point shooting home study course
- Thread starter Matthew Temkin
- Start date
- Status
Horsesense
Member
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2003
- Messages
- 565
I did this (thanks Matthew) a couple of years ago and I can testify that it works.
I got my 5-year-old daughter point shooting with a C02 BB Gun this past summer and she took to it like a duck to water. She got board with it after a couple of days so I put it up for a couple of years, but it was a real hoot.
I got my 5-year-old daughter point shooting with a C02 BB Gun this past summer and she took to it like a duck to water. She got board with it after a couple of days so I put it up for a couple of years, but it was a real hoot.
OP
OP
Matthew Temkin
Member
Hey..long time no hear.Horsesense said:I did this (thanks Matthew) a couple of years ago and I can testify that it works.
I got my 5-year-old daughter point shooting with a C02 BB Gun this past summer and she took to it like a duck to water. She got board with it after a couple of days so I put it up for a couple of years, but it was a real hoot.
I never had a doubt that a five year old can pick this simple stuff up so quickly.
Heck, ever watch a bunch of kids playing cops n' robbers?
Not a Weaver stance in the bunch.
Just do what comes naturally....
PS..send me an e mail at [email protected] and I can e mail you a ten page lesson plan that I use for police confrences.
krang
Member
Matt
Thanks for the info. I've been a point shooter for a long time and I still learned and enjoyed the 2 articles. Thanks again.
Thanks for the info. I've been a point shooter for a long time and I still learned and enjoyed the 2 articles. Thanks again.
One thing I've been thinking about. The quarter-hip position is kind of the red-headed stepchild of the Shooting to Live method. Would it be practical to replace it with the Center Axis Relock high position? Most people seem to think CAR is really only good for retention, and shooting while moving. Perfect replacement for the quarter-hip position, then.
OP
OP
Matthew Temkin
Member
Yes, I never liked Fairbairn's quarter hip positionRyanM said:
I'd rather replace it with rotating the handgun 90 degrees and placing the magazine base firmly against the ribcage.
But other possibilities do exist.
It's not my place to advise an adult who is neither kith nor kin, but just off-paw you might consider not doing this kind of thing.
I don't know about anyone else, but any interest I had in point shooting, or checking into you as an instructor, evaporated right there.
Maybe it's just me, but when someone starts bringing up children playing cops and robbers as a favorable model for combat pistol techniques, I lose interest in anything that person has to say from then on.
Just a friendly heads up.
LawDog
halfgone
Member
Bellybutton?
Hey Matthew,
thanks for the post. I don't have the books that you were mentioning (some are still being shipped from amazon) but I was wondering what the importance was of firing at the bellybutton. I mean, that advice that your dad gave you sounded pretty good, but I didn't know if there was anything else in there as well.
thanks again.
HG
Hey Matthew,
thanks for the post. I don't have the books that you were mentioning (some are still being shipped from amazon) but I was wondering what the importance was of firing at the bellybutton. I mean, that advice that your dad gave you sounded pretty good, but I didn't know if there was anything else in there as well.
thanks again.
HG
OP
OP
Matthew Temkin
Member
halfgone said:
Several reasons.
Widest point of a man's body.
According to Fairbairn when someone is shot in the midsection they instinctively clutch their stomach's and drop their weapon.
Very easy to see the man and his hands/weapon when focusing on the stomach area.
Intrigued by some of your statements...
I may be a bit heavy around the middle, but I and most people I know are wider at the chest/shoulders than at the waist.
Probably true. Wouldn't you consider just as easy and more effective to view him clucthing a sucking chest wound then a gut shot?
...Just a thought.
"In response to shooting for the belly button."
I may be a bit heavy around the middle, but I and most people I know are wider at the chest/shoulders than at the waist.
Probably true. Wouldn't you consider just as easy and more effective to view him clucthing a sucking chest wound then a gut shot?
...Just a thought.
Attachments
OP
OP
Matthew Temkin
Member
No.
The value of a fast gut shot, followed by immediately zipperinmg him up with more shots, is a well established concept of old style combat shooting.
Wheither or not it has been replaced by something better---meaning the MT or MI--is open to opinion.
The value of a fast gut shot, followed by immediately zipperinmg him up with more shots, is a well established concept of old style combat shooting.
Wheither or not it has been replaced by something better---meaning the MT or MI--is open to opinion.
Well, your the expert.
I was always taught the the value of a fast center mass shot...sternum area... followed by CM shots was the most effective way stop a threat. Not gut shooting him and trying to ride the muzzle rise with subsequent rounds.
May not be the old school way of doing it, don't know. But seems effective enough.
I was always taught the the value of a fast center mass shot...sternum area... followed by CM shots was the most effective way stop a threat. Not gut shooting him and trying to ride the muzzle rise with subsequent rounds.
May not be the old school way of doing it, don't know. But seems effective enough.
Last edited:
Remember that Fairbairn absolutely had no concept whatsoever of wounding effect, beyond "shoot them and sometimes they'll fall down." He was totally baffled that an uncomplicated through-and-through arm wound from a .45 required minimal treatment, while a 7.62x25mm which shattered the humerus into millions of pieces required amputation. Likewise, he had absolutely no idea for the reasons behind a couple of perps absorbing multiple .45 slugs, only to be stopped by having their head caved in by a pistol butt.
