point shooting home study course

[JMusic]

As I stated above it may be that they are experiencing ANY extra training. The more you shoot the better you get at least you should. Certain specialized training of one Dept. means nothing unless other Dept. are receiving specialized training too. As far as aimed training goes in LE ALL my training was for aimed fire but I did not use it at certain distances. Hell I could outshoot the groups I trained with and I had several when I was 16 years old. Stats are for bean counters. I frankly do not understand this argument as one better than the other. To aquire sights takes time if it didn't they'd put peep sights on shotguns. Point shooting has its place so does aimed fire. WHAT IS SO HARD ABOUT GRASPING THAT!!!!!!!!!!!
Jim

 

[Blackhawk 6]

Certain specialized training of one Dept. means nothing unless other Dept. are receiving specialized training too.

If an individual asserts that the poor performance of police officers in shootings is attributable to the sighting techniques they are trained in and yet there is a department (or part of one) that is expereincing significantly higher success rates using the same techniques, that is certainly significant. It suggests that the sighting techniques may not be to blame at all and compels us to examine all of the training that department is providing its officers to see what they are doing differently.

Point shooting has its place so does aimed fire.

I am not sure if that statement was directed at me. I do not believe I ever said there was no place for point-shooting and if I did I certainly did not intend to. I believe if you go back a few posts you will find that I have stated that I use point-shooting techniques under certain circumstances.

Being fortunate enough to have a few individuals knowledgeable in threat focused shooting techniques, I thought I would take advantage of their expertise and query them as to my concerns over expanding the circumstances under which I use threat-focused shooting techniques.

 

[okjoe]

What is inflamatory about stating facts and logical conclusions that flow from such facts.

The SOP 9 was made by police, published by police, for police.

From the SOP 9:

"It has been assumed that if a man can hit a target at 50 yards he can certainly do the same at three feet. That assumption is not borne out by the reports."

"An attempt was made to relate an officer's ability to strike a target in a combat situation to his range qualification scores. After making over 200 such comparisons, no firm conclusion was reached."

To me, the study result establishes that there is indeed a disconnect between the two.

If there was a connection between range marksmanship and combat hitsmanship, one would expect the combat hit potential percentages, to be well above the dismal ones reported. That is because the shooting distance was less than 20 feet in 75 percent of the 4000 encounters studied.

The US Army recognizes that there is a disconnect. Its training manual, FM 23-35 Combat Training With Pistols & Revolvers (1988), calls for the use of Point Shooting for combat at less than 15 feet, and when firing at night. It does not call for using standard and traditional range marksmanship techniques.

"The weapon should be held in a two-hand grip and brought up close to the body until it reaches chin level. It is then thrust forward until both arms are straight. As the weapon is thrust forward, the trigger is smoothly squeezed to the rear. The arms and body form a triangle which can be aimed as a unit."

For shooting at 5 to 10 yards, a modified version of the technique is used.

And what has shooting only now and then got to do with anything?

Shooting is not rocket science.

I seldom shoot, and my results at in home distances would most probably result in stopping or killing anyone I shot at. And that's using Point Shooting.

If you are at a distance where you have to or are able to use your sights, are you in a life threat situation???

If a picture is worth a thousand words, then here's a home study course in point shooting.

 

[JMusic]

Blackhawk No argument here. Sounds like we are talking the same thing. My point was that certain training no matter the technique may be insufficiant no matter what type of shooting disipline taught. That has been my experience. I do not believe that any technique including drawing a weapon can be condenced into a simple course. I attended a Bulleyeseye shooting course in college. We were TOLD to practice at home with an unloaded gun to secure a steady position. The drill was to place a sheet of paper on the wall and with my model 15 with pencil in the barrel I would close my eyes with pistol pointed up. I would then lower to my natural position and pull the trigger. The point was to train your muscles to extend to the same point every time. We did this hundreds of times. Though I have not shot Bulleseye since this benifitted all my other shooting techniques including long range varmit hunting. I guess what I'm trying to say without measureing the amount of practice a certain individual or department does stats do very little to gauge technique. Thanks for responding.
Jim

 

[Blackhawk 6]

Originally Posted by okjoe
What is inflamatory about stating facts and logical conclusions that flow from such facts.

