Modern Point Shooting

[scoutsabout]

.
"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."

That's a negative, Ghostrider... I believe the words I used were "sight picture" and "aimed fire." Perhaps I wasn't clear enough, but those are not the same thing as the deliberate, 4-point sight picture.

My point is that there should be some frame of sight picture reference beyond about 6 feet.

I'm sure you are aware that when your target is 10 feet away you need only have a bearing on your front sight. That is a sight picture.

A brief fixation on the target's center mass, a push of the front sight into alignment with it, and successive squeezes of the trigger until you get the "he's down" stimulus.

Front sight, front sight, front sight.... and when the target is beyond about 25 feet, you can do the whole shebang, considering center mass, sights and eyeballs... with depth of focus still on the front sight.

I believe that beyond about 6 feet, the gun should be extended... and that, with extension, the front sight should guide your rounds. I can do this with greater speed and accuracy than any non-sighted method. I honestly believe that this technique mitigates all of our disadvantages, as opposed to just firing like your trickster bullets are going to home-in on their target in any given dynamic, fluid, unpredictable, crazy situation.

But, like I said... we only need prove anything to ourselves.

.

 

[Old Fuff]

Well to each his own, and you are more then welcome to do it your way, so long as I can do the same. If the person who making a lethal attack on me is only 10 feet away I’m going to have a shot off long before the gun is high enough so that I can see the sights – front or back. I will keep in mind that at 10 feet I’m as easy to hit as they are, and they will probably get to start first.

As I see it you feel insecure in making a viable hit at over a 6-foot distance unless you can find that front sight – at least for a fraction of a second. I have confidence in doing the same thing without having to use any sights, and do it faster. Oh not by much, but life or death can be decided in a small part of a second.

If I’m assaulted unexpectedly I can employ a number of different techniques that I’ve been fortunate to learn, with the choice being determined by the circumstances. Some of those techniques I learned from Jeff Cooper, who for many years was a prized personal friend. Going in another direction I also learned from Bill Jordan, as well a Rex Applegate. All of these gentlemen had different ways of doing things, all of them were very good at what they did, and I feel much safer because I learned from all of them, rather then just one.

Unquestionably sighted shooting has its place, especially when you have the advantage of distance, cover and time. When those factors are working against you a one-way-fits-all solution may come up short. Flexability in technique can then save your bacon.

To add one thing: Neither Bill Jordan, Rex Applegate or a number of others I could mention were what you call "tricksters” They were experienced professionals, who had been there and done that. What they shot at they hit - exactly where they intended to. You really need to do some research.

 

[Balog]

Well said Old Fuff.

My issue with the "point shooting is a scam !!1!11!1eleventyone!!!" people is that a number of people were out there getting hits and winning fights long before the critic was born or Col Cooper started teaching.

 

[scoutsabout]

Old Fluff,

Now, you've suposedly had some notorious friends. Where as you purport to have known these guys, I've only read their books and learned from their other protege instructors. That being said, I don't see how being close friends with them makes you any kind of authority, per se. I've had friends in high places, too, but who cares? Guys like Jordan, Applegate, and Cooper were indeed great men. May they be looking over you like the ghost of Yoda when you face the music. But... they can't pull the trigger for you, and neither can I.

I share with those same notorious men the unfortunate distinction of being an "experienced professional" as you put it. I have also "been there and done that." I have stared death in the face, and prevailed, at mortal detriment to others. I would not say that I am proud of such things, but don't preach to the quire, sir.

I am beginning to sound like a broken record with things like this but...

Attack the argument, not the author.

Yes, I really do need to do some research... and continue doing research... and yet more research... as I have been doing... just like you and everybody else needs to do. You've implied that my argument is based on ignorance and lack of research... which, I can honestly tell you, is not the case. Though I have only been at this for ten years, I have had some of the finest instruction and been able to absorb, modify, personalize, apply... and kill people before they killed me... with the tactics I've learned. But let me be clear about one thing: that doesn't matter. What matters is that we can remain civil and logical about our arguments... that we can stick to the facts, cite sources, rely on statistics, paraphrase studies, learn something... and use what works best for us, individually.

