point shooting home study course

[brownie0486]

"If you claim superiority of a system, the claim should be quantifiable. Otherwise you are just bloviating. Sorry if this offends anyone, that's just the way it is."

I think you missed the point [ pun intended ]. I have never said QK was
superior to another pointshooting system like FAS. Bloviating, nice word.

What I said was QK can be taken further out in distance [ and it can as has been proven with known FAS experts two years ago on the range ] than other pointshooting systems. If you took that as superior, I can only reiterate what I said and hope you can understand it the second time around.

"Repeat side-by-side with the addition of timed exercises under various levels of incoming Simunitions stress while they shoot at moving paper targets, and then we can measure the ACCURACY, too."

Accuracy, lets discuss that for a minute shall we.? I train to keep all shots inside an 8-9 inch paper plate at all distances I use QK for as fast as I can pull the trigger. While moving or stationary.

Moving, the distance has to be reduced. Stationary, the distance can be taken out well past what others would ever deem possible.

If the accuracy requirements and distance dicatate I go to sighted fire, I do so, to stay inside that 8-9 inch diameter of accuracy. I learned long ago that combat accuracy is not practicing to put 20,000 rds into a neat little hole, and if you decide to take the time while someone is trying to kill you to do so, you will likely die.

Can I drill neat little holes? Of course, I am a Marine and we are trained to be deadly accurate. I just don't see the need on the streets to be so.

To put that into perspective so you do not miscontrue here--I've witnessed students who had 4 hours of FAS be able to also make fast, rapid shots from 3/4 hip and half hip that were amazing in accuracy as well. Certainly 90% of those were also inside the 8-9 inch cirteria I use.

"If you are merely saying "use our system, it works and it's proven in X,000 real-life events", AND claim ignorance of how well other "systems" or whatever work in comparison, I still maintain that you are doing little better than the guy whose brother-in-law downed a half-bottle of whiskey after getting snakebit."

I do not care how others systems work or don't work. Why would that matter to me? I use a system that works, and I can impart that system [ QK ] to others so it works for them.

I've stated others systems work. FAS for example, works very well. I have worked it myself and also seen students use it with great effect in a short learning curve. Why do you have a need to know comparitively to begin with?

Systems work or they do not. Period. If you are trying to get to the point of knowing which works better---I can't help you. And unless some pointshooter had the same time and practice on every known pointshooting system, I suggest NO one would be able to determine that which you apparently seek.

"I'm just not confortable with the body of knowledge now available. Everyone should learn the skills, IMO, but no one has offered me any reason to choose one "system" over another."

Nor will I offer a reason, I don't have to. I'm predisposed to learn and use FAS as much as I am the methodology I was trained in. Why? Because as well as QK works and has worked for myself and others, I see value in FAS as well. That value is based on observing an instructor take students from not knowing to knowing in very short time intervals with very very good results.

I think you should train in multiple disciplines. The man who does not, is not as prepared when the stomping starts. No technique works in every situation. Thats why I practice sighted fire, QK, FAS, shooting from the ground upside down and backwards, from my side, on the move, stationary, etc etc.

In so doing, I've learned what works best [ for me ] at each of the above. I've learned when to use each, why, and so forth, and coud not possibly have done so without a working knowledge of all of them.

Robin Brown

 

[Leadbutt]

And the circle continues:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:


Point Shooting is niether fish or fowl, right or wrong,needed or uneeded,its

JUST ANOTHER TOOL IN THE BOX





Dave James

 

[Matthew Temkin]

And the circle continues:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:


Point Shooting is niether fish or fowl, right or wrong,needed or uneeded,its

JUST ANOTHER TOOL IN THE BOX





Dave James

Glad to see you here.
So far this thread has generated over 1400 views, plus quite few e mails from those seeking more info.
We must be doing something right.

