Modern Point Shooting

[Mikhail Weiss]

One more thing:

Where is the data whereby we can compare the success of point shooting versus aimed fire? Col. Cooper used to poo-poo the idea of point shooting this way (well, something like this): Point shooters claim great success, but produce little of it when measured.

I take that to mean this: Can point shooters achieve hits? Sure. Can they do so with this method to degrees superior to that of sighted fire? No.

What I also take that to mean is something like this: point shooting is somewhere between a close-range and a very-close-range technique. At such ranges, “acceptable hits” (inside an eight inch circle) are equal to those produced by aimers, yet with a slight edge in speed, perhaps, going to the pointers-and-shooters. Beyond these close distances, however, point shooters lose ground quickly and must turn into aimers.

But where, by the way, has the success-rate data of both techniques, measured one against the other, been quantified for the curious?

Just asking. Not intending to step on any toes.

 

[smince]

Absolutely, there is a time and place for the use of your sights.

I just happen to believe that a close-range, dynamic gunfight isn't one of those places.

Col. Cooper used to poo-poo the idea of point shooting this way (well, something like this): Point shooters claim great success, but produce little of it when measured.

I take that to mean this: Can point shooters achieve hits? Sure. Can they do so with this method to degrees superior to that of sighted fire? No.

The Col. also wrote this:

"It's an axiom that hitting your target is your main concern, and the best way to hit is to use your sights, but circumstances do arise in which the need for speed is so great, and the range so short, that you must hit by pointing alone, without seeing your gun at all.
...Pointer fire is not as hard to learn as sighting, once you realize it's range limitations. using the 1911 auto-pistol I have found that I can teach the avjerage infantryman to stay on a silhouette at 10 yards--using pointer fire in two shot bursts--more easily that I can get him into that 25 yard bullseye using slow fire and sights.
Of course this sort of shooting is strictly a way of obtaining body hits at essentially indoor ranges ( 30 feet and under)..
..But up close pointer fire can be murderously effective, and it's mastery is often the difference between life and death."( pg 97-98, Fighting Handguns)

 

[Crusader103]

Mr. Weiss,

I could be mistaken, but I don't think that there is such an analysis that exists comparing the two methods in actual combat. There are, obviously, a lot of opinions.

Despite my aversion to point shooting, I would never say that it has not been successful in gunfights. I would simply assert that in every circumstance in which it was applied, aimed fire would have served just as well if not better. The opposite could not be true. Point shooting would not have served just as well in every aimed fire situation.

There are way too many variables. Point shooting cannot take into consideration real life tactical environments which include partially obscured targets, hostage situations, targets at odd angles, targets higher/lower or to one side or another of the shooter, or shooting from awkward positions. Point shooting in such situations ultimately falls flat. Nonetheles, on a range to a squared target a set distance (generally very close) and height away, there's some great point shooters. Unfortunately, such a scenario rarely presents itself in real life.

I am not of the opinion that you should use either based on the situation. The two systems are diametrically opposed to eachother. If you have conflicting subconscious programs in your mind than it should come as no surprise if you actually hesitate in a combat situation. Does anyone really think that they are going to automatically switch if the distance is 6 yards instead of 5?

One of the few "experts" I will actually refer to is Chuck Taylor, because unlike so many others he does have the real world combat experience. For myself, and I would never claim to be the end all, I can say with absolute certainty through personal experience that when I shot an aggressor at 200 yards and when I shot another at 20 feet, the most vivid thing in my memory to this date is my front sight. So yes, it is possible to focus on the sights.

Anyway, Chuck Taylor has a good read on his website addressing point shooting at http://www.chucktaylorasaa.com/trainingandtech.html You have to go about half way down the page to begin the analysis.

Sorry that may not have answered your actual question. I have looked. I don't think that direct comparison exists. And I don't think it could be developed with any accuracy.

Be aware. Shoot accurately.

Joshua Scott
www.FrontSightFocus.org

 

[Matthew Temkin]

Funny that you mention Chuck Taylor who, along with Mas Ayoob, has indeed called point shooting BS.
Yet both--may as well add Farnam to the mix--teach below eye level shooting methods with a rifle/shotgun/subgun.
I believe they call it underam assault--in fact Chuck Taylor claims to have invented it.
From his website:
Taylor originated the Underarm Assault position for close-range reactive shooting. The candidate uses that position to fire two-round bursts (weapons set on full-auto) at seven meters in one second, five meters in 0.8 seconds and three meters in 0.5 seconds!)

