point shooting home study course

[ghost squire]

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.

I think it might just be you, maybe you misinterpreted what he was trying to convey.

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.

Thats great and all, unless of course they don't actually know they have been shot in the stomach. Which is going to be the case in 100 percent of PCP related shootings, and the majority of determined jihadist/druggies will not notice or care that they've been shot in the stomach.

My philosophy now is that the key to one shot stops on non drugged up people is to use the biggest and scariest looking gun you can, with the loudest report and the hugest flash.

The cons are: you can't use it at night, in a car, or inside a building, you cannot hear after you fire a single shot, and its shock effects will be negated against a drugged or determined foe. And its classified as an assault revolver in California.

 

[brownie0486]

"Thats great and all, unless of course they don't actually know they have been shot in the stomach. Which is going to be the case in 100 percent of PCP related shootings, and the majority of determined jihadist/druggies will not notice or care that they've been shot in the stomach."

Lets see, playing the odds of SD, I wonder how many will be on PcP or hadji's? Not many percentage wise I'm sure.

You seem to think that the gut shot is the only shot going to be made, which of course is not true. In fact, the gut shot, if made will be the first of many zippering up his torso, creating a seive effect with multiple trauma to multiple areas of the body [ zippering up from the gut into the torso so the gun sounds like a machine gun ].

"My philosophy now is that the key to one shot stops on non drugged up people is to use the biggest and scariest looking gun you can"

Well, if the size of the gun and how scary it looks will kill people, I'll consider it, until then, I'll continue to rely on any service caliber, skills to put bullets into the desired area of the perp as rapidly as pssible, and tactics to stop an aggresor trying to kill me.

I've a better chance of stopping an attack using those criteria than a big scary gun.

Robin Brown

 

[Matthew Temkin]

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".

Since I have never seen D.R.s system I cannot comment on it, other than the fact that some people who I respect greatly speak very highly of his book.
I have read his website, and I see that D.R. has won mucho competitions with his point shooting method, yet this seems to be lost/ignored by the gamers.

 

[Bigreno]

zippering up from the gut into the torso so the gun sounds like a machine gun

This is exactly where my problem with this method begins. I am accountable for every round fired from my sidearm. In a combat situation (as it seems this method was developed for) if a few stray rounds go off target it is not a big deal. Where as in the parking lot of the bank it most certainly is a big deal. Rapid fire from the hip/side in an urban non-combat environment seems like a fine way to ventilate someone's Grandmother on her way out of the grocery store. All the range time in the world is not going to prepare someone to reliably hit a moving BG while taking fire/searching backstop for innocents/scrambling for cover with this for lack of a better term spray and pray shooting style. There are just too many variables at play in an armed confrontation for your mind to process at one time. To try and convince people that engaging in a gun battle in this manner is effective seems very reckless.

I will agree that point shooting has it's place, that place being hand to hand range and very slightly beyond, but if you are far enough away to come to full draw, visually pick up your front sight and still discharge your weapon it seems VERY irresponsible not to.

 

[1911Tuner]

Points

BigReno...Don't be too sure that it's only good at arm's length until you've actually seen it done. Machinegun-speed hits at 10 yards are well within range, and I've SEEN the same done all the way out to 25 and beyond.
Well practiced point-index shooters will hit three times while their antagonist is trying to line up his sights.

 

[brownie0486]

"I will agree that point shooting has it's place,

Good thinking.

"that place being hand to hand range and very slightly beyond,"

Bad thinking.


"but if you are far enough away to come to full draw, visually pick up your front sight and still discharge your weapon it seems VERY irresponsible not to."

And the instances where you don't have TIME to find your sights or you risk taking incoming or more incoming? Or when it's at an hour when finding your sights is near impossible or will take you that extra time? What of those times?

Sure would be nice to have a system thats repeatable, accurate and dependablly faster during those times wouldn't it?

"Rapid fire from the hip/side in an urban non-combat environment seems like a fine way to ventilate someone's Grandmother on her way out of the grocery store."

No less so for most trying to use their sights as well under the same stress levels.

I think your thoughts and subsequent statements can be summed up thusly. You don't know what you don't know about these threat focused methodologies to speak with any authority on their effectiveness.

Thats not your fault, of course, but then you should state you don't have the knowledge or formal training and your statements are just uneducated opinions.

Then people could better put comments made into their proper persepctive.

Robin Brown

 

[Grump]

Since I have never seen D.R.s system I cannot comment on it, other than the fact that some people who I respect greatly speak very highly of his book.
I have read his website, and I see that D.R. has won mucho competitions with his point shooting method, yet this seems to be lost/ignored by the gamers.

