Modern Point Shooting

[Crusader103]

"Do you have any original thoughts of your own or are you just going to continue to quote others? "
Do you?

Absolutely. Experience tends to provide you with many original thoughts. You still haven't told me whether or not you have any original thoughts. By the way, I have answered nearly every one of your questions. Go back and read the posts. You haven't answered but a few of mine.

Nearly ever point you have made seems to come from Chuck Taylor's website.
Almost word for word.

You see, the funny thing is, that I had several years of experience before I ever heard of him. Turns out, we do think pretty consistently on a number of issues. Funny how people with experience tend to do that.

Is there anyone else--besides you and Chuck Taylor--whom you consider worthy of passing on knowledge?

Yes, just a lot less than purport to have knowledge worthy of passing on. Want another name since you asked? When it comes to rifle shooting I am pretty much in line with Maj. Plaster. Oh wait, he has a lot of real world experience as well. I'm finding a common thread here.

If point shooting is so bad why does Taylor teach it with long guns out to 8 yards?

I don't know, why don't you ask him? I don't know whether I agree or disagree with him on this subject. I would look at it closer. To this point I have limited my discussion to handguns.

Do you actually believe that he invented this concept?

Don't know. Perhaps his version of it. I don't shoot with exactly an isoceles or weaver stance. I guess I could call it the scott stance but I don't. I really don't care what anybody calls anything if it works.

How many gun fights have you been in?

More than one. More than two. And more than you. With your vast knowledge and investigative abilities I'm sure it's not too hard for you to figure out. You have visited the website. You know the military, federal, state, and local agencies I have worked for. FOIA requests should be able to tell you all you want to know. Well, at least a couple of them. Good luck with the others.

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.

I would never say that. All of the answers? No. Unless I am mistaken we have been talking about a single subject. The world of defensive firearms is much bigger than that my friend.

I am very humble about my experiences and it does not make me a hero. I shoot competitively and I don't think more than 2 or 3 of the people I shoot with know my background. You see, it serves no purpose in that environment. For those attending a training class, of course it does and I share it. On a forum where the idea is sharing and learning, of course it does. In contrast to Wyatt Earp, I am generally underestimated, understated, and unimposing. That is exactly the way I like it.

I wish I had never had to do it. You have seen me assert my experience and I can back it up but at what point have you seen me describe myself as leaping tall buildings in a single bound? I very much value real life experience and will continue to use mine to pass on life saving concepts to others.

( 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.)

Depends on the person I guess. I talk openly with my returning friends from Iraq and Afghanistan. I don't know of a single one who has failed to use their experience to teach others. If were talking about Vietnam Vets, yes, I've had the same experience that they are loathe to talk about it. Different time, different war. As far as cops on the street and the conflicts our military members find themselves in now, not so much. Most are pretty open, including myself. No badge of honor there.

Which leads to the next question--is everything you teach based on your experiences and those of Chuck Taylor's?

No, not at all. I simply don't name famous people in every one of my posts like you do. I take what has proven effective from many sources and adopt it as my own.

Lastly what makes you think that I lack experience dealing with violence?

Because to this point your greatest claim to fame is being a court officer. No offense to the men and women doing the obviously necessary job, but it sounds pretty boring to me. Most court officers I have seen are retired, private security guards. That's local to federal courthouse security. Yes, I looked up the NYC Court Officer recruiting website. I am not degrading the fine and necessary job that they do. It's just not what you seem to purport it to be. I know NYC Court Officers do a few more things but I wouldn't necessarily tout it as the tactical environment you do.

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.

I have never fired a shot in anger either. I would caution you to not be angry when you are in such a situation. Your judgment will be clouded. That's the first thing I teach about the defensive use of firearms. Your attitude should not thrust you into the situation. It is the actions of the other party that will do that. I was as calm as could be when I pulled the trigger.

Sorry, being close is not the same thing. Unfortunately, most people just don't understand the realities of a lethal force incident until it happens. You can be prepared, you can train, and you can absolutely deal with a threat effectively without ever having done so before. But understanding it, that I would argue you cannot do. The world changes between the moment you begin to pull the trigger and the moment after the shot breaks. You can get awfully close through training and research, but you don't know.