Funny, but my dad's Ranger BTN was taught that way back in 1942.
(How old is Chuck, BTW?)
And Applegate taught me how to fire both semi and full auto with the subgun set on full, a skill that was very popular in WW2.
But that is another matter, the logic of which I will leave to the good people of THR to decipher.
I will ask once again--why teach point shooting with an long gun but not a pistol?

 

[Matthew Temkin]

Quite often I offer free training for LEO's.
In fact I have two scheduled in 2010.
Here is a review from a Patterson NJ SWAT commander on one that I taught in 2005

http://lightfighter.net/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/3006044761/m/1201094561

Posted 05 October 2005 23:31 Hide Post
The Calverton LI, NY After Action Report:

Date: Oct. 1, '05
Location: Calverton Pistol and Rifle Range, LI, NY
Time:1000 hrs
Weather: clear, sunny, 75F, breezy
Weapons: Glock 23(.40 cal), Rem. 870 pump action 14" barrel
Instructor: Matthew Temkin

Matt offered a pointshooting seminar in Calverton on Saturday for free. Looks like me and two of my guys from work were ther only ones able to make it out. I drove two hours from NJ to see what he was about. I think it's my duty to fill you guys in on what went down and to give Matt much due credit on his level of skill in pointshooting and his overall presentation.

I'll start by reminding everyone the seminar was free, I didn't pay Matt a dime, he didn't have an agenda. Matt brought two friends of his; one a retired agent from a three letter agency, the other a firearms instructor from a multi-juridictional Police Department.

Matt started the day with a 30 min. lecture on the history of pointshooting and its founders. He talked about the gunfighters of the West, WW II, the OSS, Shanghai and the FBI. He talked about the FBI style, Elbow up/elbow down, weapon retention and arms extended pointshooting. The man is very knowledgeable.

We go to the firing line where we had set up three targets at about 4-5 yds. Matt lets us know he's going to fire a couple of rounds then proceeds to machine gun his Glock 9mm from the hip into a target. He fires about four to the Q then three to the head, then five more to the Q. He runs dry, changes mags, then starts at the other target (about 6 yds away). Belly, head, belly, head, switch targets, belly, runs dry. "what do ya think? Pointshooting works?" he asks. I said to myself, "If that's a parlor trick, I want some of that."

He started us off easy then quickly got us moving at a faster pace. He said we were good students and picked up fast. I had never spent more than 10 mins. pointshooting, it was fun to get your mind away from proper shooting fundamentals and let your body do what comes naturally. After no more than 30 mins. we were all shooting with consistent acuracy. I had no more than a four inch spread on my rapid fire bursts, my freind had consistent two inch speads with many going in the same hole. I was jealous. We were shooting from the 5 yd line.

Matt spoke about combatives and echoed the words others have said of fighting and fighting with a handgun is and should be intergrated.

Interesting point; although I know Matt is an avid fan of pointshooting and teaches it zealously, I did hear him say on at least three occassion, "Look this is for in close fighting, where most gunfights are going to happen. If you're 15 or 20 yds away you need to be getting behind some cover and using your sights." Matt never says pointshooting is the only method one should use and belittle any style, school or train of thought. He is opinionated but will end all arguments by saying, look this works for me you can do whatever you want.

We moved over shotgun where we continued to use the techniques discussed for the pistol.

We shot alot that day. The things that most stuck out was: #1. The speed that one could/should be firing your gun. Matt would not be satisfied until it sounded like we were firing automatic weapons. #2. The aggression Matt wants his shooters to have when they fire on a target. We all got alot out of the day with Matt and are going to be looking to do some more training with him, pointshooting, combatives or both. I would recommend Matthew Temkin's training, I found him to know his stuff and be an engaging instructor. I'm going to take back the lessons learned from Matt and add the skills to my normal sighted fire training.

Matt: Great time.


TF out.