The belief of his time was that bullets wound by creating shockwaves (the more things change, the more they stay the same), and that the heavier the bullet, the greater the shockwave. They also thought that a bullet that doesn't exit is more effective, so velocity was often reduced to the point where the bullet would just barely fart out of the barrel. This is why we have things like the old British .38 Colt load, which fired a 200 grain bullet at 650 fps. I think the Brits were still using this load as late as WWI.
Shooting the gut may produce such a reaction in someone who, quite literally, has no stomach for fighting. But against a determined and/or drugged adversary, your best bet is to shoot for the "triangles" (one triangle is formed by the nipples and top of the sternum, the other by the nose and eyes) until the threat ceases.
The belief of his time was that bullets wound by creating shockwaves (the more things change, the more they stay the same), and that the heavier the bullet, the greater the shockwave. They also thought that a bullet that doesn't exit is more effective, so velocity was often reduced to the point where the bullet would just barely fart out of the barrel. This is why we have things like the old British .38 Colt load, which fired a 200 grain bullet at 650 fps. I think the Brits were still using this load as late as WWI.
Shooting the gut may produce such a reaction in someone who, quite literally, has no stomach for fighting. But against a determined and/or drugged adversary, your best bet is to shoot for the "triangles" (one triangle is formed by the nipples and top of the sternum, the other by the nose and eyes) until the threat ceases.
Last edited:
Horsesense
Member
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2003
- Messages
- 565
“Maybe it's just me, but when someone starts bringing up children playing cops and robbers as a favorable model for combat pistol techniques, I lose interest in anything that person has to say from then on.”
LawDog, over the years I have come to regard you in high esteem. On this post however, I think you may have missed the mark.
I’m sure that if you take another gander at Matthews statement, you will understand that he was not suggesting that emulating children playing cops and robbers is a model, he was observing how unnatural the Weaver stance is.
Edited to add: Lawdog, just a reminder, your lack of faith in Matthew and the validity of a time tested survival skill, have nothing to do with one another.
Which of the following scenarios sound the most plausible.
An Olympic swimmer, who has trained thousands of hours, mastering the “Weaver Stroke”, has just fallen into the swift water yards away from the pinnacle of Niagara Falls! The suddenness of the fall and the shock of the Ice cold water are overwhelming but the terrifying reality that he is now speeding towards his death triggers a God given “emergency protocol”, While the adrenal glands instantaneously flood the body with superhuman strength, the mind taps into both concise and uncocise observation from before during and after the fall. In the time it takes to blink an eye, his brain has accessed the situation and formulates a plan…. SWIM FOR THE SHORE!
Dose the swimmer:
1. Madly kick and claw his way towards safety?
2. Do the Weaver stroke, just as he has trained?
3. Do the Madclaw/weaver
4.Revert to a simpler stroke that, while faster, is not used in competition because it is only good for short distances.
RyanM, Could you give us a Fairbairn quote that backs up what you are saying?
LawDog, over the years I have come to regard you in high esteem. On this post however, I think you may have missed the mark.
I’m sure that if you take another gander at Matthews statement, you will understand that he was not suggesting that emulating children playing cops and robbers is a model, he was observing how unnatural the Weaver stance is.
Edited to add: Lawdog, just a reminder, your lack of faith in Matthew and the validity of a time tested survival skill, have nothing to do with one another.
Which of the following scenarios sound the most plausible.
An Olympic swimmer, who has trained thousands of hours, mastering the “Weaver Stroke”, has just fallen into the swift water yards away from the pinnacle of Niagara Falls! The suddenness of the fall and the shock of the Ice cold water are overwhelming but the terrifying reality that he is now speeding towards his death triggers a God given “emergency protocol”, While the adrenal glands instantaneously flood the body with superhuman strength, the mind taps into both concise and uncocise observation from before during and after the fall. In the time it takes to blink an eye, his brain has accessed the situation and formulates a plan…. SWIM FOR THE SHORE!
Dose the swimmer:
1. Madly kick and claw his way towards safety?
2. Do the Weaver stroke, just as he has trained?
3. Do the Madclaw/weaver
4.Revert to a simpler stroke that, while faster, is not used in competition because it is only good for short distances.
RyanM, Could you give us a Fairbairn quote that backs up what you are saying?
Sure thing. Oh, looks like I misremembered one part. The gist is still the same, though. I'll just put up the entirety of Chapter VII (Stopping Power) of Shooting to Live.
--------
We approach this subject with considerable diffidence. We regard it as essentially one in which theory should be discarded in favour of practice, but even practice, as evidenced in carefully noted records over a number of years, does not lend us to any finality in the matter. Instead, it provides us with so many contradictions that we feel that anything approaching dogmatism would be most unwise.
To clear the ground for discussion we can eliminated at once the .22's and .25's, leaving only the larger calibres available in modern revolvers and automatic pistols. Those will be calibres .32, .38 and .45, or approximately those sizes.