I too value real world experience, yet you seem to ignore any that does not fit into your view of things.

Not at all. I just ignore faulty tactics no matter how many times it is touted by so-called experts.

Be aware. Shoot accurately.

Joshua Scott
www.FrontSightFocus.org

 

[Crusader103]

Curious: Sykes and Fairbairn advocated point shooting to four yards, though, didn't they? No farther? And they accepted any hit in a burst of fire as good. For instance, firing four rounds and hitting once in the arm was good enough for them, wasn't it? (I read Shooting to Live too long ago to remember. Probably should dig it up once more...)

Yes, they did. I guess where I would differ on that is that firing four rounds and hitting only once in the arm would be considered entirely unacceptable. At least to me.

Two reasons:
#1 A shot in the arm isn't going to stop a thing.
#2 I'm responsible for those other three shots.

I would much rather have one well placed shot than three misses and a peripheral hit. Am I alone on this?

Be aware. Shoot accurately.

Joshua Scott
www.FrontSightFocus.org

 

[Crusader103]

Mr. Temkin, since I have now effectively answered all of your questions, can you answer me just one:

In what situation would point shooting work that aimed fire would not?

The answer should take the real world into account. That is.... partially or almost completely obscured adversaries, moving adversaries, you moving, different heights, different angles, adrenaline, degraded bodily skills, psychological overload, failure to neutralize (you're going to point shoot at a moving head), shooting from cover, and everything else.

Note: If your answer comes down to speed we will all be laughing on two basis. You can't miss fast enough to win and secondly, aimed fire is proven just as fast as pointed. If the answer comes down to contact range you can rule that out. That is not the same as point shooting.

What say you.

Be aware. Shoot accurately.

Joshua Scott
www.FrontSightFocus.org

 

[smince]

#2 I'm responsible for those other three shots.

Perhaps controversial, but when it hits the fan, you are not going to be concerned with misses and hitting some bystander. If you are the focus of the attacker...meaning he is specifically shooting at you or at a family member, forget the legal situation, background, everything else. If you do not react immediately, you will die.

In a fight for your life, thoughts of legal entanglements should be at the bottom of the list. If you are dead, legal stuff is meaningless.

 

[Crusader103]

Perhaps controversial, but when it hits the fan, you are not going to be concerned with misses and hitting some bystander.

You sure as heck better be!

If you are the focus of the attacker...meaning he is specifically shooting at you or at a family member, forget the legal situation, background, everything else. If you do not react immediately, you will die.

Not true. If you exercise sound tactical principles you have a much better chance of prevailing.... physically, mentally, and legally. The physical survival is exactly why I would take that extra fraction of a second and make my hits count. What did those three misses do for you? Could you have not fired one accurate shot in the time it took to make three misses and a peripheral hit? That's what is going to save your family's life. Yes, react immediately, but react appropriately.

Here I go using my experience again but check this out. I had the sights of my M-4 carbine lined up on the armed suspect, about 20 feet away (how dare I use my rifled sights at 20 feet). I could have taken the shot at that very moment. However, just beyond him was the pane glass window of a busy fast food restaurant. Everybody's face was glued to the window. Guess what? I didn't take the shot. I moved laterally, moving from cover to a position in the open, so that I would have the brick wall behind him. I then fired two shots as he was bringing his weapon to bear on me.

Your haste will not save lives. It may waste them. Those people inside the fast food joint are probably thankful that I didn't shoot at my first opportunity.

In a fight for your life, thoughts of legal entanglements should be at the bottom of the list. If you are dead, legal stuff is meaningless.

I would agree with that. That is why you must go over realistic scenario after scenario in your mind and on the range. Know your legal standing before the situation ever arises. Be sure that on the day you are forced to take action it is appropriate to do so. Sound tactics will prevail.

Be aware. Shoot accurately.

Joshua Scott
www.FrontSightFocus.org

 

[Old Fuff]

jscott:

When I get the time I will write a longer reply, but for the moment to address your question to Mr. Temkin.

