point shooting home study course

[brownie0486]

Blackhawk:

I see it now on 2-17 paragraph B. The mention of "quick kill" is used in reference to "natural point of aim" there.

Natural point of aim [ NPOA ] is a well known term and has never been connected to the quick kill systems in the past. Just more misinformation from people who haven't a clue what they are talking about.

That is NOT Quick Kill with a pistol. Again the army has used the term for anything not using some part of the sights. Unfortunately they don't have a clue what QK with a pistol is but continue to use "their" term based on their narrow view passed down throught the decades.

Doing a "find" search on that pdf does not bring up quick kill and it shoud have.

Thanks for the heads up.

Robin Brown

 

[Matthew Temkin]

Rather than start a new thread I'll list some good ways to get started on one's own.

1) KILL OR GET KILLED by Rex Applegate.
Available via paladin Press or from other internet booksellers. (www.paladinpress.com)

2) SHOOTING TO LIVE by Fairbairn and Sykes

3) Quick or DEAD by William Cassidy.

4) SHOOTING FOR KEEPS (Video)

The following are avaiable from Mike Rayburn at
http://www.pointshooting.org

POINTSHOOTING (video)

ADVANCED PATROL TACTICS (Book)
Excellent book with four great chapters on point shooting.

 

[Grump]

Furthermore the NYPD trains only in aimed fire, so as how to improve this hit rate remains a mystery./QUOTE]

Citation? Source? I find this hard to believe in this day of Post-Modern Technique. Surely they teach what I've seen called the "speed rock from retention?"

Seems like no one is connecting "good is the enemy of best" and all those "good enough" maxims with the general mantra among the varous PS advocates that:

1. Quick-Kill is good*. It works [or it works "for me"], it has proven success. It's a useful tool. It should be taught.
OR
2. FAS Fairbairn-Applegate-Sykes is good. It works [or it works "for me"], it has proven success. It's a useful tool. It should be taught. Uses natural body responses to stress to its advantage.
OR
3. Pointing your index finger alongside the gun and firing with the birdie finger is good. It works [or it works "for me"], it has proven success [perhaps with the smallest group of users among the systems]. It's a useful tool. It should be taught. Uses your natural instinct to point.

Perhaps the only real disagreements amongst the PS advocates are a) whether to shoot from the hip and b) whether to default to a one-handed grip and go two-handed only if there's time, or to default to two-handed centered on the body axis and use one-handed only if there ISN'T time...

WRT accuracy, seems like my reading of the after-action reports of the 1989 FBI shootout in FL showed that the difference between 8-inch accuracy and 4-inch accuracy might have stopped the fight much sooner. After the [believed-to-be] early shot stopped just short of one BG's heart, I seem to remember a number of "non-dynamic" hits from varios GGs before it finally ended.

You only have to be better than YOUR opponent...this time...but bare "success rates" don't tell us whether "successful" FAS shooting #1 would have also worked in "successful" QK shooting #3. Once time is equalized, accuracy *can* make a difference.

I still expect differences to be measurable in live-body testing. Then the large-population comparisons (LAPD vs NYPD, for example) can begin, if they actually train in different PS methodologies.

Remember the joke about the campers being chased by a bear, and one stopped to tie his boots tighter? I think we're still stuck at that comparison.

*Quick-Kill, I guess, should be limited to its "pure" form before the Army messed it up. Any value in how the Army teaches its version of PS these days? And since the differences between the original and the as-now-taught are so bad, please explain how and why they are so bad.

I agree that two hands and look over the sights is NOT the only way to handle shooting inside of 15 yards or so, depending on the shooter's PS skill level and the time and difficulty of the target.

 

[brownie0486]

"1. Quick-Kill is good*. It works [or it works "for me"], it has proven success. It's a useful tool. It should be taught."

It isn't a matter of it should be taught so much as people find it faster than a sighted method they have employed previously.

Faster on target with hits is what they train for, not pinpoint accuracy like bullseye shooters [ at least I hope people still don't hold onto the belief that pinpoint accuracy is the way to train in a dynamic encounter ].

"Perhaps the only real disagreements amongst the PS advocates are a) whether to shoot from the hip and b) whether to default to a one-handed grip and go two-handed only if there's time, or to default to two-handed centered on the body axis and use one-handed only if there ISN'T time..."

I don't see any disagreements from known pointshooting advocates in this area. Can you cite examples of this somewhere?

What I have seen is that PSing advocates and trainers are saying each [ hip, one handed, two handed ] have a place and can be advantageous if used in the correct context of time/distance/moving as the situation dictates.

