point shooting home study course

[okjoe]

Robin,

Didn't know that I did what I did.

I think I have a good handle on FAS and QK, and that both are different, and that they are not P&S or SS.

..........

I have not changed my thinking about PS or SS over the years.

Even though I get upset now and then, I also find some of the tactics and methods employed by detractors to be of interest. They do however, over time, seem to be the same old songs.

That is why I have researched and written down lots of stuff on Point Shooting.

It would be nice if folks would just check out PS sites on the web first and then ask questions.

That however, would cut down on threads on PS, and also on thoughtful and informative exchanges on boards such as this.

I also have thought long and hard about the attitudes of many of those involved in the world of the gun. The seem to be pushy and very agressive, and not polite and nice as folks like me, used to picture them.

Are some - via their training to control situations - taught to frame things or ask questions in such and such a way?

Are some uneasy and feel guilty about the uncertainty surrounding that which they are about?

Are some frustrated wannabee lawyers, or just what?

They certainly are not dumb, and some are very clever to boot.

And there certainly are a bunch of colorful characters in the world of the gun.

More than a few on the nutty side if you will, which would/could probably include me.

And/or maybe it's just that some are young, at the top of their game, and all their parts are working perfectly.

That will all change at 30/35/40: they will need glasses, their stomaches will drift down and out, their hair and teeth will start to fall out, and people will think of them as being all washed up and ready for the dust bin.

 

[Blackhawk 6]

Originally Posted by okjoe
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.

They are not silent. The information is available for those who ask. This is how we are able to determine the ~20% hit rate of police. This stands in stark contrast to those who loudly proclaim point-shooting to be the answer but provide no documentation to support their position.

Originally Posted by okjoe
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...

With your detailed knowledge of government bureacracy, answer this question: Why haven't the bean-counters latched onto your shooting system that requires less training rounds, less training time and results in a higher hit rate reducing liability?

Originally Posted by okjoe
You obviously don't work for the Gov.

As a matter of fact, I do.

Originally Posted by okjoe
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.

I have already provided an example, LAPD Metropolitan Division. They are taught sighted shooting at all but the closest distances. They are given realistic training that replicates the difficulties they are likely to encounter in actual shootings. They have a hit rate of ~80%.

Anchorage, Alaska claims 90+% but their statisitics have yet to be verified. Even if it were half of what they claimed that would be twice the national average.

Very highly regarded instructors, many with significant personal experience in interpersonal violence, teach the use of the sights. Yet you continue to assert that the sights can not be used in "CQB." Are you questioning their integrity?

I have used my sights. My co-workers have used their sights. Countless others who have fired in defense of themselves or others used their sights. Yet you continue to insist that in the heat of the moment, one will be unable to use their sights. Again, nonsense.

Originally Posted by okjoe
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???

You continue to blame sighted shooting. You attribute the poor hit percentages of law enforcement to sighted shooting, while dismissing any successes by agencies that employ sighted shooting. You promote your own system of "P&S" as the solution but the only documentation is your own range performance (which is generally mediocre by sighted shooting standards)...after citing a report that emphatically states there is no correlation between range performance and combat performance. What you offer as fact is nothing more than speculation.

Shooting a piece of paper, with or without the sights, requires skill, nothing more. Qualification measures skill, nothing more. Skill can only get you so far in a fight.

What the question of hit rates requires is an objective look at what those who expereincing success are doing differently than those who are not. The answer is they are requiring their personnel to use the skills developed on the range in the context of the field environment. Fairbairn knew it back in the 1920's.

 

[JMusic]

Okjoe I have not heard of the middle trigger fingertechnique. To me it would be cumbersome and frankly under preasure something I could not "instinctivley" do. That simple statement I made is what I believe is at the root of the disagreement between sighted methods and unsighted methods. We tend to do what we do most often. Though you can easily show someone instictive shooting techniques and have them proficient at it in a short period of time is that enough to make it instinctive? I say not and thus the confusion. I believe those who are trained to use sights and nothing but the sights and practice this will tend to use sights under duress. Vis versa for those who use point shooting. You have to be repeditive to develop actions that will be deployed while under duress. For me I will push the gun at someone and start shooting without aiming. I know this for a fact, but I have practiced this alot. I think the argument what is better sighted shooting or point shooting under duress comes down to what you practice. If you don't practice chances are you will spray and pray no matter what technique you have been taught. Just as your middle finger method is better for you for me I would not even think of it shooting under duress.
Jim

 

[okjoe]

BK 6

Do I understand that you are agreeing that the hit rate is around 20% ???