As Balog said, people have been out there getting hits and winning fights long before the critic or (the late) Colonel Cooper started teaching. Well, I was lighting up the scoreboard long before I bought my first Cooper book. The people that trained me to kill were desciples of Cooper and the rest. It doesn't matter who you knew, only that you have an accute knowledge of yourself and, hopefully, have a moment to learn something about your enemy.

Instead of attacking my argument, you've brought up the ambiguous 10-foot scenario and backed up your opinion by throwing out famous names. What happened to the 15-yard lethality that you boast? What about your own experiences? How has this technique actually worked for you, when pitted directly against a rudimentary sight picture? Are your results repeatable in multiple life-like scenarios? Under stress? Against multiple targets? Without stray rounds hitting the "innocent" targets nearby?

Enough of this pissing contest. I don't care if it works for you... I only want to know WHY it works for you. That is something that we can all learn from. Simply stating that it is the standard fare of gun gurus past is NOT something we can all learn from.

I made an attempt to produce some evidence as to why sighted fire, even rudimentary "front sight only" fire, has worked out very well for me. I have also admitted that the techinque is merely what works for me, personally, and have acknowledged that what works for me might not work for everybody else.

I could almost kill someone with an empty gun at 10 feet, so let's avoid that murky area and meet somewhere in the middle. You said that you'll be getting shots off "long before" your gun comes up in front of you. Really? Is it that long? How many times can you miss before I can make a center-mass hit? You said point shooting can be effective out to 15 yards. I said that some form of sight picture is effective beyond about 6 feet. We can split the difference at around 7 yards.... which happens to be the edge of that ever-touted "21-foot hot zone."

What do you see the IPSC and USPSA shooters doing? Any point shooting there? Are they fast? Are they lethal? Maybe it's because they shoot a half-million rounds per year. Maybe not, honestly I don't know. All I know is that they don't use point shooting.

If you can get more rapid, center-mass hits on a target at 21 feet with point shooting than rudimentary, or even fully-aligned, sighted fire... then I'll just have to be your huckleberry.

Let's keep it real. Argue with statistics. Argue with realistic scenarios. Argue speed and accuracy against liability and survivability. Argue whatever you want, so long as it has some sort of foundation beyond heresay. Don't argue that Jeff Cooper killed more guys than me, because it doesn't matter... and he probably didn't.

Game on.

.

 

[smince]

What do you see the IPSC and USPSA shooters doing? Any point shooting there? Are they fast? Are they lethal? Maybe it's because they shoot a half-million rounds per year. Maybe not, honestly I don't know. All I know is that they don't use point shooting.

Really now?

You know what REALLY improves sighting with INTUITIVE aim? Learning how to grip a pistol correctly so that it is in line with the bones in your forearm so that when you "point" your arm at the target the muzzle is lined up with the target. Then you simply look over the gun and if you choose to you can drop an eye behind the sights as appropriate.

But then I'm just a master class IDPA shooter.... -Randy Harris

Then there is this:

Sights are for two things...Distance Shooting (25 yards and out to 100 maybe), or for precision shooting up close (think eyeball shots not center of mass shots).

For anything else, you really do not need ANY sights on the gun. We have done entire CRG classes as well as FOF classes totally without any sights on the gun at all using only the body indexes. We teach people all the time how to shoot at speeds that are impossible if one is waiting to use sights.

Or this:

Don't believe it? I challenge you to spend a month in training. Tape over your sights. Perfect your grip. Make it as uniform as you can. Follow the procedures for the draw and firing outlined in our DVDs. Then after a month go and shoot some drills out to ten yards without ANY sights and tell me you have not done as well as with a classic sight picture. I dare you.

 

[scoutsabout]

Smince,

That's a formidable stack of useless quotes. You chose one not-so-real-world example from my arguments and threw some "Dr. Pistolero McGeekboy says point shooting is the shizzle" at me.

Okay, I stand corrected about the competitive shooting off-topic non-argument.

I don't disagree that point shooting itself can be perfected... but... your quotes made my counter-point for me. The vast majority of us don't have a whole month to spend perfecting our trickshot grip and hundreds of rounds per month to stay sharp in that specialized technique. Most of us don't have that kind of money to burn, nor do we have sponsors. Shooting a one foot wide target at ten yards, from the hip, is a far more perishable skill than sticking your sights on it.

