Modern Point Shooting

[Sweatnbullets]

Sweating bullets, If I may suggest one thing for you. Do some editting of your video before placing it on your websight. You are using this to promote your company and show how effective your training is; however, at about the 30 sec mark the shooter (you?) runs dry and seems almost dumbfounded. He looks at the weapon like "what the hell", completely takes his eyes off the subject, then finally reloads and engages the target. That few seconds of oops could turn off alot of people from taking your course.

Cornbread, thank you for the advice.

I am very comfortable with that malfunction clearance and it was intentially left in to show the "human side of things." I've seen tens of thousands of truely "reactionary" malfunction clearances. No matter who it is the OODA loop does appply and there will be a .2 to .25 decisons making time frame.

Mine in the clip is longer than that, because I hit slide lock at the end of the drill and actually considered whether I was going to fix it of not for the video. I decided to fix it. I am comfortable with that.

What I teach, most trained gun guys consider to be impossible. By allowing the "human side of things" onto the clip allows the watcher to understand that the skill sets that I teach are completely obtainable by the average Joe after only a couple of days of training. I am not one of those "exceptional" instructors that the student base is never going to be as good as and there are plenty of those out there.

I simply do not worry about the little stuff.

I am human, I make mistakes. I do not worry about little hesitations, perfect spelling, grammer, punctuation, or if one of my lectures have a stumble in it. If I worried about trivial stuff like that I would never teach to anyone.

I am very comfortable inside of my own skin.

If people do not want to train with me due to these human traits, they are truely the type of people that I have no desire to meet or to train. Nitpickers are usually insecure people looking to tear others down in order to try to build themselves up. Once again these are people that I would not want in my course.

The PSP course are very different types of courses. Due to everyone in the course achieving what most people consider to be impossible, there is a certain camaraderie that comes out of that. We break away from the ego based "marksmanship that we see in so many courses. In this quest, there is a certain understanding that bring people together unlike any thing that I have ever seen in the training world. A nitpicker would not fit into this world and I am very comfortable with the nitpicker excluding my course right off of the bat......because we would not want him there.

Here are my thoughts on the ego based training of the recent past and the nitpickers that are commonly attached to it.

How do you know what you are capable of if you do not know what you are not capable of?

Force on force has proven the need to step outside of the box and outside of ones personal comfort zone while training. To repeat ego based marksmanship courses over and over is no longer an adequate path and simply makes no sense. The availability of airsoft guns to the general public has affected a paradigm shift on the gun training community.

When we look at the learning progression we see the symbiotic relationship between live fire and force on force training. The two go hand in hand and one is very limited without the other. The first step of the learning progression is to learn the fundamentals with live fire. The second step is to take those fundamentals into force on force to find out if those fundamentals will get the job done. This is the point that you find out what works and what doesn’t work.

After this epiphany, you begin to understand that you need to drop some tools and refine others. The third step is to head back to the range. You can either get some additional reality based training from a qualified instructor or you can learn as much as you can by reading and go to work on things yourself. Whatever path you choose, you need to put in the work on these new skill sets that you have found to be of the most importance to you. Once you have the fundamentals of these new skill sets, you have to take them back into force on force and test them again.

This symbiotic relationship continues until you have a very good idea what works and what doesn’t work and you have a very solid understanding of your chosen tools. Once you have your tool box streamlined, organized, and very close to exactly where you want it, you need to take things to the next level. You need to find out exactly what you are capable of…..and more importantly…..what you are not capable of.

Now this is obviously not for the ego driven “tight group only” crowd. This is for those that do not mind pushing their personal limitations to the point where they may fail in front of their peers. This is for the people that learn more from one missed shot than they ever will learn from one hundred perfect hits.

What is that famous quote “You will only be half as good in a gunfight as you will be on your best day on the range.” Well yeah, if you never find out exactly what you are capable of and exactly what you are not capable of. It is my opinion that you must train within the correct context of the fight. You must understand the way a typical gunfight comes down and work within that context. Since most gunfights are from a reactive position, at very close proximity, with extreme urgency, with both participants moving, possibly in low light, and while dealing with typical physiological responses to a life threatening encounter, one must train in this manner. The only way to train in this manner is to be right on the verge of being past your capabilities.

If you are not missing shots and/of failing in training, then you are not pushing yourself hard enough! Check your ego at the door, get to work, and find your personal limitations. To hell with the “tight group only” crowd……they are only target practicing.

Train for the fight!

 

[RobMoore]

Damn, pretty soon we will have your whole book right here in this thread.

 

[Old Fuff]

I don't know if we'll have the whole book, but I'm planing to print the thread. There is a lot of good information here and there...

 

[Matthew Temkin]

Yes, quite a few replies and views.
Glad to have started this one.

 

[Sweatnbullets]

I don't know if we'll have the whole book, but I'm planing to print the thread. There is a lot of good information here and there

Don't worry guys, I know that I am not.

This is a very small portion of my written material, less than 1%. The second book is almost finished.