"WRT accuracy, seems like my reading of the after-action reports of the 1989 FBI shootout in FL showed that the difference between 8-inch accuracy and 4-inch accuracy might have stopped the fight much sooner"

Please cite in any report where it says or even suggests that 4 inch accuracy would have had a more successful outcome in Miami. I have never seen that in any report of the shootoot either and would be very interested in how it was determined.

Another glaring question left unanwered as far as I know is whether the feds actually made use their sights or not in that shpootout. They were trained to use them, they were not trained pointshooters [ to my knowledge and if that is not the case someone needs to document they were trained in some PSing methodology ]. If not trained in threat focused shooting mehtodology, and did not use their sights, it would have to be asumed they were spraying and praying [ thats not pointshooting ].

"After the [believed-to-be] early shot stopped just short of one BG's heart, I seem to remember a number of "non-dynamic" hits from varios GGs before it finally ended."

Guess they should have better shots with their sights then. Thats how to respond and how they have been trained. Are you trying to make a connection between their failings and pointshooting? Thats a real stretch.

"You only have to be better than YOUR opponent...this time...but bare "success rates" don't tell us whether "successful" FAS shooting #1 would have also worked in "successful" QK shooting #3. Once time is equalized, accuracy *can* make a difference."

All predicated on the shooters individual ability, training, experience with the various methodologies of pointshooting and could not possibly be analyzed due to the nature of the individual shooter in the equation.

What we can esatblish is that FAS, QF, and QK can deliver accuracy quickly on a threat. If I use QK and can keep all shots inside 8 inches at 21 feet, and someone trained in FAS can do the same, even with disparate ability between the two pointshooters, it does not matter in the least to the BG whether he gets nailed with QK, FAS, QF, Fistfire, or sighted fire.

"*Quick-Kill, I guess, should be limited to its "pure" form before the Army messed it up."

Yes it should. Otherwise it is not QK is it?

"Any value in how the Army teaches its version of PS these days?"

Not as far as I'm concerned. They are training in a system called "reflexive fire", it's rifle training, not pistol training. It has four parts to the training, the third being called aimed quick kill. Anyone see the name change there? Aimed QK? My goodness, it seems the army changes the name and the methodology at every decade or less.

That they still use the phrase QK in their training is only an inidcation they still hold onto the "term" they have seen in the manuals over 4 decades. It is not a stretch to believe some pencil pusher reads the previous manual, uses the same phrases and names and develops a program based on what he thinks he is reading from the previous manual. Of course it has SOME value, but what that value may be is debateable.

"And since the differences between the original and the as-now-taught are so bad, please explain how and why they are so bad."

The rifle system of QK as developed by Mr. McDaniel was 100% reliable, with minimal training at his hands. He proved this throughout his lifetime after he had developed a way of transferring his skills to others. Why do you think the army adopted the skills and redesigned their rifle course? Because it had more value than what they were using and had been using on the battlefield.

The army never adopted the pistol/revolver technique, unoffically or offically. Certainly a few may have seen McDaniel exhibit the skills but no army personnel were formally trained in it as they never adopted it like the rifle.

Later, it seems the army took to calling anything they used without making use of sights QK. There is no "as-now-taught" QK for pistols/revolvers in the army. McDaniel is now gone [ rest his southern gentleman soul ], and very few were trained at HIS hands personally in the pistol QK.

Why? For a few reasons, of course. One of the biggest is the fact he was a wing shooter at heart. Thats how he came to teach others a method of hitting things without sights in the loing guns. That was his love in life, to wingshoot.

He didn't travel to venues to teach the pistol skills, people knew him for his long gun QK skills, which btw, he called instinct shooting, not QK.

QK was a term used by the military for the skills Lucky McDaniel sold to the them and they adopted in the late 50's/early 60's.

I was touched by the masters hand himself, taught and developed both the rifle and pistol skills while standing with him on the range. Many got the rifle skills, he was known for that and it was his meat and potatoe. The pistol skills were less well known and I happen to be one of the people who have the pure form of the system Lucky imparted to a relatively small number.

In fact he was called in by another southern gentleman by the name of WerBell to give us these skills for very specific reasons while we were being trained in the finer points of surviving lethal encounters. This is where I was fortunate enough to have met and been trained by Mr. McDaniel in 81.

