point shooting home study course

[brownie0486]

Preacherman stated:

"Don't bother with point shooting. It has many vocal disciples, and few victories to its credit." in another thread that was locked by Jeff and directed to explore and discuss in this thread. I just found that thread, so lets continue here why don't we.

Few victories to it's credit? Wow, aren't we the educated one huh?

China: many hundreds of documented successful conclusions with FAS pointshooting
WW2: many huindreds of documented successful conclusions with FAS pointshooting

Thats what was used as that is what was taught, in some of the most hardened combat and street fighting in the world at that time.

Zundfolge stated:

"You don't use your sights when shooting from retention ... of course you also don't engage targets at greater than 10 feet shooting from retention either...If they are farther away you have time to aim your shots and make them count."

I can think of thousands of scenarios where you don't/won't have the time to find your sights and make the shots. If you think you have spare time in any gunfight, you probably have not taken incoming.

Here's a weekend of threat focused shooting another and I worked with:

We fired 1400 rds in two days, on various drills and scenarios with one and up to three bad guys from distances ranging from 3 feet out to 30 feet.

These included elbow up/elbow down, compressed ready, quick kill ready, quick kill, two handed and one handed.

He brought timers, something I have never used in training before this weekend, and something that has never been necessary to use to improve myself IMO. Knowing my background on timers, I'll state that the use of a timer is interesting. It certainly allows us to post in these types of threads where the timer is considered the "proof" of ones ability [ whatever that may be ].

We used TQ15 Federal Law Enforcement Training Center targets with scoring rings. The inside ring measures 10" long verically x 9.5 inches wide. The second scoring ring measures 16" long verically by 14 inches wide.

Where "no misses" is reported, all shots were withing the larger scoring ring. Unless otherwise stated, we fired 6 shots per drill from the timers buzzer.

Sweatnbullets used my first gen g-17 glock 9mm
I used my "sightless" government 45acp -- NO sights on the gun all weekend

Elbow Up/Elbow Down one handed [ EU/ED or hipshooting ] at 10 feet 6shots

Sweatnbullets using FAS---two runs: .90 draw 2.08 finish no misses
1.03 draw 2.21 finish no misses

Brownie using QK hip---two runs: .94 draw 2.03 finish no misses
1.07 draw 2.15 finish no misses

Hip shooting one handed at 10 feet, transitions one round each on two targets 6 feet apart:

Sweatnbullets using FAS----one run: .98 draw 1.71 finish no misses

Brownie using QK-----one run: .96 draw 1.70 finish no misses

Quick Kill two handed at 10 feet, transitions one round each on two targets 6 feet apart:

Sweatnbullets------1.02 draw 1.84 finish no misses splits .27/.32/.23
Brownie------------1.15 draw 1.93 finsih no misses splits .18/.39/.21

Quick Kill two handed at 21 feet for 6 shots:

Sweatnbullets------1.19 draw 2.35 finish no misses
Brownie------------1.81 draw 3.21 finish no misses

Sweatnbullets------1.19 draw 2.35 finish no misses
Brownie------------1.46 draw 2.63 finish no misses

Our miss ratio for 1400 rds in two days was 3%

Robin Brown

 

[Matthew Temkin]

I find it interesting how little feedback we are getting about our timer results.
My splits were .23 and, after months of taunting to "test it with the timer", I hear nothing.
Had they been 2.2 I can only wonder what the response would have been.
Perhaps it is time for you, 7677 and myself to enter some combat relevant competition----if such an animal actually exists---and win some trophies....
Yes, that thread with Preacherman's response got locked down real fast.

 

[okjoe]

I don't find that unusual.

One way to criticise is to demand that something has to be done in such and such a way.

And if not "they" win.

What has been missing in this, is that "they" could have easily tried "this or that" by themselves as they are usually professed experts or professional shootists.

And as such, one would think that they could/would readily investigate and test any such new fangled method/s in their search for the brass ring.

And also, don't expect many if any thank youse from those in the polite society.

