What the gamer sees...focus types.

Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Ankeny

Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2003
Messages
2,131
It seems like their is a perpetual debate about aimed fire vs. point shooting and us IPSC shooters seem to take the brunt of the heat. There exists a myth that IPSC shooters use a front sight, press technique that would be of little if any value on the street. Nothing could be further from the truth. Point shooting, aimed shooting, flash sight picture, etc. can be confusing for the uninitiated.

I don't really know where most of you guys are coming from because we don't speak the same language. This post is not intended to start yet another pissing match, on the contrary, I am simply trying to inform those who care to listen what the IPSC shooter sees. I will do that by quoting out of Brian Enos' book.

" Type One Focus. For the single target at extreme close range where I need an extremely fast hit, there is no directed focus on the sights or the target. There may be some focus on the sights or target, but it doesn't really matter....Type 1: Arm's length hyperdrive. There's no time to confirm anything here, it's total feel." --- Brian Enos.

"Type Two Focus. When I am faced with with multiple targets at extreme close range, and as above, I need extreme speed, I first confirm correct body and gun alignment...then I simply focus on the scoring surface on each target. Type 2, you are looking through the sights to the targets." --- Brian Enos.

Brian goes on to explain types 3, 4, and 5 focus. If you care about those, you can visit his Web site or buy the book.

I hope that helps the newbies who get confused about the point shooting vs. aimed fire debate. The bottom line is simple, at close yardages the point shooters don't use the classical sight picture, news flash...neither do IPSC shooters.

"The whole thing you have to get implanted into your brain is that you do not have to see a front sight "focus" on a shot. And you don't have to stay totally focused on the front sight all the time you are shooting." --- Brian Enos

So why the debate at all? There are several issues. The IPSC crowd believes shooting through body feel is the by product of a well developed index. Point shooters would have us believe there is no index. Some point shooters would have us believe no visual inputs in the form of a sight picture are required clear out to 15 yards. That's nonsense.

I think most of all, the debate rages on because at the higher levels of IPSC competition, the gamers have developed the ability to acquire and process high speed visual inputs at remarkable speeds. In fact, the ability to call each and every shot is what allows them to shoot so quickly.

Take the typical 7 yard Bill Drill. That's 6 rounds in the A zone of an IPSC target from the holster, hands above shoulders. Can a point shooter do a Bill Drill and never see the sights? Of course they can. What do I see? My par time on a Bill Drill with a 1911 out of an Uncle Mike's holster is under two seconds. The first shot breaks as the sights are coming into my peripheral vision, I see the sight lift from the A-zone, then return, shot breaks, lift and return. I call each shot with certainty. The more I can see, the faster and more confidently I can shoot.

Hope this helps.
 
Ankeny,

I own Enos' book and have read it several times. The one thing out of that book that really stuck with me was his Type1-Type 5 focus.

It's a great little system to use while you're waiting your turn to shoot. Just run the course through your head, and attach a type of focus to each group of targets.

In my early shooting days, I would just tell myself to slow down on the hard shots...well, that's what his system does too, but it's a lot fancier.

The different type of focus really opened my eyes as to what I needed to see behind the gun to put the shots where I wanted them. No matter if they were at 2 yards or 25.

esheato....
 
I don't disagree with anything you've said, but Enos is so far beyond the point-shooting vs. aimed-fire debate that it isn't funny.
As for 2 seconds for a Bill drill at 7 yards... I don't find that at all difficult to believe from a Master class shooter, and I seem to recall seeing a familiar name in Front Sight recently where they listed new Master & GM class shooters. Congratulations.
 
There is much more than just types of focus as for as using some form if sight. There is 'shooting out of the notch'. And you can use Cirillos 'silhouette point', that is, using the back of the gun itself as your sight. Also note, in Ayoobs new 'Combat Handgunnery' he points out that he knew and talked to Applegate, and Applegate brought the whole gun up into his cone of vision when doing his version of point shooting.