To use the sights you must be able to align them with both your eyeball(s) and the intended target. Therefore the gun must be brought to eyeball level. Under real-world circumstances this may or may not be practical or even possible.

If one could predict in advance exactly what they would face in a shootout situation they could also determine the best way to respond to it. Traning may provide some options, but one particular way seldom if ever will cover all the best chocies to use in all circumstances.

 

[Crusader103]

Old Fuff,

I am in general agreement with you. I however do not see a situation in which point shooting would be possible and aimed fire would not. Contact range, yes, but I don't consider that point shooting. If you can extend your weapon out in front of you in a traditional point shooting technique, the only way you couldn't align them with your eyes is if you were closing them.

If a situation exists, and it does, in which you cannot extend your weapon out in front of you, well that is neither aimed fire nor point shooting. I train for that reality as well.

Be aware. Shoot accurately.

Joshua Scott
www.FrontSightFocus.org

 

[Old Fuff]

Short reply, longer one will be forthcoming.

In my view - and I'll explain why later - there are no negatives in mastering different techniques, because the circumstances of any future "shootout situation" are unpredictable. You obviously prefer and advocate aimed fire, and I don't dispute that this may often be the way to go. But if some unforeseen event occurs where for whatever reason you can't use your sight what are you going to do? Secure in your opinion, you have put all of your eggs in one basket. If I were to do the same with some other system (say for example, unaimed point-shoulder) to the exclusion of any other method I would be in the same boat.

For many years I was employed in different positions within the firearms industry. Because of this I had the opportunity to meet and converse with such individuals as Jeff Cooper (who became a good friend), Rex Applegate, Bill Jordan (another good friend), Charles Askins, and many others. In addition because of my residence in the Southwest I also met others with similar experience but less fame. By avoiding personal prejudice and keeping my ears open and mouth shut I gained many valuable insights from the previously mentioned individuals.

All of them had “been there and done that” when it came to gunfighting, and all of them had survived. All came from different backgrounds, and developed or learned they’re own way of doing things. All of them had valuable experience that they were willing to share – sometimes openly and sometimes privately.

Unfortunately I am a slow typist, but I will delve into this more in the near future.

 

[smince]

I had the sights of my M-4 carbine lined up on the armed suspect, about 20 feet away (how dare I use my rifled sights at 20 feet). I could have taken the shot at that very moment. However, just beyond him was the pane glass window of a busy fast food restaurant. Everybody's face was glued to the window. Guess what? I didn't take the shot. I moved laterally, moving from cover to a position in the open, so that I would have the brick wall behind him. I then fired two shots as he was bringing his weapon to bear on me.

That would appear to be a proactive situation. Most of the MT-type training seems to be geared toward this kind of encounter. And I will abolutely agree that this is the time and place for sights and accurate placement of shots.

A world of difference between this and a sudden close range reactionary incident.

 

[Crusader103]

Old Fuff,

But if some unforeseen event occurs where for whatever reason you can't use your sight what are you going to do? Secure in your opinion, you have put all of your eggs in one basket.

I think you missed my very last post which stated in part, "If a situation exists, and it does, in which you cannot extend your weapon out in front of you, well that is neither aimed fire nor point shooting. I train for that reality as well."

I have not put all of my eggs into one basket. I would just assert, again, that if you have the ability to point shoot you would be able to aim in the same situation. If you can't aim, you wouldn't be able to point shoot (by definition) either.

Point shooting is not simply defined as not looking at your sights. By definition:

Point shooting does not rely on sights, but instead may place the gun below the line of sight, but in many cases still in the field of vision. Since the sights are not employed, the shooter focuses on the target. Point shooting methods currently are often referred to as threat focused shooting.

Admittedly, I took this definition from the top of the list when I just googled it but I think it is pretty accurate.

Point shooting, and more specifically, threat focused shooting, was never meant to imply that you could not use your sights. If anyone takes it as such they are wrong. It only implies that you chose to focus on the target instead. Take a look at shooting videos where the officer was found to have used a point shooting technique. Invariably, you will find that the weapon was at or near eye level. Take a look at many of these point shooting proponents you see quoted so much in the last few posts. If you look at them point shooting you will almost invariably see the weapon at or just below eye level. Try it out, GOOGLE images, "point shooting _______." (insert name of famous point shooter) How close to eye level is their weapon?