In that case, I'm putting you in the same category as the "half a bottle of whiskey cures snakebite" people. In their vast experience, including a brother-in-law and a few co-workers over 20 years, every one they knew who got snake-bit and downed a half-bottle of whiskey, they all survived just fine.

Such reasoning might have passed in the popular press 80 years ago, but not for me.

Your claim, in so many words, that "my system is good" seems to be based on some excellent observations and reasonably good testing, but Middlebrooks' seems to have been more scientifically tested, at extreme speeds, under repeatable time-clock pressure and at master-class shooter levels. But you can't tell me wheter Middlebrooks is teaching precisely the same thing that you are, or substantially the same with "A, B, and C" differences, which may or may not make much of a difference.

I've PM'd Middlebrooks making the same request for a comparison/contrast. Perhaps he can give us a more *informed* opinion.

 

[ghost squire]

Lets see, playing the odds of SD, I wonder how many will be on PcP or hadji's? Not many percentage wise I'm sure.

You seem to think that the gut shot is the only shot going to be made, which of course is not true. In fact, the gut shot, if made will be the first of many zippering up his torso, creating a seive effect with multiple trauma to multiple areas of the body [ zippering up from the gut into the torso so the gun sounds like a machine gun ].

Allright lets play the odds. Probably over half to 70 percent (a guess) of all shootings in the US are against non determined foes. It is my estimate that 90-99 percent of them drop with one shot no matter what the caliber of the gun is, if they actually notice the shot being fired. People are conditioned to do this. It doesn't even have to hit them. You took my words to literally, because I thought it was obvious that I meant that any determined foe or PCP/meth addled freak will absorb handgun rounds without noticing 90 percent of the time.

So in effect if it weren't for the people who are very determined or on drugs, everyone would be using .25 ACPs except the ones with penile deficiencies. You don't carry a .45 to put soccer moms down. I would use a .22 if I knew there was literally no chance of me running into a druggie or determined/crazed person.

About the multiple shot thing, what the hell is the point of a gutshot if you then proceed to put multiple rounds into their vitals afterwards. Read the rest of this paragraph before answering. They are either going to not notice, in which case there was no point of a gutshot unless your on a slippery floor and they slip and fall, or they will notice and stop in which case there was no reason to pump extra rounds into their vitals.

You are using deadly force every time you use a handgun, may as well skip horribly unreliable novelty shots like the pelvis and stomach.

Well, if the size of the gun and how scary it looks will kill people, I'll consider it, until then, I'll continue to rely on any service caliber, skills to put bullets into the desired area of the perp as rapidly as pssible, and tactics to stop an aggresor trying to kill me.

I've a better chance of stopping an attack using those criteria than a big scary gun.

Prove it.

 

[1911Tuner]

Snake Oil

There is no "cure" for a snakebite. There's only damage control. There's also no "one way" to stay alive in a gunfight, and sticking to the "One Way" mindset will get you dead. Like the way that Joe Louis relied solely on his
left jab to wear down an opponent so that he could plant his feet and administer the Coup de Grace. Worked well enough until Max Schmeling
saw a way around it...

 

[Horsesense]

Just some random thoughts,

When the difference between going home or not is often measured in fractions of seconds, why sweep past the belly without shooting it? I think some of you fail to appreciate “fluid” motion of point shooting. In point shooting you are not trying to hold the gun still; you are using movement as a friend. It’s not taking any more time to put led in the COM; you are just getting led in the BG while on your way to COM.

I don’t know the statistics, but I’m thinking that getting shot would reduce your chances of surviving a gunfight.

If you learn point shooting, you will not forget weaver; you are adding a skill. On the outside chance that “something” happens (it’s dark, you have been shot in a way that prevents you from using your primary stance etc.) wouldn’t having another skill be an advantage?

It’s funny now, but one of the first thoughts I had when viewing the video of Matthew point-shooting was “that guy is acting like he’s going to kill someone”.

Less is often more and more is always more.

 

[cmidkiff]

Jr's snubby

use the biggest and scariest looking gun you can, with the loudest report and the hugest flash.

Hey! I've shot that gun JR's custom .500 snubby is indeed big, scary looking, and short of a .50BMG, is the loudest thing I've shot.

Great thread, even with a bit of disagreement, there's good information here no matter what your preference is.

 

[LawDog]

I think it might just be you, maybe you misinterpreted what he was trying to convey.