Is the LAPD Metro report available?

Is it based on a study of combat cases that details distances, environmental conditions, etc... like the NYPD SOP 9?

The Anchorage "study" or stats have been mentioned for years but never detailed.

As to: you wont' use the sights, sure some can/will, but per the SOP 9 study of 5000+ combat cases most won't. And if you fall into the group that won't, might be nice to know how to PS just in case.

Also, there are studies that indicate that what people think they have done in combat, just isn't the case. It's a mental thing.

Per the NYPD SOP 9,

The majority of incidents occurred in poor lighting conditions. None occurred in what could be called total darkness. It was noted that flashlights were not used as a marksmanship aid.

..........

In 70% of the cases reviewed, sight alignment was not used. Officers reported that they used instinctive or point shooting.

As the distance between the officer and his opponent increased, some type of aiming was reported in 20% of the cases. This aiming or sighting ran from using the barrel as an aiming reference to picking up the front sight and utilizing fine sight alignment.

The remaining 10% could not remember whether they had aimed or pointed and fired the weapon instinctively.

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

Officers, with an occasional exception, fired with the strong hand. That was the case even when it appeared advantageous to use the weak hand. The value of placing heavy emphasis on weak hand shooting during training and qualification is subject to question.

Guess what, I am on the side of the police.

As to why Agencies haven't adopted PS methods, I don't know. Perhaps they are satisfied with things the way they are.

What I do know is that SS fails to be employed in CQB situations, which results in officers being shot and or killed.

I find that doing nothing much about that is stupid at best and criminal at worst.

 

[Blackhawk 6]

Originally Posted by okjoe
Do I understand that you are agreeing that the hit rate is around 20% ???

Yes. I never disputed the hit rate, only your assertions as to what was causing it.

Originally Posted by okjoe
Is the LAPD Metro report available?

The ~80% comes from Scott Reitz of LAPD Metro. I am not sure if there is a report or not. I would recommend you contact LAPD.

Originally Posted by okjoe
Also, there are studies that indicate that what people think they have done in combat, just isn't the case. It's a mental thing.

That works both ways. Perhaps some of the officers in the SOP-9 study did use their sights and did not remember.

Regarding SOP-9: Let's keep things in perspective.

1. It provides valueable insights into the performance of NYPD officers. But, it is based on the NYPD in the 1970's. At best, the conclusions one draws from the SOP-9 can be applied to the recipients of the NYPD's firearms training program. To imply that the NYPD's program is representative of all the sighted-shooting programs nation-wide is a stretch.

2. I once heard Pat Rogers (former NYPD Sergeant & Recon Marine, an experienced firearms instructor with a great deal of personal combat experience) give an explanation of the SOP-9. While I can not recall the details, I was left with the impression that the SOP-9 is not the definitive study you believe it to be. Pat, by the way, teach the use of the sights.

Originally Posted by okjoe
As to why Agencies haven't adopted PS methods, I don't know. Perhaps they are satisfied with things the way they are.

If that were true, so many good people would not be working so hard to improve the situation. I think you are going to have to find a better reason than that.

Originally Posted by okjoe
What I do know is that SS fails to be employed in CQB situations, which results in officers being shot and or killed.

Actually, what you know, or what you should know, is that SS fails to be employed in some CQB situations, which results in officers being shot and or killed. It is used quite successfully in others.

Originally Posted by okjoe
I find that doing nothing much about that is stupid at best and criminal at worst.

I agree. However, if the "something" you are doing is presenting supposition as fact, I would submit you are no better than those who are doing nothing and in some ways worse.

 

[Matthew Temkin]

Blackhawk 6....
None of us..meaning Brownie, 7677 and myself..are against aimed fire.
There is a place for it.
As, we also believe, there is a place for point shooting.
As to the NYPD SOP 9 report...
Most officers report not using the sights, and even those who do use them are reporting a low hit rate. (And, quite frankly, it is even lower than officially reported.)
Why?
I cannot say for sure.
But it would be interesting if they did agree to teach point shooting so we could compare the before and after results.