We were brought up in the belief that a heavy bullet of soft lead, travelling in the leisurely manner of bygone days, could not be improved upon if it was desired to dispose of one's human foes in a decisive and clean-cut manner. We believed that such a bullet would mushroom, and that even if it did not do so, the impact of such a formidable mass of lead would infallibly do all that was required, including knocking the enemy clean off his feet.
We also believed that bullets of approximately equal weight, jacketed with cupro-nickel and travelling at perhaps a greater velocity, provided penetration as opposed to shock and were therefore unsuited to their purpose; and we had no faith whatever in light bullets driven at a much higher velocity, unless they could be made as to secure effective expansion shortly after impact. Expanding bullets however, are barred by the rules of the game as we have had to play it, so for practical purposes we must confine ourselves to solid bullets.
We are not so sure now of these beliefs. Perhaps the reasons for our doubts will be more easily apparent if we recount some actual experiences from the long list in our records. We shall make every effort to be impartial, and can assure our readers that in each case all data bearing on the subject was carefully sifted at the time and nothing has been preserved but actual facts.
We shall choose for our first instance one relating to the big lead bullet driven at moderate velocity. On this occasion, a Sikh constable fired six shots with his .455 Webley at an armed criminal of whom he was in pursuit, registering five hits. The criminal continued to run, and so did the Sikh, the latter clinching the matter finally by battering in the back of the criminal's head with the butt of his revolver. Subsequent investigations showed that one bullet only, and that barely deformed, remained in the body, the other four having passed clean through.
A very similar incident took place more recently--though it relates to a different weapon. A European patrol-
sergeant, hearing shooting and shouts of "Ch'iang-Tao" (robber), rushed to a rice shop which seemed to be the centre of the tumult, and there saw an armed Chinese robbing the till. The Chinese immediately opened fire on the sergeant with an automatic pistol at about 6 yards, firing several shots until his pistol jammed. Fortunately none of the shots took effect, and meanwhile the sergeant returned fire swiftly and effectively with a .45 Colt automatic, commencing at about 10 feet and firing his sixth and last shot at 3 feet as he rapidly closed in on his opponent. Later, it was found that of those six shots, four had struck fleshy parts of the body, passing clean through, while one bullet remained in the shoulder and another had lodged near the heart. Yet, in spite of all this, the robber was still on his feet and was knocked unconscious by the butt of the sergeant's pistol as he was attempting to escape by climbing over the counter. Here we have two heavy jacketed bullets which did not waste their substance on mere penetration, one of them inflicting a wound which came near to being fatal. In theory these two heavy bullets should have stopped the man in his tracks, but the facts are as related. Can anyone explain?
Descending in the scale of calibres and bullet weights, the only record we have of a man dropping instantly when shot relates to the performance of a .380 Colt automatic (pocket model). In this instance, a single bullet penetrated from front to back, lodging very near the spine. The victim nevertheless recovered himself quickly and was able to get on his feet again. We think this case is probably analogous to the numerous instances that big-game hunters will recall of animals dropping instantly to neck shots that just miss the vertebra, only to get up again a few moments after and disappear over the horizon.
Turning now to the high velocity small calibre weapons, we have seen terrible damage caused by a Mauser automatic, calibre 7.63mm., of military pattern. We have in mind the case of a man who was hit in the arm by a solid full-jacketed bullet from a weapon of this type. Though he was in hospital within half an hour of being shot, nothing could be done to avoid amputation, so badly were the bone and tissue lacerated. Perhaps "pulped" would convey our meaning more exactly. Yet in theory at least the bullet should have caused far less shock than it obviously did. From what we have read, the bullet had something of the effect that he latest developments in ultra high velocity small-bore rifles are reported to have on game animals. We might add that in the particular service from whose records we have been quoting, nothing is so feared, rightly or wrongly, as the Mauser military automatic. The mention of the word is sufficient, if there is trouble afoot, to send men in instant search of bullet-proof equipment.
We have tried to solve by experiment this question of the knock-down blow, but there is no satisfactory way of doing it. The nearest we have come to it has been to allow ourselves to be shot at while holding a bullet-proof shield. The chief value of that experiment was a conclusive demonstration of the efficacy of the shield.
Nevertheless, it did enable us to form some idea of the disconcerting effect of the explosion when a pistol is fired at one at very short range. These experiments with bullet-proof shields amount to no more than the firing of various types of bullets at a very hard surface of considerable area, flexibly supported, i.e. by the arm. The shock of impact increased in proportion to the velocity of the bullets but in all cases was negligible, the supporting arm only recoiling minutely. The results to the bullets were exactly what might have been expected. Soft lead bullets at low velocity mushroomed perfectly, jacketed bullets at moderate velocity broke into sizable and greatly deformed fragments, while high velocity jacketed bullets practically disintegrated. But if the firing had been against a human body instead of a shield, it would not be wise to conclude that either the shock of impact would have been so slight or that the various bullets would have behaved exactly as they did.
Other tests, carried out by firing into wood of varied thickness and hardness, very rarely showed any appreciable deformation of bullets, even if they were of soft lead.
These little experiments left us, however, with a query which we have not been able to answer. How much, if anything, of deformation or disintegration is due to the sudden arrestation of the rotary motion when bullets are fired from a rifled barrel at objects hard enough to resist them effectively?
