Krag, and return us to our own beloved homes! Buy War Bonds.

January 20, 2012, 11:19 AM	#28
K_Mac Senior Member Join Date: September 15, 2010 Posts: 1,850	Over the last couple of years I have tried to work on point shooting at least a little each time out. I have also worked on the mechanics over and over during dry-fire drills. I am not as consistent as MLeake, but he is a better shot than I am regardless of technique I imagine. My consistency has improved though. Point shooting has caused me to focus more on my grip. It has shown me that a slight change in grip can make a big difference in accuracy. It has also shown me that at typical self-defense distances I can point and shoot with reasonable confidence if required. Being more aware of the mechanics of shooting has made me a better shot, with or without sights IMO. __________________ "Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Benjamin Franklin

January 20, 2012, 03:09 PM	#32
BlueTrain Senior Member Join Date: September 26, 2005 Location: Northern Virginia Posts: 6,141	In firing a 105mm howitizer one can sometimes actually see the projectile in flight from behind the gun. But I somehow doubt one could see the strike of a bullet fired at a living target ten feet away while you're (presumably) shooting as fast as you can, and of course as precisely as you can. In any case, I can see what you're driving at but I don't think a typical armed civilian is going to be able to practice enough. And as I've pointed out before, probably in this thread, no one here seems to think one ever gets enough practice. __________________ Shoot low, sheriff. They're riding Shetlands! Underneath the starry flag, civilize 'em with a Krag, and return us to our own beloved homes! Buy War Bonds.

January 20, 2012, 03:34 PM	#34
BlueTrain Senior Member Join Date: September 26, 2005 Location: Northern Virginia Posts: 6,141	All of this stuff is possible. None of it is easy. __________________ Shoot low, sheriff. They're riding Shetlands! Underneath the starry flag, civilize 'em with a Krag, and return us to our own beloved homes! Buy War Bonds.

January 24, 2012, 08:26 AM	#37
BlueTrain Senior Member Join Date: September 26, 2005 Location: Northern Virginia Posts: 6,141	I hope I don't repeat myself by saying something I've already written in this thread (or saying something contrary!) but here goes anyway. I'd say that most of these various techinques have been discussed for longer than most of us are old. Handguns haven't changed all that much in the last hundred years and after all, some people even seem to think they haven't progressed at all since perfection was achieved in 1911. So not a great deal has been discovered about combat with a handgun (in other words, gunfighting) since then. However, the proponents of the different schools, shall we say, have fairly different backgrounds and some, just like myself, have absolutely no gunfighting experience. I don't think Elmer Keith was ever in a gunfight, although he witnessed a few. If he did, I missed it when he wrote about it. For others who did, it is curious that they actually wrote very little about their actual experiences in the event. Perhaps that's just modesty and good manners. In the old days, the best fast draw artist and trick shooter was probably Ed McGivern. He claimed that he always used his sights. On the other hand, there are several photos of Keither as well as Jordan literally shooting from the hip. The more you learn about what other people did, the more confused you become. I believe only Fairbairn actually allowed than an individual could come up with some good ideas all on his own. But he also admitted that the more he learned, the less sure he was about things. Remember, experts are often wrong but seldom in doubt. The so-called modern technique of the pistol, which is about 50 years old, originated with, I assume, Jeff Cooper, who did have military combat experience and later got into shooting games back when Western-style fast draw was all the rage in the late 1950s. His epiphany was when a law officer "cleared the deck" by the simple act of using the sights on his revolver and using two hands. That's pretty much where we are now. Some writers, many of whom have had gunfighting experience, mention drawing from concealment but it doesn't seem to be the focus of a lot in what I've read. In all of my experiences, that's the hard part. __________________ Shoot low, sheriff. They're riding Shetlands! Underneath the starry flag, civilize 'em with a Krag, and return us to our own beloved homes! Buy War Bonds.

January 19, 2012, 04:30 PM	#26
markj Senior Member Join Date: October 27, 2005 Location: Crescent Iowa Posts: 2,971	Man my carry piece dont have any sights the new colt new agent has trench sites. Yeah they work but Ifind point shooting it to be fast and accurate at close distance. Just got it last year and have practised shooting it both ways. Point aim seems to work well like the old squirt gun shooter days get a 22 and practise it, it feels very natural. Like wingshooting, I dont look down that barrel at the site, if I did i would miss. My eye is on the bird, the gun follows thru and I have a meal got pics of the game I shoot in my album, it goes back like 45 years now.

January 20, 2012, 11:44 AM	#29
MLeake Senior Member Join Date: November 15, 2007 Location: Outside KC, MO Posts: 10,128	Consistent grip will definitely help, whether aimed or not. You'll find that most of my traditional guns have aftermarket grips or grip panels. My polymers have interchangeable backstraps. My old S&W Model 18 wears a Tyler T-grip adapter. Every gun I own is tailored to fit my hand the way I like. This helps both with getting a consistent grip, every time I draw, and with giving me a better tactile feel for where the gun is pointed. In other words, in addition to practice, I cheat wherever possible.