Posts: 66 | Location: New Jersey | Registered: 15 February 2005

 

[Crusader103]

Sounds like some good range training but then again that's been my point the whole time. Too many people, and obviously you included, will work out things on a range and hope that they transfer to the street. We need to be looking at what happens in real life and apply that to the range, not the other way around.

As so eloquently stated by your shooters testimony, it's a range scenario and nothing but a range scenario.

We go to the firing line where we had set up three targets at about 4-5 yds. Matt lets us know he's going to fire a couple of rounds then proceeds to machine gun his Glock 9mm from the hip into a target. He fires about four to the Q then three to the head, then five more to the Q. He runs dry, changes mags, then starts at the other target (about 6 yds away). Belly, head, belly, head, switch targets, belly, runs dry. "what do ya think? Pointshooting works?" he asks. I said to myself, "If that's a parlor trick, I want some of that."

How many incidents are you aware of on the street that would allow you to stand square to a fully exposed target, 5 yards away, shoot until your dry, reload, and do it again on another target?

Are all of your adversaries standing in the open square to you? Do they not move? Do they not use cover? Are they in no way obscured by natural or man made barriers? Are they all of the same height? Are they not found at odd angles? For that matter, are you not moving? Are you standing still? Are you not seeking cover and leaning out from around it? If any of those things apply, you better pay attention to those little notches on the top of your gun.

I do hand it to you. I will join in support with the testimony of your trainee. That was a great range demonstration. Check please.

Be aware. Shoot accurately.

Joshua Scott
www.FrontSightFocus.org

 

[Matthew Temkin]

The range is showing what is possible.
Tactics are then applying them to real life.
And since most of my students--including these--are SWAT/ Firearms instructors I leave them to decide how to apply the concept.
Does Chuck Taylor not include range work during his classes?
Do your courses at your school "FrontSight Focused' (what a surprise) include range work?
Or do your students begin classes by going live fire on each other?
Instead of me constantly posting drills and lesson plans why don't you share with us how you would handle a close range situation?
For example, how would you correct this shooter?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qTNKdUqWzQ&feature=related

 

[JN01]

I'm not a combat tested killer nor a gun training guru but here are my humble thoughts:

If it's not possible to get hits using point shooting while moving or when the target is moving, it seems that it would be even MORE difficult to do so while focusing on the front sight and attempting to maintain a sight picture and not tripping over something. I have a hard enough time getting the perfect sight picture to produce a decent group on a nice comfy range, can't imagine trying to do so when some maniac is 10' away and trying to kill me.

I can see how the use of sights is necessary in some circumstances. If it is proven to be superior in ALL circumstances then why the poor hit ratio for LEs trained in sighted fire? Wouldn't that indicate that being trained in sighted fire only doesn't necessarily ensure success in lethal force encounters either?

Perhaps if some sort of point shooting technique was used in some of those instances, the outcome would have been better. Or there may not have been any difference at all.

Perhaps real world physiological responses to deadly force encounters affect each individual to different degrees which makes it difficult to reliably predict. Certainly there are anecdotes supporting various techniques, but what is possible for one person may not be possible for another.

Perhaps the trick is having enough training to become highly proficient in whatever technique is used.

 

[smince]

We need to be looking at what happens in real life and apply that to the range, not the other way around.

OK, let's do that very thing:

I have a co-worker involved in a gunfight recently. He had a Ruger LCP with 6 rounds FMJ. Distances were less than 7 yards, in a parking lot, at night. Both involved parties were moving. My co-worker has never had any training other than M16 in Army Basic. He not only didn't use sights, but was actually holding the gun up beside his head witnesses say. He scored 3 lower chest hits, one in the shoulder. He was hit zero times.

Apply this to the range, please.

 

[Crusader103]

Q. Do your courses at your school "FrontSight Focused' (what a surprise) include range work?

A. Yes, the realistic kind..... and it's Front Sight Focus

Q. Or do your students begin classes by going live fire on each other?

A. No, but they don't stand squarely in front of targets and punch holes either.

Q. Does Chuck Taylor not include range work during his classes?

A. He does. Again, the realistic kind.

Q. how would you correct this shooter?

A. Don't know. That clip was four seconds. What was his point? That he can hit a target from 3 feet. Awesome! That's all I can say about that clip. He may be the best thing since sliced bread and I agree with him in every way. He may be just the opposite. Can you make an accurate assessment of someone in 4 seconds on a video when you have no idea what the point of their demonstration was?