 

[okjoe]

Thanks BK 6,

The thought came to mind about where does the NRA stand on this, or what do they teach and WHY and on what factually supported basis do they?

There are about 500K police but millions of handgun owners?

What do gun makers have to say about which is the best or the percentage best method for their customers to use, and what is their factually supported basis for that?

Does Las Vegas have a line on this?

BTW, there was supposed to be an earlier LA study on shootings that I tried to track down without success.

If you could provide me with the name of the study you are referring to, and its date, and who put it out, I will try and obtain a cc.

I will make it available to the millions of honest home-defender/gunowners as I have with the FBI's paper on Handgun Wounding Factors And Effectiveness that I was forced by the FBI's reluctance (disdain) of providing following an initial request, to obtaining via a FOIA request. Or is it some big gov big secret?

Thanks.

As to your comment: However, if the "something" you are doing is presenting supposition as fact, I would submit you are no better than those who are doing nothing and in some ways worse.

Such as them, do tend to piss me off, but perhaps it is my meds or that I am just old and tired of putting up with sophomoric value laden and emotionaly linked inane comments. But then that's just my opinion.

........

JMusic,

Welcome,

I certainly would like to agree with you, but if you plan to protect you or your families life with a pistol, you really should check out articles and studies on CQB and what happens to practiced methods/routines such as SS, in them.

Best to be forewarned and forearmed, and practice.

 

[Blackhawk 6]

Originally Posted by Matthew Temkin
None of us..meaning Brownie, 7677 and myself..are against aimed fire.
There is a place for it.

I understand that. So we are clear, I am not against threat-focused shooting. There is a place for it. I think we can agree to disagree over where the place for one stops and the place for the other begins. What I am against is the assertion that sighted-shooting does not work and is the primary factor in the low hit rates being reported by police.

I understand that there are different ways to accomplish the same objective. I also understand that you use and advocate what works for you. It would be ridiculous for you to use a defensive system you did not believe was the best. People frequently lose sight of the fact that what is best for one individual may not be best for another.

Earlier in my discussion with Robin I made my position quite clear:

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."

Whenever the subject of point-shooting vs. sighted-shooting comes up, it frequently devolves from "both work" to "mine is better than yours" to "yours does not work." If you equate the use of sights with "believing in flying saucers" then I am going to call you on it.

Originally Posted by Matthew Temkin
But it would be interesting if they did agree to teach point shooting so we could compare the before and after results.

I agree.

 

[Blackhawk 6]

Originally Posted by okjoe
The thought came to mind about where does the NRA stand on this, or what do they teach and WHY and on what factually supported basis do they?

Good question. Having completed both the NRA Law Enforcement Firearms Instructor School and civilian instructor training, I consulted my lesson plans.

For Law Enforcement:
They teach...everything. Sighted, unsighted, weaver and isosceles. It advocates nothing. It states the unsighted techniques are useful out to 5-7 yards. Unsighted techniques resemble FAS point-shooting. I do not recall spending a siginificant amount of time on the subject.

It is worth mentioning that the qualification courses are fairly accuracy-intensive. The TQ-21 target was used, with 90% required to qualify.(For instructors) Rounds touching the line were a miss. Half of the 60 round qualifaction course is fired from the 3 or 7 yard line, though 6 rounds are fired kneeling at the 7 yard line. Time limits were generous.

For civilians:
I looked at my copy of the Personal Protection lesson plan as it seemed most relevant. I believe that program has been revised since I was certified, but I do not know what revisions were made.

Of the 98 rounds required by the syllabus, 12 are required for the point-shooting portion conducted on targets at 6 to 9 feet. Six are required for a "Verbal Challenge" exercise and 2 are required for the "Tueller Drill." (It should be noted that the targets for these to exercises are at 15 to 21 feet) The remaining 78 rounds are fired using the sights on targets out to 21 feet.

Originally Posted by okjoe
What do gun makers have to say about which is the best or the percentage best method for their customers to use, and what is their factually supported basis for that?