Your point is that some of the competitors do indeed use point shooting. Well, great... good for them. I'm sure anyone who shoots a half million rounds per year could learn to do all kinds of crazy things.

For the rest of us, I am confident that aimed fire is more effective outside of touching distance.

.

 

[smince]

Sorry you don't get it.

It doesn't take

a whole month to spend perfecting our trickshot grip and hundreds of rounds per month to stay sharp in that specialized technique.

as you put it. The 'month' of training is just doing your regular practice drills, only sans sights.

When I took Gabe's Close Range Gunfighting class, students were PS shooting while moving and making solid hits by after lunch the first day. It only got better from there.

It's not that hard or doesn't take that much ammo. I shot less than 500 rounds during either weekend course I took from him.

Shooting a one foot wide target at ten yards, from the hip, is a far more perishable skill than sticking your sights on it.

As for myself, I try to get in at least monthly practice, but my work schedule sometimes prevents it. I've gone 6+ months without firing a shot and my PS skills still worked just fine.

 

[Old Fuff]

Now, you've suposedly had some notorious friends. Where as you purport to have known these guys, I've only read their books and learned from their other protege instructors. That being said, I don't see how being close friends with them makes you any kind of authority, per se.

No it doesn't, and I don't claim to be an authority. My point was that they, and others, had succesfully done what the did, had what might be called "practical experience," and each provided me with parts of their knowledge in a manner that increased my expertise - such as it is. They were also very interesting to know.

From your perspective, what works for you does, and others should do the same. Anyone who use any form of shooting that doesn't involve sights are nothing but "tricksters" who scatter unaimed shots all over the landscape. Jeff's "Modern Technique of the Pistol" has obsoleted everything that went before.

As for myself, I disagree. While I have great respect for Col. Cooper I also found others that offered viable techniques. If I understand correctly, you say that one should not venture beyond a distance of 6 feet without raising the gun to approximately shoulder height and picking up the image of the front sight. Further you imply if not state that doing otherwise will probably result in a wild shot. In addition there are no unfavorable consequences if one does it your way, and any time that may be lost doesn't matter.

Both of us have a right to our opinions, and I don't dispute your right to advocate yours. But at the same time, I and others have a right to do the same. My experience, based on what I learned from others, tells me that I don't need to do what you do at a range of 6 feet to make an accurate shot, and that alternatives to what you advocate are faster.

Any method or technique that one may use successfully requires training and practice - some more then others, and a lot depends on the individual. But anyone that takes the time to learn more then "one way" is going to be more formitable in a fight then someone who doesn't.

 

[scoutsabout]

Sorry you don't get it.

It doesn't takeas you put it. The 'month' of training is just doing your regular practice drills, only sans sights.

When I took Gabe's Close Range Gunfighting class, students were PS shooting while moving and making solid hits by after lunch the first day. It only got better from there.

It's not that hard or doesn't take that much ammo. I shot less than 500 rounds during either weekend course I took from him.As for myself, I try to get in at least monthly practice, but my work schedule sometimes prevents it. I've gone 6+ months without firing a shot and my PS skills still worked just fine.

Thank you for finally backing up your claims with some sort of reality. I hope your defensive tactics and techniques work well for you, should you ever need them. I will stick with what works for me.

Be safe.

.

 

[scoutsabout]

Old Fluff,

I don't think you and I actually disagree about the philosophical aspects. Seems like we've been mostly arguing about probabilities and fractions of seconds. In the end, all we can do is learn, train, evolve, and try to avoid a deadly encounter in the first place.

I hope your defensive tactics and techniques work well for you, should you ever need them. I will stick with what works for me.

I think we've explored our differences on point shooting about as far as we can.

Be safe.

.

 

[smince]

Thank you for finally backing up your claims with some sort of reality.

All the pro-point shooting posts are about reality.

Of course, he has other deluded students besides myself:

I have been a combat "operator" and trainer most of my entire adult life with time in SWAT, as a Green Beret, as a police use of force trainer, and protective specialist, with numerous combat deployments.

Long ago, I concluded that most of what is taught is basically wrong. I believe that your group of instructors is at this time the most relevant and "correct" when it comes to actual combat.

