Modern Point Shooting

Status
Not open for further replies.
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
 
One example of when aimed fire would be difficult is when your hand is trembling or downright shaking.
It could be from fear, stress or from the body's flight or flight reflex kicking in.
Fairbairn taught to grip the pistol so tight that it actually shook and then had his officers shoot with a shaking hand to show that they could still achieve solid hits under less that ideal conditions.
Another would be in low light or downright darkness.
Old school gunfighters taught how to use the muzzle flash to light up the bad guys, as well as moving offline after shooting to avoid remaining a target.
Another would be close distances, which is not limited to so called contact distances but out to 7 feet or so--where so many armed citizen encounters occur.
Point shooting shines where fully extending your arms. or bringing the firearm up to line of sight would be way to slow or even suicidial.
 
Have any of you read Fast and Fancy Revolver Shooting by Ed McGivern? This guy was a genius at unaimed shooting. I've had the book for 25 years. It is a training guide. I used his tips to teach myself hip shooting way back then and they worked, but there is much more to that book (hard cover over an inch thick) and I plan to reread it myself.

Ed lived in Montana from 1874 to 1957. To quote from a webpage:

He could break six simultaneously hand thrown clay pigeons (standard trap targets) in the air before they hit the ground.

He could hit a tin can hand thrown 20 ft. in the air six times before it hit the ground.

He could shoot-drive a tack or nail into wood.

He could shoot the spots out of playing cards, or even split a playing card edge on.

He could shoot a dime on the fly.


400px-EdMcgivernFastAndFancyRevolverShootingFrontCover.jpg
400px-EdMcgivernFastAndFancyRevolverShootingBackCover.jpg

http://www.carryconcealed.net/fast-and-fancy-revolver-shooting-by-ed-mcgivern
Click to expand...
 
The section on training the police officer is pure gold.
A lot of "modern" methods are shown in that book.
It is IMHO that very little--if anything--that is touted as original is actually new.
It's all been done before
 
Last edited:
I allways wonder what the conversatiions must have been when people bring up ole Col.Askins, as he and Mr.Bryce where both mentors to me as well as a couple of old time city/county marshall types, they all believed in point shooting, and all so stressed learn your sights.

I normaly don't post when I read these threads, get to testie in my old age, but Matt is a freind, he isn't trying to change those whom are the died in the wool followers of cooper. or the modren training concepts, just trying to show the other side.

And for the cops in the world, who for the most part are not gun bunnies, and with what little training given them , it saves lifes.

Gee much better than my normal responces:)

Dave James
 
I can see how someone like Jscott can blow me off, but you?
With the training you had as well as your military and police combat experience?
Thanks for the kind words and when you ever start giving classes I will be the first one to sign up.
 
The Mass State Police under Lt. Mike Conti has included point shooting since 2000 and is reporting excellent results with point shooting.
As well as the California Hwy Patrol.
As well as the Akron OH PD.
Click to expand...

Is there a way for non-cops to easily access the reports of shootings by these depts using point shooting? I would think that if it has been used by these depts for so many years, there would be records of shootings under the conditions that critics specify as making point shooting useless. I don't have a dog in this fight, although I would appreciate if everyone could put away the epeen and stop bickering like children. :rolleyes:

As an aside, I find the insistence on "personal" experience as the only valid teacher to be laughable. Progress is made by standing on the shoulders of giants, not reinventing the wheel. Again, there are a lot of big names on both sides of this debate, so I say we look at the evidence. Does the average hit ratio of point shooting trained officers equal or exceed the hit ratio of traditional aimed fire trained officers? Are the cases of officers injured before being able to present and fire higher in aimed vs point depts? Etc.

TL;DR

Moar data, less epeen.
 
Hmm, vexing that data is not readily accessible.

However, I know that there must be a way to retrieve it. A scholarly request? FoIA? Mas Ayoob or similar "expert witness" type asking for a look see?

I respect a lot of men on both sides of this debate, and at some point you have to put aside opinion and look at the data.
 