Q. why don't you share with us how you would handle a close range situation?

A. Simultaneously draw, move laterally and away from opponent, seek cover, put solid hits on target through the appropriate application of the fundamentals of sight alignment, sight picture, press. At least that's how I have handled such situations. Worked every time. I can teach you how to do all of that at lightning fast speed. I fill up fast but I'm sure I could squeeze you in.

The range is showing what is possible.

The range does not show what is possible (in real life). It shows what is possible.... on the range. Again (I'm starting to sound like a broken record I am afraid) you must take real life, develop it on the range, and put it back on the street.

Be aware. Shoot accurately.

Joshua Scott
www.FrontSightFocus.org

 

[mustang_steve]

I'm still a fan of sights...I just got my front sight's dot painted blaze orange to see how it speeds up target acquisition. I'll give it the test next time I hit the range.

Not having to figure out which white dot is the front sight should speed things up greatly.

 

[Matthew Temkin]

"The range does not show what is possible (in real life). It shows what is possible.... on the range. Again (I'm starting to sound like a broken record I am afraid) you must take real life, develop it on the range, and put it back on the street."
Which is exactly what men such as Fairbairn, Sykes, Jelly Bryce, Grant-Taylor,
Bill Jordan, Jimmy Cirillo, Mile Conti, Lou Choido and quite a few others have done/are doing for decades.


A. No, but they don't stand squarely in front of targets and punch holes either.[/B]

So how exactly do you begin basic shooting drills?


Q. Does Chuck Taylor not include range work during his classes?

A. He does. Again, the realistic kind.

Can you name a few of these realistic drills?
I have seen his books/articles/videos where his students are standing in a Weaver stance punching holes into a target which is about 7 feet away.
Is this what you consider to be a realistic drill?
Is this what you would recommend a student to do when a bad guy is 10 feet away and moving in fast?

At least that's how I have handled such situations. Worked every time. I can teach you how to do all of that at lightning fast speed. I fill up fast but I'm sure I could squeeze you in.
.

So how many gunfights have you been in?
Do you teach strictly from your personal experience or is it combined with the experience of others?
Can you provide us with some videos of you engaged in actual combat?
( I would ask for your range drills, but that would prove nothing.)

 

[Crusader103]

I have a co-worker involved in a gunfight recently. He had a Ruger LCP with 6 rounds FMJ. Distances were less than 7 yards, in a parking lot, at night. Both involved parties were moving. My co-worker has never had any training other than M16 in Army Basic. He not only didn't use sights, but was actually holding the gun up beside his head witnesses say. He scored 3 lower chest hits, one in the shoulder. He was hit zero times.

Smince,

I'd be happy to analyze any situation presented and see how it can work to improve the survivability of others. Unfortunately you'll have to improve your descriptive skills in order for me to do so.

How was he approached? Was there any signal of impending danger? What do you mean by moving (were they closing on eachother, facing off, diverging, etc.)? Cover, concealment present? Was the gun in his hand, holstered, in the car? Holding the gun up by his head? I don't follow you on that one. Holding the gun up to his own head? Holding it by his own head when he was firing? Was he seated in the car or something? Was it the opponents head you were talking about?

Regardless, I don't care what tactic somebody uses if they are the victor. In this case it appears he didn't have a tactic. Three cheers for him for winning even without training and I mean that. That doesn't mean I'm going to start advocating NOT training just because it worked out well for him. What I care about as a trainer is what is going to give you the best edge regardless of the situation you face.

Be aware. Shoot accurately.

Joshua Scott
www.FrontSightFocus.org

 

[Crusader103]

So how exactly do you begin basic shooting drills?

In your previous post you indicated that "most of my students--including these--are SWAT/ Firearms instructors".

I guess I assumed that they knew the basic operation of a gun. However, since you asked, if they don't I guess I would start standing in front of a square target and say, "This is a gun. Now this is how you grip it. Steady. Steady now."

No matter how you slice it. Even if you are a proponent of the point shooting method, it is not a basic drill.