Really? Okay, he said:

Heck, ever watch a bunch of kids playing cops n' robbers?
Not a Weaver stance in the bunch.
Just do what comes naturally....

Now, my interpretation of this is: "Children playing cops and robbers don't use the Weaver stance, therefore it is not natural and has no place in combat handgunning."

In other words: children + game of cops and robbers = combat handgunning skills.

So, tell me, do: What did I misinterpret?

LawDog

 

[brownie0486]

Grump:

DR Middlebrooks' method and FAS [ which Matt knows very well and is a pro at taeching and using ] are NOT the same.

DR does not shoot from the hip, there's one difference. The grip he professes is not anywhere near that of the grip used in FAS, there's another difference.

"Your claim, in so many words, that "my system is good" seems to be based on some excellent observations and reasonably good testing"

FAS is good. How do we know? It's been used to kill more people than you can imagine, documented cases btw.

Reasonably good testing? Real world shootouts in hundreds of shootings has proven FAS to be quite effective. I'd say thats a little more than reasonably good wouldn't you?

DR's system has no track record of these real world killings using his system. Thats not disparaging DR or his methodology of pointshooting, just that if you want to talk " been more scientifically tested, at extreme speeds," you'll have to consider FAS very effective and efficient in the real world.

ghost squire:

"Well, if the size of the gun and how scary it looks will kill people, I'll consider it, until then, I'll continue to rely on any service caliber, skills to put bullets into the desired area of the perp as rapidly as pssible, and tactics to stop an aggresor trying to kill me.

I've a better chance of stopping an attack using those criteria than a big scary gun."

Prove it? You have got to be kidding. You'll need to prove to me that a big scary gun will kill people by looking at it. Somehow I think you are going to have a hard time doing so.

Robin Brown

 

[brownie0486]

"Now, my interpretation of this is: "Children playing cops and robbers don't use the Weaver stance, therefore it is not natural and has no place in combat handgunning."

It isn't natural [ the weaver stance ], but Matt never said or alluded to it not having a place in combat shooting. Thats your interpretation and assumption.

Robin Brown

 

[Grump]

Brownie:

FAS is good. How do we know? It's been used to kill more people than you can imagine

Well, I've heard that said about why the 9mm in FMJ should be considered good enough, it's "cut enough allied troops in half" and such.

The same argument, reduced ad absurdium, also would apply to execution-style killings. At what point does the logic chain break? The Ford Taurus was (still is?) one of the best-selling cars in the U.S., but I wouldn't buy one on a bet because its STATISTICAL reliability plain sucks. But that car has transported more suburbanites to school every day with no problems than you could imagine, right?

Dominance of use with the desired outcome does not necessarily equate to being a truly superior method.

But, thanks for a few vague contrasts. Where can I find the database of shootings upon which you make your claims of success?

And, do we count shots fired blindly around a corner as failures of sighted shooting or failures of point shooting? I suspect that some of the data showing how sighted shooting has failed, rather conveniently includes instances where sighted shooting was NOT USED.

 

[brownie0486]

"But, thanks for a few vague contrasts."

I gave you two specific contrasts. If they are vague to you, you may want to reconsider your cognitive skills.

"And, do we count shots fired blindly around a corner as failures of sighted shooting or failures of point shooting?"

Blindly fired would be in category of spray and pray, neither of which would be sighted or unsighted fire.

"I suspect that some of the data showing how sighted shooting has failed, rather conveniently includes instances where sighted shooting was NOT USED"

Yes, and where sighted fire has failed in those instances is not pointshooting, it is spray and pray which has a poor history of hit ratios.

"Where can I find the database of shootings upon which you make your claims of success?"

There is plenty of empirical data from before ww2 and during where FAS was used in battles against a living and breathing enemy and was more successful than the system that preceded it.

Matt could give you the actual figures from the sources, and probably will when he finds the time.

The stats are recorded, yet DR's system has not such stats on the street. If you want to dismiss something based on performance in real life, look no further than DR's method.

Sticking you tongue out as if to say na, na, na na na, up yours doesn't seem like an objective viewpoint or open mind in this discussion does it?


Robin Brown

 

[Matthew Temkin]

In that case, I'm putting you in the same category as the "half a bottle of whiskey cures snakebite" people. In their vast experience, including a brother-in-law and a few co-workers over 20 years, every one they knew who got snake-bit and downed a half-bottle of whiskey, they all survived just fine.

Such reasoning might have passed in the popular press 80 years ago, but not for me.

