Modern Point Shooting

[NCPatrolAR]

I already told you. If I am at a range shooting for a score, I'm going to use the best 2 handed grip I can. If I am kneeling with a radio in my support hand, I am not. If I am at the range shooting for a score, I am going to take my time to get the best sight picture I can. If I am moving through a door overseas, I may not have time to use my sights at all. And if I'm at the range shooting for a score, I am going to take my time and time my breathing with my shots to minimize the impact the motion of my body has on each shot. If I am drawing and firing on a gunman during a traffic stop or returning fire after an ambush Afghanistan, I am NOT going to be controlling my breathing the same way. The application of fundamental once uses while taking precise shots on a safe range is just not always possible when you're being shot at, or when you have to do other things, like shooting laying down shoot with a radio or light in your hand, shoot while dragging another person backwards out of a kill zone. You simply can not place the same emphasis on those fundamentals in every situation.

So are you talking about shooting on a static range for some score like PPC or are you talking about competition like IDPA, IPSC, etc? Because competitions such as IDPA, IPSC, etc have alot more in common with the things you listed that you make it sound like.

 

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

The big difference, is that in competition, you have 2 priorities: hitting the targets, and hitting them neatly. You can't use 97 rounds on 3 targets in competition and expect to score well. Even in a dynamic competition like IPSC, how you hit the targets count. A lot of times in combat, it doesn't really matter. When you're shooting is being judged, of course you want to get a good stance, proper balance, get a nice stock weld with the rifle, line up your sights on target, inhale then exhale while applying even rearward pressure to the trigger allowing you to put 3 good rounds in a nice group on the target. In combat, if you manage to get your rifle up and squeeze off 9 rounds, 2 hitting him in the leg, 1 in the stomach, 1 in the chest, 2 in the shoulder and 3 in the wall behind him missing him completely...as long as he dies and you don't, you won. Being precise is great if you have the time and opportunity. And what we all consider to be the fundamentals are great for being precise and neat. But sometimes, you just need to throw more bullets at an enemy before he throws bullets at you and insh'allah, you go home and he bleeds out. There are times when the reality of the situation just doesn't allow you to do your best shooting. But if you live and the enemy doesn't it's good enough.

 

[NCPatrolAR]

The big difference, is that in competition, you have 2 priorities: hitting the targets, and hitting them neatly

Funny, my goals in competition are the same as they are for the street: hit the target accurately in the least number of rounds possible.

Even in a dynamic competition like IPSC, how you hit the targets count.

And how you hit on the street counts too. Getting superficial hits on a threat may help bring the fight to an end, but it extends the engagement where as hits in the vital areas (which is where competition shooters are generally going for) is what brings the fight to an end.

In combat, if you manage to get your rifle up and squeeze off 9 rounds, 2 hitting him in the leg, 1 in the stomach, 1 in the chest, 2 in the shoulder and 3 in the wall behind him missing him completely...as long as he dies and you don't, you won.

And cranking off a higher number of rounds to bring the fight to an end extends the length of time the fight is underway and it exposes you to a greater chance of a stray round striking someone that doesnt need a bullet.

 

[smince]

That would fall into the "etc..." category smince

And cover the majority of gunfights

 

[shootr]

I just want to say thanks to all the contribuitors here. This has been very informative and enlightening.

 

[shootr]

$.02 from the cheap seats

Disqualifier up front - I'm no where near the level of many who have posted here. Just a casual, civvie-type range-shooter.

I shot a bit of Bullseye 25+ years ago, did a fair amount of general shooting for a lot of years. At 50+ now, my eyes aren't as sharp as they once were and I cannot clearly see the front sight blade of a pistol or even sometimes a rifle. Recently, I picked up a few books on point shooting and was most impressed by Sykes' book. Almost too simple. Clear. Not a lot of BS, just some things to try at the range.

Having always been a front-sight kinda guy, I was flat out stunned by how accurately I could point shoot. All I did was follow the Sykes outline - square to the target, point like I was pointing my finger, etc., two-handed, "push & pull" and I was quickly hammering solid double taps out to 10 yards with a 1911 PD and full house JHPs. I was just playing around with a new technique and not seriously trying. I even backed out to 25 yards and still managed to keep everything on paper. Doubters can flame away, but it's true. Like I said - I was amazed and am interested enough to learn more.