Upstarts and innovators are not well tolerated or appreciated.

Such is as it is in the world of the gun.

Not a complaint, just a fact.

It is nice that you and in particular Brownie, are as tolerant as you are, and remain as pleasant as you do.

Expect that what you now have done will be nit picked some, and then there will be a long silence in hopes that you will go away.

And then, and sooner rather than later, along will come another thread on how PS is OK for contact shooting, but since god put them sights on the gun, HE expects that you will be a-using-em.

That is just MHO however.

 

[JMusic]

First let me say I have a high degree of respect for Preacherman. From what I have read from many of his statements there is no doubt in my mind that he's been there, done that, got a tee shirt. I'm not sure if his comment Brownie is refering to was sincere or just meant to "further" conversation.
From what I have experienced point shooting has its place. I believe though who's the fastest or who is the better shot comes down to the amount of lead thrown down range and experience. By experience I mean drawing your piece under duress. Your mind set? Bad intentions. How many debating this point has actually depended on the shooting technique they are so passionate about. Without that little extra adrenalin rush do you know for sure that your technique is better. If you have had this unfortunate circumstance, did you use or not use your sights, and how did you fair?
Jim

 

[brownie0486]

JMusic:

Preacherman certainly could have used an emiticon or some other way of letting the full audience here know he was being facitious, if in fact he was. I didn't take it that way, obviously, and if I didn't others didn't.

Neophytes and newbies to shooting or the forums, without the knowledge of the sometimes heated debates [ to say the least ] to shooting would certainly read something like that and perhaps make conclusions prematurely about the various methodologies of threat focused shooting.

I don't think I'm predisposed to letting that happen, in fact I know I'm not predisposed to it after years of hearing negative subjective opinions based on a real lack of knowledge and skills through formal training with that subject.

"I believe though who's the fastest or who is the better shot comes down to the amount of lead thrown down range and experience."

Couldn't agree more with that statement for the most part. One can not get away from the fact that a proper grip and trigger control [ which are necessary to shoot well ] are ingrained through rds down range, the more the better.

"How many debating this point has actually depended on the shooting technique they are so passionate about. Without that little extra adrenalin rush do you know for sure that your technique is better."

I think we can look to men like Jordan, Bryce, Fairbairn, and others who have used below eye level shooting of some form over decades of successful gunfights to determine quite nicely that under stress, the techniques are valid.

Barring those well documented gentlemen and all the fine Shanghai officers who had major success rates in similiar or the same methodologies [ never mine the troops who used these methods ], I don't think there should be a question of the effectiveness.

Perhaps if Jordan were alive, and Bryce as well, people could have argued their point with these two who were on the streets and documenting successes.

If we have to go back and look at police in this country and their success rate with sighted fire training on the streets over decades, it is sadly dismal under the duress of actual street shootings.

That is not an indication to me that sighted fire should be dropped from their training because there are more issues there than just results to look at. If I wanted to be closed minded, I could make statements all day about the hit ratios on the streets in that one arena alone to make some false case for NOT using the sights.

People don't see me doing that as it is a disservice to others to even suggest it. I think that same courtesy can be extended, in fact I think it deserves to be extended, to those people who are exploring and re-exploring threat focused methods that have been used for over 70 years.

It isn't like these methods don't have a track record, and in fact, they have a much higher documented success rate than sighted fire. Not in numbers but in precentages.

If Preacherman has the shirt, that good. If he was being facitious, that good too. If he was speaking from some preconceived prejudice through a lack of real knowledge about what is being discussed, my opinion is he should have kicked back and listened, he may have learned something.

One needs to have an open mind to listen and explore. As a MOD, he should be more careful about his audience and position and who may take his blanket statements as fact because of that position.

I've got the shirt as well.

Robin Brown

 

[Matthew Temkin]

JMusic:

Preacherman certainly could have used an emiticon or some other way of letting the full audience here know he was being facitious, if in fact he was. I didn't take it that way, obviously, and if I didn't others didn't.

