Am I missing something? (point vs. practical shooting vs. etc)

[Cosmoline]

I've seen many debates about the relative merits of various handgun shooting methods. I have no clue whether point shooting or aimed shooting would be better in close quarters with short guns. I hope I never find out.

Because it's my understanding that most real life close-quarters gunfights are nasty, fast affairs where the best of training may not save your life. In other words, SOMETHING TO AVOID AT ALL COSTS! So I tend to view my sidearm as a backup defensive weapon, to be used only to get me OUT of bad situations and only if absolutely needed. If faced with a threat armed only with my sidearm, I'd want to move BACKWARDS and possibly jump out a window, rather than walking or running into a field of foes, shooting them like an action hero.

If I actually had to be involved in a big shootout (ie because it's my job as an LEO, soldier or to save a life), I'd want three things:

A RIFLE

CONCEALMENT

and

COVER, LOTS OF COVER

And I'd be planning on aiming my rifle. Even if this means just jumping behind a small berm of soil, it seems to me getting down on the ground or behind a building ASAP is far more vital than how fast you can reload your 1911 or how well you point shoot your wondernine.

Is there a technique or school that emphasizes these things? Or are they all about standing completely exposed, upright, and relying on your superior speed with a sidearm from about ten feet?

 

[tetleyb]

Because it's my understanding that most real life close-quarters gunfights are nasty, fast affairs where the best of training may not save your life.

Luck will always beat skill.

If I actually had to be involved in a big shootout (ie because it's my job as an LEO, soldier or to save a life), I'd want three things:

A RIFLE

CONCEALMENT

and

COVER, LOTS OF COVER

Want VS Will Have and/or Get.

As you said, gunfights are a nasty thing, which happen THAT fast. My main job is training police officers with firearms. 95% of the time all they have is a handgun. The rest of the time MAYBE a shotgun and a few with a rifle.

Concealment and cover are generally not present. As in your walking up to a house and a guy comes out shooting at you. Your walking up to a traffic stop and the guy comes out of car shooting. You don't always have time and/or the luxury to move to cover. Bullets are coming at you and you have to stop that threat NOW, RIGHT NOW. Or risk death or great bodily injury.

Without getting into the point shooting vs aimed fire debacle/fight, I need ONE system (for lack of better terms) I can use all around. I need a system that is easy to teach, reliable, and MOST importantly, a system I can go into a court of law and defend. Yes, I have had too.

Are there schools which teach movement to cover fire, using cover, etc. Yes, I've been to alot of them. Some police oriented, some not.

And the debate goes on...


:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

 

[444]

tetleyb makes a point that I think is lost on all these internet theoretical discussions.
What you WANT doesn't matter. What does matter is what you have at the time this crisis occurs. For private citizens as well as law enforcement officers, this is usually a handgun. I would bet that in the vast majority of cases, those involved in gun fights would have loved to have had a rifle, concealment and cover. However they were dealing with the real world situatuion and not an internet chat.
I have taken two basic handgun classes. One taught only basic weapons manipulations and square range shooting. The other spent part of the time on shooting on the move and the use of cover. I doubt that you will find many schools that teach basic handgun classes which center around shooting on the move etc. These are more advanced skills and are taught in the second and third level classes.

EDIT: I re-read my post and it sounded kind of harsh. That wasn't my intent.

 

[Ankeny]

There is a general misconception that all IPSC shooters do is charge into arrays of card board blasting away with reckless abandon. Yeah, that's what we do on match day, or so it appears, but there is much more to it.

While I still do a lot of practicing on my draw, the majority of my practice time goes into shooting on the move, shooting from awkward positions, shooting around obstacles, shooting while moving laterally, shooting while backing up (I shoot IDPA too), shooting while moving to cover, shooting from cover, shooting while seated, and so on. In this day and age of freestyle IPSC gaming, stand and shoot won't cut it. We have several members in our local club who are LEO trainers, LEO officers, etc., who shoot IPSC to improve their gunhandling skills. They get their tactics elsewhere.

If you want to learn how to be proficient with your carry gun as it relates to street fighting, try a basic class from Thunder Ranch, Gun Site, D.R. Middlebrooks (point shooting), etc. Find what works for you and take the Internet chatter with a grain of salt.

 

[7677]

Awareness and recognizing danger signs are the two most over looked aspects of survival on the streets. Honestly there is little new on the subject of officer survival tactics. It is the simple, unglamorous basics that will keep an officer alive and it is the same mistakes that have occurred for over a century continue to get officers killed. Some of these rules and stats also apply to those who have a ccw and carrying a weapon.

FBI summaries report that of officers slain, almost 60 percent did not even have their guns unholstered.

No type or style of shooting can save you if you are unaware of your suroundings and you don't recognized danger signs.

). From the NYPD gunfight reports to the FBI’s annual “Officer Killed†summary, the statistics show that officers tend to die in close, not just at 7 yards but at 7 feet, and they tend to neutralize their attackers and survive unscathed as the distances increase.

As LEO's we are losing the close quarters battles because officer are taught on square ranges to stand still draw, aim and fire. Lets face it at six feet the distance where most interviews between LEO’s and suspects occur things happen fast standing still, and trying to out draw a suspect and then aim equals the next stat.

FBI statistical summaries reveal that of victim officers who managed to shoot back, only 15 percent managed to kill or even hit their assailants.

This is why I believe that point shooting has its place in LEO training. The simple fact is action beats reaction and officers are losing close quarters gun battles because they are doing what they were trained to do on the squared range. The last time I was in FLETC I provided this in a demo with simunitions where the suspect had a gun down by his side and when he felt the time was right he would raise the gun and shot the officer. The distance involved was less then 7 yards. Most of the Agents in this class froze and/or stood still and traded rounds with the suspect. Second place in a gun fight is not what you want. I went last and when I saw his arm start to raise I side step him and fired. I continued to flank him and kept firing till he was down. I did not use my sights nor did I get hit. I put on this demo another two times for other classes.

In the ten-year period between 1986 and 1996 one out of every seven officers killed was off duty. The report breaks down the circumstances of the assaults even further. In that same 10-year time period, 88 officers were killed during robberies, a staggering 47 of those officers were off duty at the time.

Makes you wonder doesn't it?

These stats are just a small part of a larger study I did on the reason’s why LEO’s are killed in the line of duty.

Cosmoline, you might want to check this thread out,
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=14921