My point is that for a basically average guy like me to be able to quickly make un-aimed hits, what could the average guy be taught / how proficient could he become with even the barest of training? Then - whatever the skill level could be, I'm sure a professional / seasoned shooter could do a whole lot better. I could see where the speed and effectiveness of training would make such techniques very attractive were one to be training large numbers of people to quickly go into harm's way - and those people would be reasnably proficient enough to survive. Again, I'm just a casual shooter, never shot or been in a combat situation, so not talking from any knowledge base. Just my own very limited experience with point shooting.

 

[Matthew Temkin]

Shootr--your experiences with point shooting is very common with shooters who decide to give it a go.
Point shooting can be learned in minutes--even with self instruction--and is deadly accurate even at distances well beyond what some would consider it's limitations.
Once again, here is a link to my free point shooting home study course:
http://kilogulf59.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=handgun&action=display&thread=114

 

[shootr]

Matt,

Thanks much!

 

[7677]

I'm sorry that I'm coming in to this thread late but it is good to see the mindset in this thread.

I also find it interesting that those of us that have been to combat tend to take the road that both threat focused (point shooting) and sighted fire techniques are necessary components of good shooting system.

JoeSlomo...excellent post...BTW.

 

[Cornbred]

Seems to me yall are arguing back and forth and saying almost the same thing but putting a name to it, which seems to be causeing the issues. Here is what I mean.

Mr. Temkin, you posted a video or two showing a guy running all over the place shooting a target. While watching noticed a few things. All you pros and conners try and take away any knowledge or label of point shooting and aiming.

Break it down to the different distances. Start with most of the real close shots when he had the weapons down by the hip or in close to his chest. To me and would venture to say alot of people out there would consider this some type of close contact drill. Point Shooters call it "Point Shooting" and aimers would call it "contact shooting"

Now look at the shots he was taking from a distance where he had it up at or just below eye level. To me and probably others this looks like shooting on the move drills. Point shooters would consider this point shooting or shoulder point because you don't have that perfect sight alignment and sight picture. Thing is you are aiming you are putting the front sight post on the target with your perifriel (spelling is bad) and yes it is very accurate. Aimers would call it shooting on the move. But to say that you get that perfect sight alignment or sight picture you are smoking crack. The only way you get that is by stopping or moving on a conveyer belt.

In short yall are arguing over the names that your respective teachers taught ya. Take the tools they all give you and keep yourself alive.

 

[Matthew Temkin]

The only video that I linked was of Gabe Suarez doing a 3 second room entry.
The other videos were of Roger Phillips which were put up by Smice and which are NOT endorsed by me.
With that exception stated everything else that you posted is spot on and very
true.

 

[T. Bracker]

Cornbred,

Well said. That was my point after watching the videos. As the distance increased, it became less "point" and more roughly indexed fire. Just my impressions.

 

[RobMoore]

While you may score hits with relative success on the range in a point shooting method, the dynamics of a real world threat are such that your bodily mechanisms are degraded and that weapon you are so good with on the range is no longer the extension of your arm that you thought it was

Exactly, and because you have no frame of reference, you won't know where your rounds are going, only that you are missing because your threat is not going down.

With aimed fire, you have instant feedback on your shot placement by seeing the alignment as it is disturbed by recoil.


The problem with much of the police training currently in use is the focus on bullseye accuracy. The target may be a man-shaped, and they may call it a combat course, but it is just a glorified bullseye match.

Testing recruits on how well they fire 2-3 rounds at a target 15-25 yards away in about 6 seconds is not very applicable to the gunfights they are more likely to face.

I believe the reason we have such a low hit ratio is that the officers are never properly taught how to fire aimed shots at targets 3-7 yards away as fast as they can pull the trigger, which is the speed as which they will want to do it when their life is on the line.

 

[Cornbred]

Mr. Temkin, Sorry I read all the posts before typing and I made the wrong assumption it was you. Did I understand you right, your intent is not to change the way people to shoot, but provide a different method of training and provide another tool for people to use to help keep them alive?