Neophytes and newbies to shooting or the forums, without the knowledge of the sometimes heated debates [ to say the least ] to shooting would certainly read something like that and perhaps make conclusions prematurely about the various methodologies of threat focused shooting.

I don't think I'm predisposed to letting that happen, in fact I know I'm not predisposed to it after years of hearing negative subjective opinions based on a real lack of knowledge and skills through formal training with that subject.

"I believe though who's the fastest or who is the better shot comes down to the amount of lead thrown down range and experience."

Couldn't agree more with that statement for the most part. One can not get away from the fact that a proper grip and trigger control [ which are necessary to shoot well ] are ingrained through rds down range, the more the better.

"How many debating this point has actually depended on the shooting technique they are so passionate about. Without that little extra adrenalin rush do you know for sure that your technique is better."

I think we can look to men like Jordan, Bryce, Fairbairn, and others who have used below eye level shooting of some form over decades of successful gunfights to determine quite nicely that under stress, the techniques are valid.

Barring those well documented gentlemen and all the fine Shanghai officers who had major success rates in similiar or the same methodologies [ never mine the troops who used these methods ], I don't think there should be a question of the effectiveness.

Perhaps if Jordan were alive, and Bryce as well, people could have argued their point with these two who were on the streets and documenting successes.

If we have to go back and look at police in this country and their success rate with sighted fire training on the streets over decades, it is sadly dismal under the duress of actual street shootings.

That is not an indication to me that sighted fire should be dropped from their training because there are more issues there than just results to look at. If I wanted to be closed minded, I could make statements all day about the hit ratios on the streets in that one arena alone to make some false case for NOT using the sights.

People don't see me doing that as it is a disservice to others to even suggest it. I think that same courtesy can be extended, in fact I think it deserves to be extended, to those people who are exploring and re-exploring threat focused methods that have been used for over 70 years.

It isn't like these methods don't have a track record, and in fact, they have a much higher documented success rate than sighted fire. Not in numbers but in precentages.

If Preacherman has the shirt, that good. If he was being facitious, that good too. If he was speaking from some preconceived prejudice through a lack of real knowledge about what is being discussed, my opinion is he should have kicked back and listened, he may have learned something.

One needs to have an open mind to listen and explore. As a MOD, he should be more careful about his audience and position and who may take his blanket statements as fact because of that position.

I've got the shirt as well.

Robin Brown

7677 has the tee shirt as well.
Mine was enroute several times, but the bad guys compliance forced me to cancel my order.
FWIW the sights were always the furthest thing from my mind.
Which is why I find it funny that so many want us to "prove" systems that have passed the test of time (decades, in fact) with tools, drills and venues that have been derived from the sporting field.

 

[JMusic]

Brownie I have a high degree of respect for your insight too. As you know, we agree on quite a bit of this topic. You are correct as mods, their statements carry more weight even if made without conviction. My comment was aimed (pardon the pun) toward many of the members taking pot shots at this topic. I have a unique perspective on life. Learn the easy way or the hard way no hair off my a**! I've made a few posts that quit frankly yeilded little to no intrest. I believe many people think they already have it figured out and need no more proof than what they get from their next magazine. I posted a comment the other day about shooting at night utilizing muzzle flash. Not many participated and those who did immediately dismissed the idea. Now one guy emailed me offline explaining his position very clearly but stated basicly what I said above, what alot of these members don't know ain't worth knowing. He also said he would not write a lengthy email again explaining his point. A combat military vet and a LE with 31 years of experience. What a waste.

You mentioned Bill Jordan and others like Frank Hammer. Well they would be called antiques today just as some of us have been labeled. History has a way of repeating itself hope everyone remains save until they understand that. One last thing, many want to know how fast you can shoot. What does this prove? As a tactical form isn't near death experiences and survival more important. Wouldn't you want to know how you reacted to that situation and what technique used? Problem here is no current LE or retired LE will discuss this beyond a certain point for judicial reasons. The Military is just the same with the standards they are currently being held at. I will say this. If you or your group gets into the Knoxville TN. area give me a shout I'm interested in the concept and would like to see more.
Jim

 

[brownie0486]

Jim,

Good points, all of them. I understand we are on the same page as well here.