The conclusion is not logical. You have failed to demonstrate that the sighting method employed is responsible for the poor performance and that a change in sighting method would improve performance. If you have, I missed it.

Originally Posted by okjoe
An attempt was made to relate an officer's ability to strike a target in a combat situation to his range qualification scores. After making over 200 such comparisons, no firm conclusion was reached.

Consider this statement from Thomas Aveni regarding the correlation between range performance and street performance based on his analysis of SOP-9 and several other studies:

until such time that police handgun qualifications involve naturally and randomly moving targets, and until such time we can simulate life-threatening dynamics during handgun qualification, direct comparisons are largely pointless.

He seems to think the issue is unrealistc training, not sighting methodology.

Originally Posted by okjoe
The US Army recognizes that there is a disconnect. Its training manual, FM 23-35 Combat Training With Pistols & Revolvers (1988), calls for the use of Point Shooting for combat at less than 15 feet, and when firing at night. It does not call for using standard and traditional range marksmanship techniques.

Having been a recipient of the U.S. Army's handgun training on multiple occasions I can definitvely state that it is NOT the model to be followed if one wants to increase hit potential for police officers.

You seem to ignore all of the sections dealing with combat marksmanship with the exception of one paragraph. If you refer to the preceding paragraph you will find it says:"The quick-kill (the manual uses the terms quick-fire and quick-kill interchangeably) does not alway ensure a first-round hit." In short, the Army acknowledges that the quick-fire/quick-kill method is a less reliable method for engaging the enemy.

But let's consider how much emphasis the Army places on this engagement technique which it advocates for targets at less than 5 yards. None. The total number of targets engaged at 5 yards or less in the combat pistol qualification course is...zero. The total number of targets engaged at 5 yards or less in the alternate pistol qualification course is...zero.

But the Army also wants to use this technique at night. Night qualification on the CPQC is a series of 30 target exposures from 7 to 31 meters, 10 seconds each. The firer is given 40 rounds, yes, 40. The Army gives me 33% more ammunition than targets. Here is the best part: qualification is.....5 hits. (Mathematically, 5 hits for 40 shots is 12.5%)

Let's not pretend that the Army has a cutting edge pistol program outlined in FM 23-35. It does not. Nor does it advocate threat-focused shooting beyond a single paragraph in an almost 20-year old manual. If the Army's pistol training methodology is the sum of your position, I think the discussion is over.

Editted to add: I was remiss in failing to mention Section 2-21 in FM 23-35 regarding the Quick-fire Target Training Device (QTTD). In 12 years of service with 3 commands, I have never seen or heard of one, nor have I ever seen or heard of the .177mm air-operated pistols required for their use. If anyone has, I would be interested in hearing from them.

 

[brownie0486]

"You seem to ignore all of the sections dealing with combat marksmanship with the exception of one paragraph. If you refer to the preceding paragraph you will find it says:"The quick-kill (the manual uses the terms quick-fire and quick-kill interchangeably) does not alway ensure a first-round hit."

Whoew up boys. Once QK is mentioned I'm going to interject the knowledge and facts as they are in reality, so no one walks away thinking QK doesn't "ensure first-round hit".

That is not from a pistol manual, but the reflexive fire manual [ right? ]. There is no QK pistol manual, nor has there ever been one in existance. The US military has never adopted QK for pistols and/or revolvers.

Thats point one: the various manuals written are variations on the theme of QK for rifle use only. The pistol methodology is not the same, and does not translate well at all to the known manuals of rifle QK.

Point two: I'd appreciate it, if in the future, mentioning rifle QK, that you use that specific term so people do not confuse what is being written with what it is I teach others with a handgun/pistol.

Thirdly: The third part of the reflexive fire program now being used by the USArmy is called Aimed Quick Kill. The description of which is:

Aimed Quick-Kill FM3-06.11

This technique consists of using a good spot weld and placing the front post flush on top of the rear peep sight. It is used for very quick shots out to 12 meters. Windage is important, but elevation is not critical with relation to the target. This technique is the fastest and most accurate. With practice, soldiers can become deadly shots at close range.

"In short, the Army acknowledges that the quick-fire/quick-kill method is a less reliable method for engaging the enemy." I'm nor sure what manual that was quoted from, but it definately was a rifle manual, again as there was never a pistol manual of QK ever.