Robin Brown

 

[JMusic]

Mr. Brown I have my own theory why the Military started to deviate from the pure form or the form I was taught in the mid 60's. As you stated rifle shooting was the technique and frankly not far from the pure form of wing shooting as you stated. A friend of mine went through this training in 68. Instead of using their A1 though they were taught by using M1 carbines. I didn't understand this until I purchased my own A2 and M1 carbine. Not sure if you have tried arial shooting with an M16 A1 or A2 but the elevated sights do create problems. The M1 carbine was a better pointer than the A 1/2 frames. Training may have been modified to compensate for the new rifle and simply got worse from there. Though it does not seem to affect ground targets as much, small arial targets are certainly harder to hit. As I have stated before I was not aware that this technique evolved into these specific terms used today. It frankly was a pasttime for us that became an instinctive way for us to shoot.
Regards Jim

 

[brownie0486]

JMusic:

I think your theory may be more spot on with those observsations than anythign I've heard in the past. Makes perfect sense and I really appreciate the thought you have put into this, obviously considerable thought to come up with a reasonable explanation.

I've shot QK with an A1 out to 80 yrds or more, but not ariels. I would not even attempt it [ ariel shooting with a A1 or A2 ] with QK as it would NOT work in it's pure form developed by McDaniel.

I had to develop and adjust for that weapons platform to train one going to Iraq with the 5th SF group who would be using that platform, but the training was at 80 yrds and in on 3 inch clays on the banks. Success rate was phenominal as the essence of QK is valid once finds the proper reference, then it was as repeatable as an M1, M1a, M2.

Kudos sir, my hats off to you as I feel you have answered a very important question here that has been overlooked.

Robin Brown

 

[No_Brakes23]

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.

Not only that, Lawdog, but I remember being all over the Weaver when I was a kid. In my neighborhood, we seriously thought the Iso was for girls. Course we didn't know they were called Iso and Weaver, that's just what we thought.

But yeah, if we are taking cues from kids playing cops'n'robbers, we might as well look to Airsoft and Paintball for tactical training.

how unnatural the Weaver stance is.

I understand many feel the Iso is better, and that many competitive shooters win with it, but where does this "Weaver isn't natural" stuff keep coming from.

The Weaver just makes sense to me and is natural. Maybe that's because it mimics offhand rifle in terms of posture, (Across the body.) Or it could be the resemblence to a martial fighting stance.

I am more than willing to admit that Weaver may be the inferior stance, but it certainly isn't unnatural.

 

[1911Tuner]

Iso/Weaver

As another practioner of the Weaver,I've found that it offers some advantages over the orthodox ISO in that it blades the body and moves the strong side farther out of reach in a confrontational situation. The ISO is closer to the body's natural reaction to sudden stress, but the Weaver can become pretty natural if it's practiced. As with the Point/Index versus Aimed Fire debate...I work with both, depending on which drill I'm practicing. I also find that...under time-induced stress and/or surprise target opportunity, I tend go to a stance that combines both...and it seems to work well. Another tool in the box.

 

[brownie0486]

1911tuner:

Are you reading my mind again? Damn, it's like I wrote that.

I shoot ISO exclusively. When working in uniform, I bladed away from the strong side [ interview stance ] when in close proximity to potential risks.

I can go from ISO to a weaver to shoot to the weak side [ [ and back ] without turning/moving the feet and think it is a necessary tool to have as well.

Robin Brown

 

[1911Tuner]

1911tuner:

Are you reading my mind again? Damn, it's like I wrote that.
Robin Brown

Better get a thicker tin-foil hat on, Robin. I've got your coordinates...

 

[Ankeny]

The ISO is closer to the body's natural reaction to sudden stress,

How important is that observation in relation to current brain research dealing with fight or flight sydrome in a "suprise" deadly encounter?

Robin:

The current "modified iso." so in vogue today with the IPSC crowd was developed to allow for maximum range of motion wihout moving the feet. It would be interesting to compare what you do (as you turn or swivel) with what some of the IPSC guys preach (Matt Burkett and Ron Avery come to mind). I would bet the similarities are striking. Likewise, I would imagine the discussion would center on the differences and which camp is right. Kind of a shame in a way.

 

[1911Tuner]

Research

Question:

>How important is that observation in relation to current brain research dealing with fight or flight sydrome in a "suprise" deadly encounter?<
*********************

Dunno...but you can put it to a test. Ambush a friend from the front...and when you launch your surprise attack, rush toward him. Odds are that he'll face you squarely, crouch slightly and push his arms straight out in front of him to ward off the impact.

 

[brownie0486]

Ankeny:

I would bet it is so close as to be indistinguishable. I find it very comfortable and most certainly the range of motion is there.

1911tuner:
"Better get a thicker tin-foil hat on, Robin. I've got your coordinates.."

Where does one get one of those?

Robin Brown

 

[Matthew Temkin]

Why practice point shooting?

I found this while cleaning out my attic. It is from the SEPT/OCTOBER issue of THE POLICE MARKSMAN, Officer Down column.
This colum reviews and reflects upon actual police combat situations and offer advice for future confrontations.
This was an incident where a wounded officer was able to return fire one handed with his .357 magnam revolver....and win, BTW.