I am hoping to have several venues across the country this year, and Tenn would be a venue I'd be interested in, especially in the summer [ out here the summer is 105-115 degrees ].

Stay sharp sir.

Robin Brown

 

[Grump]

"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?

Well, everything you've cited from FAS appears to advocate defaulting to a one-handed crush point grip in a crouch first. I don't recall FAS saying go to two hands as the distance increases and/or the time available to make the shot increases (this is my summation of what appears to be the "Modern Technique" of Point Shooting [MTPS?]).

Looks like Temkin, at least, teaches default to two-handed first, use one-handed only in the extreme instances. Correct me if I'm wrong here.

 

[Grump]

"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.

How many times do I have to tell you that my point is "what level of accuracy is 'good enough'????:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

You want to poo-poo the idea of trying some training/testing protocols to see which variations of PS produce either the greatest accuracy at speed, and/or the greatest speed at [xyz level of] accuracy by citing hundreds of successful shootings where the LEO was only enough faster and/or more accurate than the BG to win. If two techniques were equally successful against the same type of shooter, we have NOT quantified whether one or the other is more likely to be successful against a better BG.

I just think that a middle level threshhold of "accurate enough" would be a 6-inch circle rather than 8 inches. If testing among stratified samples of shooters of various skill levels shows that PS technique "A" gives 8-inch hits at 5 yards at the same speeds that PS technique "B" gives 6-inch or 4-inch groups at the same distance, I would be interested.

If you're not, then you're a big boy, you can take your chances with that 1954 Plymouth that "gets the job done" just fine, and you have nothing to contribute towards answering my questions. Drink that half-bottle of whiskey when you get snakebit.

 

[brownie0486]

"Well, everything you've cited from FAS appears to advocate defaulting to a one-handed crush point grip in a crouch first.

Thats correct.

I don't recall FAS saying go to two hands as the distance increases and/or the time available to make the shot increases (this is my summation of what appears to be the "Modern Technique" of Point Shooting [MTPS?])."

There is no modern technique pointshooting. Modern technique focuses on the front sight. Lets not try to come up with your own terms and confuse people more than they already may be [ like yourself apparently ].

Looks like Temkin, at least, teaches default to two-handed first, use one-handed only in the extreme instances. Correct me if I'm wrong here.

You stand corrected.

Matt [ and FAS ] defaults to one handed, not two. How to hell did you deduce that thought from ANY posts.

Seems you need to take some training and stop trying to understand or learn something from the internet.

Robin Brown

 

[brownie0486]

"How many times do I have to tell you that my point is "what level of accuracy is 'good enough'????"

And how many times do I have to explain that 8 inches IS acceptable, not just on the street but in IDPA which was developed to test ones ability? They use an 8inch circle as their best hits as well.

You seem to believe that I'm suggesting the best possible accuracy is not the goal, which it is. Whats acceptable and what we strive for are not the same animal. Try not to mix them up if you would.

If you go back and reread one of my posts, you'll also see that I stated though all my shots will remain inside that 8 inch circle, and the majority will remain inside 5-6 inches COM, and some will be inside inside 3 iches COM. Your persistance at assuming because 8 inches is an axcceptable level of accuracy, that all my shots are on the periphery of that diameter is amusing at best.

"If two techniques were equally successful against the same type of shooter, we have NOT quantified whether one or the other is more likely to be successful against a better BG."

Nor is it necessary. In the above statement, both were successful. That IS the goal is it not? To be successful on the street? You can FAS, QK, QF, or sights, no matter which one you use, if they lead to a successful resolution, the outcome remains the same.

"I just think that a middle level threshhold of "accurate enough" would be a 6-inch circle rather than 8 inches."

Thats an opinion you are entitled to. No less so than my opinion or that of a national organization whose main thrust is realistic street work in it's using an 8 inch circle COM.