FM23-35 is a manual on combat training with pistols and revolvers. If that is the manual that was mentioned. Section 2-17 deals with quick-fire in that manual. Having searched that FM manual, there is no words used of quick-kill, quickkill, quik kill, or any variation on that theme.

"Quick-Fire Point shooting. This is for engaging an enemy at less than 5 yards. The weapon should be held in a two hand grip. It is brought up close to the body until it reaches chin level and is then thrust forward until both arms are straight. The arms and body form a triangle, which can be aimed as a unit. In thrusting the weapon forward, the firer can imagine that there is a box between him and the enemy, and he is thrusting the weapon into the box. The trigger is smoothly squeezed to the rear as the elbows straighten out."

Thats the quote from FM23-35 above.

"Let's not pretend that the Army has a cutting edge pistol program. It does not."

Got that right blackhawk6, it leaves so much to be desired to train our troops properly it shoould be completely revamped from scratch.

No, back on topic with QK for pistol or revolvers. No FM manual I have ever seen has ever fully described the pure form of QK with the rifle as taught directly from McDaniel himself to me.

From the very start, the army bastardized the tehcnique and continues to do so today using the term in their reflexive fire 4 point rifle prgram. It is so far from the true QK with a rifle technique that it is to be considered completely neutered.

If one wants the true word on QK with a long gun one should find the 1959 copy of Mike Jennings book called "Instinct shooting" which is the definitive word on the longarms QK method.

If one want the pure form of QK with a pistol or revolver, one gets it from someone who was actually trained by Lucky McDaniel, otherwise what one reads is not to be considered the final word unless someone who was trained by him actually verifies that as fact.

okjoe, sometimes you make it harder on the pointshooters in your zest to convince people of your points of view. I would suggest, for the sake of the pointshooters out there who have been formally trained by the masters and their students alike, that you state your case as opinions. You were not trained by McDaniel in either QK rifle nor pistol, and so you can only rely on your own interpretation of the written FM manuals for the rifle and less of the pistol/handgun QK which you know is mine, and registered at the library of congress under my name.

People will need to tread lightly where QK is mentioned, citing sources of the material presented or else I'll step in and have to become involved again.

Now that that has been all cleared up once again, I return you to your regualrly scheduled debate.

Robin Brown

 

[JMusic]

Brownie Robert Beemans 1st Air Gun Digest has an article in it about Quick Kill. It was the first written document that I had seen on the subject. It shows the US Army using Daisy 2199 BB gun kits, also the New Jersey police Dept. A quote from this writing states: WRITING IN THE ARMY DIGEST IN SEPT. 1967 COLONEL JAMES J. FORD STATED: THE QUICK KILL SHOOTER LOOKS AT THIS TARGET NOT THROUGH SIGHTS. Another statement: AT NUMEROUS BASES THE TECHNIQUE WENT SO FAR THAT TROOPS WERE REQUIRED TO BE ABLE TO HIT "QUARTER SIZE SLUGS THROWN INTO THE AIR, USING THEIR BB GUNS AND LATER, THEIR MILITARY RIFLES." another statement from the article states: As one starts hitting aerial targets regularly he can reduce the size of the target, often reaching the point that he is able to hit a "BB" tossed into the air!" This article has a simplistic training course in it. It starts people off with shooting stationary targets at 15 ft. If you want a PDF of this let me know. Brownie I want to add that I have not had any formalized training in this, and was doing this type of shooting 10 years prior to reading this article. Question though is this any different than what Annie Oakly was doing 100 years ago?
Jim

 

[brownie0486]

JMusic:

I would most definately appreciate any and all materials on rifle QK out there.

Daisy actually had, for a short time, a training manual called quick skill, which was loosely based on QK with the rifle as well using their bbguns.

Everything you quote from those writings is exactly how I was trained by Lucky himself and absolutely true as to what one can accomplish with that skill.

As far as the "how to" to get there, the book I mention by Jennings explains in detail the technique, written with Lucky's input so we know that it is the pure form and essence of the rifle/shotgun procedures.