 

[brownie0486]

And the circle continues :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

Say it aint so joe!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Good to see you here as well DJ

I know I should be asking myself why bother, but I can't help myself I'm a jarhead, and a glutton for punishment

Stay sharp

Brownie

 

[Matthew Temkin]

And the circle continues :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

Say it aint so joe!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Good to see you here as well DJ

I know I should be asking myself why bother, but I can't help myself I'm a jarhead, and a glutton for punishment

Stay sharp

Brownie

I know exactly how you feel.

 

[1911Tuner]

Unbelieveable

Can't believe how this and other discussions went down in flames the way they did. I may be wrong...since I haven't read every post in detail...but I don't think I've seen Matthew OR Brownie state that pointshooting is the only way, or even the best way. Both seem to promote the idea that sights should be used if time, lighting and distance permit...and that a basic, working knowledge of pointshooting is a handy skill to have in case the sights CAN'T be used...like within 10 feet in a killing situation...which is more likely than a shootout at 25 or 30 yards. This is the general consensus from ALL practitioners of the discipline that I've ever talked to. Or...as Leadbutt screamed...Another tool in the box.

No...it's not as accurate at any distance as sighted fire...but it may be accurate enough to keep a tag off your toe and it doesn't take a lot of work to get good enough with it to hit a human torso at 10 or 15 feet. If it's only a tick faster than aimed fire at that distance...sometimes winners and losers are decided in tenths of seconds. So...if you're serious about staying alive
in such a situation...why NOT learn it? Why limit yourself to just one tool?

 

[JMusic]

1911 Tuner I couldn't agree more. I'm about the same age as Jeff(Graduated in 73) but I was taught what was then called instinctive shooting in the mid 60's. To say this is not an accurate shooting method is a statement made from ignorance. Let me say that in all my travels and departments that I served on only a handful of people could do this, none professionaly trained. As I stated on another thread that was closed I started out with shooting rocks in the air with a 22 rifle, quickly applying this to shotguns and handguns. I see this as no more different between using open vs scope sights. THEY BOTH HAVE THEIR PLACE. If you do not want to learn this technique don't Whats the big deal? When I shot PPC courses in the mid 70's we shot from 7 yards out to 50. I never used sights at the 7 yard line, I ALWAYS used sights at the 50. My average scores were from 295-300. One more point, many people who were good shooters would see me shoot something out of the air and say they could never do that. They all became proficient enough to hit 50 percent within 30 minutes. The targets? Apples.
Jim.

 

[Blackhawk 6]

I am not interested in promoting any method of shooting. My only interest lies in developing skills that afford me the maximum opportunity to prevail in a life or death encounter and integrating them into my defensive skill set.

I don't think I've seen Matthew OR Brownie state that pointshooting is the only way, or even the best way. Both seem to promote the idea that sights should be used if time, lighting and distance permit...

I agree. But to be fair, I haven't seen anyone advocate using the sights regardless of the circumstances, either.

...and that a basic, working knowledge of pointshooting is a handy skill to have in case the sights CAN'T be used...like within 10 feet in a killing situation...which is more likely than a shootout at 25 or 30 yards.

This statement, and many like it, is the centerpiece for the debate. It implies the sights can not be used within 10 feet in a killing situation. Sure they can.

I use a variation of Fairbairn's "close-hip" method for engagements within 2 yards or so. The debate lies in engaging targets in the 2-10 yard range. Beyond 10 yards, I think everyone agrees that sights are best.

I believe that both QK and FAS are combat-proven methods for the employment of the handgun. So is sighted shooting. Again, I am interested in the method that affords me the maximum opportunity to prevail. At a distance of, say, 5 yards (certainly a reasonable combat distance for any of the systems under consideration), how is sighted shooting a liability? How do QK or FAS afford me the maximum opportunity to prevail?

Frequently, when these questions are posed the response has something to do with the ~20% hit rate of police. Let me address that right now.

I do not believe ~20% is particularly good, but I think it is unfair to attribute this solely to shooting method being employed. Equipment, relevance of training and mindset are all aspects that must be considered as well. If we use LAPD's Metropolitan Division as a case study in sighted-shooting, we see that when officers posess the appropriate mindset and are provided with realistic training, representative of the conditions the may encounter an ~80% rate can be achieved. I have read Anchorage, Alaska is reporting a rate in the 90's.