So I must ask:

If you can bring your weapon up near your line of sight or look beyond your sights or thrust your weapon out in front of you with just a peripheral view of your weapon, why would you not be able to use your sights and increase your chances of a solid hit?

Be aware. Shoot accurately.

Joshua Scott
www.FrontSightFocus.org

By the way, the situation was anything but proactive. The thought going through my head was that he was in the active process of either trying to kill me or make his way into the restaurant to take hostages. He was in the active process of bringing his weapon to bear when I fired. Either way, it was a reaction. I simply chose to evaluate the entire situation.

 

[smince]

So I must ask:

If you can bring your weapon up near your line of sight or look beyond your sights or thrust your weapon out in front of you with just a peripheral view of your weapon, why would you not be able to use your sights and increase your chances of a solid hit?

This is where the speed aspect of point shooting comes into play. You can begin firing before the gun gets to eye level, instead of waiting until it is in the position to actually line up your sights. You can have a few rounds into him before you even see the front sight. Even if it doesn't fit your particular world view, not using sights won't preclude getting solid hits.

As for the incident discussed, I'll still maintain that already having the sights of your M4 on the suspect was proactive. Not like him pulling a gun on you in the parking lot from 20 feet away while your gun is still in the holster and your thinking about getting home in time for dinner or something similar.

 

[Crusader103]

As for the incident discussed, I'll still maintain that already having the sights of your M4 on the suspect was proactive.

Watch the video from my dashcam and I think you would change your mind on that.

Even if it doesn't fit your particular world view, not using sights won't preclude getting solid hits.

Look back through all my posts and you will not once see me make that claim. My assertion is that using sights is just as fast and will score better hits a greater majority of the time. In every situation, aimed fire will be as effective, or more effective, than point shooting.

You can begin firing before the gun gets to eye level.

The slower argument is simply invalid. How long does it take to move your weapon from having cleared the holster to eye level? Anybody can try it, even without a gun in their hand. Put your hand by your hip, facing forward, and then thrust it out into a two handed hold. How many accurate shots do you think you could have gotten off in that 1/10th of a second? You said, "a few." Really? Sir, if you can get even one accurate shot off in that amount of time, you my friend, are good.

Too much theory and not enough reality.

If you could get that many accurate shots off at close distance before your weapon was up to eye level how come none of the fastest competition shooters do such? Ever see a lightning fast IPSC shooter (and I am no fan of IPSC) start shooting before their weapon was on target? No? Huh, that's weird. In that game, milliseconds count! How about Steel Challenge shooters? What, they don't point shoot either? At least some of the stages are well within "point shooting distance." I thought that game was a test of speed and accuracy. What about IDPA? Despite it's shortcomings, at least that is supposed to try and replicate real world scenarios. Surely you will find a point shooter there. Dave Sevigny? Wait, he doesn't point shoot. How about the world record speed shooter? Wait, no, the video clearly shows him bringing his weapon up to eye level before he gets the first shot off. What am I missing? Why aren't these guys saving game winning time by making accurate shots before their weapon is at eye level? I'm confused.

Even ignoring that, look again at the definition of point shooting. By definition, with point shooting your weapon is within your scope of vision. You are simply looking beyond the weapon at the target. If your weapon is in your field of view you can see your sights with no additional time taken.

Be aware. Shoot accurately.

Joshua Scott
www.FrontSightFocus.org

 

[smince]

In every situation, aimed fire will be as effective, or more effective, than point shooting.

But the rub is, every situation won't allow aimed fire.

People can, and have, fired from the time of clearing the holster and all the way up to line of sight. With body hits. How is this not faster than waiting until you get a sight picture? And I'm not talking retention distance.

 

[Cosmoline]

, line up the sights with the target offered or selected and press the trigger. You will hit.

Conversely, my experience shooting actual living things has been that if I fail to use the sights and aim, I fail to hit.