My point on the "Inclusive" articles is to get past the typical stereotyping that point shooters get. Point shooting is not a religion, it is just one of the necessary skill sets that you need to have to be the very best that you can be.

I find that explanations are much better than insults.

I learned a long time ago, I have zero need to convince anyone of anything. I do not write or teach to try to change a closed mind. I write and teach for the open minded that are looking for something that makes sense.

I went years looking for something that made sense.

 

[Matthew Temkin]

Or, as some of my instructors have been known to say, "Point & Press."
And, "Simply Simplify"

 

[KellyTTE]

Well given the 'Tar baby' consistency of such threads, I'll offer up this interesting little crumb. Until the late 90's, Midland, Texas had a very entrenched and touted point shooting program. They also had a poor hit to miss ratio and a sky high rate of collateral damage (hits on buildings, vehicles, bystanders, etc). This resulted in a litany of payouts for damages.

In the early 2000's, the moved the entire department over to a sighted shooting program based on materials by Paul Howe, as a result, there were fewer officers injured during OISs, their hit to miss ratio soared, their collateral damage and subsequent payouts plummeted. Talking to MPD officers that were at CSAT, 3 of whom had been in OIS, in October, they all spoke very poorly of point shooting as a system.

Food for thought from people who've actually used both systems in actual gun fights.

 

[Matthew Temkin]

Funny, but Michael Dunlap of the Amarillo,Texas Police Department ( retired after nearly 33 years service)--who I met at an IALEFI seminar--is a big fan of point shooting.
Both him and his officers have used point shooting to win quite a few gunfights and he was one of my biggest supporters on the IALEFI forum.
Food for thought from people who've actually used both systems in actual gun fights.

 

[KellyTTE]

Food for thought from people who've actually used both systems in actual gun fights.

No where does your post show that they've tried sighted shooting as an instituted discipline. Why the use of 'both'?

 

[Old Fuff]

Why the use of 'both'?

Because the circumstances of what may happen, and how it will happen in the future are not predictable. The use of conventional sights presumes that one can always (1) see the sights, and (2) be able to visually have some frame of reference between the intended point of impact and front sight at least. It is reasonable to expect that when training using a "sighted technique" these two conditions will be available and viable. Obviously if this isn't the case the technique won't work.

What one encounters during training - which will always accommodate the techniques used in the training program - may not be the same conditions encountered in a shooting.

Mastering more then one technique - no matter what the first one may be - is never counterproductive. Nowhere is it written that you must do things a certain way to the exclusion of everything else - unless one has limited themselves to only knowing one way.

 

[RobMoore]

Old Fluff, he wasn't asking why a person should use both.

Reread the 2 posts above yours.

 

[Old Fuff]

In so many words, KellyTTE says that Midland, Texas used both point shooting and aimed shooting, but aimed shooting proved to be better.

Then Matt says that Michael Dunlap of the Amarillo,Texas Police Department used point shooting and was well satisfied with the results.

But then KellyTTE comes back with:

No where does your post show that they've tried sighted shooting as an instituted discipline. Why the use of 'both'?

To which The Old Fuff commented:

Because the circumstances of what may happen, and how it will happen in the future are not predictable.

In my view, and I may be mistaken, KellyTTE is a "Modern Technique/sighted shooting" advocate. Matt is the same for "Point Shooting." Both are right or wrong depending on the circumstances. So I said:

Mastering more then one technique - no matter what the first one may be - is never counterproductive. Nowhere is it written that you must do things a certain way to the exclusion of everything else - unless one has limited themselves to only knowing one way.

So I'm the one who is saying: Why not use both?

 

[230therapy]

That's the whole point: use both. They are simply tools to be used at the appropriate time.

The true value of training is knowing when to use a technique in order to maximize hits while avoiding being hit.

What I have also noticed with the posts hostile to point shooting is that they failed to acknowledge context of the fight and differentiate between target and combat shooting results. Any hit is good for you and bad for your adversary. Don't miss regardless of the technique used...but that's not realistic. Tiny groups are great...but require time that may not be available. The shooter will choose which attribute to emphasize (accuracy, speed, movement) at any given moment. Knowing these techniques gives the good guy the versatility needed to improve effectiveness.

I have learned that in order to improve hit percentage while moving, I need to point shoot. The faster I move, the more important point shooting becomes. As the distance increases, I tend to rely more upon my sights and the visual outline of the gun.

In reviewing the first several pages of this thread, I could clearly see some posters had an ax to grind. I was not a user of point shooting until I attended a course. I was ambivalent to point shooting at the beginning of the course. The techniques made sense when placed within the context of a close fight. I was able to test the distance to which I could reliably hit a torso, which is 17 yards. However, my preference is to use sights at that distance, so my personal "rule" is to limit point shooting to 10 yards or less.

This whole one or the other argument is silly. Knowing only point shooting dismisses the necessity of aimed fire for distance shooting (especially from cover). Advocating sighted shooting only results in reduced performance at close distances while moving. Not knowing retention shooting techniques is folly given the nature of many civilian encounters.

***

Force on force with Airsoft is the most effective tool for testing techniques within the context of the fight.

