Zak Smith
Member
Likewise, "shooter competence" may be sufficient that the shortcomings of a certain technique are not exposed in a particular set of circumstances
-z
"Pointing vs. Aiming" a Shotgun - Difference in Training?
- Thread starter marklbucla
- Start date
- Status
-z
Try it with irons. Pointing technique pays off with irons (and a Mini-14 works better than an AR IMO due to a more pointable stock design). With .223/5.56 you don't have lead issues at close ranges. Velocity is high enough to make hits instantaneous with the trigger pull, for all intents and purposes.
sm
member
I have done so with slugs , with a backstop.
Duck hunting *whups*
My waxed cotton jacket had my shells, and I just loaded up with out looking.
I shot two Green heads, crossing, and the loads were a slug, and nine pellet 00 buck.
"Bang" <shuck> "Bang" Just two fast shots, and neither duck had a head.
Recoil felt different, then I looked at the hulls in the water and "Whups!".
Just a plain barrel pump gun with a bead on the front.
Bird, Belly ,Beak,Bang
But you were talking about problems with knowing where the gun is pointed... Either you do or you don't. If a competent shooter knows where his gun is pointed, and pointing allows faster target acquisition and better use of the peripheral vision, then I fail to see how the solution to the problem is aiming instead of learning how to shoot.
3-Gun doesn't involve real assailants, does it? Loss of peripheral vision and fast acquisition of moving targets isn't a real handicap as it would be in a situation that involved multiple attackers.
My wild guess is that many 3-gunners are less serious about practicing their shotgun shooting technique vs. putting bullets in precise spots. I have no real evidence for this, other than what was said above re. pointing vs. aiming. If someone is a good shotgunner, he'll know exactly which he's doing and how to do it. I.e. if you know what you're doing, you might miss, but you'll generally know why.
The little shotgun/rifle/pistol competition I did the other day used 5-stand as the shotgun portion, though I did use an AR for the rifle part. Closest thing to 3-gun that I've tried is a little CAS demo shoot. I found that pointing works as well for hitting plates as it does for hitting clays and birds.
What I haven't had to do is use a shotgun to defend the homestead. I'll get back to you if I ever do. But I'm not really worried that an intruder will be harder to hit than a fast-flying quail popping out with no warning on rough ground.
Zak Smith
Member
ArmedBear,
I was trying to get across that perhaps the challenge of shooting birds in the field might not be enough "discombobulation" to expose the drawback. Also, I am not arguing for sighted aiming on shotgun in all circumstances.
My main thesis is that there is a continuum of aiming methods. I believe "point shooting," whatever the specific method, requires more practice, more muscle memory, and requires more things "be right" than using sights.
Sighted aiming is slower for targets with fast angular velocity, and might be "too slow" to even hit a cross-flying clay. For stationary or slow moving targets, it is probably slower. This is not unique to the shotgun-- shooting a pistol with a hard front sight focus is not the fastest way to do it, and skilled shooters use a variety of aiming techniques to gain speed. These techniques require a much higher level of coordination and "go wrong" much easier.
I was trying to get across that perhaps the challenge of shooting birds in the field might not be enough "discombobulation" to expose the drawback. Also, I am not arguing for sighted aiming on shotgun in all circumstances.
My main thesis is that there is a continuum of aiming methods. I believe "point shooting," whatever the specific method, requires more practice, more muscle memory, and requires more things "be right" than using sights.
Sighted aiming is slower for targets with fast angular velocity, and might be "too slow" to even hit a cross-flying clay. For stationary or slow moving targets, it is probably slower. This is not unique to the shotgun-- shooting a pistol with a hard front sight focus is not the fastest way to do it, and skilled shooters use a variety of aiming techniques to gain speed. These techniques require a much higher level of coordination and "go wrong" much easier.
Last edited:
sm
member
Zak,
I understand what your thesis.
We are on the same page, even if it does not seem so.
I don't know so I will ask, are you a rifle shooter? Or perhaps did you learn rifles then shotguns?
You know where I am going. Your thesis is correct in regard to what "sighting" discipline one learns and instills IMO/IME.
A rifle shooter learning to shoot shotguns often has a difficult time. IMO/IME rifle shooters won't move them hips (body) and "slapping" a trigger will have have them look at you !
"Triggers are squeezed you idiot, what do you mean "slap" ? *grin*
Rifle shooters aiming have ingrained/ instilled muscle memory , breathing, squeezing a trigger and the like.
The brain remembers, and the human computer is remarkable. Both Rifle and Shotgun shooters will develop a flinch if fatigue, and recoil tells the brain "when he/.she does that, I get hurt".
My take is the human computer , if you will is better able to take a shotgun "pointer" and get them to re-program the human computer in shooting a rifle with sights, than getting a rifle shooter that uses sights to re-program using a shotgun pointed.
I think the human computer is just wired this way. Furthermore I think ladies are better able to pick up and transition from shotgun to rifle better than guys.