Thank you for all of your valuable information. You will save lives.

A year or so ago, I started studying surveillance/dashcam tapes of attacks that justified lethal force. I came to a startling conclusion: my training (LFI and other "conventional" courses) did not equip me to deal with these sorts of sudden, close-quarter attacks. This realization caused me to rethink my training, and to make changes to both my techniques and attitudes.

I really wasn't aware of what you were doing with SI, so in my ignorance I just looked at what the ends needed to be, then worked backwards to figure out changes to my training that would deliver the desired result. Doing some FoF with Airsoft opened my eyes further, and enabled faster progression.

Through the grapevine I learned that what I'd come up with from a "common sense" perspective looked oddly similar to what you were doing - in a very crude way, of course. I decided "to heck with the mudslingers"; the Gabe Suarez I'd met over dinner didn't seem like a hardened criminal or a pretentious publicity hound, so I cautiously checked out your work. I liked what I saw.

To learn more I registered here at WT, picked up a number of your DVDs, and added a lot of new stuff to my regimen. Most importantly, I threw away a lot of old crap.

I've learned more of relevance from one of your DVDs than I did in many days of classes with more "traditional" instructors.

(I'm still not a knife guy, but I'm getting there!) I'm hoping to train with you in the future, but in the meantime wanted to say thanks, and apologize for misjudging your character for so long. You're not so bad after all - no matter what the square range guys say.

 

[Matthew Temkin]

Why would anyone hip shoot at 10 yards?
Hip shooting is meant for about 5 feet.
Point shooting out to about 10 feet.
Which will take care of about 95% of the situations that the typical civilian gun owner would ever face.
Nor does it take months of training or reams of ammo.
Best of all once mastered the skill requires minimal practice.
Lastly point shooting is a compliment to aimed fire, not a replacement.

 

[scoutsabout]

Here it is, boys... point shooting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IrJOF7jhgAQ&feature=related

Live the dream.

 

[smince]

Here it is, boys... point shooting.
Live the dream.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnrIdpo9odA

 

[Matthew Temkin]

As much as I value combat experience I doubt any one person can totally learn the necessary skills/tactics via his own personal experience.
And even if they did much of what they would be doing would amount to reinventing the wheel.
This is why history is such an important subject, since it allows us to learn from past generations.
Which makes the old, "I have used aimed fire for real, therefore point shooting is a farce" argument a bit tiring.
Now if someone was claiming that point shooting should replace aimed fire for all situations these critics would have a point, but that is not the case.
Then again, how many of these critics have had actual training in point shooting?

 

[scoutsabout]

Then again, how many of these critics have had actual training in point shooting?

I have... and not just for a few seconds. I have tried point shooting under simulated duress, while out of breath and dizzy, against multiple targets at varied ranges, with obstacles, with friendly targets mixed in.

I've also tried the more common-sense techniques... through and through.

How many proponents of point shooting have ACTUALLY tried it? Have you guys really born out this technique in life-like scenario shoots?? Did either of you gun-fu masters answer my earlier post about realistic training?

NO. YOU DID NOT.

My video link was a joke, and one that I thought was rather fitting and hilarious, given the context of the discussion.

Your video link response was some actual point shooting... the kind of thing that sends some of the rounds into the target and some into god knows where or who.

Every once in a while, I run across people who claim to be accomplished, vetted, tried and true professionals that have the secret to self defense. Usually, it's something about "what the academy won't teach, what the dojo won't teach, because it is so brutally effective... blah blah blah."

That's what point shooting, as a "technique," sounds like. Well, I am here to tell you that I have indeed done some dynamic point shooting... and it is useful at touching distance.

The only thing that I've heard consistently about point shooting is that there is "no technique" involved... as it is advertized. Well, there is a range at which you don't need any technique. That range could be reached with a lunge and the thrust of a sword.

If you use "no technique" in a defensive scenario, with live ammo, against a live target, in a dynamic and public environment, beyond touching distance... then I honestly hope you prevail against the evil bastard... but I don't envy you the chances you are taking, the trial you may face, or the pain and suffering you may cause to innocent bystanders.

Yes, there is a place for "point shooting" and it is so extremely close that technique and marksmanship are marginalized to the point that they are not factors.

NOT FIFTEEN YARDS.