I have asked several times for corresponding numbers from point-shooting advocates. What I am provided with is 80-year old war stories from the alleys of Shanghai or 60-year old war stories from WWII. Again, that the systems are combat-proven is not in question. That they are preferential is the issue. I would welcome evidence to support this.

For example: "Police department X trained exclusively on sighted shooting. It had a hit rate of 17% in shootings occurring at less than 10 yards. Within 2 years of changing nothing other than transitioning to FAS/QK, that hit rate went to 32%."

So...if you're serious about staying alive in such a situation...why NOT learn it? Why limit yourself to just one tool?

Good question.

First, two systems for dealing with a threat within 10 yards requires a division of time and resources, already in short supply for most of us. If it was demonstrably better, it might be worth it.

Second, the decision as to whether to shoot using the sights or point-shooting at distances where either is appropriate is arbitrary. Having to choose between using the sights and not using the sights requires a choice to be made. A choice requires time, maybe only a .10 of a second. But sombody just pointed out that sometimes winners and losers are decided in tenths of seconds.

Brownie (who, incidentally has earned my respect throughout this debate) states in his signature line that he uses QK out to 21 feet. How do I know he is at 21 feet and not 25 feet? or 30 feet? I have never been fortunate enough to have a fight at a location where the distance between my attacker and I was clearly delineated. At some level I am going to have to process the distance my attacker is from me to help make the decision, more time wasted. What if he is not fully-exposed? Instead he is 80% exposed. What about 50%? What about 25%? All choices/decisions that must be made. All require time. The theoretical gain in speed that point-shooting offered at very close range suddenly becomes delays as I try to decide which skill set to use.

I would submit that a system that requires minimal diagnostic thought process on the part of the shooter is better.

Third, using the numbers provided by Fairbairn in Shooting to Live, there is still a 31% miss-rate. Now I can not comment on the litigious nature of 1920's Shanghai or 1944 Normandy but I have a fair idea of what it is today. Having to testify that Mr. Smith was paralyzed by an errant bullet that I fired without the benefit of sights, sights that the manufacturer put on the gun and clearly intended me to use, strikes me as bad.

I think point-shooting has a place, at extremely close range where the shooter does not have the ability and/or opportunity to get on the sights. At ten feet? I'll choose the sights with an option to fire without them.

 

[7677]

And the circle continues:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:


Point Shooting is niether fish or fowl, right or wrong,needed or uneeded,its

JUST ANOTHER TOOL IN THE BOX





Dave James

That it is...However, it the small size of the tool box that most shooters possess and/or the lock on the toolbox that makes me wonder.

 

[7677]

Blackhhawk,
I believe that default mode is the use of sights. However, time (the urgency of making the shot) and the distance to the target determines if you point shoot or use your sights. As far as what method you use at what distance is concerned, by practicing the different techniques your subconscience mind will chose the appropriate technique. Movement (shooter/target) is also a consideration in which method will be used. Another consideration is are you ahead of the reactionary curve or behind it. As far as miss rates are concerned, they are many aspects for those numbers which some of them I mention above. Spray-n-pray is the likely cause of these rates.

 

[brownie0486]

"I haven't seen anyone advocate using the sights regardless of the circumstances, either."

And you won't from me, ever. Why? Because I KNOW sights do not have to be used if time/distance requirments dictate I not only do not need them but won't have the time to use them.

"This statement, and many like it, is the centerpiece for the debate. It implies the sights can not be used within 10 feet in a killing situation. Sure they can."

I don't know where you got that impression, of course they can be used, anywhere from 0-300 feet out with pistols. Because they CAN be used doesn't mean they have to be. If the discussion led to that conclusion, I apologize and will endeavor to make sure that point/thought is included in the future as it is not MY intent to inference that at all.