As for types of focus, do this. Get your gun and a target at 7 yards. Focus on the target while you have the gun up into the exact place where you use your sights. You will notice you DO SEE THE SIGHTS. They are a bit blurry, but they are there. And at close range that is all you need to see of the sights. As Enos says, "See what you need to see". Ok.
 
JackStraw:

What's so hard to believe about a two second Bill Drill? A one second draw with .20 splits will get you there. My draw sucks, but I record a lot of .12-.14 splits. It's a piece of cake.


Tim:

Thanks for the kind words. GM is still a long way off though. After GM there are the really good shooters. ;)
 
First part deleted to maintain the high road, with apologies to all who were offended.
The following still stands...


I am well aware what Ayoob wrote about Applegate in his latest book.
As someone who was very close with Col. Applegate for the last 7 years of his life, let me add two footnotes..

1) When point shooting Applegate taught to focus entirely upon the threat, with no "focus" on your weapon whatsoever.

2) Applegate and Ayoob were not as "chummy" as Ayoob insinuates in his book.
For example, the only reason that they were seated at the same table at functions such as Handgunner of the Year is because their last names both began with an A, and it is customary to seat participants in alphabetical order.
To be blunt, Applegate once told me that it was at these times that he wished his name was Rex Zimmerman.
And I also know the details as to how "Rex" ( as Mas refers to the Col.) came to "personally demonstrate" the technique for Mr. Ayoob.
Ayoob was very wise to wait six years after Applegate's death to publish such misconceptions.
 
Last edited:
Matt:

See there you go, blowing a gasket over something that you openly admit you don't understand. My intent was to put the debate to bed by calmly explaining the similarities and differences in perspective. Guys like Enos teach superior gunhandling skills, along with a deep and profound understanding of what it takes to shoot fast and accurately, period.

Let's go back to his analogy of saving your own life from drowning. You won't sink if you do your dog paddle, but don't have a cow if some one else chooses to swim like an Olympic medalist.

As for Brian's knowledge of shooting, here's what Rob Leatham said about Brian, "He's the only one who I feel has not just put in the superficial effort, but who has put in the true effort to figure any of this out-not just the pieces of it, not even the whole thing, but anything. There's nobody else out there I could say, Okay, listen to him". Maybe someday the greatest shooter on the planet will say that about you.

Quoting Robbie is kid of fun. He also said, "If you want to improve, you are first going to have to recognize that you are deficient--there are some things you don't know. And you've got to get the ego out of the way."
 
Mr Temkin,

I know your not going to agree with what I have to say, however, I shall say it anyway.

Shooting is shooting. The BASICS of it. You have certain fundamentals you need to get across to a shooter. Competition shooters are experts at the fundamentals: Marksmanship Principles and Gun Handling Skills. I cannot see how anyone can argue that point.

Brian Enos, Rob Leathem, et al have a great deal to contribute to the shooting world. Their experiences in the competition world, roll over to teaching the shooting fundamentals, in a "tactical" enviornment. You can't be a "high speed, low drag" operator, without mastering these fundamentals. No good being Mr Swat Ninja, if you can't hit your target or reload your gun.

Now, you talk about Brian Enos. However, there are several other "gamers," Bennie Cooley Jr and Ron Avery, come to mind, who have some pretty darn good credentials in the law enforcement field. Bennie working for DOE, being one of their lead trainers and trains Special Forces Units in the US. Benny happened to give me my copy of Brian Enos' book and made it required reading for one of the classes I took from him. Ron is a prior law enforcement officer and one of the best "gamers."

Now, you asked what Brian Enos' credentials are? What are yours? How much combat have you seen? How many officer involved shootings have you been involved in? What training have you been to?
 
tetleyb:

I took a class from Ron Avery, he's pretty good. Avery passes out a card with the fundamentals of shooting printed on it. Interestingly enough, he uses the same card in his competition class as he does in his law enforcement/self defense class. I suppose we could add Phil Strader to your list of law enforcement personnel who happen to be world class shooters.
 