"Despite a good deal of tratitional firearms training which stressed the Weaver stance and use of the sights, Trooper XXX fired one handed without using his sights. This is significant because it is so common. Case studies supported by observations of role play excercises, reveal that officers rarely use a two handed hold or aimed fire at close range.
Instinctively, they realize that speed, not pinpoint accuracy, is the key to survival at such times, and they fire as soon as they are able.
Likewise, they do not take the time to assume a proper stance, choosing instead to draw and fire as quickly as possible from whatever position they happen to be in at the time.
This indicates that their are limits to the old maxim that officers will do what they are trained to do under stress.
Experience shows that there is alot of truth in this idea, but it has it's limits when natural instincts come into play.
Generally when there is a conflict between training and instinct, instinct will win out. This is especially true when the stress is unexpected and it's effects tend to increase when there is lag between the time the technique is learned and the time it is employed on the street......................
........Training must be based upon an honest, realistic assessment of how humans instinctively react under the extreme stress of mortal combat.
The techniques taught must be consistant with, not contrary to, these instincts.
The greater the consistency, the greater the likelihood that they will be properly applied on the street..."

Couldn't have said it better myself, especially the last two paragraphs.

 

[Matthew Temkin]

The Value Of Hip Shooting

First, let us define our terms.
What I call hip shooting is what Fairbairn called half hip.
And what Jeff Cooper called "Pointer Fire".
The elbow is well bent--up to 90 degrees---but the handgun is still intersecting the body's centerline.
This was a favorite of Jelly Bryce, Bill Jordan, Grant Taylor, Noel and many other past combat experts.
And a variation of it is taught by Cirillo, as in his "Nose Point" technique.
Since most gunfights happen up close this was once considered a primary shooting method, and with good reasons.
It is fast, accurate, is a natural method for shooting followed by a rapid draw, provides good retention.
It is also great for multible targets, since it eliminates the tendency to overswing as is common with the gun more extended.
The more I explore this technique the more I am reaching the conclusion that it should be the foundation of combat shooting.

 

[okjoe]

Zak Smith
Senior Member

Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Fort Collins, CO, USA.
Posts: 3,560
okjoe,

Tell us how often you train with a pistol, and which pistols you own. I mean.. since you're an expert, right?

..........

Actually Zak, I use -> rental guns <- as anyone like me with a few beans in their bonnet, can Point Shoot if they have a modicum of common sense.

In the past 6 years I have used a S&W 5906, S&W 59, Ruger p95, SIG 40, SIG P239, Glock 17, Taurus PT 24/7. Makes for more of a test of the method rather than the means.

And in the Army many many moons ago, I shot 30 and 50 cal machine guns, M1, Carbine, Bazooka, 45, and a grease gun. Shot my grease gun from the hip using Point Shooting.

I am no expert or gun slinger by any streach of the imagination. But shooting guns is relatively easy, and easily repeatable by most. My brother in law is a gun guy and reloader, and I have shot a couple of his as well. They are not mentioned above, most pistols are just that, pistols.

I say, if you can point at something like a door knob on a door, you are good to go for Point Shooting given a gun that will allow you to point and shoot safely.

And little if any practice is needed. I only shot twice last year. However, this year I have shot twice already. Once using a SIG, and once using the Taurus in the prior pic.

If you Point Shoot, don't plan on precision shooting and nice quarter sized groups.

Here's a pic of my results using the SIG:

Works for me.

..........

The miss rate of < 20% that was mentioned, has to do with CQB stats and is accepted +/- a few percentage points as being what is, is.

Here's a link to a brief of the NYPD's SOP 9 that has lots of interesting stats and findings that flowed from a 5000+ study of police combat cases.

http://www.pointshooting.com/sop9.htm

Lots of people like to argue about it, but let's even say the hit rate is 33%, that still leave a miss rate of 66%.

Also, try a google search on combat pistol accuracy rates and see what you come up with. Don't rely on me.

Check out:

http://www.sditraining.net/

http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/KleckAndGertz1.htm

http://police.cisti-icist.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/newDetail_e.cfm?ID=58892&CurrentRow=43

Title: Combat pistol
Loan Status: 0000027367,
Location: AV
Call Number: VL 2403
Subjects: Shooters of firearms - Training of | Pistol shooting - Study and teaching | Combat survival | Self-defense for police | Police training
Publication Date: 2003
Number of Copies: 2
Format: DVD/DVD
Physical Description: 1 DVD (video) (ca. 85 min.)
Summary: Instructs the law enforcement officer, in proper "combat" pistol shooting skills. Looks at the elite pistol shooting training and tactics given at the Mid-South Institute. Explains that the training is necessary to ensure "each bullet" an officer fires, finds its correct target, as recent statistics have found that this accuracy rate is as low as 17% in American law enforcement.