Finally a thread on THR that I can sink my teeth into. Truth be told, I believe in what both Jscott and MattTemkin are professing here and that both have their points. There is a place for pointshooting of that I have no doubt. Knowledge of shooting to win the fight cannot be a negative, so all should keep an open mind. Since we cannot in reality, train in other than no-lethal situations, range training is all we have. I believe in Jscotts application more.
You folks need to understand something about Smince. He is a brainwashed disciple of Gabe Suarez, who no doubt is an excellent trainer but leaves something to be desired as a person to look up to.
Take something that you can use from all, take nothing as gospel from any.
 
I don't know, I am a sights kind of guy, be it handgun or rifle or shotgun for that matter. I have a book that has a photo of Rex Applegate demonstrating his point shooting - and his arm is up and extended, with the pistol right in the line of sight of his eye. Now, he may not have focused on the front sight, but it sure as heck is right up there in the line of sight of his eye on the target. Is that what you are calling "point shooting" or are you referring to something else, like shooting from the waist, like the old western "quick draws"? I am just trying to learn for my own clarification.
 
when the going gets tough...

.
.
.
Outside of touching distance?
.
.
FRONT SIGHT - *BANG* - FRONT SIGHT - *BANG* - FRONT SIGHT - *BANG* - FRONT SIGHT
.
Like the well-oiled machine you are, until stimulus tells you otherwise.
.
.
 
T Bracker--that is one type of point shooting termed as point shoulder.
Other methods--depending upon the distance--have the gun closer to the body and well below eye level.
 
I see. I just had seen that photo of Applegate recently. So, that is not what you are talking about? Just trying to figure what is actually meant by "point shooting" because sometimes it seems to be close contact waist level shooting and sometimes more of a "gun up into the cone of vision, but not directly using the front sight", which to me is still aimed fire, just coarsely aimed fire.
 
I define point shooting when firing a weapon without looking at the gun or it's sights whatsoever.
The distance can be from 0-15 yards and the gun can be held anywhere from retention to full extension.
And it can be held with either one or two hands.
 
I define point shooting as point-blank, or gun-grabbing distance. That is the only time I would not use some sort of sight picture.

Instead of arguing this to death, I suggest we all go out and try it.

I have personally tried several techniques, under simulated duress, and the ones with sight pictures have always completely out-shined the others beyond 6 feet... let alone 2-15 yards.

For me, the only thing that will take away my sight picture is touching distance. I have proven to myself the ability to open fire just as fast as if I were using no sight picture... but with better accuracy. All the range reports and statistics can take a hike once you've proven it to yourself, one way or the other.

Use whatever works.

However, I do not believe that "point shooting," as defined here, is a technique worth using unless you can completely prove it to yourself, under simulated duress, and weigh it against the other factors of dynamic combat.

Does "point shooting" really save time? Is the accuracy really sufficient out to something like 15 yard? Does it work so instinctively better than a rough sight picture that you can rely on it? Wait, aren't we trying to avoid succombing to instinct in the first place? Which method better mitigates the effects of Body Alarm Reaction? What about target/threat fixation? What about multiple targets? What of that final passgate for fundamental safety about "sights on target" before you open fire? What about stray rounds? The list goes on...

I have asked myself these questions and more. I have pitted them against my own live fire performance. I have proven it, beyond any doubt, for myself. Maybe there are people out there that can employ point shooting better than aimed fire, but it ain't me. Every time I've tried instinctive fire beyond 6 feet, I've confronted the blatant reality that I am not a trickster. I've been able to improve my hit probability with un-aimed fire, but not even close to a level that beats aimed fire.

We don't have to prove techneques to each other, only share them... we need to prove them to ourselves.

.
 
Obviously men such as Ed. McGivern, Bill Jordan, and Charles Askins couldn't have done what they claimed. Neither could Rex Applegate.