Point shooting is fundamentally an offensive, combat technique where these considerations are secondary or simply irrelevant. Most of us need to be trained to use the sidearm DEFENSIVELY in a NON-COMBAT scenario where the results of a missed shot can be tragic. I can't clear a house like a soldier would clear a trench--with grenades, automatic fire bursts and rapid point shooting if those fail. As a citizen or LEO shooter, one is also responsible for the rounds fired, so there are moral and (possibly) legal ramifications for failing to use the sights.

 

[sidheshooter]

I've got a question to throw out to both sides of the issue: one taken directly from a class I attended yesterday. In that class, we watched a dashcam recording of a response to an auto accident (pickup) that went south very quickly when the driver opened fire on the ROs.

The officer who ended the incident was forced into firing while crouched behind the rear passenger-side wheel of a pickup truck at the attacker (who had already severely injured the driver's side approaching officer with gunfire) who was using the pickup as cover from the other (far) side of the pickup to engage fellow officers behind the one in a cover crouch at the rear quarter panel portion of the truck.

This officer knew where the guy was, but looking would have got him shot up, so he stuck the gun around the lower front of the rear tire and, using his grip index, shot the guy in the lower legs which led to him falling and another shot that hit him (non-fatally) in the cheek. All officers survived and the perp is still serving out a 107-year sentence.

The point of using that specific vid in the class pertained to the topic under discussion here: at no time did the officer look at his sights; no way. He was also not at anything that could be called contact distance.

But he got the hits. I think that video gives some pretty good evidence in favor of unaimed fire to apply to both sides of the exact same coin–as pointed out in the opposing viewpoints of the same situation types, below.

I'd call what the officer did point shooting. I guess it could also be called "grip indexing"... same thing? Opinions?

old fuff:

but for the moment to address your question to Mr. Temkin.

To use the sights you must be able to align them with both your eyeball(s) and the intended target. Therefore the gun must be brought to eyeball level. Under real-world circumstances this may or may not be practical or even possible.

jscott:

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.

In what situation would point shooting work that aimed fire would not?

The answer should take the real world into account. That is.... partially or almost completely obscured adversaries, moving adversaries, you moving, different heights, different angles, adrenaline, degraded bodily skills, psychological overload, failure to neutralize (you're going to point shoot at a moving head), shooting from cover, and everything else.

 

[Crusader103]

Thank you Cosmoline. I knew I couldn't be the only one on here that believes in using my sights.

Smince,

But the rub is, every situation won't allow aimed fire.

I'm still waiting on the situation that would allow the point shooting that would not allow aimed fire.

How is this not faster than waiting until you get a sight picture?

Maybe you skipped my last post. And as Cosmoline pointed out, you are responsible for all of those shots.

Be aware. Shoot accurately.

Joshua Scott
www.FrontSightFocus.org

 

[Crusader103]

sidheshooter,

I would not call that point shooting. Point shooting is bringing the weapon up within the plane of sight but not focusing on the sights. That doesn't appear to be the case here.

There are circumstances in which you cannot use the sights. These same scenarios would preclude point shooting as well, as was the case here.

Good on that officer for what he did. I would be interested in seeing the video if you have a link (?).

I could be visualizing it wrong from the description but I probably would have pointed the weapon under the truck, using the sights, and fired at the target offered or selected. I think that would have upped the chances of the hit, but in this case, what he did worked so I can't fault him for that. Again, I would never say that such tactics have not worked, just that it generally isn't as effective.

Be aware. Shoot accurately.

Joshua Scott
www.FrontSightFocus.org

 

[sidheshooter]

I'm still waiting on the situation that would allow the point shooting that would not allow aimed fire.

We've got posts going at the same time, since we're both logged in at the moment; if we can agree that the officer in the video that I mention above was pointing instead of aiming, then there's one possibility to consider.

 

[sidheshooter]

Double post again! (Sorry)

No way I'd want to use my sights in that situation, for the same reasons that that officer made himself as small a ball as possible.

Unfortunately, I don't have a link since the vids presented were as part of a course, but I'll email the instructor and see if I can dig up a copy for public consumption. Interesting and scary stuff.