You can send any and all you have to me at [email protected]

Very much appreciated

Thanks

Brownie

 

[JMusic]

Yes sir. I can't help but wonder who trained the man who trained me in the mid 60's. Though I was using a Browning Semi Auto in 22 cal. all his shooting was with a High Standard pistol in 22 short. In my prime I could turn the Browning upside down fire the round and then shoot the hull out of the air. I am definatley one of the faithful. I'll send it tomorrow. It has been interesting listening to the history of this skill. Thanks
Jim

 

[okjoe]

US Army publication: TT 23-71-1, is a training text on the fast unaimed method of fire called Quick Kill (QK), and Basic Rifle Marksmanship.

The title in the index reads: "PRINCIPLES OF QUICK KILL"

Check this from the text: ---> QK was taught BEFORE the soldier was introduced to aimed fire which utilizes the sights.

FYI, here is a link to an article/synopsis of it that is on my site.

www.pointshooting.com/gkrifle.htm

It (edited to read: the US Army pub.), has been available for purchase on the web.

Here is a link to Chief AJ's site:

http://www.chiefaj.com/

He calls his method Quick Point Shooting. Read about the method on his site, and you will find that it looks like a mirror of rifle QK, at least to me.

BTW, I have tried Robin's QK PISTOL method at home and at the range, and find that it works very well.

 

[okjoe]

Here is a comment relative to some earlier ones, which have awaited the resolution of the apparent THR server problem.

.....

The sighting method used (Sight Shooting), may not be responsible for the poor performance, but it does utilize and depend upon complex, brain driven, hand eye coordination skills, and fine motors skills, all of which in high stress situations are known to be drastically diminished or to be lost to use in one way or another to most all in CQB situations. This is based on studies such as the SOP 9 and scientific investigations of the "Flight or Fight" response.

PS methods on the other hand, are much simpler, utilize little brain resources, and mainly complex or gross motor skills.

As such, IMHO it is reasonable to suspect that SS is a poor choice for CQ SD situations except for a highly skilled and well practiced operator such as SWAT types or professional gun slingers.

Whatever the cause, the accuracy results of those schooled in SS are extra bad.

And as to Tom's remarks about making direct comparisons to this or that, keep in mind that he is a newbie convert to PS, and in all probability may just looking for justification for his prior position against it when he was at S&W and prior to its school's earlier disbandment. This of course is just my opinion.

IMO he and others of his prior mind set, were/are, just wrong. That is something for them to deal with.

Also, FOF results show that PS is by far the superior technique to SS, and PS works while moving, and without reliance on the sights.

A few of the USPSA shooters I saw the other night, may have been using the sights while moving, but that was certainly not clear and very questionable. They also were not in a life threat (read: hard focus on the threat), type of situation.

And it is my understanding the S&W and SIG now teach PS in some form and I applaud that, as I think it is more practical for CQ self defense than SS.

As to the Army manual, I certainly agree that PS is not as precise as traditional shooting, using a proper grip, proper stance, proper breathing/pause, trigger squeze, sight alignment, etc....

PS however is very useful in bad light when you can't see the sights or you have a mottled target, or your distance from the threat and/or time does not allow for sight use.

The Army also says that a double tap is good, and in one place it says: if that doesn't stop "em" or words to that affect, then just shoot them in the pelvis to insure a stop/knockdown. Now, that may or may not be the result of a pelvis hit, and additionally, if you could shoot them in the pelvis, why not shoot them in the head or between the eyes to begin with. Perhaps some of the Army manual is written to give a shooter the mindset that he/she will prevail.

Lastly, it is most likely that if you have a pistol and use it in SD, the situation will be one of CQ and bad light (per the SOP 9), so the Army's instructions as to the method to use at less than fifteen feet and/or in the dark, which is point shooting, should IMHO, be highlighted and in the front of the book, and taught first, and reinforced via shooting quals.

Nope.

It is relagated at most to a few paragraphs and lines at the back of the course. So too is the statement that pointing at one or more objects is natural and accurate, and also an ability that we have.

To bad "they" didn't/don't connect the dots and apply that to shooting pistols.

Further, why bring it up in the first place?

To answer an unasked question?

To confess to something or other, or just what?

The MP qual course, the Marine FM, as well as most police qual courses which are blessed by certifying bureaus, all involve little if any short range shooting.

Go figure.

Imaginary instructor to students: "If you ever are in a life or death situation, you will most likely need to be good at CQ shooting, so we will focus on long range rifle like shooting with your pistol."