I have been to to many courses and the best instructors have been the ones that provided guidance and tools not the ones that say have the best and only ways to do things. As an example I have been taught to reload with a shield, and draw from a concealed holster numerous different ways. I have choosen the ways that works for me and tweaked it a bit and it just a little bit better for me.

 

[Matthew Temkin]

Yes, that is my intent.
Hence the title of MODERN point shooting.
There was a time that I taught point shooting via the WW2/Applegate/Fairbairn
method of one hand/vertical lift but found that the teaching method was turning people off to the CONCEPT of point shooting.
Nowadays I teach things differently, so as to blend what the shooter already knows with point shooting.
Since most of my advanced classes are taught to LEO instructors my mantra is,
" I'll show you how to do and teach the method. It is up to you to decide it's applications suitable to your department and situations.
Of course context is key.
In a 24 hour armed security guard course that I teach quite often--which covers everything from basic weapons handling to tactics- point shooting is just an hour or two of the course content.

 

[Cornbred]

There are alot of things wrong with police training. For many, many police departments it is the complete lack of training. Many of our departments across this nation have to qualify once or twice a year. And thats all the training they get. Of course those specialized sections (SWAT, SRT) don't have that problem and probably are not part of the police shooting issues everyone talks about. Many police departments dont have the budgets to allow their officers to train to the point that it becomes instinct. By instinct I mean to the point that when crap hits the fan their body and mind reverts back to training. I and a bunch of the cops out there train every chance we get because the use of the firearm might be what gets us home alive at the end of the shift. But I know many more cops that don't becuase they either dont have the money or they say they just dont have the time. These departments may send some of there officers to an awesome course and get this awesome training, but when they come back they dont get the chance to perfect or hone their skills. So in my opinion its not the type of training, but more the complete lack regular training.

 

[RobMoore]

^ and to add to that, qualification is not training. Too many agency leaders forget that.

Training, Practice, and Qualification are three entirely different things.

 

[Sweatnbullets]

I studied The Modern Techniques (MT's) for about four years in which I did about forty five courses. The course were all about the fundamentals of marksmanship. I then started participatiing in properly structured FOF. I found that the things that we were taught in the MT's simply did not work inside of seven yards. I needed to use "ignorant" point shooting to even have a prayer to compete. I call it "ignorant" point shooting because I had no formal training in combat shooting.

It got the job done much better than the MT's but it was still "ignorant" point shooting learned through the extremely inefficient and ineffective "fundamentals of marksmanship" path.

Once I understood the dynamics of a fight I began to get formal training in combat shooting.

The fundamentals of combat shooting were very different from the fundamentals of marksmanship. They had next to nothing in common. IMHO, there was no way in the world I would have ever progressed to the fundamentals of combat shooting by the path of the fundamentals of marksmanship. The differences between the two were much too vast in philosophy and application.

Once I moved past "ignorant" point shooting a whole new world opened up to me. It is impossible to explain to people that have not earned their way through that doorway. It is something that must be earned through training.

When it comes to being the best that you can be inside of combat shooting and when it comes to the fundamentals of marksmanship, the phrase "you get get there from here" has never been more true.

Some may call that marketing and snake oil salesman, but there are hundreds and hundreds of reviews on the internet that would prove that statement to be incorrect. To find out the truth all you have to do is know where to look for it and then look for it......until then.......you do not know what you do not know.

 

[Matthew Temkin]

As W.E. Fairbairn wrote in Shooting to Live,
"Target shooting and combat shooting are as different from one another as chalk from cheese, and what is learned from one should be unlearned from the other if one is learning how to shoot to live."

 

[sheepdog]

...I'm just an old fat guy who only talked to ONE of the experts on the phone one day about 30 years ago...and has never been to a training class by anybody...
...but I picked up a plastic J-frame Laseraim demonstrator last year while with my 15-year old in my local gunshop/range...and when he asked me what that was...I said "Look at the doorknob on that door" which was about 15-18' away...I held the demo down at my side, brought it up to belt level, triggered the switch, and hit the doorknob first try...he asked how I did that and I told him 500 rounds every weekend for about six months when I was slightly older than he, and a lot of shooting all my life...
...it doesn't matter which method you use...as long as you can put your bullets where you want them quick enough to stop the threat...you won't be any more alive because you used one method or another...shoot enough to hit your target consistantly and with or without a sight picture...that's what's important...
...for those of you who want to shoot well other than with sights, and don't have the money for a professional's class...I recommend you scour the bookstores and online for a copy of Bill Jordan's No Second Place Winner....and be willing to shoot a lot...it's really fun, anyways...