 

[Matthew Temkin]

Gents, I am not a point shooting ONLY advocate.
Neither were any of my instructors.
I do believe that point shooting has a major place in close range shooting, but I also believe that aimed fire (and other) skills should be mastered as well.
This quote can be found in post # 30 ( page #2 of this thread) and is from a SWAT instructor student of mine:
"Interesting point; although I know Matt is an avid fan of pointshooting and teaches it zealously, I did hear him say on at least three occassion, "Look this is for in close fighting, where most gunfights are going to happen. If you're 15 or 20 yds away you need to be getting behind some cover and using your sights." Matt never says pointshooting is the only method one should use and belittle any style, school or train of thought. He is opinionated but will end all arguments by saying, look this works for me you can do whatever you want."
Actually the only posters who I see as one sided is the "aimed fire always--except at retention distances" chaps.
Why the concept of LEARN BOTH AND LET THE DISTANCE/SITUATION DICTATE THE RESPONSE is so foreign to some that I find it almost comical.

PS--Mr. Dunlap can be contacted at IALEFI via this link:
http://www.ialefi.com/directors.htm

 

[JoeSlomo]

Bottom line of this post, and post's like it, is that we ALL want to find an effective technique to defend ourselves and our loved ones from potential threats. We ALL want to find "the way" to provide the FASTEST and most effective technique to use a firearm to eliminate dangers we may encounter.

This is good.

One of the things that I take for granted is the frequency and type of training that I have been fortunate enough to have had throughout the years, and this experience has been both unique, and exceptional compared to the average citizen, LEO, and the military.

When I read about LEO encounters, more often than not, I think not about which technique they have been taught, but how often they have been trained to APPLY that technique under stress. For the typical LEO, it is not often as budgetary constraints do not afford them the luxury of the training I would consider sufficient. They have a job to do, and 90% of the time or more, it does not involve firearms.

Both schools of thought have been proven in real world situations, IE, point vs. aimed fire. However, BOTH schools have also been disproven as well.

Why?

Technique alone is not to blame.

Individual proficiency, and more importantly, TRAINING and practice, are the important factors.

A shooter that is taught the best technique but FAILS to apply the technique when the time comes has neither validated or disproved the effectiveness of a technique.

This is a crucial consideration when evaluating any technique, and I am of the opinion that many LEO incidents involve shooters that FAIL to apply what they have taught due to stress, be it aimed OR point shooting.

There is NO "magic" technique out there that will ensure victory because EVERYBODY shoots well at close range. However, NO technique will be successful if it is NOT applied properly, be it point vs. aimed fire.

It has been my experience that aimed fire is superior simply because the shooter is taught SOME type of visual reference technique to ensure his rounds will hit where they need to, be it with a front sight, an optic, a peripheral view of a well indexed firearm or whatever, BUT, the bottom line is that if a shooter FAILS to apply his technique at the speed appropriate for his particular skill, he stands a good chance of throwing the shot.

Technique is only a part of the equation. One must also be aware of their particular ability, and act within that ability, to ensure hits on target. When shooters go at a pace beyond their ability, they risk failing to hit their target DESPITE the technique they use.

 

[Matthew Temkin]

True enough, mindset or, as my dad called it, the "killer's instinct", has much to do with success.
However, when caught by surprise a basic human instinct is to yank out the pistol, thrust it in the general vicinity of the bad guy and start blasting.
While trained marksmen may cringe at such a scenario, good point shooting training will allow one to follow this instinct and to achieve rapid fire, multiple hits with fist/palm size accuracy ( or much smaller) at close combat distances.

 

[Cornbred]

Tom said

True enough, mindset or, as my dad called it, the "killer's instinct", has much to do with success.
However, when caught by surprise a basic human instinct is to yank out the pistol, thrust it in the general vicinity of the bad guy and start blasting.
While trained marksmen may cringe at such a scenario, good point shooting training will allow one to follow this instinct and to achieve rapid fire, multiple hits with fist/palm size accuracy ( or much smaller) at close combat distances.

'

Mindset is extremely important and is one of the key factors that get many LEO's, Military Folks, and regular civilians home daily. However, you have to have more than a "killer instint". Without good training, and sustainment training it is not very effective.

I will have to disagree that basic human instinct is to start laying down suppressive fire (shooting in the general vicinity of the bad guy). I would expect the instincts of a completely untrained person to be, run or curl up into a ball if faced with a shooter. I would suspect the suppressive fire instinct will come from people who have been trained in either point shooting, or aimed shooting; however, not proficient with the weapon. I would suspect the instinct for a well trained, proficient point shooter or aimed shooter is to effectively employ their respective technique at an equal level.

 

[Matthew Temkin]

Naturally good training is part of the equation--so obvious that I did not mention it in my post.
(My dad was a WW2 Ranger who was trained by the British Commandos, and they received excellent training.)
But good training must also be realistic training that will not fall apart under the stress of life and death combat.
And, IMHO, it should flow with the body's natural reactions to stress rather than fighting it tooth and nail.