Makes one wonder who if anyone is in charge of anything.

And since my journey into the world of the gun (or is it OZ or Alice's Wonderland, after some 40+ years of absence, that thought comes to mind a lot.

IMHO, the advent of car cams, studies such as the SOP 9, and the emergence of the web, makes keeping down or squelching innovative ideas very difficult for the powers that be.

I do think things are a changing and for the better for the average shooter/person.

For example, what do you think about the ergonomically superior Tarus PT 24/7 and in diff calibers?

May make a lot of other guns obsolete, even the beloved 1911.

 

[Blackhawk 6]

Originally Posted by brownie0486
Whoew up boys. Once QK is mentioned I'm going to interject the knowledge and facts as they are in reality, so no one walks away thinking QK doesn't "ensure first-round hit".

I did not mean to disparage QK, but here is what FM 23-35 (OCT 1988) says:

"b. Flash Sight Picture. Usually when engaging an enemy at pistol/revolver ranges, the firer has little time to ensure a correct sight picture. The quick-kill (or natural point of aim) method does not always ensure a first-round hit. A compromise between a correct sight picture and the quick-kill method is known as a flash sight picture. As the soldier raises the weapon to eye level, his point of focus switches from the enemy to the front sight, ensuring that the front and rear sights are in proper alignment left and right, but not necessarily up and down. Pressure is applied to the trigger as the front sight is being acquired, and the hammer falls as the flash sight picture is confirmed. Initially, this method should be practiced slowly, gaining speed as proficiency increases."

Just so we are clear, I am not saying the manual is correct. I am saying the manual says quick-kill does not always ensure a first round hit.

 

[Matthew Temkin]

I went to Dino's range yesterday and had him place me under the timer.
Since we are training for self defense we decided to base the drills on our reality as opposed to longer range competition type shooting.
I used my S&W Model 640, starting with it in my front pocket and my hand on the gun.
Distance was about 6 feet
On the avj the first shot was in .5 seconds, with all 5 shots---center mass in somewhere between fist and hand sized groups---in 1.38 seconds.
Since this was my first time using a buzzer Dino decided to remove the reaction factor and just measure how fast I could shoot.
This resulted in four shots in .94 seconds.
Splits avj. somewhere between .22 and .23.

Then we moved back to 10 feet and I shot 6 shots from my friend's 4 inch Model 10, starting at low ready.
Removing the reaction time I fired 5 shots in .94 seconds, with hand size groups.

We then did a multible target drill, starting with me about 6 feet from two targets, with gun holstered.
No concealment, and my hand on the grip at 6 feet.
I was able to draw and place one shot center mass on each target in .83 seconds---but I do believe that once I get the hand of responding to the buzzer that I could shave this down.
My friends best time on this was .77 of a second.

Conclusions?
I really enjoyed the timer and will buy my own. ( Yes, I am having crow for breakfast)
I am sold on revolvers, especially a 640 in the front pocket. (My friend did the same drill with his S&W Model 36 and found his hammer snagging on clothing at least once, so he is now looking for a 640)
Very fast, easy to conceal and your hand can be on the gun without raising an alarm.
Appendix carry is almost as good and for a larger pistol I would carry that way.
As to the value of hip shooting....from the pocket all of my shots were fired somewhere between half and 3/4 hip, with zero sight/weapon index and with very good accuracy.
In other drills we had no problem making rapid fire chest and head shots from the hip, with no need to bring the pistol higher than belly button level.

 

[Sweatnbullets]

I did not mean to disparage QK, but here is what FM 23-35 (OCT 1988) says:

"b. Flash Sight Picture. Usually when engaging an enemy at pistol/revolver ranges, the firer has little time to ensure a correct sight picture. The quick-kill (or natural point of aim) method does not always ensure a first-round hit. A compromise between a correct sight picture and the quick-kill method is known as a flash sight picture. As the soldier raises the weapon to eye level, his point of focus switches from the enemy to the front sight, ensuring that the front and rear sights are in proper alignment left and right, but not necessarily up and down. Pressure is applied to the trigger as the front sight is being acquired, and the hammer falls as the flash sight picture is confirmed. Initially, this method should be practiced slowly, gaining speed as proficiency increases."