 

[NCPatrolAR]

I studied The Modern Techniques (MT's) for about four years in which I did about forty five courses. The course were all about the fundamentals of marksmanship. I then started participatiing in properly structured FOF. I found that the things that we were taught in the MT's simply did not work inside of seven yards. I needed to use "ignorant" point shooting to even have a prayer to compete. I call it "ignorant" point shooting because I had no formal training in combat shooting.

It got the job done much better than the MT's but it was still "ignorant" point shooting learned through the extremely inefficient and ineffective "fundamentals of marksmanship" path.

Once I understood the dynamics of a fight I began to get formal training in combat shooting.

The fundamentals of combat shooting were very different from the fundamentals of marksmanship. They had next to nothing in common. IMHO, there was no way in the world I would have ever progressed to the fundamentals of combat shooting by the path of the fundamentals of marksmanship. The differences between the two were much too vast in philosophy and application.

Once I moved past "ignorant" point shooting a whole new world opened up to me. It is impossible to explain to people that have not earned their way through that doorway. It is something that must be earned through training.

When it comes to being the best that you can be inside of combat shooting and when it comes to the fundamentals of marksmanship, the phrase "you get get there from here" has never been more true.

Some may call that marketing and snake oil salesman, but there are hundreds and hundreds of reviews on the internet that would prove that statement to be incorrect. To find out the truth all you have to do is know where to look for it and then look for it......until then.......you do not know what you do not know.

No offense, but I'm still waiting for you to detail these two different sets of fundamentals that you claim exist. I saw earlier where you detailed the fundamentals of marksmanship, and spoke of the fundamentals of combat shooting, but that second detailing was more of a description of marksmanship fundamentals being applied than an entirely different set of fundamentals.

I find it telling that so many combat vets teach marksmanship fundamentals in their courses and dont make claims of there being a mythical second set.

 

[RobMoore]

Target shooting and combat shooting take different mindsets, but not different methods. Learning the fundamentals and learning to hit a moving target while moving yourself are different processes, but sighted fire applies to both skillsets.

The difference for speed shooting is that you aren't as converned about the front sight's placement in the rear notch. Simply seeing it in there somewhere is enough. You aren't concerned about a smooth trigger press. As long as you aren't jerking your body into the shot in anticipation, a sloppy trigger press will still hit the target.

The reason so many people seem to think point shooting is the answer is because they know no other way to break themselves of the bad habit of being locked into the precision mindset, instead of shooting "accurate enough" at maximum speed.

Travis Tomasie (Army Marksmanship Unit, and World Champion shooter) once told me "There are no advanced techniques in shooting, only advanced ways of applying the fundamentals"

 

[smince]

I come from an MT/IDPA-type shooting background, with thousands of aimed rounds downrange.

The difference for speed shooting is that you aren't as converned about the front sight's placement in the rear notch. Simply seeing it in there somewhere is enough.

I can tell you with out a doubt that I never saw my sights anywhere during any of my Force-On-Force drills and I was hitting fist-size groups on my training partners with both of us on the move.

 

[RobMoore]

Did I indicate anywhere that it wasn't possible to do so?

No, I said it was BETTER to have a reference of the sights, because then you KNOW where you are hitting, instead of hoping.

I've also done a ton of force on force simunitions, and I used my sights from close range to 10-15 yards away, and it didn't slow me down any.

 

[Crusader103]

Rob,
...and it won't slow you down to use your sights. I don't understand why so many, or should I say a vocal few, are dead set on not using their sights. Just doesn't make sense to me. A person has the ability to be more precise without an ill side effect, yet chooses not to take it. Sighted fire is just as fast, and often faster, if scoring solid hits is your goal. Maybe "being sure of your target" is not a priority for everyone, but it is for me.