To sum up, all that we have done in this chapter is to provide instances of how various types of weapons and their loads have not run true to form. Preconceived ideas, based on theory or perhaps hearsay, seem to have been upset. We say "seem" advisedly, for in spite of the length and variety of our records we do not consider that we have had, even yet, sufficient visual proof of the behaviour and effects of bullets fired into human targets to enable us to lay down any hard-and-fast rules.
We do not know that a big soft lead bullet will not have the knock-down effect generally claimed. All we can say is that we have never seen it. We do not know, for certain, either, that a full-jacketed high-velocity small-calibre bullet will always have the effect described in the particular instance which we have given.
We incline to the belief that the human factor must influence to some extent the behaviour of bullets. A pugilist at the top of his from can stand vastly-more punishment than a man who is "soft" and untrained. Capacity to resist shock and pain appears to be also a function of the nervous system, and marked differences occur in this respect as between individuals of different races. Perhaps that partially explains why some men are not knocked out by bullets when they ought to be. Again, if a bullet caught a man off balance, might not that aid in producing the appearance of a knock-down blow?
We have made no mention yet of an aspect of this matter which we have observed time after time in the course of years. A hit in the abdominal region almost invariably causes a man to drop anything he may have in his hands and to clutch his stomach convulsively. We may add that such a hit almost always has fatal results, and that is an excellent reason for such equipment as effective bullet-proof vests, at least for the use of police.
If the ideal to be attained is a weapon that, with a body shot alone, will drop a man in his tracks with absolute certainty, then there is something lacking in the best of modern revolvers and automatics. It could be done, doubtless, with a weapon of greatly increased calibre and power, but the added weight and size of such a weapon would almost certainly render it unsuitable for average requirements. So perhaps we shall have to make the best of such weapons as are available to us.
Those readers who have had the patience to follow us so far will most likely be justifiably irritated by our inconclusiveness. We can imagine them saying, "But there must be one or two kinds of pistol that are better than all the others. Why on earth can't they tell us what they are?"
If that question is asked, we should reply that, for ourselves, we should choose the pistol which, while being easy to carry and convenient to use, would conform most nearly to the following requirements:--
(1) The maximum of stopping power.
(2) The maximum volume of fire.
(3) The maximum speed of discharge.
To attain the first requirement we should choose a cartridge that represents what we consider a safe middle course, i.e. with a bullet of reasonably large calibre and weight, driven at a very high velocity.
As regards the second requirement the reader will have gathered from Chapters III and IV on training that we have a preference for firing in "bursts" of two or more shots. We think that lack of stopping power inherent in the cartridge is compensated for in some degree by the added shock of two or more shots in very rapid succession. Medical evidence tends to confirm this belief, which is strengthened moreover by the evidences we have seen of the terribly destructive effects on human targets of submachine-guns of the Thompson type. Obviously, this belief of ours implies the necessity for a large volume of fire, quite apart from the desirability on other grounds of having as many rounds as possible at one's disposal without having to reload.
Throughout this book we have done our best to emphasise the vital need for extreme rapidity of fire. For ourselves we can accomplish this, our third desideratum, most easily with an automatic. The more closely our own pistols resemble machine-guns the better we like it.
----------
Also, to answer your question, though it wasn't directed at me, I'd say it depends on the individual. Some people who've been in gunfights have reported being able to see every single scratch and divot on their front sight, while others just pointed and shot, barely even aware that they were holding a firearm.
Unfortunately, reaction under stress is highly individual, and seems to be one of those things that can only be determined by "baptism by fire." A technique which emulates, as much as possible, the natural reactions to stress, is probably the ideal. And I think the Shooting to Live point-shooting method comes closer to that than either Weaver or Isosceles.
--------
We approach this subject with considerable diffidence. We regard it as essentially one in which theory should be discarded in favour of practice, but even practice, as evidenced in carefully noted records over a number of years, does not lend us to any finality in the matter. Instead, it provides us with so many contradictions that we feel that anything approaching dogmatism would be most unwise.
To clear the ground for discussion we can eliminated at once the .22's and .25's, leaving only the larger calibres available in modern revolvers and automatic pistols. Those will be calibres .32, .38 and .45, or approximately those sizes.
We were brought up in the belief that a heavy bullet of soft lead, travelling in the leisurely manner of bygone days, could not be improved upon if it was desired to dispose of one's human foes in a decisive and clean-cut manner. We believed that such a bullet would mushroom, and that even if it did not do so, the impact of such a formidable mass of lead would infallibly do all that was required, including knocking the enemy clean off his feet.
We also believed that bullets of approximately equal weight, jacketed with cupro-nickel and travelling at perhaps a greater velocity, provided penetration as opposed to shock and were therefore unsuited to their purpose; and we had no faith whatever in light bullets driven at a much higher velocity, unless they could be made as to secure effective expansion shortly after impact. Expanding bullets however, are barred by the rules of the game as we have had to play it, so for practical purposes we must confine ourselves to solid bullets.