There is lots more stuff out there.

 

[Matthew Temkin]

Zak Smith
Senior Member

Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Fort Collins, CO, USA.
Posts: 3,560
okjoe,

Tell us how often you train with a pistol, and which pistols you own. I mean.. since you're an expert, right?

..........

Actually Zak, I use -> rental guns <- as anyone like me with a few beans in their bonnet, can Point Shoot if they have a modicum of common sense.

In the past 6 years I have used a S&W 5906, S&W 59, Ruger p95, SIG 40, SIG P239, Glock 17, Taurus PT 24/7. Makes for more of a test of the method rather than the means.

And in the Army many many moons ago, I shot 30 and 50 cal machine guns, M1, Carbine, Bazooka, 45, and a grease gun. Shot my grease gun from the hip using Point Shooting.

I am no expert or gun slinger by any streach of the imagination. But shooting guns is relatively easy, and easily repeatable by most. My brother in law is a gun guy and reloader, and I have shot a couple of his as well. They are not mentioned above, most pistols are just that, pistols.

I say, if you can point at something like a door knob on a door, you are good to go for Point Shooting given a gun that will allow you to point and shoot safely.

And little if any practice is needed. I only shot twice last year. However, this year I have shot twice already. Once using a SIG, and once using the Taurus in the prior pic.

If you Point Shoot, don't plan on precision shooting and nice quarter sized groups.

Here's a pic of my results using the SIG:

Works for me.

..........

The miss rate of < 20% that was mentioned, has to do with CQB stats and is accepted +/- a few percentage points as being what is, is.

Here's a link to a brief of the NYPD's SOP 9 that has lots of interesting stats and findings that flowed from a 5000+ study of police combat cases.

http://www.pointshooting.com/sop9.htm

Lots of people like to argue about it, but let's even say the hit rate is 33%, that still leave a miss rate of 66%.

Also, try a google search on combat pistol accuracy rates and see what you come up with. Don't rely on me.

Check out:

http://www.sditraining.net/

http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/KleckAndGertz1.htm

http://police.cisti-icist.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/newDetail_e.cfm?ID=58892&CurrentRow=43

Title: Combat pistol
Loan Status: 0000027367,
Location: AV
Call Number: VL 2403
Subjects: Shooters of firearms - Training of | Pistol shooting - Study and teaching | Combat survival | Self-defense for police | Police training
Publication Date: 2003
Number of Copies: 2
Format: DVD/DVD
Physical Description: 1 DVD (video) (ca. 85 min.)
Summary: Instructs the law enforcement officer, in proper "combat" pistol shooting skills. Looks at the elite pistol shooting training and tactics given at the Mid-South Institute. Explains that the training is necessary to ensure "each bullet" an officer fires, finds its correct target, as recent statistics have found that this accuracy rate is as low as 17% in American law enforcement.

There is lots more stuff out there.

OKJoe...
A lot of us have no problem with including unsighted techniques somewhere in a combat shooting program.
But I do not see how pulling the trigger with the middle finger (and adding a device to the pistol) adds anything to the point shooting debate.
Quite frankly what you preach has confused a lot of people looking for information on the subject.
For the record..IMHO.... using the middle finger has nothing to do with point shooting.
Question-----have you ever practiced point shooting with the normal trigger finger?
Can you explain why you believe using your middle finger is better?
Can you explain how this makes point shooting more accurate?

 

[okjoe]

Matt,

I have shot using QK and find that it is more accurate for me than FAS.

Walter J Dorfner, when he was the lead firearms instructor for the VSP researched shooting the P&S way on his own and wrote a paper on it. I made a digest of it and we both had it published. FYI: www.pointshooting.com/pands.htm

As to Accuracy:

I don't know if pistols are designed/configured to be shot using the sights, IN COMBAT.

Science says you will focus on the threat or you will not be able to focus on the sights in CQB.

The SOP 9 says you will shoot one handed.

The literature says that the proper grip in combat will become a death grip. If so the thumb and middle finger will torque the gun down and to the right, so you will shoot low and left.

As to the middle finger: The middle finger is stronger than the index finger, good for DAO gun firing (see the info on field tests conducted by Walter Dorfner in his paper). It can be extended and flexed independantly like the index finger.

When the gun is griped and squeezed as hard as you like in the pincer made up of the the thumb and index finger, all you get is a strong and level shooting platform.

Also, extending the index finger mechanically helps lock up the wrist.