January 20, 2012, 02:01 PM	#30
ltc444 Senior Member Join Date: March 3, 2011 Location: Vernon AZ Posts: 1,195	As a Bullseye shooter, Point shooting Techniques are BAD HABITS. It was not until I joined an AR Sheriff's Deprartmen did I begain using them. To me the only difference between point shooting and Precision shooting is eye focus. In Point shooting your eyes are focused on the target and you adjust your aim by bullet strike. In precision shooting your eyes are focused on the front sight and you adjust your aim by use of the sights. Everything else is done PRECISELY the same. This precision is achieved by repition. Most training can be done without fireing a shot. Holster in the same position, grip the but the same way, draw, assume your stance. Breathing, muscle tension, shoulder position, rthym and finally shoot. If the elements are practiced individually and in combination to a point that they are unconious, then you will be able to point shoot successfully. Until then use your sights.

January 20, 2012, 02:32 PM	#31
MLeake Senior Member Join Date: November 15, 2007 Location: Outside KC, MO Posts: 10,128	ltc444, I guess the question would be, how does that work if you can't assume a stance? For instance, while moving behind cover, or while fending off an attack, what happens when you can't assume your long-practiced posture? Seems to me that might pose its own challenges. Have you experimented with any of this?

January 20, 2012, 03:11 PM	#33
MLeake Senior Member Join Date: November 15, 2007 Location: Outside KC, MO Posts: 10,128	BT, that's because no matter how good we may get, we can most often find somebody who can humble us. I tend to compare myself against people who are good at things, not the norm, and so most of the time I am trying to improve, rather than satisfying myself with how things are. Call it a competitive streak.

January 24, 2012, 01:40 AM	#35
sigxder Senior Member Join Date: August 20, 2009 Posts: 390	All the early teachers of point shooting be it Mr.'s Sykes, Fairbairn, Applegate, and later Bill Jordan never taught that it was point shooting vs. sighted shooting. I do not understand why this myth is still perpetuated. The point shooting method was developed by the British/Chinese police force in Shanghi because they were not doing well with the target style method of training that was being taught at the time. The reason being as today most handgun fights were close up affairs. If one tried to take their time raising the pistol to the classic dueling stance, one eye closed, look for the rght sight picture and so on you were basically dead. The classic technique of shooting simply didn't work n these sort distance, compressed time frame situations. They developed a system for the up close, down and dirty street fights they were in. At close range the balance between speed of firing vs. accuracy changed dramatically. At close range it was found an exact sight picture took too much time and was not needed. Accurate enough and fast enough was the key. It is aimed fire by the way. Aimed by body indexing. Some encounters were so close you came out of the holster shooting. Others you could get to the 3/4's position. Further out arm fully extended. And with enough distance get behind cover, use two hands, and a good sight picture. In Shooting to Live, Kill Or Be Killed, and the other texts on point shooting all show two handed shooting behind cover when possible. It was just that usually with a handgun it wasn't practical because of the distance. All agreed you should be taught both. The problem is many in the Modern School as it is called try to debunk point shootng as some sort of Pray and spray. Nothing could be farther from the truth. You are aiming up very close by body indexing. A little further out by pointing te gun as you would your finger. Somewhere you may look over the sights or use the guns outline for aiming. Back far enough and use as muc sight picture as you have time for. This is the question for most civilians. At what ranges are you most likely to use a handgun? Feet not yards. So if self defense with a handgun is your goal much time should be spent practicing at the distances you will use your weapon. Clos up you will point shoot. you just don't have time for anything else. And it is a method dveloped and proven in combat. It has already been validated for many decades. It is still a system that must be practiced. You can't spend 10 minutes at a range point shooting and think you have mastered it. But it is smple to learn compared to other systems. One of the goals of point shooting was to train OSS personnel who would be dropped behind enemy lines a fast, effective way to learn to shoot a pistol. That and/or a dagger being the only weapon you're likely to have. Learning codes, languages, and so on encompassed most of your training. You were their to gather information and get it back to where it could be used. If you had to resort to a weapon your cover was blown. But f it was you needd to be able to use your pistol well. Anyone involved in Martial Arts is vry awar of Bruc Lee's ideas of zones of slf defense. At longer ranges kicking works the best. Closer and hand techniques, knee's and elbows. Nose to nose and grappling comes into play. The lesson has ben learned and that's why Mixed Martial Arts involves it all. If you only believe that kickng is effective, or say grappling you are very mistaken. Point shooting is grappling, knees and elbows. Modern Technique is kicking when you can stay back out of the other guys range. But you better be well versed in all of it if you want to stand a chance of winning.