We are not so sure now of these beliefs. Perhaps the reasons for our doubts will be more easily apparent if we recount some actual experiences from the long list in our records. We shall make every effort to be impartial, and can assure our readers that in each case all data bearing on the subject was carefully sifted at the time and nothing has been preserved but actual facts.
We shall choose for our first instance one relating to the big lead bullet driven at moderate velocity. On this occasion, a Sikh constable fired six shots with his .455 Webley at an armed criminal of whom he was in pursuit, registering five hits. The criminal continued to run, and so did the Sikh, the latter clinching the matter finally by battering in the back of the criminal's head with the butt of his revolver. Subsequent investigations showed that one bullet only, and that barely deformed, remained in the body, the other four having passed clean through.
A very similar incident took place more recently--though it relates to a different weapon. A European patrol-
sergeant, hearing shooting and shouts of "Ch'iang-Tao" (robber), rushed to a rice shop which seemed to be the centre of the tumult, and there saw an armed Chinese robbing the till. The Chinese immediately opened fire on the sergeant with an automatic pistol at about 6 yards, firing several shots until his pistol jammed. Fortunately none of the shots took effect, and meanwhile the sergeant returned fire swiftly and effectively with a .45 Colt automatic, commencing at about 10 feet and firing his sixth and last shot at 3 feet as he rapidly closed in on his opponent. Later, it was found that of those six shots, four had struck fleshy parts of the body, passing clean through, while one bullet remained in the shoulder and another had lodged near the heart. Yet, in spite of all this, the robber was still on his feet and was knocked unconscious by the butt of the sergeant's pistol as he was attempting to escape by climbing over the counter. Here we have two heavy jacketed bullets which did not waste their substance on mere penetration, one of them inflicting a wound which came near to being fatal. In theory these two heavy bullets should have stopped the man in his tracks, but the facts are as related. Can anyone explain?
Descending in the scale of calibres and bullet weights, the only record we have of a man dropping instantly when shot relates to the performance of a .380 Colt automatic (pocket model). In this instance, a single bullet penetrated from front to back, lodging very near the spine. The victim nevertheless recovered himself quickly and was able to get on his feet again. We think this case is probably analogous to the numerous instances that big-game hunters will recall of animals dropping instantly to neck shots that just miss the vertebra, only to get up again a few moments after and disappear over the horizon.
Turning now to the high velocity small calibre weapons, we have seen terrible damage caused by a Mauser automatic, calibre 7.63mm., of military pattern. We have in mind the case of a man who was hit in the arm by a solid full-jacketed bullet from a weapon of this type. Though he was in hospital within half an hour of being shot, nothing could be done to avoid amputation, so badly were the bone and tissue lacerated. Perhaps "pulped" would convey our meaning more exactly. Yet in theory at least the bullet should have caused far less shock than it obviously did. From what we have read, the bullet had something of the effect that he latest developments in ultra high velocity small-bore rifles are reported to have on game animals. We might add that in the particular service from whose records we have been quoting, nothing is so feared, rightly or wrongly, as the Mauser military automatic. The mention of the word is sufficient, if there is trouble afoot, to send men in instant search of bullet-proof equipment.
We have tried to solve by experiment this question of the knock-down blow, but there is no satisfactory way of doing it. The nearest we have come to it has been to allow ourselves to be shot at while holding a bullet-proof shield. The chief value of that experiment was a conclusive demonstration of the efficacy of the shield.
Nevertheless, it did enable us to form some idea of the disconcerting effect of the explosion when a pistol is fired at one at very short range. These experiments with bullet-proof shields amount to no more than the firing of various types of bullets at a very hard surface of considerable area, flexibly supported, i.e. by the arm. The shock of impact increased in proportion to the velocity of the bullets but in all cases was negligible, the supporting arm only recoiling minutely. The results to the bullets were exactly what might have been expected. Soft lead bullets at low velocity mushroomed perfectly, jacketed bullets at moderate velocity broke into sizable and greatly deformed fragments, while high velocity jacketed bullets practically disintegrated. But if the firing had been against a human body instead of a shield, it would not be wise to conclude that either the shock of impact would have been so slight or that the various bullets would have behaved exactly as they did.
Other tests, carried out by firing into wood of varied thickness and hardness, very rarely showed any appreciable deformation of bullets, even if they were of soft lead.
These little experiments left us, however, with a query which we have not been able to answer. How much, if anything, of deformation or disintegration is due to the sudden arrestation of the rotary motion when bullets are fired from a rifled barrel at objects hard enough to resist them effectively?
To sum up, all that we have done in this chapter is to provide instances of how various types of weapons and their loads have not run true to form. Preconceived ideas, based on theory or perhaps hearsay, seem to have been upset. We say "seem" advisedly, for in spite of the length and variety of our records we do not consider that we have had, even yet, sufficient visual proof of the behaviour and effects of bullets fired into human targets to enable us to lay down any hard-and-fast rules.
We do not know that a big soft lead bullet will not have the knock-down effect generally claimed. All we can say is that we have never seen it. We do not know, for certain, either, that a full-jacketed high-velocity small-calibre bullet will always have the effect described in the particular instance which we have given.