We all can point accurately at stuff. Even the Army says that, but doesn't apply it to combat shooting. Guess they haven't figured out how to do it yet.

If the index finger is aligned with the barrel or the barrel is aligned with the finger and you point at something, the gun will be aimed at that something.

Most gunfights/CQB shooting will occur in bad light, so if you can't see the sights how will you shoot accurately?

And if your brain takes a holiday, how will you remember to aim the gun at some place or anyplace, and coordinate the hand eye and motor skills needed to save your life.

In all the gunfight/CQB shooting videos I have seen, the operator is able to the point "in the direction" of the target, and shoot.

So we know that one can/will point the gun "in the direction" of the target and that one can/will be able to pull the trigger.

P&S makes accurate aiming mechanical and automatic. No brain computations are needed. The sights will be aligned mechanically and automatically, and the trigger pull will be straighter back than if the index finger is used.

The above picture says to me:

grab gun, point finger, pull trigger.

The aiming aid helps in the process by keeping the index finger mechanically in place and away from the slide. However, one is not required.

That a lot of guns are designed for some reason which does not allow for the use of P&S, is something to bring up to your gun maker if you wish.

I say if your gun's design allows for the use of P&S, why not.

P&S is mechanical, automatic, and accurate. And it can be use to enhance not replace other SS and PS methods.

Just point and pull. Works for me.

 

[Grump]

I don't think this was a good-faith attempt to summarize anything.

Guess they should have better shots with their sights then. Thats how to respond and how they have been trained. Are you trying to make a connection between their failings and pointshooting? Thats a real stretch.

Absolutely not. My point was that there is likely to be a nice benefit to getting better than the 8-inch accuracy at speed which Brownie [and others?] have specifically described as being good enough to get the job done. Consider, for example the "it didn't make a difference"-type neck shot (ONLY because Matix didn't fire any more shots, yet he was still enough "in" the fight to try to escape):

The FBI fired a verified 70 rounds (possibly as many as 77 or 78) and delivered 18 wounds to the bad guys, firing at extremely hostile targets obscured by gunsmoke, considerable amounts of dust and debris from the crashing, careening cars, and the deep shadows of the trees beneath which their vehicle came to rest.

Among those wounds, McNeill hit Matix with that head shot plus a neck/chest shot early on in the fight; Dove delivered that difficult hit as Platt was wriggling from the passenger window of the Monte Carlo, as well as two others; Risner (from 30 yards!) also made a lethal chest wound on Platt in mid-fight;

that's from http://www.thegunzone.com/11april86b.html, a journalistic treatment which squares well with reports I remember reading, which summarized autopsy results. I think your 8-inch circle might have included that neck shot--a 4-inch accuracy level (like, I belive, Dove's short-of-the-heart shot early in the fight, from what-20 yards aimed?) would have had much more effect than the neck shot.

Risner's Mid-fight shot would have been about two minutes into the four-minute encounter--the shot Dove fired into Platt.

http://www.firearmstactical.com/briefs7.htm offers this excerpt from another report (from one Dr. French) describing phase 2 of the fight, Platt exiting his vehicle:

Platt’s 4th gunshot wound (back wound K) - Orrantia?

Firearms Tactical's summary:

Dr. Anderson feels Platt’s fourth gunshot wound (back wound K) might have incurred shortly after he exited the Monte Carlo. The wound is a left to right grazing wound to the back, and may have been inflicted by Orrantia, who was in a position across the street and in front of the Monte Carlo. Orrantia’s bullet might have hit Platt after he got back onto his feet in front of the Cutlass and was turning to his left. The bullet abraded the skin just to the right of the spine in the location of the upper shoulder blade.

As Orrianta was across the street, we should now, from the comfort of our armchairs, wanting him to use aimed fire. Same 8-inch accuracy standard for "at speed"? Platt was sideways, so that superficial hit across his back, WHICH WOULD HAVE DONE A LOT MORE GOOD AS A 4-INCH "ACCURATE" SHOT, was most likely within your "good enough" standard.

These are used to illustrate the utility of a finer accuracy standard, NOT to evaluate the shooting techniques used. Our "practical" targets will be missed if they are uncooperative enough to be standing sideways when we shoot at them.

So I guess it's DR Middlebrooks is the only PS advocate who doesn't include shooting from the hip? I'm still a bit fuzzy, then, on whether there are any meaningful differences between Quick Kill (properly taught) and the Fairbarn-Applegate-Sykes method, except maybe the crouch and FAS emphasis on one-handed...???

 

[Grump]

Learn to read and don't put words in my mouth

OOPs-double post.

 

[brownie0486]

"My point was that there is likely to be a nice benefit to getting better than the 8-inch accuracy at speed which Brownie [and others?] have specifically described as being good enough to get the job done."