Shooting period, ladies and their computers are such, they are not bogged down with testosterone running in the background and using up hard drive space or something. *smile*
Guys are Windows and Gals are Apple or Linux ....*runs ducking*
Zak, what do see, think and what are your experiences?
Steve
Zak Smith
Member
I grew up shooting both rifles and shotguns, the latter comprising both informal clay shooting for practice and "upland" bird hunting.
Then you don't hunt where I do.
I'll grant that popping a bobwhite in a field after your dog points it and you walk up to it and have to practically kick it to get it to fly is pretty easy.
But that ain't what I'm talking about. Not in the least.
Here's a picture worth a thousand words:
The quail like to hang out in the rocks at the top of the hill. You climb around, dodging the Jumping Cholla and trying not to smash your gun against the rocks, looking for them. They flush out on their own (I haven't had a dog and few people use dogs there due to the nasty cactus and general risk of injury to the dog). When they flush out without warning, you have about one second to shoulder, point and fire, before they drop back behind the next boulder. You're generally standing precariously, and pretty well discombobulated. I frankly can't imagine anyplace in my house that would have me in a body position as compromised as I find myself in, when shooting from one of those rocks.
That's what I'm talking about, not some leisurely farm-raised pheasant "hunt".
And pointing isn't just something that works. It's the ONLY thing that works.
The quail like to hang out in the rocks at the top of the hill. You climb around, dodging the Jumping Cholla and trying not to smash your gun against the rocks, looking for them. They flush out on their own (I haven't had a dog and few people use dogs there due to the nasty cactus and general risk of injury to the dog). When they flush out without warning, you have about one second to shoulder, point and fire, before they drop back behind the next boulder. You're generally standing precariously, and pretty well discombobulated. I frankly can't imagine anyplace in my house that would have me in a body position as compromised as I find myself in, when shooting from one of those rocks.
That's what I'm talking about, not some leisurely farm-raised pheasant "hunt".
And pointing isn't just something that works. It's the ONLY thing that works.
Yes. But they're also what wins 3-gun competitions, steel plate matches, etc. And I like having the option of using them if I'm being approached by an attacker. A nice slow "aim, squeeze" can get you killed, just like sloppy, unpracticed "pointing" can.
If you're saying that, if you can't use fast pointing technique because you don't have the skills and practice to do so, you're better off aiming, I agree with you.
It's far better to use slow, tunnel-vision technique and hit one target, than to try and do something you can't do, and hit nothing.
But as you said, "skilled shooters use a variety of aiming techniques to gain speed." Pointing is one of them, and I think it's good when people actually understand what it means, so they can talk about it intelligently -- which was my point above, whether or not I made it well.
Zak Smith
Member
It is a logical fallacy to attempt to refute the statement that [paraphrased] point shooting requires more physical things to "be right" than sighted shooting by saying, "it would mean that mountain quail hunters in steep, rocky terrain, grouse hunters in the woods, and pheasant hunters stumbling in hardpack furrowed fields, all go home empty handed." Specifically, (1) not going home "empty handed" does not imply anything about the success rate; (2) success may be the result of enough things being "right" vs. being wrong; (3) the level of "discombobulation" may not be high enough to expose that downside of the general technique.
I already said I wasn't arguing for using sighted aiming for shotguns in all circumstances, and I also said, "there are some aiming methods that are uniquely applicable to skeet shooting (whose targets have much higher angular velocity relative to the shooter than trap or what we see in 3gun)". I believe that for self defense, using sighted aiming is the most reliable under all circumstances. A theme in defensive training is to focus on doing actions correctly, not doing them fast. Using sighted aiming in a defensive situation is the most reliable way to make hits and it requires less skill to do so than point shooting or other non-sighted aiming methods. Only skeet and certain hunting problems will present angular velocities which are not possible to engage using sighted aiming.
I already said I wasn't arguing for using sighted aiming for shotguns in all circumstances, and I also said, "there are some aiming methods that are uniquely applicable to skeet shooting (whose targets have much higher angular velocity relative to the shooter than trap or what we see in 3gun)". I believe that for self defense, using sighted aiming is the most reliable under all circumstances. A theme in defensive training is to focus on doing actions correctly, not doing them fast. Using sighted aiming in a defensive situation is the most reliable way to make hits and it requires less skill to do so than point shooting or other non-sighted aiming methods. Only skeet and certain hunting problems will present angular velocities which are not possible to engage using sighted aiming.
Point shooting techniques do break down with lack of constant practice. You can witness this at most practical shooting matches and/or training classes. If you want to say that people who cannot point shoot are incompetent because they don't do it often enough to be good, I'd agree but that's almost a tautology.
Practical shooters who have learned to shoot long-guns fast shoot with both eyes open and maintain situational awareness and peripheral vision in order to maintain speed of target engagement.
Zak Smith
Member
Hey, these days I'm all about posting strings of facts / observations and letting the reader conclude what they want. A lot of these topics are relatively complex when you dig deep enough. I think the more facts/observations that are out there, the better a reader can figure out what applies to him, and what choices he should have with regard to his goals and values.