Your claim, in so many words, that "my system is good" seems to be based on some excellent observations and reasonably good testing, but Middlebrooks' seems to have been more scientifically tested, at extreme speeds, under repeatable time-clock pressure and at master-class shooter levels. But you can't tell me wheter Middlebrooks is teaching precisely the same thing that you are, or substantially the same with "A, B, and C" differences, which may or may not make much of a difference.

I've PM'd Middlebrooks making the same request for a comparison/contrast. Perhaps he can give us a more *informed* opinion.

I don't have a system.
I provide infromation on WW2 Combatives/Point Shooting to those who are interested--free of charge--and allow them to make up their own minds.
BTW..I have been in contact with Mr. Middlebrooks in the past and he was a true gentleman.
Maybe you can learn more than just point shooting from him.

 

[ghost squire]

When the difference between going home or not is often measured in fractions of seconds, why sweep past the belly without shooting it?

If it makes you feel better, do it. Its not going to incapacitate anyone any faster, and its wasteful of ammunition. I guess if you use a hicap puny caliber weapon you may as well go Lethal Weapon on their ass and spray and pray into every part of their body.

you are just getting led in the BG while on your way to COM.

Lead that will accomplish nothing significant, unless the off chance that you hit the spine.

Prove it? You have got to be kidding. You'll need to prove to me that a big scary gun will kill people by looking at it. Somehow I think you are going to have a hard time doing so.

I asked you first buddy! And if you looked carefully you'll see that I labeled what I said as my personal philosophy. You implied what you believe is scientific fact. So prove it.

Now, my interpretation of this is: "Children playing cops and robbers don't use the Weaver stance, therefore it is not natural and has no place in combat handgunning."

In other words: children + game of cops and robbers = combat handgunning skills.

So, tell me, do: What did I misinterpret?

1. That the Weaver stance has "no place in combat handgunning". I won't put words in his mouth but I don't think anyone believes that. How are you going to use the isosceles behind cover? The Weaver is much more efficient there.

2. That children+game of cops and robbers= combat handgunning skills. I think he was merely trying to show that the isosceles stance is more natural to most people, and therefore is probably the correct stance for them.

In any case why would you stop listening to everything he says. Even idiots like me get some things right.

 

[brownie0486]

"Prove it? You have got to be kidding. You'll need to prove to me that a big scary gun will kill people by looking at it. Somehow I think you are going to have a hard time doing so.

I asked you first buddy! And if you looked carefully you'll see that I labeled what I said as my personal philosophy. You implied what you believe is scientific fact. So prove it."

This ones easy, why do you make it so?

A big scary gun is what? It's an inanimate object. It doesn't fire itself, it doesn't pull the hammer back itself, it is inanimate. It needs human intervention to be used for it's intended purpose.

No one I know of has ever reported an inanimate object killing anyone on it's own. Seems the law of physics come into play here. An object at rest tends to stay at rest until something moves it. Action/Reaction right? These are universal to the laws of physics.

So, a big scary gun doesn't/can't kill anyone of it's own accord. If you have evidence of a big scary gun being able to act on it's own without human intervention, please, enlighten us all okay?

"And if you looked carefully you'll see that I labeled what I said as my personal philosophy."

If that personal philosophy still exists after reading the above, your philosophy needs to either be rethought, or show me where the laws of physics don't pertain to your particular big scary gun.

Geesh, that was too easy. Please endeavor to make your next challenge a little more rewarding if you could.

Robin Brown

 

[Blackhawk 6]

There is plenty of empirical data from before ww2 and during where FAS was used in battles against a living and breathing enemy and was more successful than the system that preceded it.

I do not think there is any question that 1) Fairbairn's methods, at the time of their introduction, were a giant step forward and superior to the techniques of the day and 2) point-shooting has been proven in combat.

For me, the debate begins when point-shooting is presented as the solution to the low hit percentages of police officers. Where is the data that indicates that point-shooting is superior to the current system, not the system the preceded it?

In the history thread we agreed that it was a combination of the introduction of an easier to shoot weapon system, coupled with training under realistic conditions and Fairbairn's point-shooting technique that led to the improvements the Shanghai police experienced.

Today we have police officers who frequently are equipped with weapons that are more difficult to shoot well. They are trained (more often than not) to meet an administrative requirement rather than the harsh reality of an armed confrontation. How can anyone assert that point-shooting is the solution? At best, it is only a part.

 

[1911Tuner]

Lead in the Belly

The Quote:

>Lead that will accomplish nothing significant, unless the off chance that you hit the spine.<
*****************

Howdy all. Not tryin' to fan the flames or anything, because I believe that
both Point/Quick Kill AND aimed fire have their own niche...but if you really believe that a hit in the abdomen with a major caliber pistol is "Nothing Signifigant", I'd suggest that you rethink that position. It's an ugly, painful thing...Trust me.