When within the effective range of threat focued systems, it is. If you are within the distances to use pointshooting technqiues, you are giving them multiples one after the other, several within an 8 inch circle in a blink will get it done quite nicely.

"Among those wounds, McNeill hit Matix with that head shot plus a neck/chest shot early on in the fight; Dove delivered that difficult hit as Platt was wriggling from the passenger window of the Monte Carlo, as well as two others; Risner (from 30 yards!) also made a lethal chest wound on Platt in mid-fight;"

At 30 yds, we are not talking pointshooting, we are talking sighted aimed fire. And at that range, under gunfight conditions with parties moving, you'll be lucky to stay inside 8 inches with sighted fire.

"I think your 8-inch circle might have included that neck shot--a 4-inch accuracy level (like, I belive, Dove's short-of-the-heart shot early in the fight, from what-20 yards aimed?) would have had much more effect than the neck shot."

Again, 20 yrds, I'll be using the sights, and IF I can keep my shots in that type of environ inside 8 inches I'm doing nicely thank you. 20 yds is not conducive to using a pistol and having 4 inch accuracy under combat conditions. On the range accuracy and putting neat little small holes in the target a 20-30 yds is easy, try it sometime when you are taking fire and ducking while under stress of the Miami situation.

Because 8 inches is acceptable at ranges used for pointshooting, does not mean that more, rather than less are inside a smaller group, say 4 inches. I use 8 inches as MY standard as that is the size of your head.

"As Orrianta was across the street, we should now, from the comfort of our armchairs, wanting him to use aimed fire. Same 8-inch accuracy standard for "at speed"? Platt was sideways, so that superficial hit across his back, WHICH WOULD HAVE DONE A LOT MORE GOOD AS A 4-INCH "ACCURATE" SHOT, was most likely within your "good enough" standard."

The feds weren't pointshooting, they were using sighted fire, or they should have been anyway. Your statements seem to assume they were pointshooting and IF they had used aimed fire they would have been more accurate. I doubt they were using any threat focused system of pointshooting at those distances. Your argument [ and points you are trying to make against pointshooting ] that sighted fire may have produced better results is irrelevant. They were using their sights.

At 15 feet, I'll keep 70-80% of my shots inside 4 inches all day. You can't possibly think all the shots within the QK system are on the edges of that 8 inch paper plate I use can you? That seems to be your assumption.

"So I guess it's DR Middlebrooks is the only PS advocate who doesn't include shooting from the hip? I'm still a bit fuzzy, then, on whether there are any meaningful differences between Quick Kill (properly taught) and the Fairbarn-Applegate-Sykes method, except maybe the crouch and FAS emphasis on one-handed...???"

I can't answer for DR. Yes, there are differences between QK and FAS. QK is usually performed two handed, below line of sight, but not as low as 1/2 hip FAS or 3/4 hip FAS.

QK can be used within a croutch, standing, on your back upside down, from either side on the ground, one or two handed. FAS will not be used in these positions, with the exception of the croutch, nor two handed.

The QK hip shooting is quite different than FAS hip shooting, yet is close at the same time.

Edited to add: Grump, if you are really havig a problem with the 8 inches as acceptable, why don't you talk to IDPA officials about getting their target changed to a smaller circle, you see, they also use an 8 inch circle in the center of their target, and NO one questions if that is acceptable hits on the street.

In fact, they think it IS acceptable. And so do I. The difference is I was using 8 inch paper plates long before IDPA came into existance.

Robin Brown

 

[Blackhawk 6]

Originally Posted by okjoe
The miss rate of < 20% that was mentioned, has to do with CQB stats and is accepted +/- a few percentage points as being what is, is...
...Lots of people like to argue about it, but let's even say the hit rate is 33%, that still leave a miss rate of 66%.

Please share your method of point-shooting's hit rate under field conditions.

Originally Posted by okjoe
Here's a pic of my results using the SIG...Works for me.

From NYPD SOP-9
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 this writer's mind, the study result establishes that there is indeed a disconnect between the two.

If the SOP-9 is the authoritative study on gunfighting that you continually suggest, why do you continue to attempt to validate your method of point-shooting's combat-worthiness by providing examples of your range performance?

Originally Posted by okjoe
Title: Combat pistol
Loan Status: 0000027367,
Location: AV
Call Number: VL 2403
Subjects: Shooters of firearms - Training of | Pistol shooting - Study and teaching | Combat survival | Self-defense for police | Police training
Publication Date: 2003
Number of Copies: 2
Format: DVD/DVD
Physical Description: 1 DVD (video) (ca. 85 min.)
Summary: Instructs the law enforcement officer, in proper "combat" pistol shooting skills. Looks at the elite pistol shooting training and tactics given at the Mid-South Institute. Explains that the training is necessary to ensure "each bullet" an officer fires, finds its correct target, as recent statistics have found that this accuracy rate is as low as 17% in American law enforcement.