In context, that's almost a tautology, also. You're saying that you can do that without practice? That's essentially the same technique as "point shooting". If you maintain situational awareness, you're not focused on the sights. If you're not focused on the sights, and you're shooting at multiple targets as fast as you can, you are probably point-shooting, no matter what you want to call it. Or, you're missing the targets. One of the other.
And I demonstrated that on Sunday, by missing targets. As it was, I won the overall match anyway, but I hadn't practiced with a semiauto pistol in a while, and I sucked at plate shooting compared to the last time I did it. Still, the only way I can knock down targets faster next time is to practice point shooting with the pistol some more.
Also, "incompetent" means "lacking in the ability to do something", the antonym of "competent". I do not use it as a generic insult; one who uses the word in that way is incompetent in precise English usage.
It is not a logical fallacy to point out that, while situations are not always as we would wish them to be, a practiced shooter can still use a faster technique to acquire targets, quite successfully, in adverse conditions. This would mean to me that one should not discount the use of said faster technique because one can assume a sub-optimal scenario for shooting. These scenarios are encountered frequently, and shooter ability overcomes the problems. How is that a logical fallacy?
Nope, but what is pretty safe to say is that misses on birds or clays by skilled shooters are pretty close to hits. In an HD situation, with a much larger, closer target, the same shots ARE hits. If you can narrowly miss live pigeons, you can hit an attacker at close range with the same shot. And if one shoots a few rounds and gets a few birds, that says something about success rate.
Yes, but you were the one who suggested, above, that shooter competence can lead to one not seeing the shortcomings of a technique -- which translates to "a really competent shooter can hit the target under almost any circumstances." That suggests that shooter ability is a major factor.
That may be true. But that's also an "unmeasurable" that is disingenuously introduced into a debate because it is inherently irrefutable. This, too, is a logical fallacy.
You wrote "Only skeet and certain hunting problems will present angular velocities which are not possible to engage using sighted aiming."
And I say, "Possible to engage" is not the same as "fast enough to make me feel comfortable with my ability." I have a small home. I'd better be able to point, if I ever plan to use a shotgun before an assailant can simply shove it out of the way. That's not a hunting problem.
But if you go back to my first post, I wasn't trying to say that pointing is the only technique to EVER use. What I was trying to say was that a lot of people who discount pointing altogether don't even understand what it is they're discounting.
sm
member
Agree!
My concern is times have changed; many folks are not being raised with guns being a part of the home.
Societal views about guns, as shared in schools and other venues are not what they are compared to when I was coming up.
In my day, parents parented and folks mentored about guns and everything else.
Folks get bigger, leave home and they want to be part of the firearm community.
Others want to become matriculated as well just...where to get information and learn?
Internet both assists and hinders, as the Internet is confusing and in some respects mirrors society itself.
"Aiming" ,"pointing" and so much more gets lost in bits and bytes and some of the context is all whomper-jawed.
My role, is to keep it simple with folks I do things with. Some I will get more involved, some I will not.
Those I don't for whatever reason, I suggest they go further lessons for whatever they want to learn, investigate and verify.
i.e Will Fennell for clays, Awerbuck for shotgun/carbine/pistol, Givens for CCW and other things, and Rogers for carbine.
Just an example, it might be a "Zak" or "Armed Bear" that is a seasoned shooter and knows how to assist these folks in private, they go see.
These "Zaks and Armed Bears" do that, and I get another person that does not know come here from sic 'em about a shotgun...
There are shotgunners/rifle shooters/handgun shooters - and there are those that own a shotgun, rifle and handgun and get into Tribe Mentality and parrot whatever the current mentality is.
This is what concerns me.
Zak Smith
Member
I was refuting the idea that sighted or "true" aiming as you put it necessarily implies loss of peripheral vision and tunnel vision.
It is possible to have a gun in front of your face, and observe the sight picture and relationship to the target, and be aware of other things going on around you. I didn't mention focus at all, merely a sighted aiming technique.
I agree. However, non-sighted aiming techniques may break down when "the stance or grip or index or body position breaks down, or isn't just right, or maybe you have to shoot on the move, then the physical relationships between your body (kinesthetic awareness), the gun, and the target change, and this affects where the gun is actually "aimed" vs. where you've been trained to believe it is aimed."
It might be hard to measure discombobulation-- I agree there. However, after a shooter completes a stage, or a string in a class, where he did poorly and is asked what's wrong, it's not uncommon to hear, "I need to use my sights more." The context is that he was using some sort of non-sighted "aiming" technique beyond his ability in the time and/or movement and/or stress.
Backing up a little bit in context, I remember when I was kid shooting clays and birds with a double 20ga. The method I was taught at the time was to swing through the bird and shoot as I pass it-- how did I know that? I knew because I was looking at the bird with my gun in my field of vision and I could tell. That is a type of sighted aiming, not unlike breaking a rifle shot when the sight picture has acceptible accuracy.
-z
- Status