"If testing among stratified samples of shooters of various skill levels shows that PS technique "A" gives 8-inch hits at 5 yards at the same speeds that PS technique "B" gives 6-inch or 4-inch groups at the same distance, I would be interested."

That would be difficult at best for a few reasons. Not the least of which is the fact that hardly anyone understands or can shoot FAS correctly [ not having the training ], and even less so with QK.

The next reason, would of course be the individuals personal skill levels to begin with, and then their knowledge and experience of the various threat focused methodologies. Finding a few skilled equally in these systems is near impossible at this time, but we are endeavoring to change that curretnly.

"you have nothing to contribute towards answering my questions. Drink that half-bottle of whiskey when you get snakebit."

There have been contributions, you just seem unwilling to accept them based on your own persepctives. Thats not my problem, thats yours.

In case you didn't see the previous post, I put it here for yoyu again. Look closely at the comparisons in time and misses between FAS and QK from the hip between SNB and myself.

Can you deduce anything from the data? I suggest if you can't, than no answer will be acceptable to you.

You stated ""You want to poo-poo the idea of trying some training/testing protocols to see which variations of PS produce either the greatest accuracy at speed, and/or the greatest speed at [xyz level of] accuracy"

We did just that this last weekend. Now, you were saying? :banghead:

We used TQ15 Federal Law Enforcement Training Center targets with scoring rings. The inside ring measures 10" long verically x 9.5 inches wide. The second scoring ring measures 16" long verically by 14 inches wide.

Where "no misses" is reported, all shots were withing the larger scoring ring. Unless otherwise stated, we fired 6 shots per drill from the timers buzzer.

Sweatnbullets used my first gen g-17 glock 9mm
I used my "sightless" government 45acp -- NO sights on the gun all weekend

Elbow Up/Elbow Down one handed [ EU/ED or hipshooting ] at 10 feet 6shots

Sweatnbullets using FAS---two runs: .90 draw 2.08 finish no misses
1.03 draw 2.21 finish no misses

Brownie using QK hip---two runs: .94 draw 2.03 finish no misses
1.07 draw 2.15 finish no misses

Hip shooting one handed at 10 feet, transitions one round each on two targets 6 feet apart:

Sweatnbullets using FAS----one run: .98 draw 1.71 finish no misses

Brownie using QK-----one run: .96 draw 1.70 finish no misses

Quick Kill two handed at 10 feet, transitions one round each on two targets 6 feet apart:

Sweatnbullets------1.02 draw 1.84 finish no misses splits .27/.32/.23
Brownie------------1.15 draw 1.93 finsih no misses splits .18/.39/.21

Quick Kill two handed at 21 feet for 6 shots:

Sweatnbullets------1.19 draw 2.35 finish no misses
Brownie------------1.81 draw 3.21 finish no misses

Sweatnbullets------1.19 draw 2.35 finish no misses
Brownie------------1.46 draw 2.63 finish no misses

Our miss ratio for 1400 rds in two days was 3%

Oh, take a look at the targets we used and who trains on them:

"We used TQ15 Federal Law Enforcement Training Center targets with scoring rings. The inside ring measures 10" long verically x 9.5 inches wide. The second scoring ring measures 16" long verically by 14 inches wide.

Seems the feds use a LARGER hit area to train their people. My 8 inch criteria is much smaller than theirs and I'm not using sights, they are. Still have a problem with 8 inches being acceptable? Talk to the feds and have them redesign and requalify THEIR standards, before you start arguing with me about mine.

That might be a start wouldn't you think. I'm sure the federal gov. will take your thoughts about as seriously as I'm beginning to where acceptable accuracy is concerned.

Robin Brown

 

[Grump]

I've been posting while reading through the thread. Apologies for mis-stating the Temkin default on the grip--I must have fuzzed his statements with those from other posters.

Seems like when the timer came out, the "good enough" standard went down to something quite larger than the 8-inch circle of accuracy I've tried to denounce. Brownie gets credit, though, for telling us what target and its dimensions. Since I first saw it, I considered the TQ-15 to be a marginal target for anything other than beginner training.