Obviously, I can not speak for the gun-makers. However, the fact that they continue to provide handguns with sights indicates to me that at a minimum they tacitly endorse their use. The fact that no one has seen fit to produce a handgun with your aiming aid would seem to indicate that they do not think it is a very good idea, assuming they know of it.

Originally Posted by okjoe
If you could provide me with the name of the study you are referring to, and its date, and who put it out, I will try and obtain a cc.

As I stated previously, the stats for LAPD Metro are not from a study. They are from Scott Reitz. Here is his bio:

As a 26-year veteran of the L.A.P.D., Scott has spent 22 years in the elite Metropolitan Division, with 10 years as an operator and instructor in S.W.A.T. For the last several years, he has been the primary firearms instructor for the Metropolitan Division and responsible for all in-service training for the department. During his career as a field officer with the Metropolitan Division, Scott was involved in 5 officer-involved shootings, all in policy with successful outcomes.

Scott is an F.B.I. certified law enforcement instructor and has trained with SEAL team 6, Delta and the F.B.I.’s HRT in counter-terrorist operations and participated in Recon Battalion anti-terrorist fleet training with the U.S. Marine Corp at Camp Pendleton. Scott also spent several years as an adjunct instructor for the Department of Energy’s SRT-III training in New Mexico.

As a highly qualified use of deadly force expert witness in police defense cases for the Superior and Federal Courts, he works as a lecturer and consultant on high profile cases for law firms, the District Attorney’s office and the U.S. Government. He is certified by the California State Bar to provide continuing education credits to attorneys on the Use of Deadly Force. Scott has a Bachelors Degree from the University of New Mexico.

Obviously, he is in a position to know.

My recommendation would be to contact him via LAPD or his training company ITTS. I believe he due to retire soon.
http://www.internationaltactical.com/index.asp

 

[Matthew Temkin]

When to use the sights and when to use threat focused shooting ( a better term than point shooting, IMHO) is highly dependent upon the shooter and the situation.
My thesis is to learn both and let the circumstances decide.
Of course, once must be trained/practiced in threat focused shooting for us to draw any conclusions.
For example, several have reported the low hit rate among the NYPD due to the use of point shooting.
Since the officers did not aim, it is concluded, this "proves" that point shooting is ineffective.
Naturally I call this BS, since not using the sights, as trained, cannot be termed point shooting, but rather, missing.
I have met Mike Conti, head firearms instructor for the Mass. State Police, who has implemented Applegate point shooting into his depatments training with good results.
I'll probably run into him in October and will ask him their hit rate.
Lou Choida of the Calif. Hwy Patrol teaches point shooting as well as aimed fire to his troops.
He was claiming a hit rate of 90% but, according to a friend of mine, the CHP publishes a hit rate of about 43%.
With all respect to Scotty Reitz, I would like to examine LAPD's firearms discharge data before accepting an 80% hit rate with the Weaver stance.
Ditto for Anchorage PD.

 

[Blackhawk 6]

Originally Posted by Matthew Temkin
Lou Choida of the Calif. Hwy Patrol teaches point shooting as well as aimed fire to his troops. He was claiming a hit rate of 90% but, according to a friend of mine, the CHP publishes a hit rate of about 43%.

A critical but often over-looked aspect of Lou Chiodo's program is that it requires the officer to successfully complete each aspect of the qualification. You can only score 100%. If you have a problem with a stage of the qualification, you are remediated until you can perform it. That not only translates into a better skill set for the officer but more confidence as well.

This stands in contrast to programs that only require a 70% to qualify. Vital skill sets may be performed marginally or not at all, but because the officer performs adequately in other stages, the officer is deemed qualified. The officer leaves with a compromised skill set and/or lacking confidence in his ability to perform certain skills.

For example, I may have difficulty drawing from my holster. My qualification requires me to draw and fire 12 rounds in 25 seconds from seven yards (Taken from a POST qualification course). Twenty-five seconds is plenty of time to put 12 rounds into a target at seven yards even with a poor draw stroke. I qualify. Now I am out on a traffic stop and I have to draw my weapon. Panic sets in because my life now depends on a skill that I know I am bad at and when I finally get the gun out of the holster after what seems like an eternity, I feel like I am so far behind I just start pulling the trigger. Somebody watches the footage of my shooting from my dash-cam and says: "See, he did not use his sights. Sighted shooting does not work."