"The debate lies in engaging targets in the 2-10 yard range"

Again, it [ the use of sights or not ] is situationally dependant based on time and circimstances, it's only been stated as such for years.

"I believe that both QK and FAS are combat-proven methods for the employment of the handgun. So is sighted shooting. Again, I am interested in the method that affords me the maximum opportunity to prevail."

Then there should be NO debate with you from threat focused advocates.

"At a distance of, say, 5 yards (certainly a reasonable combat distance for any of the systems under consideration), how is sighted shooting a liability? How do QK or FAS afford me the maximum opportunity to prevail?"

Not knowing you I can't answer that question intelligently sir. I would have to see you shoot to know that. As everyone skill levels are different, each persons level of training that may have a significant impact under stresses of SD would be different.

"Frequently, when these questions are posed the response has something to do with the ~20% hit rate of police. Let me address that right now."

You can certainly address that right now, but you arre not addressing me when you do. I don't talk about hit ratios with cops, one on the net does constantly, your address needs to be with him, not the rest of us threat focused advocates. I'd appreciate it if you didn't lump me into some general category, as we are each individuals with our own thoughts, systems, and experiences.

"I have asked several times for corresponding numbers from point-shooting advocates. What I am provided with is 80-year old war stories from the alleys of Shanghai or 60-year old war stories from WWII."

As these methodologies fell out of favor over the years, and LE's, for the most part have been trained in sighted fire for decades now, it MIGHT be just a tad of a stretch to expect any relevant recent data.

However, what worked then and was a valid form of SD is not less valid today.

"Again, that the systems are combat-proven is not in question. That they are preferential is the issue. I would welcome evidence to support this."

Preferrential? In reality, they are just another tool to use when it is appropriate. If one does not have the trained skills to use those tools, two things happen. They are not available if and when they could have been used to better effect, and if they try to use them without the training, they will likely be unsuccesful at trying to.

"For example: "Police department X trained exclusively on sighted shooting. It had a hit rate of 17% in shootings occurring at less than 10 yards. Within 2 years of changing nothing other than transitioning to FAS/QK, that hit rate went to 32%."

Unrealistic scenario sir. No police dept is ever going to use one technique all the time nor train their officers to do so.

"First, two systems for dealing with a threat within 10 yards requires a division of time and resources, already in short supply for most of us. If it was demonstrably better, it might be worth it."

Thats an old saw, and it doesn't fly. Of course people can figure out immediately what they need without concsious thought. They've been doing so for decades.

"I would submit that a system that requires minimal diagnostic thought process on the part of the shooter is better."

So you would be aggreeing that using your NATURAL ability which can be processed faster by most would be the way to go? That would include threat focused systems, as they are very efficient at using minimal diagnostic thought processes.

"Third, using the numbers provided by Fairbairn in Shooting to Live, there is still a 31% miss-rate. "

That of course means a 69% success rate. Not bad when one looks at the statistics of LE's and their history no?

"Now I can not comment on the litigious nature of 1920's Shanghai or 1944 Normandy but I have a fair idea of what it is today. Having to testify that Mr. Smith was paralyzed by an errant bullet that I fired without the benefit of sights, sights that the manufacturer put on the gun and clearly intended me to use, strikes me as bad."

So would that not be the case where sighted misses occured as well? And we have a lot of data to support that that has occured for decades with sighted fire trained people. You miss, you explain. You will likely not be asked if you used your sights, why would you, most people would assume you tried to and missed, that has been the history of misses on the streets right?

"I think point-shooting has a place, at extremely close range"

One mans close range is not anothers. Each being dependant on experience, training, and yearsin practicing those skills. Just lije sights, right?

Brownie (who, incidentally has earned my respect throughout this debate)

Thank you sir. Just trying to keep things in perspective.

" how do I know he is at 21 feet and not 25 feet? or 30 feet?

You can't in reality in real time. Yet throughout practicing the skills one gains the familiarity of distance and when to go to sights and when they are not necessary. That QK can be used at those distances only reiforces that skill is worth knowing.