Bill Jordan was a very good competition shooter who also had extensive LE, military and actual combat experience.
And he was the first to admit that his competition skills/experience had nothing to do with reality.
His exact words, I believe, went something like this......
"What is really being talked about is a game.
Of what may happen in a gunfight, but seldom does."
No, I have never fired a shot in anger,and for one very good reason....
In my armed encounters I was able to obtain compliance without bloodshed.
It is called good tactics, common sense and a little bit of luck thrown in.
Now tell me what type of experience Enos has....and you may as well fill me in as to how many gunfights Coolie, Avery and any others that you wish to bring into this discussion have been engaged in.
Unless they are complete lunatics, you will probably find that it is very, very few----if any!
Since you mention gunfights, Applegate wrote that Fairbairn was involved in about 200.
Yes, TWO HUNDRED personal gunfights.
And, until very recently, the wisdom passed on by Fairbairn, Sykes, Applegate, Grant Taylor and others, has been mocked and smirked at by a bunch of glorified target shooters.
The real question is this...what methods do LEOs, even those with extensive competition experience, reley upon when the game is for keeps? The answer may surprise many here.
 
Last edited:
Edited to maintain the High Road.

Why not make your case on it's own merits instead of trying to call someone elses credentials into question ?
 
Matt:

I regret quoting Brian, he is a good guy and he deserves better treatment than he will get from people who can't relate to his writings. I chose Brian's book because he has the deepest understanding of shooting. I suppose I should have used an example from the defensive shooting community like Avery instead. I apologize to Brian.

At CQB distances. Avery teaches "kinesthetic awareness" and "sight alignment by feel". Enos teaches "total body feel". Leatham was the first IPSC shooter to openly question the old "front sight, press" philosophy when he said he "...focuses on the target". Call that point shooting if you will. At longer distances they all teach that the type of sight picture depends on the difficulty of the shot and how many targets you must transition to at various yardages (type 3 and 4 focus). That's aimed fire. You give these people no credibility, but how is what they teach so wrong?

With all respect to Bill Jordan, he was talking about his personal experience. I find my competition shooting experiences have broadened my understanding of pistolcraft in general, including defensive shooting. I assume defensive shooters, point shooters, what ever you want to call them, perform a series of shooting tasks on the range during the course of their training. We all know a world class IPSC shooter will perform those range tasks faster and more accurately than the typical student. How does that make them inferior?

Frankly, I think the problem on this board, and in this thread in particular, is one of personality types and ego. I better shut up before I get banned.

Be safe and best wishes.
 
I'm not sure I understand all of the finer points of point shooting and shooting through feel etc. I don't shoot IPSC in formal matches, bu tI can relate to something entirely different, though I think it might be the same in a sense. Forgive me if I get too far off topic.

I'm really big into archery I started shooting when I was 5 and have shot a bow nearly every day of my life until I was 20years old. Now its more like once or twice a week when I have time. With a compound bow, using a peep and crosshair sight, I can shoot very accurately out to about 40 yards but can hit a pie plate out to 75 yards, However the sighting process is slow, even at close range, the bow is slow to shoot. With a recurve and longbow, I can snap off shots without even aiming and consistantly hit a pie plate sized target every time out to 20 yards. I don't aim, I simply draw and release in a fast motion while concentrating on the target. I can shoot the bow at somewhat longer ranges and still hit the same sized target but I need to adjust my hold carefully (I really down aim with a stick bow, its instictive shooting which I can't even explain how I do) and take more time acquiring the target. Not sure if this makes sense or is relevant, but just some of my observations.
 
craked butt:

Man, gotta love that username. We can probably relate. I too shoot a bow with experience hunting, shooting 3-D, and I have spent way too much time shooting five spots. What you are experiencing is exactly what I am talking about.