Just so we are clear, I am not saying the manual is correct. I am saying the manual says quick-kill does not always ensure a first round hit.

That would be the bastardized method of QK. I trained with brownie in Tucson last October, I assure you that QK is an outstanding tool to have in your box. First round hits are absolutely no problem. In reality QK is the very best aiming method that I have found to get good hits with dynamic movement. This is where QK really excels.

 

[brownie0486]

"b. Flash Sight Picture. Usually when engaging an enemy at pistol/revolver ranges, the firer has little time to ensure a correct sight picture. The quick-kill (or natural point of aim) method does not always ensure a first-round hit. A compromise between a correct sight picture and the quick-kill method is known as a flash sight picture. As the soldier raises the weapon to eye level, his point of focus switches from the enemy to the front sight, ensuring that the front and rear sights are in proper alignment left and right, but not necessarily up and down. Pressure is applied to the trigger as the front sight is being acquired, and the hammer falls as the flash sight picture is confirmed. Initially, this method should be practiced slowly, gaining speed as proficiency increases."

Just so we are clear, I am not saying the manual is correct. I am saying the manual says quick-kill does not always ensure a first round hit."

The manual is from 1988? The army calls anything threat focused [ not using sights ] Quick Kill. They have since the rifle program was developed in the 60's. They continue to use the term from the older manuals and have bastardized the systems since almost the very beginning.

To put that into perspective for everyone:

A well know instructor was taught QK in the 70's by two army personnel. He didn't have much success with it past 8-10 feet for two decades.

In discussing this with him, we learned he was not taught QK [ even though the two army guys called it that even back then ].

They taught him to use his middle finger to pull the trigger and put his index finger along the slide, and thats what he thought QK was for all that time.

I could not believe it when he told me that was what he was taught as QK with a handgun. 70's and the army didn't have a clue left from the technique.

As well, keep in mind the Army never adopted the pistol technique to begin with. It was someones bad joke played on others from within the military somewhere along the line.

Very few higher echelon soldiers would have been shown the correct/pure form of QK with a pistol as instructors when Lucky was asked to show them. It was not adopted and trained to troops enmasse and I now suspect what was shown to anyone was not wahat lucky showed them.

Certainly he did NOT show them shooting with the middle finger.

Robin Brown

 

[Sweatnbullets]

Conclusions?
I really enjoyed the timer and will buy my own.

OMG! Crow is really good with a nice Chiante.

I'll be bringing the timer to brownies house next weekend, we will post some results and comparisons. I think that a good comparison test would be "flash sight picture" to "QK" to "elbow up/elbow down."

 

[brownie0486]

What's a flash sight picture?

Robin Brown

 

[Matthew Temkin]

OMG! Crow is really good with a nice Chiante.

I'll be bringing the timer to brownies house next weekend, we will post some results and comparisons. I think that a good comparison test would be "flash sight picture" to "QK" to "elbow up/elbow down."

Who knows...
Maybe in a year or two I will be seen at an IPSC match..
nattily attired in Royal Robbins, Cowboy hat with one brim upturned and racegun...
Hands raised in mock surrender and anxiously awaiting the buzzer....
If so, will you guys still respect me?
But seriously...I would like to see the results of those tests.

 

[Ankeny]

A few of the USPSA shooters I saw the other night, may have been using the sights while moving, but that was certainly not clear and very questionable.

I can't speak for all USPSA shooters, but I certainly do use the sights while shooting on the move. As a rule, I see the sights on each and every shot and I call each shot with certainty. Just thought you might like to know.

 

[U.S.SFC_RET]

QK is intriguing. Might take a look into it. I can agree that the army doesn't teach the full version that's for sure. I am impressed by what I've read so far. Could consider it to be another tool in the toolbox. Crimson Trace Laser Grips would in this case give you the necessary feedback for point shooting without going through a ton of ammo. Following the proper guidelines you can get profficient at it.

 

[Matthew Temkin]

QK is intriguing. Might take a look into it. I can agree that the army doesn't teach the full version that's for sure. I am impressed by what I've read so far. Could consider it to be another tool in the toolbox. Crimson Trace Laser Grips would in this case give you the necessary feedback for point shooting without going through a ton of ammo. Following the proper guidelines you can get profficient at it.