We incline to the belief that the human factor must influence to some extent the behaviour of bullets. A pugilist at the top of his from can stand vastly-more punishment than a man who is "soft" and untrained. Capacity to resist shock and pain appears to be also a function of the nervous system, and marked differences occur in this respect as between individuals of different races. Perhaps that partially explains why some men are not knocked out by bullets when they ought to be. Again, if a bullet caught a man off balance, might not that aid in producing the appearance of a knock-down blow?
We have made no mention yet of an aspect of this matter which we have observed time after time in the course of years. A hit in the abdominal region almost invariably causes a man to drop anything he may have in his hands and to clutch his stomach convulsively. We may add that such a hit almost always has fatal results, and that is an excellent reason for such equipment as effective bullet-proof vests, at least for the use of police.
If the ideal to be attained is a weapon that, with a body shot alone, will drop a man in his tracks with absolute certainty, then there is something lacking in the best of modern revolvers and automatics. It could be done, doubtless, with a weapon of greatly increased calibre and power, but the added weight and size of such a weapon would almost certainly render it unsuitable for average requirements. So perhaps we shall have to make the best of such weapons as are available to us.
Those readers who have had the patience to follow us so far will most likely be justifiably irritated by our inconclusiveness. We can imagine them saying, "But there must be one or two kinds of pistol that are better than all the others. Why on earth can't they tell us what they are?"
If that question is asked, we should reply that, for ourselves, we should choose the pistol which, while being easy to carry and convenient to use, would conform most nearly to the following requirements:--
(1) The maximum of stopping power.
(2) The maximum volume of fire.
(3) The maximum speed of discharge.
To attain the first requirement we should choose a cartridge that represents what we consider a safe middle course, i.e. with a bullet of reasonably large calibre and weight, driven at a very high velocity.
As regards the second requirement the reader will have gathered from Chapters III and IV on training that we have a preference for firing in "bursts" of two or more shots. We think that lack of stopping power inherent in the cartridge is compensated for in some degree by the added shock of two or more shots in very rapid succession. Medical evidence tends to confirm this belief, which is strengthened moreover by the evidences we have seen of the terribly destructive effects on human targets of submachine-guns of the Thompson type. Obviously, this belief of ours implies the necessity for a large volume of fire, quite apart from the desirability on other grounds of having as many rounds as possible at one's disposal without having to reload.
Throughout this book we have done our best to emphasise the vital need for extreme rapidity of fire. For ourselves we can accomplish this, our third desideratum, most easily with an automatic. The more closely our own pistols resemble machine-guns the better we like it.
----------
Also, to answer your question, though it wasn't directed at me, I'd say it depends on the individual. Some people who've been in gunfights have reported being able to see every single scratch and divot on their front sight, while others just pointed and shot, barely even aware that they were holding a firearm.
Unfortunately, reaction under stress is highly individual, and seems to be one of those things that can only be determined by "baptism by fire." A technique which emulates, as much as possible, the natural reactions to stress, is probably the ideal. And I think the Shooting to Live point-shooting method comes closer to that than either Weaver or Isosceles.
OP
OP
Matthew Temkin
Member
Actually I love Fairbairn's thoughts on stopping power.
Here is a man who was personally involved in over 200 gunfights, saw dozens more and did extensive research on balistics.
And what is his conclusion?
Shoot him to the ground because one cannot predict a bad guy's reaction to being shot.
Know what I call that conclusion.
Timeless...
There is no magic bullet
Not then and not now.
Here is a man who was personally involved in over 200 gunfights, saw dozens more and did extensive research on balistics.
And what is his conclusion?
Shoot him to the ground because one cannot predict a bad guy's reaction to being shot.
Know what I call that conclusion.
Timeless...
There is no magic bullet
Not then and not now.
OP
OP
Matthew Temkin
Member
Thank you and right on.Horsesense said:
Back in 1993 I gave a point shooting lesson/demo to the Swedish police, who's head instructor was a dyed in the wool target/Weaver shooter.
I went back to his place after the class for dinner we both watched while his two year old son was playing with a toy gun.
Ulf told his son to shoot Matt, which he did.
Ulf was shocked, and then said, "I don't believe it.
Gustav just did what you spent 4 hours showing us!!!"
LawDog...I am just the messenger, not the expert.
It is not my system, but one that has been winning firefights since before WW One.
It is what it is.
Horsense has a copy of my video ( non commercial and not for sale) and knows just what this system is.
OK, I'm trying to see this from all sides and it's just not working for me.
Maybe I am misreading something. I am a little confused. Please square me away on this.
Then...
Doesn't the latter statement make the shoot for the belly button because it immediately incapacitates theory null and void? Which is it? Shoot the vitals for rapid loss of blood and death or the stomach because it is more painfull?
I must have missed some info. here somewhere because some of these "tactics" that I am hearing about just don't make sense. Please explain.
Maybe I am misreading something. I am a little confused. Please square me away on this.
Then...
Doesn't the latter statement make the shoot for the belly button because it immediately incapacitates theory null and void? Which is it? Shoot the vitals for rapid loss of blood and death or the stomach because it is more painfull?
I must have missed some info. here somewhere because some of these "tactics" that I am hearing about just don't make sense. Please explain.