NOT TEN YARDS.

NOT FIVE YARDS.

If you still believe in your mall-ninja ammo, shoulin touch of death, and action-movie gunplay... then good luck.

As for this thread... I think we've beaten it to death.

Take care and see you around the board.

.

 

[smince]

Your video link response was some actual point shooting... the kind of thing that sends some of the rounds into the target and some into god knows where or who.

While I have not personally trained with Roger Phillips (from my link), I've trained with about 10-12 people who have taken his Point Shooting Progressions course.

They can and do (and have told me Roger does also) keep their shots inside the the circle on an IDPA target (or a paper plate) while doing the movements on the clip. I've seen it done. Heck, I've even did some of it myself. I was amazed at the hits I was getting while moving and not using my sights.

So the argument about rounds going 'God know where' don't hold water, either.

Yes, there is a place for "point shooting" and it is so extremely close that technique and marksmanship are marginalized to the point that they are not factors.

Which are distances where the majority of gunfights take place anyway.

 

[strambo]

NOT FIFTEEN YARDS.

NOT TEN YARDS.

NOT FIVE YARDS.

If you still believe in your mall-ninja ammo, shoulin touch of death, and action-movie gunplay... then good luck.

Condescend much?

I'm glad you have the market corned on "reality" we'll just ask you from now on.

I know I can sprint off the X and hit from a draw from concealment and point shoulder at 5 yds. I personally cannot get on the sights while moving that fast laterally. Point shooting works great for me to 5-6yds (0-18ft) especially in a dynamic environment. Heck, at 6ft and under I'm not even using a firearm at all, poor choice.

 

[NCPatrolAR]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnrIdpo9odA

I'd like to see some of the targets following strings of fire without the 10 pounds of tape on them.

 

[Old Fuff]

It's a little bit off topic, but anyway...

Back during the dark ages of pre-history the FBI had a training course that was also used by some police departments. The first part required shooting at waist level at a B-27 silhouette target mounted 7 yards away. Special Agents and others being trained were expected to keep their shots well within the center-of-mass.

The course later became the basis of a formal competition - called PPC or "Practical Police Course" or some say "Practical Pistol Course." The 7-yard stage was retained, but any competitor that expected to win any awards had to do much better then simply keeping they're shots in the center-of-mass.

7 yards = 21 feet.

It is much easier to make hits using point shooting at shoulder height then doing the same at waist level.

The only justification for waist-level shooting is time. By not lifting the handgun to shoulder height you reduce response time (presuming you are responding to an attack). If one is responding to an assault-in-progress, time can be a matter of life and death. Any technique or method that can reduce response time is worthy of consideration, and also of mastering. This is not to say that a particular method has to be used - simply that it may be important to have a choice. As Mr. Temkin has pointed out - one technique is not (or should not) mean that another one can't be used. One simply picks the optimal choice given the circumstances of a particular situation. I would strongly disagree with a contention that one technique was ideal under any circumstances. Also saying in effect that, "I tried it (whatever), it didn't work, therefore it's no good," doesn't necessarily mean that the same is true of others. William Fairbairn's experience in Shanghai, China being an example.

 

[Matthew Temkin]

scoutsabout:
I asked you if you were TRAINED in point shooting, not if you TRIED point shooting.
Big difference, and I guess the answer is no.
I have had training in point shooting, from a wide variety of military & police combat veterans.
It has worked for me at the range.
It has worked for me at the NYPD' and others FATS machines.
It has worked for me in simulated combat with both Airsoft and Sims.
And point shooting has a very impressive track record in actual combat.
If you feel it is not for you then more power to you.
If you feel it is not right for everyone, well, we will have to agree to disagree.
PS--Merry Christmas.

 

[Balog]

"My way is the only way!" claims usually flag my BS meter, as do boasts about what a stone hard killer one is.

 

[Matthew Temkin]

True enough.

 

[smince]

I'd like to see some of the targets following strings of fire without the 10 pounds of tape on them.

I suppose I could try to find some, but even if he was shooting fist-sized groups at speed, someone would still say point shooting is useless and inaccurate.

Take a class and learn to do it yourself

 

[Glock Glockler]

Would this be considered "point shooting"?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ieWrWLjii0