You are right in saying that you can only do what you believe you can, but I can assure you they’re many that can affectively use unsighted fire beyond 6 feet. If you say you can’t I'm sure that you’re right. :scrutiny:

But using the sights requires that one be able to at once, align all of the following:

1. Their eyeball(s).
2. Both front and rear sight.
3. An exact area on whatever they are shooting at.

They must also have time to raise the gun from waist level (or wherever it’s carried) to eye level.

Now in combat competition this isn’t particularly difficult, since the procedures and drills are pretty standard, and fortunately the targets don’t shoot back. But in a real shooting incident there are no fixed procedures and the circumstances can seldom be foreseen. :uhoh:

Which is the reason that the Old Fuff – so far as technique is concerned – never put all of his eggs in one basket. Others can do whatever they want. But hopefully no one will conclude that if they decide they can’t, others probably can’t either. ;)
 
"We don't have to prove techneques to each other, only share them... we need to prove them to ourselves."
Amen to that.
Such an attitude would prevent a lot of internet clashing.
Although I am with Old Fuff with this I respect your opinions and we will have to agree to disagree.
 
Gotta agree with Old Fuff and Matthew and add one thing. If you want to learn some new physical skill it is usually a good idea to get an expert to teach it to you instead of trying to learn something you don't understand all by yourself.

I did and it opened my eyes and added another "tool" to the "tool box".
 
As I have been labeled
a brainwashed disciple of Gabe Suarez
Click to expand...
lets' see what he says:
Some crazy guy thought to have students shoot each other with Airsoft BB guns. Shooters would replicate exactly the drills that formed the Modern Technique, and that Gusmoke's Matt Dillon tried to emulate in his show. Insane! Outlandish! Heresy! Yes, they called it all of those things...but the first time guys stepped up to do it, everything changed.

Gone were the Weaver Stances. Those lasted one evolution as guys realized that standing and shooting it out, in an equal initiative fight, or a reactive fight, was a guarantee of getting shot. The need for movement made the need for a proper stationary position obsolete in this type of fight. And keeping two hands on the gun was a luxury few got a chance to enjoy.

I recall after our first session of this several years ago I asked, "What sort of sight picture did you see"? Silence was the reply. "Well, what did you see?". I got varying replies from "the bad guy running at me", to "nothing", to "meat and metal". What we didn't hear, and have not heard, is that anyone has used a proper sight picture inside of five yards.

I base my view of the pistol fight on what we see in force on force sessions, as that parallels most, what I have seen on the streets. What a competitive pistol champion may use is interesting from a technical perspective, but that is all as the two worlds of range shooting and gunfighting only bear a passing resemblance. And the world of force on force, paralleling the gunfight more closely than anything else, tells us that using traditional sighting methods for close range shooting on a moving adversary is simply not done. Guys point and shoot...

Do you need high visibility sights for shots inside 7 yards? Nope. In fact, you could literally take the sights off the gun and be able to, statistically speaking, handle most CCW gunfights easily...

At recent classes I have been using Airsoft guns with no sights at all...just to be sure. You know what? It has not changed the hitting percentages at all. It has made guys somewhat faster since they are not slowing down to try and find the sights. Wow! Insane? Outlandish? Heresy? Maybe, but also the truth.

S.I. has become THE PLACE to go for those who wish to polish their ability to shoot without sights.
Click to expand...
:)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Matthew Temkin
  • Locked
My Point Shooting Video
2
Replies
42
Views
1K
Matthew Temkin
Matthew Temkin
Matthew Temkin
  • Locked
Carbine Point Shooting AAR
2 3
Replies
50
Views
2K
7677
7
Matthew Temkin
  • Locked
Carbine Point Shooting
Replies
0
Views
383
Matthew Temkin
Matthew Temkin
Matthew Temkin
  • Locked
Point shooting...4 hour syllabus
2
Replies
39
Views
3K
Matthew Temkin
Matthew Temkin
D
  • Locked
The One Huge Advantage of Position SUL
2 3 4
Replies
77
Views
5K
BullfrogKen
B
Back
Top