They're not saying shoot the stomach once, or only shoot the stomach. They're saying put the first shot there and work up, shooting until he's down. I go straight for the chest myself, however when shooting from the hip at say 3 yards the first shot will go into the belly anyway because the gun is held so low.
Hey, if Fairbairn noticed a pattern while shootin' so many folks, I'll not discount it outright. I mean, I'm never gonna get the gunfight experience to validate anything on my own. I'm just gonna shoot for COM and stop when the BG and any of his buddies are down, or I'm out of danger.
Hey, if Fairbairn noticed a pattern while shootin' so many folks, I'll not discount it outright. I mean, I'm never gonna get the gunfight experience to validate anything on my own. I'm just gonna shoot for COM and stop when the BG and any of his buddies are down, or I'm out of danger.
brownie0486
Member
Bigreno:
The statement that "According to Fairbairn when someone is shot in the midsection they instinctively clutch their stomach's and drop their weapon."
It does not mean it is incapacitating in nature, it means the perp has a tendancy to drop what they are holding and clutch the wound. That seems like a good thing if it happens as when someone drops what they are holding, and it happens to be a gun, the gun is out of the equation, at least temporarily.
"Actually I love Fairbairn's thoughts on stopping power...etc...Shoot him to the ground because one cannot predict a bad guy's reaction to being shot."
Means continue to shoot him and not wait to see their reaction or believe that a handgun will be effective with one or two shots and stop to see the results of your work, it could still get you killed.
"They're saying put the first shot there and work up, shooting until he's down"
With that particular system, the gut is a good starting point based on the techniques under discussion. Then zipper them up into the upper torso until they are no longer a threat, making your firearm soumd like a machine gun.
Robin Brown
The statement that "According to Fairbairn when someone is shot in the midsection they instinctively clutch their stomach's and drop their weapon."
It does not mean it is incapacitating in nature, it means the perp has a tendancy to drop what they are holding and clutch the wound. That seems like a good thing if it happens as when someone drops what they are holding, and it happens to be a gun, the gun is out of the equation, at least temporarily.
"Actually I love Fairbairn's thoughts on stopping power...etc...Shoot him to the ground because one cannot predict a bad guy's reaction to being shot."
Means continue to shoot him and not wait to see their reaction or believe that a handgun will be effective with one or two shots and stop to see the results of your work, it could still get you killed.
"They're saying put the first shot there and work up, shooting until he's down"
With that particular system, the gut is a good starting point based on the techniques under discussion. Then zipper them up into the upper torso until they are no longer a threat, making your firearm soumd like a machine gun.
Robin Brown
Grump
Member
Compare and contrast?
Help me understand this. We have M. Temkin advocating a certain type of point shooting, and I think it's D.R. Middlebrooks touting his system.
Can anyone, or perhaps the players themselves, compare and contrast the two systems?
I'm wary of near-identical approaches being packaged and named differently. I'm also wary of contradictory sub-points of doctrine being taught, making the systems not only competing but mutually exclusive in some respects.
Then there's the possibility that one or both teach a variation of "it depends...[if "A" doesn't work, do "B", or if your opponent is not typical, then do "C"]" for their recommended approach, so there is at least theoretical flexibility to include all elements from the other "school of thought".
Help me understand this. We have M. Temkin advocating a certain type of point shooting, and I think it's D.R. Middlebrooks touting his system.
Can anyone, or perhaps the players themselves, compare and contrast the two systems?
I'm wary of near-identical approaches being packaged and named differently. I'm also wary of contradictory sub-points of doctrine being taught, making the systems not only competing but mutually exclusive in some respects.
Then there's the possibility that one or both teach a variation of "it depends...[if "A" doesn't work, do "B", or if your opponent is not typical, then do "C"]" for their recommended approach, so there is at least theoretical flexibility to include all elements from the other "school of thought".
Guns are in no way a part of human instinct, so it seems to me that there is in only coincidental value in trying to shoot with whatever hold comes to you instinctively. A comfortable hold is good, but not an instinctive one.
Between everything I've read by the proponents of point-shooting and the different types of focus described by Brian Enos, I find Enos' ideas far better. He uses the body to line up shots just as the point-shooters do, but then uses his eyes on the sights to make any neccesary corrections to the extent required by the situation. Close in targets? Body index only. Longer shots, or heavily obstructed shots? More and more precise sight pictures. The idea that flexibility will result in confusion and hesitation is, in my admittedly limited experience, simply unfounded.
I would very much like to see a point-shooting expert in a shootoff with an IPSC expert. If point shooting was actually faster, I expect it would have shown up in practical matches to at least a limited degree.
Between everything I've read by the proponents of point-shooting and the different types of focus described by Brian Enos, I find Enos' ideas far better. He uses the body to line up shots just as the point-shooters do, but then uses his eyes on the sights to make any neccesary corrections to the extent required by the situation. Close in targets? Body index only. Longer shots, or heavily obstructed shots? More and more precise sight pictures. The idea that flexibility will result in confusion and hesitation is, in my admittedly limited experience, simply unfounded.
I would very much like to see a point-shooting expert in a shootoff with an IPSC expert. If point shooting was actually faster, I expect it would have shown up in practical matches to at least a limited degree.