"At some level I am going to have to process the distance my attacker is from me to help make the decision, more time wasted."

It may be hard to understand, I'll try to explain it though and see where it leads here. Enos' various "focuses" basically are doing the same thing, but with different descriptors. No one is having a problem there and I suspect that because with practice comes knowledge of where one needs to be in the equation of staying alive and knows what is necessary to make the shot that needs to be made.


"What if he is not fully-exposed?"

That would indicate a more precise shot may be required, go to sights. The gun is already there, changing the focus from the threat to the sights is less than milliseconds for most.

"Instead he is 80% exposed. What about 50%? What about 25%? All choices/decisions that must be made. All require time."

It's actually autonomic in nature. One knows their own ability and uses that to his/her adavantage, whether that is with sights or lack thereof.

"The theoretical gain in speed that point-shooting offered at very close range suddenly becomes delays as I try to decide which skill set to use."

It may seem that way to the uninitiated at first, but the reality is it takes no time to know what is needed to make the shot. If we look again at Enos' work, many competitors can go back and forth on the fly with applaumb, and QK is no less effective or time consuming.

Robin Brown

 

[Matthew Temkin]

Regarding hit rates...
I asked Applegate about them and if Camp Ritchie kept them, and he said they did not.
Nor did Fairbairn, at least according to Applegate.
The SMP kept records of criminals and cops who were killed, but not of how many bullets missed or hit.
Yet somethime I wonder how important hit rates really are.
The NYPD has a dismal hit rate--somewhere between 14%-28% ---yet they win nearly all of their gunfights.
And even in crowded NYC it is rare that an errant round strikes an innocent.
Furthermore the NYPD trains only in aimed fire, so as how to improve this hit rate remains a mystery.
Applegate was friends with Lt. Frank McGee who vastly improved the NYPD firearms programs by starting the SOP 9 reports ( Yearly summary of every gunfight/shot fired by a MOS) and by making the training more realistic.
For example, my neighbor became a NYC cop in 1956 and his basic training was in one handed bullseye shooting.
For what it is worth I asked Applegate if a poor hit rate is just the nature of the beast, so to speak, or due to unrealistic training methods.
His opinion was more in line with the latter and felt that more emphasis on one handed point shooting would be a greater help.
When I asked him why McGee did not implement the WW2 systems his one word response was.."Politics"
Now as to the Anchorage PD and their 90% hit rate....
I have tried to get data on that, as well as how many gunfights that included, yet no one will give it up.
I asked on the IALEFI forum, and even of former Alaska State Police firearms instructor Jeff hall, and still cannot get verification.
Lou Choida of the Calif Hwy Patrol claimed a 90% hit rate since his point shooting program was implemented, yet I have recently learned from a reliable sourse that it actually is more like 43%
So...quien sabe la verdad?

 

[David N]

The Bare Minimum

Dear Folks,

Please understand I am NOT trying to criticize Mr. Temkin's work, or any other.

I just want to say that the only book I've ever needed to teach myself PS is "Bulleyes Don't Shoot Back: The Complete Text of Point Shooting" By Col. Applegate, Paladin Press.

This small paperback also offers the advantages of being more permanent, portable, and low tech than my computer or even a laptop.

 

[Matthew Temkin]

Dear Folks,

Please understand I am NOT trying to criticize Mr. Temkin's work, or any other.

I just want to say that the only book I've ever needed to teach myself PS is "Bulleyes Don't Shoot Back: The Complete Text of Point Shooting" By Col. Applegate, Paladin Press.

This small paperback also offers the advantages of being more permanent, portable, and low tech than my computer or even a laptop.

