Point shooting any one?

[Al Thompson]

Saying good sight did not exist years ago is simply wrong.

Nobody said good sights didn't exist, but rather they weren't anywhere but on a custom handgun. Trainers in that age knew that the S&W or Colt their students would get issued had horrible sights that (as you note) would not work in "a trench warfare, the jungle, an alley". Luckily, now we do.

As time is taken with this drill, would not stepping forward be a safer conclusion, as in going immediately to hands on, deflecting, disarming?

Seems that as we use and evaluate "Force on Force" training, tying your opponent up prior to accessing your on weapons seems to make sense.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

My point was you can't very well use sights if you can't see them. Getting a flash sight picture with a USGI 1911 circa 1943 is an entirely different challenge than doing the same thing with most modern commercial 1911s.

Personally, I own a timer and have access to a place where I can draw, move and shoot. I know what works for me and it isn't point shooting by and large. Unless there is some compelling reason to use a body index, I'm going to use sights.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by sigxder

...Or a flash sight picture as Mr. Cooper would call (Mr. Applegates take on point shooting) with the gun extended looking over the sights...

That's not really what the term "flash sight picture" refers to. 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):

...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....There is good reason for sights: one needs them to align the barrel with the target reliably....

And I can guarantee that when we are doing our drills at Gunsite (including two shots from the holster into the target center of mass at 7 yards in 1.5 seconds or less) we are looking at our front sights.

Originally Posted by sigxder

...What do you mean by "better" sights?...

I mean sights that are easier and quicker to see.

A while ago I wrote this article on some experimenting I was doing with sights.

[zombietactics]

So much of what we believe to be "true" is based upon unspoken assumptions which are themselves un-examined.

Earlier in this thread someone posed the question "Who do you think would win that gunfight?" in reference to comparing two different techniques ... a form of point-shooting vs. a form of sighted fire. The assumption seems to be that time-out-of-holster-to-first-shot would be the determiner of the "win".

Given that something approaching absolute zero is the number of times two men have faced off and tried to outdraw each other in a "gunfight", the assumption that a time-out-of-holster measurement should be our major concern seems flawed on its face.

Even so, if one is .5 seconds faster than the other, it confers an advantage, but only if effective accuracy isn't compromised. As such it seems that we really need to be concerned about what is effective accuracy at differing ranges, and what speeds determine the techniques required to achieve it.

Aside from outliers and exceptions (D.R. Middlebrooks comes to mind), I don't see point shooting being effectively accurate beyond about 3 yards or so ... maybe a touch more. Being faster to the first shot (and thereby having time to shoot more times than your opponent) doesn't get you anything useful beyond those distances.

The opposite case holds true as well. Closer distances yield less pressure towards the necessity of carefully aimed fire. The faster man (albeit slightly less accurate) landing multiple rounds on pelvis, chest, shoulder and belly is almost unarguably at an advantage over one placing a careful center-mass shot in the same amount of time.

[JN01]

For the advocates of front sight focus all the time, every time, I have a question.

How are you able to maintain a focus on the front sight and sight picture while you are moving? How about when you and the target are moving?

I'm not a high speed/low drag kind of guy or a competitive shooter, but in my own personal experience, I'm not capable of doing so. I can get reasonable hits while moving (within 15'-20" or so) if I keep the gun just below line of sight (mouth/nose level). The gun and sight are in my peripheral vision, but my focus is on the target and I can't say that I am really aware of any kind of sight picture.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by JN01

For the advocates of front sight focus all the time, every time, I have a question.

How are you able to maintain a focus on the front sight and sight picture while you are moving? How about when you and the target are moving?...

By practicing doing it.

All I can really tell you is that I have practiced it and done it.

And a while ago I took a class with Louis Awerbuck on moving targets (and shooting and moving). The final exercises involved four manikins grouped together and moving in relation to each other. One was designated the "target", and the others were designated "no shoots." Hitting the target and not a "no shoot" (either directly or as a shoot-through) required some pretty precise shooting. But we found that we could do it -- with a focus on the front sight.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

How are you able to maintain a focus on the front sight and sight picture while you are moving? How about when you and the target are moving?