Which is exactly what men such as Fairbairn, Sykes, Jelly Bryce, Grant-Taylor,
Bill Jordan, Jimmy Cirillo, Mile Conti, Lou Choido and quite a few others have done/are doing for decades

You really like using the names of others. Read a lot of books? Can't stand on your own? You see, that's what I hate about so many "experts" and "trainers." Too much book knowledge, too much regurgitation of what others say, too much range theory being applied to the street. Do you have any original thoughts of your own or are you just going to continue to quote others? Names of people and schools don't impress me. Real world experience does.... you'll note the only reference to a person I have made outside of myself is someone who also has proven lethal force encounters of his own and our views happen to be glaringly similar (yea I already know some on your long reading list have experience...that you read about).

Be aware. Shoot accurately.

Joshua Scott
www.FrontSightFocus.org

 

[smince]

OK;

He was walking through a parking lot. A man who had threatened him before stepped out and reached into his pocket while threatening him again. My co-worker drew first.

Moving: both trying to get out of the others line of fire. I don't really know which directions, but there were vehicles that had to be avoided. I suppose they could have been used for cover, but the action was over too quick, really.

The gun: Hold the gun out in front of you, then bring it back by your ear. Probably turned sideways to, if I had to guess. Just a reactionary move probably to keep the gun from being grabbed at.

That help any?

 

[Crusader103]

Smince,

Actually, that does help. Obviously, still a lot of speculation here but I would say on the face of it that it looks like he did a pretty good job considering he didn't have any real training to speak of.

If he was pulling the gun back, like you say, to avoid it being grabbed then he was within contact range. Neither aimed nor point shooting would be applicable. I see a distinct difference between point shooting and contact (or gun grab) distance.

Honestly, I can't say that I would train somebody much differently for such a scenario other than I wouldn't be pulling the gun back by my head if at all possible. You know the deadly threat is there so draw first. Move out of the line of fire. It appears he tried. The opponent apparently still closed with him, hence the prevention of the gun grab. Good job pulling it back and using contact range tactics to ventilate him.

You sure he didn't have any training?

Be aware. Shoot accurately.

Joshua Scott
www.FrontSightFocus.org

 

[mustang_steve]

If you are fast enough at draw/shoot sight shooting at moderate ranges (15yds), you should be fine with not using the sight (point shooting) at close ranges.

To me it sounds like point shooting is just a method of gauging how repeatable your form is....and that's just another facet of defense. I still think ranged shooting should be worked up to consistent levels first....crawl before you walk.

After all consistancy is the foundation of quality, and a quality shooter is a better protector than a lackluster one.

 

[smince]

You sure he didn't have any training?

Quite sure.

Actually, he said it was somewhat more than contact, 10+ feet, but less than the 7YD STANDARD. I would say that was a bit more distance than shooting from retention. Funny how his rounds went where he was looking (according to him), even without a sight picture.

I can't keep a good sight picture when moving off line of an attack. Believe me, I've tried in Force-on-Force drills and live rounds on paper (but those are probably range drills, so they won't count).

I still manage to get good hits, though. Just as my friend who has no training.

 

[Mikhail Weiss]

jscott:

Thanks for the reply.

I'm curious, though, about this conflict of subconscious programs. When I learned mixed martial arts, I was expected to transfer from one skill set to another, depending on range, and this was not expected to cause a programming conflict. Nor, as far as I can tell, did it.

When I studied archery, I practiced at known distances so that, in the field, I would know whether a given shot was within my ability to achieve.

Why, then, is it considered difficult, or a source of conflicting subconscious programs, to transition from point shooting to aimed fire?

With sufficient practice, wouldn't one develop a useful sense of distance, and at which ones he could successfully employ one skill set, and at which ones he should use another?

 

[Matthew Temkin]

"Do you have any original thoughts of your own or are you just going to continue to quote others? "
Do you?
Nearly ever point you have made seems to come from Chuck Taylor's website.
Almost word for word.
Is there anyone else--besides you and Chuck Taylor--whom you consider worthy of passing on knowledge?
You still have not answered some of my questions.
If point shooting is so bad why does Taylor teach it with long guns out to 8 yards?
Do you actually believe that he invented this concept?
How many gun fights have you been in?
I only ask this because you are coming off as the reincarnation of Wyatt Earp with all of the answers, so it is only fair to ask.
( In fact most combat vets that I have met are loathe to speak about their kills, yet you and Taylor seem to wear yours as a badge of honor.)
Which leads to the next question--is everything you teach based on your experiences and those of Chuck Taylor's?
Lastly what makes you think that I lack experience dealing with violence?
While I have never had to fire a shot in anger I have come very close several times, and was very happy when I did not have to take a life.
In fact I was delighted.
I too value real world experience, yet you seem to ignore any that does not fit into your view of things.