The times are impressive and my hat is off to you.

Here's the list of hits on Platt in Miami. He is the one who did all the damage, so for the sake of this post, my comments are limited to him. My point is what level of accuracy is "practical", not the merits of sighted vs. unsighted fire.

Platt’s 1st gunshot wound (right upper arm/chest wound B) - Dove
Platt’s 2nd gunshot wound (right thigh wound L) - Dove?
Platt’s 3rd gunshot wound (left foot wound I) - Dove?
Platt’s 4th gunshot wound (back wound K) - Orrantia?

Shot 1 is the famous "ammo failure" of the Winchester 115-gr Silvertip. Stopped just short of the heart after passing through his arm, could have killed him but not quickly enough. No problem with its accuracy. I'd guess it as being more of a 4-5 inch accurate shot than 8 inches.

Shots 2 & 3 are outside the torso and obviously not "good enough".

Shot 4 is likely on the outside edge of an 8 or 9-inch circle. I don't know how thick Platt was--anyone who knows can chime in. But I do know that more than 1 violent felon has weighed less than 150 lbs and been skinny enough to fit sideways inside a B-27 8-ring, and barely fill the TQ-15 "hit" area used in Brownie's testing.

Platt’s 5th wound (right forearm wound D) - Risner?/Orrantia?
Platt’s 6th wound (right upper arm/chest wound C) - Risner
Platt’s 7th, 8th, 9th and 10th wounds (right foot wounds E, F; and left foot wounds G and H) - Mireles

Only shot 6 is illustrative here. The foot wounds were directed at the only available target and *may* have affected the outcome.

Dr. Anderson believes that shortly thereafter, Platt incurred his sixth wound (Platt right upper arm/chest wound C), which was inflicted by Risner. The bullet entered the back of Platt’s right upper arm (mid arm), passed through the triceps muscle and exited below the armpit. It then entered the muscles in the side of his chest and came to a rest in the soft tissues of the right side back, below the shoulder blade. The bullet did not penetrate the rib cage and the resultant wound was not serious.

So, after passing through triceps and not being deflected by any bone, this shot missed the ribcase altogether. Sounds like another sideways target and 8-inch accuracy was not good enough.

Grogan and Dove were both killed after--repeat, AFTER--Platt received the marginal back wound early in the fight, and after this second sideways shot.

Me, I'm interested in something better than TQ-15 accuracy and better than 8-inch accuracy.

And no, I've not taken it up with IDPA. Note that IPSC uses a noticeably narrower inside scoring ring.

I'd prefer to have the various PS methodologies tested against IPSC targets.

And 1400 rounds?? I thought one of the big advantages here was that "good enough" could be taught with fewer rounds and less time than the sighted shooting techniques. Maybe that was not you, Brownie, but I'm pretty sure it's in this monster thread.

 

[Leadbutt]

Here we go again

 

[brownie0486]

"Seems like when the timer came out, the "good enough" standard went down to something quite larger than the 8-inch circle of accuracy I've tried to denounce"

Those are the targets we used as I don't usually shoot paper unless it's 8 inch pie plates, no more or less.

"Since I first saw it, I considered the TQ-15 to be a marginal target for anything other than beginner training."

Novice through experts qual on the same targets within the agencies. That may not meet with your approval and thats fine. It meets with the feds, and is actually easier to score well on than on an IDPA target or my 8 inch paper plates.

"My point is what level of accuracy is "practical","

Everyone will have their own idea on this. IDPA thinks 8 inches is acceptable, feds think a little bigger is acceptable, I think 8 inches is acceptable and did so long before IDPA even existed [ by the way, IDPA didn't consult with me prior to designing their targets ], IPSC accepts B and C zones which are about the same size and larger [ the goal is A hits, but that is not the same as acceptable ].

Again, there is a lot of difference between whats acceptable what is strived for.

"I'd prefer to have the various PS methodologies tested against IPSC targets."