It is a myth that it takes a ton of ammo to become skilled in either QK or point shooting.
Within 5 minutes of training with Brownie he had us hitting a 4 inch piece of metal (the movable, inside part of a steel torso target) rapid fire with 2 handed QK at 15 YARDS.
Point shooting--all aspects of it---can be taught in a matter of hours.
Even Jeff Cooper once wrote that "pointer fire" ( as he called it) can be taught/learned in a fraction of the time it takes to become even a fair target shooter and was deadly out to 30 feet.
In Jan, 2005, 7677 and myself taught two point shooting classes at Gabe Suarez's WarriorTalk Symposium.
One of our students--an instructor at FrontSite shooting school--came up to us after only 30 minutes into our class--and said that if he did not see/do this stuff himself that he would not have believed it possible.
I am pleased to see this thread has generated over two thousand views and very civil discourse.

 

[Matthew Temkin]

I can't speak for all USPSA shooters, but I certainly do use the sights while shooting on the move. As a rule, I see the sights on each and every shot and I call each shot with certainty. Just thought you might like to know.

Out of curosity, at what distances are we talking about?
And what size targets?

 

[okjoe]

Mr. Ankeny,

Thanks for the input.

If when moving, they were using sight shooting as described in the US Army Combat Pistol FM, I guess I need to do a re-read and perhaps several.

I also have have seen police draw and SS when qualifying at the range and shooting at targets at a distance. It is not what the USPSA types were doing while moving.

If you are saying that they, through practice, have determined that PS like skills will fit the bill, since they certainly are not replicating "classical" Sight Shooting, I have no problem with that either.

If that means FSP or seeing what you need to see, that's OK too.

Will such be applicable to a SD life threat situation, who knows?

IMHO, it will be much better than opting for "classical" SS.

As to the USPSA shooters, all handled their weapons well, and shot good, and since time was a factor, classical sight shooting was not in evidence.

One might conclude that since they obvously had practiced PS like shooting, then PS carried the day.

But, since I don't mean to be contrary, I won't say such.

..........

Now, in general, one could say that since guns have sights, why should one PS?

Because it is very simple, faster, effective, and can be used when you can't see or use the sights.

And also and in general, one could say that since guns are designed to be shot using the index finger, why should one consider aiming it or point shooting it using the index finger and pulling the trigger with the middle finger?

Because if the ergonomics of the gun design allow it, it is very simple, faster, effective, and can be used with less attention to the grip and no attention to targeting the gun, as the gun barrel will accurately aim at anything you point at.

It also allows for easier and as such more accurate shooting of DA only guns since the middle finger is the stronger and pulls back straighter in the hand, provides a strong and level shooting platform, makes for faster target re-aquisition for each aimed shot, etc.....

Once over the line, why stop with just one bite of the PS apple?

Thank you for putting up with me. This will be my last comment here.

 

[Ankeny]

Out of curosity, at what distances are we talking about?
And what size targets?

First off, I am talking about competition shooting on a square range, not self defense. I am one of those shooters who does a lot of shooting on the move because it's the best way for me to cover distance while maximizing the use of time. I'll shoot full size IPSC targets, while moving, out to around 18 yards (but I am moving slowly), and I don't stop completely for an 8 inch diameter plate unless it is beyond about 12 yards. In the past, I would point shoot, (more of seeing the slide peripherally) to about 5 yards on almost everything, but I stopped doing that (with a few exceptions) because in IPSC when the competitor is shooting on the move the gun is generally already in front of the face so it takes no more time to see the sights than it does to index. In fact, seeing the sights lift and return actually helps a shooter get onto the next task faster.

Now for the exceptions. If I am going past a couple of close targets at say 3-4 yards, I often times use a pure target focus. On an array where I can draw to a close target, then leave and engage the remainder of the array on the move, the first shot (again a close target) is almost always shot with very minimal visual input from the gun (that's how IPSC shooters dodge the term point shooting). Sometimes I'll encounter a condition where I am coming into a shooting position where I can actually engage the first target during the extension of the gun, but I still see the relationship of the slide to the target face.

 

[Blackhawk 6]

Originally Posted by brownie0486
The manual is from 1988?

Yes. It is on page 2-17 of FM 23-35 Combat Training With Pistols and Revolvers dated October 1988.