I never thought that you were.
Nor do I consider myself to be the final authority/guru on the subject.
As to other books...
I recommend that you get Kill Or get Killed by Col. Applegate, Quick Or Dead by Cassidity, Shooting To Live by Fairbairn and Sykes and Street Survival (available via cailbre press)
As to videos....
You can't go wrong with Shooting For Keeps---for point shooting and the 4 part video series on defensive shooting by Jim Grover ( for everything else)
With one exception all are sold via www.paladinpress.com

 

[Blackhawk 6]

Robin,

Based on our previous discussions, I suspect we are not very far apart in our views. Allow me to address some of your replies to my post.

Orginally Posted by by brownie0486
I don't know where you got that impression, of course they can be used, anywhere from 0-300 feet out with pistols. Because they CAN be used doesn't mean they have to be. That seems simple enough.

I got that impression from 1911Tuner's post when, in supporting point-shooting, he stated:

Orginally Posted by by 1911Tuner
...and that a basic, working knowledge of pointshooting is a handy skill to have in case the sights CAN'T be used...like within 10 feet in a killing situation...which is more likely than a shootout at 25 or 30 yards.

While it may not have been his intent to imply that within 10 feet in all killing situations, sights can not be used, I think it is easy to understand how someone might draw that conclusion from that statement. I believe it is statements such as this one that keep the debate alive.

Orginally Posted by by brownie0486
You can certainly address that right now, but you arre not addressing me when you do. I don't talk about hit ratios with cops, one on the net does constantly, your address needs to be with him, not the rest of us threat focused advocates. I'd appreciate it if you didn't lump me into some general category, as we are each individuals with our own thoughts, systems, and experiences.

My apologies. I have enjoyed our discussions on this topic immensely and meant no direspect.

Orginally Posted by by brownie0486
As these methodologies fell out of favor over the years, and LE's, for the most part have been trained in sighted fire for decades now, it MIGHT be just a tad of a stretch to expect any relevant recent data.

One might, quite logically, ask if the techniques were working as well as is advertised why their use was discontinued. A question I had planned to raise in the history thread before it was locked.

Orginally Posted by by brownie0486
Unrealistic scenario sir. No police dept is ever going to use one technique all the time nor train their officers to do so.

At some point in one of the several other threads on the subject Mattew stated his agency required him to qualify from 3 to 15 yards using sighted fire only. The conclusion I drew from that statement was that his agency did use one technique all the time and was training their officers to do so.

Orginally Posted by by brownie0486
However, what worked then and was a valid form of SD is not less valid today.

No arguement. I would submit that as there have been an additional 60+ years of study with regard to the subject, there may be a greater understanding of the subject today. That understanding may be reflected in the techniques presently being taught.

Orginally Posted by by brownie0486
Thats an old saw, and it doesn't fly. Of course people can figure out immediately what they need without concsious thought. They've been doing so for decades.

Quickly, yes. Immediately, no. It may not occur at the conscious level but it occurs nonetheless. Hick discovered that the reaction time increases proportionally to the number of possible responses until a point at which the response time remains constant despite the increases in possible responses (Hick's Law). Simply put more choices, slower reaction time. Less choices faster reaction time.

Orginally Posted by by brownie0486
So you would be aggreeing that using your NATURAL ability which can be processed faster by most would be the way to go?

I would agree that harnessing the body's natural reactions to a threat and integrating them into your response is probably the most efficient way to go. However, the sighted shooting techniques I have adopted do this as well.

That would include threat focused systems, as they are very efficient at using minimal diagnostic thought processes.

Based on what I have read and what has been discussed on this forum, at some distance or under some circumstances all of the threat focused systems revert back to a focus on the sights. There is going to be a gray area of distance/amount of target exposed that is going to force us to decide between a sight-focused shot or a threat-focused shot. We are back to Hick's Law.

That of course means a 69% success rate. Not bad when one looks at the statistics of LE's and their history no?

Actually, the only conclusion that can be drawn from Fairbairn's numbers is that in 69% of the instances where shots were fired, one bullet found its mark. Fairbairn's numbers provide no basis of comparison to today's hit ratios. His hit ratios may be considerably higher than 69% or considerably lower.

One man's close range is not anothers. Each being dependant on experience, training, and years in practicing those skills. Just like sights, right?