Here's food for thought. I am guessing (and I might be wrong) that your ability to really rock and roll up close is a by-product of proper technique, proper form, years of dedication, and an understanding of what it takes to perform at that level.

On the flip side, there are folks who would argue that the elements of proper shooting form, in the case of archery that would be your release, back tension, visual skills, freedom of torque on the bow, etc. were not required to learn to shoot up close and personal. You would have been better off to by-pass all of that hard work and just learn how to pull her back and let it rip.
 
I think the debate may be boiled down to whether you look at the guns sights or the target. Not both, back and forth, but one or the other.

If you are looking at a front sight, it's aimed [ sighted fire ].
If you are looking at the threat, it's point/instinct [ unsighted fire ].

I know many IPSC shooters who have evolved from front sight picture to unsighted, peripheral [ point ] shooting.

As Aboob was mentioned elsewhere, just so everyone can understand, he professes front sight picture [ front sight, front sight, front sight, etc ad infinum ] to this day though he has been a "gamesman" for years.

He is very accurate [ hardly ever misses ] and relatively fast. This from years of practice finding the front sight under stress. The difference with that and how I was taught by McDaniels is that I do not practice or have a million rounds downrange as he does, but nonetheless can beat him on plates in matches using the "quick kill" about 8 out of 10 times.

Now thats not to say anything other than you can practice and play the games until you are blue in the face to acquire the muscle memory to be able to front sight the gun into the target with some semblance of speed and be competitive, or you can learn to use your natural pointing ability and forego most of those million rounds and time on the range here and now.

How do I know? I'm the point shooter who rarely practices and I have beat the pants off his front sight, front sight theory on too many ocassions for it to be ignored.

And this with a 1942 gov issued 1911 with those little bitty fixed sights. He approached me one night after several relays and wanted to know how I could acquire the sights on that gun so fast. Should seen his face when I mentioned I don't use sights at all to hit. In fact thats why I use the old warhorse, the sights are not a distraction under the stress of the timer [ or real combat ].

Brownie
 
I think a lot of these IPSC shooters have really just formed a "whatever works for them" shooting technique. You don't shoot that well that fast using someone elses style, you just form your own.

Personally, when shooting fast at distances up to 15-20 yards, i focus on my target holding my gun just as i would for an aimed shot. the sights could be referenced, but i'm not even paying attention to them. I call that point shooting, i call any shooting where you're not looking at your sights point shooting. Perhaps my broad use of the term is where me and ackeny's disagreement came from in the point shooting thread.
 
I'm always suprised when some people come out against speed and accuracy. I don't know why, they seem to never stop bashing it.

Not to knock Jeff Gonzales by any stretch, as I think hes a good shooter and a great trainer, but Jeff is a C class IPSC guy if I recall. I don't know much more than that about his IPSC experience, but he's also got some notion of shooting in close quarters I'd imagine (being a SEAL for more than 10 years). While this certainly isn't a case for or against IPSC, I just thought I'd mention it since he's well known and respected in these parts.

Matt's contention is that aimed fire consistently fails under stress, but this statement is based almost solely on LEO shootings, a notoriously poorly trained group. To compare them with serious IPSC competitors, particularly those with tactical experience, is ridiculous.

Just imagine for a second Ron's Bill Drill. He has 6 rounds into an 8 inch circle at 21 feet before most people have even drawn thier guns. To assume that he has no tactical understanding or ability to make sound defensive decisions when his life is on the line is pretty dumb. Most of the competitive shooters I've met also enjoy tactical classes/training from the BTDT guys.

I'm an advocate of point shooting. I find it fits quite nicely into Brian's 5 types of focus. I've found his focus types to be a big help in teaching me to shift gears between warp speed PS up close and those irritating headshots at 15yds.

Whatever.

Like most pursuits, there are many ways to approach a problem and a few of those are gonna be valid. Lay of the strict interpretations of those Sacred Scrolls of the Gun.