That type of failure has nothing to do with sight-focused or threat-focused shooting. It has to do with a combination of a poorly-constructed qualification and poor instruction allowing me to leave the range "qualified" with a compromised skill set.

If Lou Chiodo is getting 43% then he is doing something right. Whether it is the emphasis on threat-focused shooting, the unique manner in which qualifications occur or the combination of the two bears further investigation.

 

[okjoe]

Here's a link to an article on ITTS training with pics:

http://www.americancopmagazine.com/articles/gunfighter/
index.html

Looks like ISO sight shooting.

Center indexed two handed shooting should get you hits if you are center indexed and have two hands on the gun regardles of method.

Do they use the ISO "dork walk" or some type of PS for shooting while moving?

(Not trying to hammer on the ISO, but it looks awkward in videos to me. I think the CAR or some other type of PS provides for better mobility, balance, and reaction to circumstances.)

FYI, their site info says an article on their training will be in the April SWAT.

 

[Matthew Temkin]

A critical but often over-looked aspect of Lou Chiodo's program is that it requires the officer to successfully complete each aspect of the qualification. You can only score 100%. If you have a problem with a stage of the qualification, you are remediated until you can perform it. That not only translates into a better skill set for the officer but more confidence as well.

This stands in contrast to programs that only require a 70% to qualify. Vital skill sets may be performed marginally or not at all, but because the officer performs adequately in other stages, the officer is deemed qualified. The officer leaves with a compromised skill set and/or lacking confidence in his ability to perform certain skills.

For example, I may have difficulty drawing from my holster. My qualification requires me to draw and fire 12 rounds in 25 seconds from seven yards (Taken from a POST qualification course). Twenty-five seconds is plenty of time to put 12 rounds into a target at seven yards even with a poor draw stroke. I qualify. Now I am out on a traffic stop and I have to draw my weapon. Panic sets in because my life now depends on a skill that I know I am bad at and when I finally get the gun out of the holster after what seems like an eternity, I feel like I am so far behind I just start pulling the trigger. Somebody watches the footage of my shooting from my dash-cam and says: "See, he did not use his sights. Sighted shooting does not work."

That type of failure has nothing to do with sight-focused or threat-focused shooting. It has to do with a combination of a poorly-constructed qualification and poor instruction allowing me to leave the range "qualified" with a compromised skill set.

If Lou Chiodo is getting 43% then he is doing something right. Whether it is the emphasis on threat-focused shooting, the unique manner in which qualifications occur or the combination of the two bears further investigation.

Well then, according to Lou the inclusion of threat focused shooting has had MUCH to do with the success rate of CHP.
Not only that, but Lou told me a few years back that a lot of his agencies shootings happen at 15+ yards, so this is proof for the need of both aimed and threat focused techniques.
I also have a friend who is the Sgt in charge of firearms instruction for the Akron, OH. PD, and he has been teaching point shooting for over five years.
His men have used it in at least 6 shootings with a very high hit rate.
In fact, one officer used one hand point shooting at 20 YARDS to take out a rifle armed bad guy who had just shot his partner in the stomach.
These are the only two agencies where I have personal knowledge of that are teaching point shooting, so I must say-----So far, so good.

 

[JMusic]

Thanks for the advise OKjoe I'll try to keep that in mind.

 

[Blackhawk 6]

Originally Posted by okjoe
Looks like ISO sight shooting.

Center indexed two handed shooting should get you hits if you are center indexed and have two hands on the gun regardles of method.

Do they use the ISO "dork walk" or some type of PS for shooting while moving?

Actually, Scott uses what I would call an aggressive Weaver stance. He believes that works best, but allows students shoot using whatever stance they are most comfortable with. If you look at the pictures again you will see both the Weaver an ISO being used.

I don't know what the ISO "dork walk" is. Scott advocates the use of the sights for all but the closest engagements, also shown in several pictures in the article.

Originally Posted by Mattew Temkin
Not only that, but Lou told me a few years back that a lot of his agencies shootings happen at 15+ yards, so this is proof for the need of both aimed and threat focused techniques.

I never said there was not a need for both. I am not sure why you continue to be compelled to make that point for me. Let me make my position clear. I never said there was no need for threat-focused techniques. Again, there will be some debate about where the appropriate range for threat-focused shooting ends and sighted-shooting begins subject to the individual's experience and training.