Agreed. As I stated earlier, I am not promoting one system over another. I am pretty satisified with the current techniques I am using (though I am always willing to discard one in favor of something better).

I would be silent on the subject were it not for those individuals who insist on telling me (and everyone else) that I will die if I try to use my sights at 10 feet without regard for my "experience, training, and years in practicing those skills."

I am enjoying the discussion, though.

 

[Matthew Temkin]

Blackhawk....I know people who have used the sights up close and those who did not, with the same result----they won.
It is not an either all proposition, nor is the choice a matter of conscious decision.
In other words, your body will decide upon the choice of technique in less that a heartbeat.

 

[Blackhawk 6]

Matthew,

My position on hit rates is that they are irrelevant to the discussion. There are simply too many variables involved to attribute them to the method of aiming alone.

When I asked him why McGee did not implement the WW2 systems his one word response was.."Politics"

Can you provide any more detail regarding this? I would think fewer rounds expended in training and shorter training periods without a decrease (and with a possible increase) in real world performance would be a plus.

 

[Blackhawk 6]

Robin,

If we look again at Enos' work, many competitors can go back and forth on the fly with applaumb, and QK is no less effective or time consuming.

Here is were I will break ranks with the competitive shooter camp (if I was ever among the ranks). Anticipation is a method for reducing reaction time. All of those stage walk thru's allow the shooter to anticipate.

As we all know, rarely are we afforded the opportunity to walk-thru a gunfight first.

 

[brownie0486]

"I got that impression from 1911Tuner's post when, in supporting point-shooting"

Fair enough, maybe 1911tuner will answer.

"While it may not have been his intent to imply that within 10 feet in all killing situations, sights can not be used, I think it is easy to understand how someone might draw that conclusion from that statement. I believe it is statements such as this one that keep the debate alive."

Fair enough.

"My apologies. I have enjoyed our discussions on this topic immensely and meant no direspect."

No apologies necessary here sir, I also have enjoyed this discussion.

"One might, quite logically, ask if the techniques were working as well as is advertised why their use was discontinued"

I can't answer that question, but I have my suspicions, that in part it had to do with how the mentalities of SD change from war time to piece time over the decades, and what is deemed appropriate for the times.

"At some point in one of the several other threads on the subject Mattew stated his agency required him to qualify from 3 to 15 yards using sighted fire only. The conclusion I drew from that statement was that his agency did use one technique all the time and was training their officers to do so."

That may very well be the case, and I retract the previous statement. Though I still do not believe they should and know that some don't teach one way only.

"Quickly, yes. Immediately, no. It may not occur at the conscious level but it occurs nonetheless. Hick discovered that the reaction time increases proportionally to the number of possible responses until a point at which the response time remains constant despite the increases in possible responses (Hick's Law). Simply put more choices, slower reaction time. Less choices faster reaction time."

Agreed. If you take a look at fighter pilots training, they develop immense ability to process vast amounts of data under stress and make the correct decisions at incredible speeds. It's trained for sure, but makes the point at least partially that one can learn to process information on the fly in life and death situations and make decisions that affect a succsful outcome.

"I would agree that harnessing the body's natural reactions to a threat and integrating them into your response is probably the most efficient way to go. However, the sighted shooting techniques I have adopted do this as well."

I understand that. No argument there. I know many friends who can claen clocks with the sights.

"Based on what I have read and what has been discussed on this forum, at some distance or under some circumstances all of the threat focused systems revert back to a focus on the sights."

As necesssary, of course. The default is still sights if they can be used quickly enough and like 7677 stated are dependant on where you are on that bell curve in the scenario when you need to shoot.

"I would be silent on the subject were it not for those individuals who insist on telling me (and everyone else) that I will die if I try to use my sights at 10 feet without regard for my "experience, training, and years in practicing those skills."

I don't insist, I suggest. It is dependant on that bell curve and where you find yourself in the scenario when the time comes to shooting. At 10, I'll be shooting from the hip if I'm behind, yet if I see it soon enough, I could very well go to sights or anything in between.