In the Tac-Pro Shooting Center Primary Pistol class, we did shooting while moving on multiple targets - forward, backward, left and right - everything front sight focus. Everything but backward was done at a full out run, not "shuffle your feet slowly as you aim". Everybody in the beginner-level class was making hits, good hits, by the end of three days instruction.

The main problem isn't so much making good hits as not breaking your neck off a nice, clear square range since you aren't looking where you are going but looking at the sight.

[JN01]

The main problem isn't so much making good hits as not breaking your neck off a nice, clear square range since you aren't looking where you are going but looking at the sight.

That's a big part of it, plus your gun hand (and gun) are kind of bouncing around as you are running.

Are you talking about maintaining a classic sight picture, an off and on again sight picture, or some other rough semblance of a sight picture?

[Brit]

So much depends on were you are, in the street, the world.

Certain special forces were taught to "Take a knee" till the rear of a Pub in Belfast, and other sites, had you finding a jagged piece of broken glass, or the jagged base of a beer bottle.

Watching footage of US Marines in Fallujah, wearing knee and elbow pads, the heavy duty ones that builders use, showed how safety over rode looking cool!

Advancing to contact with rifle at point shoulder, as my Dad would say, necessity is the Mother of invention.

Seems like the both eyes open technique was as important as the "Flash sight picture" And a 30 round magazine didn't hurt either!

The bright gold bead, in my mind, is a Short barreled 12 gage piece of kit.

The sights on my carry/IDPA Glock 19, TruGlo, three bright green dots, highly visible, night or day. This set up allowed me to win most accurate slot, at a recent IDPA match, 68 competitors took the field that day, I was real chuffed at that, being 77 YOA, was a bonus!

We all know a Pistol competition is not a gun fight, chunks of cardboard do not shoot back! But certain skills can be tried out, and honed, in this arena.

[Deaf Smith]

Long time ago a guy named Jeff Cooper decided to use the SWCPL (South West Combat Pistol League) as a lab to see what shooting methods worked best.

He came up with this thing called the 'Modern Technique. Well part of this MT was the 'presentation', a fancy word for drawing. He ended up with the Weaver Stance, 'flash sight picture', surprise break, big bore simi-auto, and other refinements.

Now we can argue about stances or ways of seeing the sights or 9mm .vs .45, but the concept that really stuck me was this:

He wrote that in darkness if you could not see the sights you brought the weapon up just as if you could see them! You trained to present the weapon on target so well with the sights you really didn't need them at the closer ranges! The 'flash sight picture' was only to verify a ROUGH ALIGNMENT, not a perfect alignment.

Now with point shooting you start out by ignoring the sights and focusing on the target. That is what point shooting is all about. At the most you use your peripheral vision to see the weapon as a silhouette below the eye level.

Coopers idea was to use the sights, and 'stance', to build up ones ingrained habits till the 'stance' indexed right were you wanted the bullet to go, and thus the sights were used just to verify the alignment and not adjust the sight picture in any way. That is what the 'flash sight picture' does. No adjustment, but verifying you are on target.

If there was daylight and you could see the sights you then used them if at all possible AND YOU TRAINED THAT WAY! If for some reason you could not see the sights then the ingrained habits of drawing and firing with flash sight picture would give you the hits.

And that is really the big difference. One trains to not see the sights at all (point shooting), the other (MT) to see the sights only briefly, and not adjusting them, and relying on the presentation to index on the target.

The presentation does not have to be the Weaver Stance, or Isosceles or Chapman, or any particular stance as long as it is repeatable.

So you can see that by devising a presentation method that more-or-less indexes the weapon on the target and verifying the sights one can have both a method of shooting in darkness or daylight.

Deaf

[boondocker385]

Need to be able to do both depending upon the situation.

[Brit]

So you can see that by devising a presentation method that more-or-less indexes the weapon on the target and verifying the sights one can have both a method of shooting in darkness or daylight.
Deaf

I did this in the early 80s, and called it the "Punch Draw" adding TruGlo sights later, got the best of both worlds, any light conditions.