 

[Mikhail Weiss]

Matthew Temkin:

Thanks for providing the long testimonial. My curiosities arise here:

We go to the firing line where we had set up three targets at about 4-5 yds. Matt lets us know he's going to fire a couple of rounds then proceeds to machine gun his Glock 9mm from the hip into a target. He fires about four to the Q then three to the head, then five more to the Q. He runs dry, changes mags, then starts at the other target (about 6 yds away). Belly, head, belly, head, switch targets, belly, runs dry.

What kinds of accuracy were you achieving at the belly and the head on those targets? Were the head shots also achieved from the hip?

How long does it take to train a new shooter to successfully employ point shooting versus aimed fire at common distances, what are those distances, what are the most common results achieved, and is this skill any more or less perishable than sighted fire? The testimonial writer said this...

I had no more than a four inch spread on my rapid fire bursts... We were shooting from the 5 yd line.

...and I suspect the writer was not a new shooter. A four-inch spread is certainly useful, but was his spread the same for head shots? That seems wider, in the latter case, than decisiveness would demand.

 

[Matthew Temkin]

Fist size groups.
Yes, from the hip.
About 4 hours.
Yes, all shots were in a tight group in the center of the head.
No, he was a very experienced SWAT officer from Patterson NJ, as were his two friends.
Now, allow me to clarify a few things.
The range is NOT the place to develop a technique.
Rather it is the place to hone and practice combat proven techniques.
My demos are just that--demos to show the many myths of point shooting is just that--myths.
Would I hip shoot at 5 yards?
Probably not, since it was designed to be used at about 5 feet, but I like to show just how accurate some techniques can be.
You are correct that one has no trouble adjusting a technique according to the distance.
That is something that I have only heard from Chuck Taylor without any supporting evidence--and is being regurgitated by JScott without any evidence.
( From Taylor's website:Those who recommend using both are "hedging" their bets. The two are diametrically opposed philosophically and cannot be accomplished with equal skill. Thus, if you implant conflicting sub-conscious "programs" in your mind, don't be surprised if, in an actual conflict, confusion in the decision-making process occurs. The subsequent "sorting out" of which concept to employ under the conditions present at the time takes time -- time you simply don't have in a handgun encounter, where bullets are flying around your ears!)
Some may say that it is distance, rather than preference, that selects the technique for you faster than conscious

 

[smince]

I find it quite humorous that jscott has such a disdain for 'experts':

def: a person with extensive knowledge or ability based on research, experience, or occupation and in a particular area of study.

From his site:

Joshua is no armchair expert and despises the proliferation of so-called "experts" and "master trainers" who have very little real world experience and lack instructor credibility. Sadly, most gun writers and "instructors" are pathological liars who embellish their records, influenced by their own pet theories, "range testing," and even money or free goods from manufacturers or distributors. The tactics they purport are often grounded in little more than the latest magazine article and may work well on the range, in competition, or in theory, but not in a real world armed confrontation.

Yet, on his own site, he is referred to as an accomplished authority:

def: tan individual cited or appealed to as an expert.

 

[strambo]

My range drills aren't range drills and your range drills are!

If the subconscious mind executes what was trained...why couldn't you train to point shoot at 0-6 yds and use sights at 6-(whatever) yards? Why is there a conflict? Lemme guess, our subconscious mind in a threat situation is too simple to judge distance and must therefore only apply one technique no matter the distance?

Of course not, if you can shoot flash front sight at 5 yds life or death situation then move to cover and hard focus to hit an exposed leg at 10yds...you are already doing things differently based on distance and target size.

 

[armsmaster270]

This has been posted before but is in rebuttal to other posts.
This is real life with the trigger guard was against my hip bone while running backwards and blocking a knife thrust with my other hand. It comes with practice one round DRT.
I'm with Matt