BTW, I'm a real use-your-sights guy (for what it's worth, as I am also a hobbyist/dilletante) but this course and vid presented some credible opposing examples for me to add to my own personal mix.

Next course may well be different for me, again, FWEIW.


I'm getting a lot out of this discussion.

 

[Crusader103]

I guess I would really have to see the video to make an informed decision. This guy may very well have done the best thing he could do. It obviously worked. Whether it is my tactic or not I am always for the good guys and however they win is irrelevant after the fact.

Once I see the video I have to say that my tactic may have been different... maybe not.

Be aware. Shoot accurately.

Joshua Scott
www.FrontSightFocus.org

 

[JN01]

Even if it doesn't fit your particular world view, not using sights won't preclude getting solid hits.

Look back through all my posts and you will not once see me make that claim. My assertion is that using sights is just as fast and will score better hits a greater majority of the time. In every situation, aimed fire will be as effective, or more effective, than point shooting.

So most of us agree that it is possible to get adequate hits using point shooting methods at close ranges. Everyone agrees that using one's sights allows a more precise shot.

I have a problem with the contention that using sights is just as fast as point shooting. Perhaps for a competitive shooter who has fired tens of thousands of rounds, it is. For the average guy, I don't think so.

It's not a matter the time difference between raising the gun from peripheral vision height to line of sight. The big difference is the time it takes to align the sights and get a sight picture as opposed to seeing the rear of the gun silhouetted on the target. If I'm taking fire from someone 10' away, every second used to take careful aim is more rounds on me. And at that distance, do I really need a 1" group, or would a 5" group be good enough?

 

[Mikhail Weiss]

I knew I had read this somewhere, so here it is: M. Ayoob tested pointers and aimers.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BTT/is_150_25/ai_67886010/

 

[Matthew Temkin]

Gentlemen, forgive me for not responding to JScott, but I have decided to place him on my ignore list.
I suspect that he has an axe to grind with me personally and I really don't want to play that game anymore.
I will gladly answer questions on the subject from anyone else.
Anyway, I am good friends with JM, who is a training Sgt with the Akron OH PD. In 2007 he asked me to come out and teach a point shooting class for his officers.
I charged nothing for this and even paid for my airfare.
About 21 showed up on a Saturday (on their own time)
Most were rookie cadets who were about to graduate, and all were veterans who saw recent combat in the Middle East.
Here is a review of that class and shows that not all combat veterans are adverse to including point shooting in their arsenal:
(One of whom used point shooting to kill a bad guy one year later.)

Gents,

I had the chance earlier this month to train with Matthew Temkin and 7677 at their yearly summer training event.

First off, I (and my training partner) want to thank them and 7677's training partner JM for inviting me and my training partner to the event. I've been reading stuff from Matt and 7677 for years, and it's been great getting to know them a little bit and learn from them.

I've had nothing but sighted fire training until this year, when after alot of research, I decided it was time to get some point shooting training. One prominent instructor I've trained extensively with has you use your sights for 100% of the firing in class, and says if you have to shoot close in, just use the built in retention position of the draw. Problem is, you never actually do it in training.

I have to call BS on that, how can you be expected to do something in real life that you haven't trained to do? Answer: you can't!

Also, Steve Barron showed me a classic photo of this same instructor during an intense FoF event, and this same instructor is in a classic Fairbairn 3/4 hip position, under extreme stress in the scenario, firing. Hmmm. Barron said to me, with a grin on his face, already knowing the answer, "did you learn that position in your classes with him?" My answer, "Uh, no".

To quote Matt from one of his posts, we covered:

"point shooting both from a tactical officers point of view ( two hands in a hunter/active shooter mode) to extreme close range techniques. ( EU/ED, Zipper,retention, getting off the X, etc.)....some combatives and weapon retention....FOF a la airsoft" We also did some carbine pointshooting training.

We shot about 600rds each during the training day and covered a lot of material. There were some hardened, experienced Gunmen in this class, and not one of them came away unimpressed with this training.