[sigxder]

Again some seem to be missing the whole concept of point shooting. It is for very close situations (which is where most bad things happen to civilians) in which bringing the gun up to eye level and getting a good sight picture is not possible. Of course if you have the time and distance to get your gun out, get a good sight picture (if you can behind cover or concealment), and engage your target you do.
The problem is again time and distance. The very term "belly gun" came into existence because that was often all you had time to do! You were at contact or near contact distance and simply had to draw your gun, put your gun up to you opponent (belly, chest, whatever) and start shooting. Usually something along the lines of the picture you see of Bill Jordan in his text "No Second Place Winner". Mr. Jordan could do some almost super human feats with a gun with sights (if distance allowed) or without.
Point shooting is a technique used for very close encounters. It is for very close combat with a handgun. Which is what most civilians encounter. You do not "ignore the sights" as someone suggested. If time and distance allow you use them. It is a specific technique for a certain set of circumstances. It just so happens these are usually the circumstances a civilian and often an LEO will encounter.
People that dislike point shooting are ignoring the fact it has been effectively for a long time. It has a proven record. What they don't seem to understand or can't "think out of the box" of how they have been trained it is one more tool in your toolbox to help you survive. If you need a screwdriver and all you have is pliers you can't get the job done. To teach people that every situation can be addressed by drawing with two hands, taking whatever stance you practice, lining up your dots, bars, or whatever solves every situation is simply not true.
What if you can't get into your pet stance because you are pinned against a wall? The point is the Old Timers taught both methods of shooting. They had complete tool boxes for the particular job at hand. And survived using these tools. To say that point shooting is not a valid and useful technique defies the fact that when used in the context it is designed for it is all you can use. You are too close, have too little time, and cannot use a technique taught for pinpoint shooting at longer distances. And again yes you train in the "Modern Method" for when time and distance make this the best tool.
I've heard instructors say "you take this stance vs. that stance because". What if you can't possibly get into that specific stance because of the nature of the fight? The concept is simple really. But some try to make it difficult. If you are a Martial Arts instructor do you only teach your students a sidekick and tell them that technique works for every situation? And must be executed from a Cat Stance? It's hard to sidekick someone who has you on the ground pounding you. Is the sidekick a good proven technique? In the right circumstances yes. It has worked for centuries. Doesn't do much good when your being "ground pounded"! Learn to shoot from every position you can. Have every tool you can in your toolbox. It makes sense to be prepared. If you are a civilian you will probably not get to pick the circumstances of the fight.
If you can you either chose wisely not to be there. Or you are trying to ambush someone. Frowned on by the law in most circumstances. In the Military an ambush is a preferred technique. It is also preferred by criminals. Not lawful as a technique for many situations for a civilian. LEO's setting up an ambush for John Dillenger, Bonnie and Clyde, and mdern eqivalent situations were all sound tactical choices and legal for those wearing badges. All you can do is train for every possible situation you can. Anything else is foolish.

[FireForged]

Inside of 10 yards I point shoot... 10 yards and beyond I aim

[Brit]

The last post on here, was over a year ago! I just spent over an hour reading all 5 pages!

Very interesting! So many common sense people, making common sense arguments, comments.

My conclusion? Irrespective of methods of aiming/firing? Distances to target, size of this target.

You need a pistol that due to it's design, capacity, sights, ease of carry, manipulation, overall weight, more or less make you pick one over an other.

And this is were the study of real gunfights/attacks, equipment, gets to help making designs on weapons/ammunition/caliber/holsters, get were they are.

Having plenty of ammunition, good, not to heavy, good, concealable, good, accurate and easy to fire, all good points.

Me, a Glock 19, 147g JHP, non plus P, Truglo fiber optic night sights, spare Glock 17 magazine, on opposite side, plus bright (LED) flash light, and of course what we all have, a good folder, Benchmade.

[Brit]

What, no posters after my post #115? No comments on Glock 19's? as in Spray and Pray? I am disappointed.

Back to my coffee.

[Frank Ettin]

Say "good night" Gracie.