When your life is at stake...and literally within a second or two of winning or losing...a solid hit anywhere is better than a perfect X that comes too late.

As for the gathering storm that these three threads seem to be feeding...I'm hoping that active moderator presence will calm the waters a little. Ya'll
go ahead and disagree...but please keep it civil. It's edging too close to an outright flame war.

 

[brownie0486]

"If it makes you feel better, do it. Its not going to incapacitate anyone any faster,"

Do you have data to back up that statement? I'd be very interested in some study that suggests getting shot ANYWHERE is not going to slow, to some degree, the actions of someone engaged in trying to kill me.

Is this just your opinion or facts in evidence from some study you have seen. If you can't produce said facts to back your claim, let me counter point you with some REAL facts.

The fact that men observed in hundreds of documented shootings that people gut shot clutched the stomach and had the tendency to drop what they were holding. Seems being gut shot did have a slowing and incapacitating effect in their real world observations.

Now go forth and show me some data that supports your position on this, as I have done in a counterpoint to your statement please.

"and its wasteful of ammunition. I guess if you use a hicap puny caliber weapon you may as well go Lethal Weapon on their ass and spray and pray into every part of their body."

Ahh, now we see a small part of the mentality behind such statements. When one thinks pointshooting is "spray and pray into every part of their body" one gets a feeling for that persons mindset about the subject matter.

Lets look at this from a medical standpoint for a minute.

There are documented instances of people having their hearts blown out and still stay up and running long enough to return fire and kill another. Three perfect shots to the heart, all in a tiny little group will have the same effect. One organ has been destroyed.

If you are shot once in the liver, once in the stomach, once in each lung, once in the neck, once in the spleen [ various organs and the lungs ], you have multiple traumas the body will respond to at the same time.

Pick 3 of the above over three perfect shots to the heart [ one organ ].

Which will incapacitate faster? Which three have the better chance of the body succumbing to injuries sustained? Take a wild guess here.

Three organs taking damage or one. Which will create MORE immediate trauma to the body? Which three have a better chance of incapacitation sooner? Get the idea now?

"you are just getting led in the BG while on your way to COM."

"Lead that will accomplish nothing significant, unless the off chance that you hit the spine."

Any lead is accomplishing something. If you don't believe that, I wonder if you would be willing to let someone shoot you in the stomach, as you feel it won't accomplish anything significant. Where is that thought process coming from?

Robin Brown

 

[brownie0486]

1911Tuner:

"As for the gathering storm that these three threads seem to be feeding...I'm hoping that active moderator presence will calm the waters a little."

Ahh, come on sir, I think we are doing just fine on these threads. Spirited perhaps, but not heated just yet, though i understand it can happen about anytime in thses types of threads

"For me, the debate begins when point-shooting is presented as the solution to the low hit percentages of police officers. Where is the data that indicates that point-shooting is superior to the current system, not the system the preceded it?"

I haven't presented [ to my knowledge ] the idea that pointshooting is a solution to low hit percentages. If I have in anyway, I didn't mean to as I don't believe that anymore than you do.

I don't believe pointshooting is superior either, and again, if that is the appearance I gave, it certainly was not intentional as I don't believe that either.

What I DO believe is that once one knows how to use threat focused methodologies effectively, it can be faster for the majority coupled with more than acceptable accuracy than sighted fire.

And that is what I want in a SD situation, speed coupled with good acceptable accuracy on the perp.

Robin Brown

 

[Blackhawk 6]

I haven't presented [ to my knowledge ] the idea that pointshooting is a solution to low hit percentages. If I have in anyway, I didn't mean to as I don't believe that anymore than you do.

You have not. However, some other point-shooting advocates have implied as much.

I don't believe pointshooting is superior either, and again, if that is the appearance I gave, it certainly was not intentional as I don't believe that either.

Again, not directed at you.

And that is what I want in a SD situation, speed coupled with good acceptable accuracy on the perp.

You will get no arguement from me on that one. Perhaps a different point of view with regard to how exactly it is achieved, though.

As for the gathering storm that these three threads seem to be feeding...I'm hoping that active moderator presence will calm the waters a little.

I was having an informative debate/discussion. I hope no offense was taken. None was intended.

 

[ken grant]

TAPE

Wish I had a copy of Matt's tape
Could have got one a while back,but a$$ed around and didn't do it.