I think its nice that you try and share your knowledge of FAS and its applicability with people. Quite frankly, I could care less. I would be silent on the subject were it not for those individuals who insist on telling me (and everyone else) that using my sights at 10 feet can not be done and will get me killed without regard for my experience, training, and years in practicing those skills.

The debate is NOT about threat-focused vs. sight-focused shooting. It is about some people's incessant need to highlight perceived failures and attribute those failures exclusively on the methodology the individual used to orient the weapon on the target, while excluding all other factors like quality of training, training methodology, equipment and environmental conditions, in order to advocate their chosen methodology.

Quite honestly, that is frequently how the threat-focused shooting community presents its case. If threat-focused shooting advocates would promote their methods as a "compliment" rather than a "solution" and would police their ranks a bit better, I suspect the amount of controversy over the subject would diminish substantially.

 

[Matthew Temkin]

Just out of curosity, who but OKJOE shares that belief?
Lastly...I think compliment is a better term than alternative.

 

[Blackhawk 6]

Originally Posted by Matthew Temkin
Just out of curosity, who but OKJOE shares that belief?

Some of your statements could be interpreted to suggest that you do as well. As I am sure you are wondering which ones, here is one made in this thread http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=176991

Originally Posted by Matthew Temkin
Really?
Then why do the police have such a lousy hit ratio?
Depending upon the source, it is somewhere between 8-24%
And this from officers who must qualify with at least a 70% passing score, with nothing but one and two handed aimed fire.

Perhaps you will satisfy my curiosity.

Item: FAS shooting has both elements of threat-focused and sight-focused shooting.
Item: When someone disparages the effectiveness of threat-focused shooting, you speak out.
Item: When someone (okjoe) disparages the effectiveness of sight-focused shooting, you remain silent.

Why the inconsistency?

Originally Posted by Matthew Temkin
Lastly...I think compliment is a better term than alternative.

Okay, compliment. I adjusted the statement in my previous post.

 

[okjoe]

Blackhawk / (BK6)

BK 6,

I am glad you agree with the CQ/CQB hit rate of 20%:

Originally Posted by okjoe
Do I understand that you are agreeing that the hit rate is around 20% ???

BK 6: "Yes. I never disputed the hit rate, only your assertions as to what was causing it."

And I also am glad that you state that the NRA agrees that PS is useful up to 21 feet.

BK6: "Good question. Having completed both the NRA Law Enforcement Firearms Instructor School and civilian instructor training, I consulted my lesson plans.

For Law Enforcement:
They teach...everything. Sighted, unsighted, weaver and isosceles. It advocates nothing. It states the unsighted techniques are useful out to 5-7 yards. Unsighted techniques resemble FAS point-shooting. I do not recall spending a significant amount of time on the subject."

Now per the SOP 9, the shooting distances where officers survived, remained almost the same during the SOP years (1970-1979), and for a random sampling of cases going back as far as 1929. 4,000 cases were reviewed. The shooting distance in 75% of those cases was less than 20 feet.

Also per intro material to the SOP 9: it is likely that the results are applicable most anywhere, as New York City, in addition to tall buildings, has numerous suburban communities, beaches, large parks, remote areas, highways, rivers, ocean fronts, etc.

So lacking other studies/data that show/proves otherwise, and if they exist, whose findings and conclusions have been published and/or are available to NRA members or handgun buyer/consumers, it seems to me that 3/4 of your training should be at the most probably handgun gunfight distance (<21 feet).

And that 75% of it should be in FAS like methods per the NRA, and the SOP 9 findings that:

In 70% of the cases reviewed, sight alignment was not used. Officers reported that they used instinctive or point shooting.

And per the SOP 9, as the distance between the officer and his opponent increased, some type of aiming was reported in 20%of the cases. This aiming or sighting ran from using the barrel as an aiming reference to picking up the front sight and utilizing fine sight alignment.

The remaining 10% could not remember whether they had aimed or pointed and fired the weapon instinctively.

..........

During the SOP 9 study years, officers were taught traditional sight shooting, so if they defaulted to instinctive or point shooting, they in all probability, were just spraying and praying.