I don't see anything on Fist-fire here in this thread. I've never taken any courses in it, so I really don't know what Fist-fire is all about. Reading the FAQ on http://www.tacticalshooting.com though, I do see some similar concepts to Fairbairn's Shooting to Live technique, which Temkin is advocating. Mostly the square stance, and arm extension corresponding to threat distance.
The basics of the Shooting to Live technique are:
-Speed is everything
-Face the target squarely
-Hold the gun in one hand with a convulsive grip, as though it weighed 50 pounds
-Fire from a crouching position, since crouching is the natural reaction under stress
-Keep the gun centered along the vertical midline of your body
-Fire in "bursts" of 2 or 3 shots at a time
For the "standard" technique, you raise the gun to eye level by keeping your elbow straight, and rotating your shoulder, "like the arm of a water pump." You want to be looking "through" the entire back of the gun instead of the sights. The instant the back of the gun covers the target, fire.
For the three quarter-hip position, you raise the gun with bent elbow. The instant the gun is horizontal, fire.
Half-hip is nearly the same as the three quarter-hip position, except the elbow is touching the body.
The quarter-hip position is the retention stance. It's the only stance in which the gun is not aligned with the vertical center of the body. You basically stand bladed to the target, with the gun sideways against your stomach. The support hand is used to eye gouge, punch, block, etc., as needed.
Personally, in my practice, I don't distinguish between half-hip and three quarter-hip. I basically use the elbow bent position at any distance where I can expect to hit with it. No hard and fast distance rules, just "can I hit him from here?" The full extension technique, I use as a replacement for sighted fire. I seem to have this uncanny ability to have the sights instantly lined up perfectly when using that technique, but only when using a Glock or revolver. 1911s point much too low.
I've been considering a slight change in the way the stances are used, though, which may be more intuitive. The decision-making process is built into the draw stroke. The draw should fluidly move through the half-hip and three-quarter hip positions, to full extension.
1. Grab the gun, pull it from the holster
2. Immediately snap your forearm up to the horizontal, index your elbow against your side, and center the gun along your body, all at the same time
3. Shove the gun forward and up, through 3/4 hip position, to full extension.
The elbow indexing serves as an "it's okay to fire now, the gun is pointed in the right direction" signal. If the threat is close, open fire the instant you get the elbow index, and keep firing as you move through the rest of the draw stroke. If the muzzle rams into the threat's body, pull back a little and fire some more. Unless you shoot revolvers only; if that's the case, then don't worry about it.
If the threat is a little further, hold fire until full extension, or until your gut says "open fire you idiot!", whichever happens first.
If the threat continues to advance to grappling distance, despite being made into swiss cheese, blade your gun side away from the threat, pull the gun away and lower it a bit, keep the gun trained on him, raise your support arm to defend your head/neck region (and keep it out of the way of your own gun), and keep firing. You should end up in the quarter-hip position.
The problem training in a choice, especially if it's not a very simple and intuitive choice, is that it could cause you to freeze. "Okay, the bad guy is about 5 yards away, lighting is bad, can barely see the sights, footing isn't very good, so I should use the OH MY GOD I'VE BEEN SHOT!"
In any moment of decision, the best thing you can do is the right thing, the next best thing you can do is the wrong thing, and the worst thing you can do is nothing.
Last edited:
brownie0486
Member
"I would very much like to see a point-shooting expert in a shootoff with an IPSC expert. If point shooting was actually faster, I expect it would have shown up in practical matches to at least a limited degree."
When the gamers like Leatham tell people they don't use their sights a good part of the time as they are NOT necessary and DO know how to use them at speed, it boggles the mind that many would still make the argument that unsighted fire isn't faster or as accurate as it needs to be.
When a grandmaster like Leatham admits to not always using his sights at speed, people should understand he isn't using them for a reason. He is looking for speed and has that and enough accuracy to make the shots.
Rethinking this should be formost in everyones mind who wants to debate speed issues with threat focused shooting. It does show up in practical matches and has been admitted to by some of the greats. Seems clear enough it [ threat focused shooting ] has a place to me.
Robin Brown
When the gamers like Leatham tell people they don't use their sights a good part of the time as they are NOT necessary and DO know how to use them at speed, it boggles the mind that many would still make the argument that unsighted fire isn't faster or as accurate as it needs to be.
When a grandmaster like Leatham admits to not always using his sights at speed, people should understand he isn't using them for a reason. He is looking for speed and has that and enough accuracy to make the shots.
Rethinking this should be formost in everyones mind who wants to debate speed issues with threat focused shooting. It does show up in practical matches and has been admitted to by some of the greats. Seems clear enough it [ threat focused shooting ] has a place to me.
Robin Brown
Another thing that had occured to me awhile ago. Even when shooting at long range, focusing on the front sight as opposed to the threat, is nearly suicidal in many cases. If you're shooting at a brightly-colored, clearly visible bullseye, then having the target out of focus is just fine, and being able to see the front sight clearly will allow for like 1 MOA more precision. But in combat against a camoflaged enemy, if the enemy is out of focus, he may as well be invisible.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