First time in an IPSC match back in 92 or so, I shot mid B class with no sights. Thats not possible with all C or B scoring hits. Thats some A,B,C, hits throughout the match.

"And 1400 rounds?? I thought one of the big advantages here was that "good enough" could be taught with fewer rounds and less time than the sighted shooting techniques. Maybe that was not you, Brownie, but I'm pretty sure it's in this monster thread."

Thats absolutely true. I'm sure I've mentioned it many times as well as others. 1400 rds was not thrown downrange to learn to be good enough between SNB and myself. We already know FAS and QK.

We just like to shoot and explore, which is what we were doing that weekend, and the more shots downrange [ practice ] the better right?

Oh ya, don't forget, the feds were trained in SIGHTED fire and their performance is on record as you have stated.

Robin Brown

 

[7677]

Oh ya, don't forget, the feds were trained in SIGHTED fire and their performance is on record as you have stated.

Robin Brown

Don't paint all of feds into that box...some of us are trained to use both.

 

[7677]

The difference with the Miami shootout is the enemy moved, used cover and were armed with long guns. These are some of the problems that agents had to face, two agents lost primary handguns (only one had a backup), Agents were not wearing body armor, and body armor and shotguns (limited number) where in the back seat of G-rides. Agents took down Platt before backup could arrive. Platt's car was forced off the road into a parking area. This area was in the shade and combined with the inner circle of vehicles and agents engaging platt made it difficult for covering agents to identify friendlies from foe and/or provide covering fire. Agents had to shoot through barricades such as windshields at a moving target inside that was shooting back. Moving targets are harder to hit then stationary ones. Agents ran out of ammunition and/or were put out of the fight due to injuries to extremities. Single hits were not as effective as seen on tv. One good hit by a handgun was not good enough to take down either determined killer in this case. The silver tip did what it was designed to do and I honestly doubt it had hit the heart it would have saved any agents lives as he was already bleeding heavily. Platt’s blood was all over the crime scene. This type of shoot out is a big difference then going to the squared range and shooting at profile targets and/or whining about the size of the scoring rings. Saying that any one solution would have solved this problem is asinine. This is the real world and what really happens in the real world to understand you have to simply experience it once. :banghead:

 

[brownie0486]

7677,
You know better than most I don't paint em into a corner, and if that was the impression here, I apologize for that inference.

There are many that know both today within the agencies, but back then I think it may have been different, and grump was talking about then, not now.

Stay safe

Robin Brown

 

[7677]

7677,
You know better than most I don't paint em into a corner, and if that was the impression here, I apologize for that inference.

There are many that know both today within the agencies, but back then I think it may have been different, and grump was talking about then, not now.

Stay safe

Robin Brown

No apologies required, but I don't know about that either as my father is a retired fed with over 30 years in service and was a taught to use both.

 

[brownie0486]

Got it,

Didn't think they went back that far with alternative fire methods. Thats good to know.

Would you give us your opinion on whether the agents would have been trying to use their sights at the distances encountered in that shootout?

My own idea is that they would have been, but knowing you have studied that shootout extensively, your insight on this would be enlightening.

Thanks

Robin Brown

 

[7677]

I honestly do not understand the uproar over point shooting.

Like Lead Butt has pointed out it is just a tool in the toolbox. Point shooting is only one part of an over all complete package with includes shooting with one and two hands and the use of sights as well as the necessary tactics and movement that go along with the techniques.

The reason I advocate point shooting on the forums is it is what is missing in most shooting programs. One has to be able to deal with close quarters targets and targets at distance and the shooter needs to know how much visual input is necessary to make each shot. Rather or not they are on the offensive or defensive end of a gunfight.

This is the reason I came up with the sight continuum to explain when to use which technique. Time (urgency of making the shot) combined with distance wil determine how much visual input is necessary to make the shot. Visual input includes indexing, FSA & Quick Fire, Quick kill and sights. Point shooting is designed for dynamic close quarters combat.