Have you viewed the video? I do not recall a single reference to point-shooting in it. Having attended Mid-south multiple times, I can tell you they absolutely preach seeing the sights for each shot.

Originally Posted by okjoe
Science says you will focus on the threat or you will not be able to focus on the sights in CQB.

Nonsense. Numerous people have been able to use their sights in what you refer to as "CQB."

Originally Posted by okjoe
The SOP 9 says you will shoot one handed.

Actually, it does not. It says if your firearms training program is the same one used by the NYPD in the 70's you are likely to shoot one-handed.

Originally Posted by okjoe
Most gunfights/CQB shooting will occur in bad light, so if you can't see the sights how will you shoot accurately?

Poor lighting does not always prevent you from seeing the sights. Frequently if it is too dark to see the sights it is also too dark to see the target.

There is a degree of darkness that affords the shooter the ability to see his target but denies him the ability to see his sights. Fortunately, in the intervening 50+ years since most point-shooting techniques were developed, two technological innovations have come along to help the shooter deal with this phenomenon; flashlights(either hand-held or weapon-mounted) and night-sights. While a hand-held flashlight is not particularly responsive to a spontaneous threat, both night sights and weapons-mounted lights are.

While I will admit there a lmited circumstances where one may be unable to use the sights, adverse lighting conditions is not one of them.

 

[Matthew Temkin]

OKJOE
If you find QK more accurate than FAS then great.
But I have trained in QK with Brownie and he does not use the middle finger, so I fail to follow your logic.
To be fair I have practiced with my middle finger, and while I find it fairly accurate when point shooting I am not able to get a good, convulsive grip on the handgun using your method.
Yes, you are entitled to your opinion----and should be free to voice it without the many personal attacks that you have been subjected to----but I just want to clear the record and state that OKJOE and I are not professionally affiliated and we do our own things.
One last thing...
To you, what does P&S stand for?
Is it point shooting?
Or is it point and shoot?

 

[okjoe]

Hi Matt, I refer to is as AIMED Point shooting or P&S. PS by iteslf carries with it a lot of baggage.

............

Blackhawk 6

In the age of merit pay, and perks and bonuses for those who get the job done:

How come the FBI, and police agencies are silent as to their prowess if you will, as to what they teach and it's actual results in CQ combat.

If they had what worked, they would be shouting it out from the roof tops, writing up glowing reports for their personnel files, and getting awards, promotions, etc...

You obviously don't work for the Gov.

Now you expect me to provide you with what you obviously don't have: that is verifyable studies and stats to support what you do, teach, or believe in.

If you did have proof that SS works in CQB situations in the form of "real" studies and stats garnered by the FBI, the Military, or State or Local police departments, you would be shoving them down my throat.

Finally, if I don't come up with combat field data on P&S, to support my pics and videos which show that it works and without dependancy on the sights, you win???

OK you win.

You keep your theoretical belief/s that sight shooting works slick in CQB situations.

IMHO, believing that SS will work for the average operator in CQB situations is like believing in flying saucers. A lot of good honest folks do believe.

For me, I would just like to se a couple of them flying over low and slow on a clear blue and sunny day. A pic or video of them would be nice too.

Sort of like it would be nice to see a few pics and videos of SS being used in a real CQ deal since if has been in vogue for 100 + years.

-- Down in Kansas some years ago, we were doing the ground to air ops for some ack ack guys shooting at a sleve being pulled by a plane. As I remember the call sign for the plane, was Flypaper one seven. FYI, The airforce types, got to use more "cool" call signs, and did not pay that much attention to strict radio procedure.

 

[brownie0486]

Hi Matt,

I think it does need to be clarified as you have here, that QK is NOT performed with the middle finger pulling the trigger and firing the weapon.

To be fair, I have trained with Matt and I think FAS should be taken seriously by anyone who wants to be able to get fast rounds on threats with very good accuracy.

I watched Matt bring 8 students into the realm of FAS in less than a day, and it not only is viable in SD scenarios, it is one of the best ways to work under startle response under pressure.

Matts revolver sounds like a damned machine gun and he is NOT in the habit of missing at distances most would be amazed at. His students all felt the same way after the training.

OKJOE: Matt is not someone who has supported sighted shooting for realistice SD situations as long as I have known him. I don't understand how you got that idea as he has taken a lot of heat over the years, as all of us advocates of threat focused shooting have.

Robin Brown