FAS, QK, CAR, and P&S do not happen by magic.

They can be learned and with a modicum of training, and retained with little training. They employ the use of simple body mechanics to be effective.

It is much like riding a bike or tying your shoes.

Impossible tasks until done.

But once mastered, they become almost automatic.

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

Now your note to MT, IMHO, shows that your attitude is showning. And that it is one of defensiveness and zealotness if there is such a word.

"I never said there was not a need for both. I am not sure why you continue to be compelled to make that point for me. Let me make my position clear. I never said there was no need for threat-focused techniques. Again, there will be some debate about where the appropriate range for threat-focused shooting ends and sighted-shooting begins subject to the individual's experience and training.

I think its nice that you try and share your knowledge of FAS and its applicability with people. Quite frankly, I could care less. I would be silent on the subject were it not for those individuals who insist on telling me (and everyone else) that using my sights at 10 feet can not be done and will get me killed without regard for my experience, training, and years in practicing those skills.

The debate is NOT about threat-focused vs. sight-focused shooting. It is about some people's incessant need to highlight perceived failures and attribute those failures exclusively on the methodology the individual used to orient the weapon on the target, while excluding all other factors like quality of training, training methodology, equipment and environmental conditions, in order to advocate their chosen methodology.

Quite honestly, that is frequently how the threat-focused shooting community often presents its case. If threat-focused shooting advocates would promote their methods as an "alternative" rather than a "solution" and would police their ranks a bit better, I suspect the amount of controversy over the subject would diminish substantially."

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

A clever job of framing if I ever saw one. You must watch a lot of O'Riley too.

No one I know of has ever said you won't be able to use your sights.

It is also a fact that the 20% hit rate indicates a big whopping failure of --> sight shooting <-- where the rubber meets the road.

Or what other type of shooting is taught and tested.

What's the deal in the shooting community, a don't ask don't tell kind of thing?

Don't ask questions or talk about it, and things will somehow just get better?

It is also a fact that for millions of home defenders, if they shoot someone who is more than 21 feet away, chances are there will be serious questions raised about them shooting in self defense.

And as a taxpayer who has to pay for police training/injuries/replacements, teaching officers to try and save the day with a handgun at distances beyond 21 feet except in a possible active shooter situation in a school or a mall, is tantamount to lunacy at taxpayers expense.

And if rural PD's don't supply officers with some type of long gun, that too is tantamount to lunacy and reckless disregard of their employees lives.

Lastly, no one I know of, who supports PS, says it is a replacement for SS.

If you try the various PS methods, you will note that the sights can be used with all of them, to sort of polish off the shot if you will, and as needed.

If not, just plug em.

 

[Blackhawk 6]

Originally Posted by okjoe
It is also a fact that the 20% hit rate indicates a big whopping failure of --> sight shooting <-- where the rubber meets the road. Or what shooting other than that is taught and tested.

No, it does not. You focus exclusively on the shooting method to the exclusion of all other possible explanations and you selectively interpret the data to support your preconceived conclusions.

There are a number of dynamics at work in a gunfight that might cause an officer to miss. Target size, whether or not the target is moving, the experience level of the officer, whether or not the officer is wounded, whether or not the officer is winded from a long foot pursuit, the fact that the officer is surprised by the situation rather than being prepared for it, the amount of training and the relevance of the training received to the situation at hand all play an role in determining an individuals ability to connect with their target.

To dismiss all of those factors and attribute the performance solely to the sighting methodology taught is foolish.

Originally Posted by okjoe
No one I know of has ever said you won't be able to use your sights.

Who equated using the sights in combat to beleiving in flying saucers?

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.

 

[JMusic]

For those who are interested I have a short article that was in Robert Beeman's first Airgun Digest. It refers to the original Quick Kill program of the military in the mid 60's along with Daisy's Quick Skill package tailored toward the civilian market. This is rifle shooting as it was first taught. It also has some brief history along with the basic training program or how to from Daisy's package. I would be happy to forward if emailed. See My profile for email address. This is a fun sport quickly learned. As I have stated before, many people can pick this up in 30 minutes. I was able to transfer these principles to shotgun and handgun including the airel shooting. As far as utilizing this for self defence that is for each individual to decide. Just as you do not become a race car driver after a week of Skip Barber you WILL NOT become a proficient gun fighter with a week of instruction no matter what the subject taught. It takes practice.
Jim

 

[Matthew Temkin]

Some of your statements could be interpreted to suggest that you do as well. As I am sure you are wondering which ones, here is one made in this thread http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=176991


Perhaps you will satisfy my curiosity.