The ½ hip requires the minimum amount of visual input and weapon movement to get the gun and rounds on target and is effective out to 5 yards with practice and either ¾ or Applegate’s point shoulder is good out to the 7 to 10 yard mark. The two handed version of point shooting is Quick Fire and Quick Kill. Quick Kill requires more visual input then Quick-Fire but extends the range out to 15 yards. One handed techniques flow into the next technique and there is no default position because the mind will chose the right technique based on the circumstances surrounding the incident.

The downside to point shooting is the maximum effective range. For point shooting it is approximately 7 to 10 yards for most people however its upside is it works well with dynamic movement that should be used with close quarters gun fights.

One can start at ½ to engage a close target then transition from ½ hip to ¾ hip or two handed or to sighted fire to engage a target at a greater distance or with less exposed area. There should be no boxes when it come to shooting one technique should flow to next. The zipper is the perfect example of this.

 

[7677]

Got it,

Didn't think they went back that far with alternative fire methods. Thats good to know.

Would you give us your opinion on whether the agents would have been trying to use their sights at the distances encountered in that shootout?

My own idea is that they would have been, but knowing you have studied that shootout extensively, your insight on this would be enlightening.

Thanks

Robin Brown

I have looked at this incident from many angles including comparing it to personal observations. Given the circumstances surrounding the incident... men went into battle and gave all they had and some came back and some didn't. They did what they had to do to survive some adapted and overcame the odds and others didn't.

A first contact like Miami is hard to train for because Mr Murphy was all over that incident as everything that could have gone wrong for the FBI...did. I'm not sure if any type of square range or any other training could prepare an agent for that type of take down. The lack of plan and necessary equipment is what I honestly believe caused things to go the way they did.

What is the standard SOP for a complete cluster F like Miami? There is none...it was a case of pure survival.

 

[Matthew Temkin]

Great posts gents.
This thread has nearly 3500 hits and some very civil discourse, so it appears that many now agree that some type of point shooting should be included in the shooter's toolbox.

 

[JMusic]

7677 You stated that the mind will chose the method, maybe I can give an example. Though all my formal training was with sights as I have explained in some of my other posts I have practiced Quick Kill for about 35 years. All my practiced point shooting is done with two hands including pistols, I had one course Bullseye Shooting that taught one hand. Here's the story.

While on a raid one night we had served a search warrant on a man who was selling JR High kids his scripts. There was a bed in the living room of the home and the man was setting on the side.( Why do these people always seem to sleep in their living room?!) Sorry back on topic. I shoot left handed so the man was sitting to my right on the bed and I was standing near him about 4 ft away. He was shaking like a leaf, and we were still securing the home still trying to ascertain who was who. The man was asked by a uniformed Deputy to put his hands infront of him and stand so he could be searched. He reached for his shirt pocket with his right hand and then immediatly plunged his left hand across his body grabbing something under the matress. I was standing beside him we were both facing forward. I caught the shirt moving in my peripheral. As he started with his left I was drawing. The shot that had to be made was for me to draw and move the revolver across my body pushing toward his head. I had locked my left bicept against my left breast muscle and the trigger was half way through the stroke when I notice he had a pack of cigarettes. Marlboro's! He almost died. Now I had not ever practiced that move nor had I been taught to shoot in a combat mode one handed it just happened. I had no intention of sighting I was locked into a pointing position and was microseconds from shooting. The man was so startled from that movement he fell flat on the floor. Matthew I think this is what you refer to as "in route". 7677 I think this is a good example of blended techniques if you will.
Jim

 

[Ankeny]

brownie:

the goal is A hits, but that is not the same as acceptable

Not that it matters much in light of the rest of the discussions, but the accuracy requirements in IPSC are a whole lot less than those found in a typical IDPA match. If an IPSC shooter gathers up 90 percent of the available points that's none too shabby. Hotshot IPSC gunslingers are shooting for 95% of the points. Do the math; 90 per cent is averaging half C hits and half A zone hits. The only hit that is never acceptable is a D.