:cool:
 
I am a huge Enos fan. The man is the guru on the mountaintop of high-speed pistolwork.

- Gabe
 
There seems to be this conflict between some "competition" shooters and some "real world" shooters.

It is totally unneeded and kind of silly. The best real deal shooters I'm aware of also compete. Some of the best competitors in this state are cops or feds. Some of those guys do training for their various departments, or they are on tactical teams. Some of them have seen the elephant, and none of them make fun of shooting games.

I don't see the conflict. I've got guys from the local base who are in a SF group who come out and shoot in 3 gun matches for practice. Some of these guys just got back from killing very bad men in Afghanistan and they consider gameing to be great fun and great practice, so who am I to tell them that they are wrong? :)

The people I get a kick out of are the "real deal" folks who can't shoot worth a crap in competition, so they dismiss it, and competitive shooters as know nothings. Don't be so quick to judge.

Would you want to get into a gun fight with a master class competitive shooter? I've got a buddy who is a hair dresser of all things, and I would much rather get into a gunfight against 99% of the cops out there than him, because the man can shoot like you wouldn't believe.

Sorry for the thread drift, but lets just put the ego aside and concentrate on the topic at hand.
 
Correia,

Excellent post. That was the point I was trying to make. I guess it didn't come across properly.

There is something to learn from everyone in this "game." No matter what "system" they use.
 
Zak,

I do have Enos' book. I have posted on his site and he as done me some pretty good favors.

Now quite a bit of combat shooting owes credit to target shooting (and some of the problems combat shooting has had to!)

Back when Applegate, Farebran, and others before them, were learning and writing what they experienced, the weapons used had poor sights, grips, and many times, poor triggers. Their holsters were, how shall we say, primitive. Using the top of the weapon as part of ones 'sight' was just about necessary in the early 1900s on out to past WW2. Just look at the sights on the WW1 1911, or Colt .32 autos, or Smith revolvers that were made pre-WW2. Also notice the stocks, or grips, came in only a few variations. Not to mention ammo was usually RNL or FMJ. Look at the safeties on the Colt .380s or .32s used. Same for the Browning 1910 (which had NO sights for all practical purposes.)

So using the slide or barrel to 'point' while focusing on the target is quite logical. Especially near dark.

But we have progressed much farther than that. The science of shooting now has quite a few styles, ranging from stances like Weaver, Chapman, Isosceles, to ways to use the sights from 'flash sight picture', to front sight focus, to target focus, shooting out of the notch, etc.... even drawing the weapon has progressed to several ways.

Shooting is not a static formula. It is not just one method works and all others don't. People like Jeff Cooper, who made is 'Modern Technique' wrote that even if one cannot see their sights, they bring the weapon up just as they have always practiced and fire. Notice Enos points out how to find where you naturaly point your weapon (eyes closed) and how to make it to where when you draw the weapon the sights will always be where you look. It does not matter if you use Weaver, or Isosceles, or just one hand, if you practice to always bring the weapon up to the exact same place, you will do the same under stress (do as you train). If you train to have to 'look' for the sights each time you draw, you will not be able to find those sights in the dark, and thus much greater chance of missing.

So, I do read what was learned 70 or 80 years ago, but I also keep up with the progresses that have been made. Just as they have found in Iraq that the methods of rifle shooting now are much superior than those learned in WW1, same goes for pistol craft.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

stonebuster
  • Locked
front sight focus
2
Replies
29
Views
3K
Wichaka
Wichaka
T
  • Locked
Sights - or No Sights - which is best??
2 3
Replies
56
Views
2K
hso
hso
D
  • Locked
Pls suggest a good how to shoot book.
Replies
10
Views
674
flatdog
F
I
  • Locked
What Bold Statement has helped you to improve your handgun skills?
2 3
Replies
60
Views
3K
Sam
S
D
  • Locked
combat mindset
Replies
12
Views
1K
sully
S
Back
Top