Robin Brown

 

[JMusic]

I don't know how many of you come from the LE community but from what I have seen the shooting by this group is adequate at best. Many departments have a mandatory qualification then never again require it. I am not down playing the men who I consider brothers just giving what I saw over a period of 8 years of active LE. Now I still shoot with some of this group and I still see no improvement. No doubt some departments require more and have advanced training but smaller departments do not have the budget. For some LE officers this is a life style as it was for me, for others it was a job. They put in their 8 hours and that was that. To look at shoot out statistics may be misleading. I was able to avoid shoot outs to a large degree by being faster (having my gun out) and frankly more aware. There is a series of events that happen to initiate a firefight. The best way to survive one is to avoid one. Many in LE do not have the skills to do this. I have to wonder if this group is what we are looking at when we talk of Dismal results.
Jim

 

[okjoe]

Point Shooting does not happen by magic.

The CQB miss rate is proof that it does not happen by magic, or one would automatically default to it.

The CQB miss rate also is proof that SS falls apart in CQB situations, or there would not be the disconnect there is between range and street results.

So, what harm is there in learning how to PS?

If you carry, you most likely carry an extra magazine, why not an extra method?

Point shooting requires the use of simple body mechanics.

It is very simple to learn, and requires little if any training.

Learning how, is much like learning how to ride a bike or tie your shoes. Impossible until done, but once mastered, it is almost automatic.

Try it, the life you save may be your own.

BTW went to the range last night and watched some USPSA shooters. I was interested in their gear (some fancy and some not so fancy), but more interested in their method.

Depending on distance and/or movement, SS/FSP or PS was used.

Also saw a rental Tarus PT 24/7 in 9mm that I plan to try. Light, ergonomically superior, and looks like a good match for ME if you know what I mean. Nice to see gun makers getting with the program.

As to stats, the NYPD's SOP 9 was a study of over 5000 combat cases and initially ran for many years. As such the conclusions and findings have considerable weight, at least with me. Some question some of them, but little if any evidence or other studies refute them.

If interested, check out www.pointshooting.com/sop9.htm

 

[1911Tuner]

Point or Sight?

Okay...A final response. Didn't mean to imply that I blindly support one method or the other. Point shooting skills can save your life if the situation
dictates that the shooter doesn't have the time, distance, lighting, or opportunity to use the sights. Sighted fire can save your life if the shooter has the time, distance, lighting and the opportunity to use them. Use sights if you can. Do what you must to survive it you can't.

It's a little like assuming that you'll always have the time, distance, opportunity, and both hands free to obtain a solid, two-hand grip on the gun,
when it's at least likely that you'll be fending off an edged or blunt weapon attack with one hand at bad-breath range and clawing for your gun with the other. There are many things that the bad guys can use to kill you...any of which you may face at any time...without much prior warning, if any.

Killing situations rarely go down the way we THINK they will.

Why limit yourself to one skill when your life could be at stake?
Hope for the best...but prepare for the worst.

Know whut'm sayin?

 

[Blackhawk 6]

Originally Posted by okjoe
The CQB miss rate also is proof that SS falls apart in CQB situations, or there would not be the disconnect there is between range and street results.

This is exactly the type of inflammatory statement the fuels the fires of the debate.

How specifically is the rate that police officers are hitting their targets attributable to the fact that they are trained in sighted-shooting techniques, if at all? Please provide me some evidence that training in point-shooting techniques would improve the hit rates. Please explain why police officers who are receiving realistic, relevant (primarily) sight-focused training, such as the LAPD's Metro Division, are not experiencing the same low hit rates.

 

[brownie0486]

Blackhawk 6:

okjoe is stating his opinion. Many do not support or share his views or opinions. He is entitled to express his opinion as well as anyone here.

He is not even a regular shooter. Please keep what he says in the proper context of an opinion.

Thanks

Robin Brown

 

[Blackhawk 6]

Wilco.