Item: FAS shooting has both elements of threat-focused and sight-focused shooting.
Item: When someone disparages the effectiveness of threat-focused shooting, you speak out.
Item: When someone (okjoe) disparages the effectiveness of sight-focused shooting, you remain silent.

Why the inconsistency?

Okay, compliment. I adjusted the statement in my previous post.

OKJOE is a hard guy to defend.
His logic is unique to him and my silence is just that--silence.
Not agreement.
Yes, the hit rate amongst police is very bad.
Yes, the majority of handgun training for police involves two handed aimed fire training from 3-25 yards.
Col. Applegate believed that the inclusion of close range point shooting would improve this.
As does Mike Conti of the Mass. State police, who has implemented it for his agency.
As does Lou Choido of the CHP, who has implemented it for his agency.
As does Steve Barron of Hocking College. Of course these men also believe in other factors for realistic training, such as FOF, use of shoot houses, Sims, etc.
To me the main problem is the fact that so few agencies really prepare their charges --mentally and physically--for the ugly reality of violence.
But that is another story.

 

[Blackhawk 6]

Originally Posted by Matthew Temkin
OKJOE is a hard guy to defend.
His logic is unique to him and my silence is just that--silence.
Not agreement.

Fair enough.

Originally Posted by Matthew Temkin
To me the main problem is the fact that so few agencies really prepare their charges --mentally and physically--for the ugly reality of violence.

I agree completely.

 

[okjoe]

Per BK 6:

Quote:
Originally Posted by okjoe
No one I know of has ever said you won't be able to use your sights.

Who equated using the sights in combat to beleiving in flying saucers?

Quote:
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.

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

No one as far as I know, said that YOU would not be able to see your sights.....

If I told you that YOU won't be able to see your sights, I am sure you would call me a liar.

I have said what scientists say will happen to most all in a life threat CQ situation.

You will have to determine for yourself what that makes of what you say. It could be that you really were not quite sure of what really did happen, or you were confused, or you are an acception to the general rule, a SWAT or superior operator type, or you were acting rather than reacting, etc...

It's not about you personally.

Its about providing SD training that will/can set up the majority of students to being shot and/or killed, via training them almost exclusively in a shooting method that in terms of its proven bad result in CQB situations, and which you agree with number wise, would be considered disasterous by most rational folks, -> WHEN <- there are practical and workable companion methods that can/will work when the traditional SS won't or can't due to environmental conditions and/or one's physiological responses, the rigors of a chase, gun design,etc....

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

This edit is about the following thread which is, and is not directly related to the subject. It points up that what you think you may/will do, is not what you may/will do:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=178611

Just started reading it. It reminds me of www.gutterfighting.org

Plan to go back to it.

 

[Matthew Temkin]

OKJOE..this a good time to explain your thesis.

#1) How does P&S differ from FAS/QK?

2) At what distances/circumstances would aimed fire come into play?

3) Why do you insist on using the middle finger to shoot?
Yes, I agree that the VT. State police tried this for awhile, but does not the fact that the other 49 states haven't mean anything?

4) Would you be willing to put your "home study" course online?

 

[okjoe]

Sure Mattty,

It's free. It is below in brief.

More info/details on it and other PS methods and articles and studies/data on PS, is available and all for FREE on my site: www.pointshooting.com

Not braging, but for a dull and boring text only site plus some pics, hits have recently been averaging 70K per month recently, and for some reason, should top 100K this month. Thank all of youse for dropping in.

If nothing else, the numbers evidence interest in PS.

..........

P&S IN BRIEF

With P&S, you just grab the gun, place your index finger along the side of it, point your index finger at a target, and pull the trigger with your middle or left index finger.

That's all there is to it. Just point-n-pull, point-n-pull.

No more, no less.

(Of course your gun should be designed/constructed to allow for its safe use. And do not try it or use it, unless you accept full responsibility for any results. Always use safe gun handling practices.)