Matt has a trememdous amount of knowledge and is a dynamic instructor, never failing to keep the attention of the class. He is the kind of guy that could easily misinterpreted on the street, just an average looking guy, but God help the crook that attacks this guy! My training partner and I were laughing on the way home at the sheer viciousness of Matt's demos. He is a real character and ball buster, and had us laughing our asses off at some points of the class. It was so damn hot that note taking was totally impractical, we had to focus on stuffing mags and drinking water when we weren't shooting, but I wish I'd had the chance to write down some of his one-liners. Matt is also a wheelgunner, which I like, as I carry two wheelguns everyday. The revolver is far from obsolete as a personal defense weapon!

7677 is a skilled operator and instructor, with tremendous knowledge, but much more low key than Matt. He did alot of the demos for the class, and let me tell you he is another guy you wouldn't want to tangle with at any range. He makes his duty G19 sound like a sub gun in some of the close range drills, with deadly accuracy.

Matt's buddy (who didn't want to be identified) and 7677's buddy JM were also assistant instructors for the class and did a great job of personal instruction. Thanks Guys! JM hosted this event and really worked hard and deserves a lot of credit for having the balls to teach these lifesaving skills to his men.

FoF saw some interesting things happen, I just wish that it had been videotaped, as I believe you can learn a great deal watching yourself on video.

These guys make a great training team. I would recommend anyone interested in no BS training contact these guys and bring them in for some training, I don't think you'll be disappointed.

I've now trained with three of the instructors who were personally trained by Col Rex Applegate: Steve Barron, Clyde Beasley, and now Matthew Temkin. I've been nothing but impressed by the training offered by these men.

Pointshooting is alive and well in Ohio.

Thanks again,

Dave Williams
Last edited by Dave Williams : 08-21-2007 at 09:35 AM.
Reply With Quote

 

[Matthew Temkin]

Here is another review by a student who has been in the army/Airborne for 20 years with a few combat tours in Iraq.
I am posting these not to drum up business ( I have no school, no website and no aspirations of becoming a guru) but to show that not all combat veterans agree with JScott and Chuck Taylor:

Steve Collins Steve Collins is offline
Suarez International Staff Instructor

Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: WA
Posts: 1,362
Send a message via AIM to Steve Collins
Default Weekend with Matt...

I spent this last weekend with Matt Temkin, his friend Paul and Southnarc. Southnarc was a great host to all of us! Those of you who are still wondering about the Fairbairn-Sykes/Applegate PS concept, let me tell you: it is valid and it should be a part of any gunmans reportoire.

We worked on PS with rifle and pistol; going through the whole of what Matt has been talking about for a while now. For the close fight, which as we all know, is close, quick and violent, these are some of the best techniques I have seen for dealing with a situation of this type. My goal now is to work out for myself where they fit in my bag of tricks along with what I have in there already.

Matt also beat me up for a while using the WWII combatives out of "Get Tough" and "Kill Or Get Killed." Yeah, it hurt. But, I'll be showing it to my LTs when I get back to work in a few weeks. It is extremely effective, and isn't the watered down, PC crap that passes for fighting skills these days.

I want to thank these guys for letting me hang out with them, and pick their brains for a while. Train with Matt if you get the chance. Just bring lots of ammo, Matt likes to shoot...a lot!
__________________
To be a warrior is not a simple matter of wishing to be one. It is rather an endless struggle that will go on to the very last moment of our lives. Nobody is born a warrior, in exactly the same way that nobody is born an average man. We make ourselves into one or the other ~Carlos Castaneda


Infidel Knuckle Dragger!

NRA Life Member

 

[JMusic]

I just want to say old fuff has summoned American shooting expectations pretty well. I don't have a dog in the hunt and I can tell you I have benefited from several small contractors here. I have learned some good handgun techniques from these guys. And long gun and shotguns I have learned little.

I consider myself in at least top 90 percent in everything self defence. Even throwing hand grenades! But anyway I plan on taking Temkins course just to be part of history. For his grandfather is a legend. Anyone I know who point shoots or has seen it knows that it is sound. But i and people like this see shooting as it should be. Can you shoot an 6 lb cannon. Me neither. But let me say all good shooters can do these things. Hit more than they miss, move, anticipate and identify. In other words hit stationary, moving, and distant targets. more than not. As quick as you can.






Jim