Point shooting any one?

[JimPage]

I shoot both ways.

I hope I use the appropriate method in the appropriate situation.
Since I don't know what the situation will be or how I may react to the situation, I must practice both methods.

Hopefully, I won't find out. But I do have signigicant experience is military combat.

 

[Nnobby45]

I shoot both ways.

I hope I use the appropriate method in the appropriate situation.
Since I don't know what the situation will be or how I may react to the situation, I must practice both methods.

LOL, that's the whole point. Point shooting isn't appropriate in all situations, and two hands using sights isn't always possible. Arguing about which one to use exclusively is pretty silly when one better be schooled in both.

Same could be said for Weaver vs. Iscoseles but that's another can of goo for another thread. And one reason I hate the Iscoseles is because I can never spell it.

 

[armsmaster270]

I shoot both ways depending on the distance & circumstances 20 years Military & 18 years city police experience.

 

[Blue Duck]

Of course sighted fire has been proven to be superior, by Col. Cooper, and every IPSC, and later IDPA shooter, that probably ever played the game. I know I shot IPSC back in the 80's and later IDPA in the 90's, and also NRA Bullseye, NRA Hunter Silhouette. Except for a very few IDPA matches did I ever points shoot anything, but none of those targets were shooting back at me, from 5ft away, either.

Most all shooting qualifications are measured by some sort of target ring, with higher scores for better hits, except of course for steel and bowling pins, etc. So, of course sighted fire rules the day, but I think point shooting definately has a place in the real world of self defense, espacally for a CCW carrier, that quite often may need to start off, behind the curve, from a consealed carry holster.

I practice point shooting a lot, but that doesn't mean I can't make a better than average showing using sighted fire, however point shooting is a skill I want, in addtion to sighted fire, and the more I practice it at real world spitting distances, the more I believe in it, and the less value I put on nite sights, lasers, etc, for CCW.

Sure If I have time, I am going to use my sights, but point shooting just might be a life saving skill, doing all sighted fire practice does not nessairly hone one's point shooting, in fact to the contrary, I believe my point shooting practice has speeded up my sighted fire shooting.

Another thing I found out after many years of shooting flat mainspring housings on 1911's is that when I tried arched mainspring housings, my point shooting was a lot better. My favorite carry gun is a 4 inch lightweight 1911 with the tiny GI sights, even though I have several guns of the same size with high profile night sights. Sometimes it baffles me, that almost all of the custom 1911's are only offered with flat mainspring housings, then it dawned on me that is because few people point shoot, they just do sighted fire, and I think they are missing something because of it.

 

[smince]

Thoughts on Point Shooting:

http://www.warriortalknews.com/2011/01/some-thoughts-on-point-shooting.html

Scroll down to the article.

 

[nate45]

Thoughts on Point Shooting:

http://www.warriortalknews.com/2011/...-shooting.html

Scroll down to the article.

Good article smince, gotta say I agree 100%.

“You do want to see your sights every chance you get.”

Above is a quote from the aforementioned article. I would like to add, for those unaware of it, that seeing your sights, does not necessarily mean looking through them. The farther up you can bring your pistol toward eye level, the more accurate you will be. In other words, although you are focused on the target, the higher you bring the pistol in your peripheral vision the better your results.

Today I went to the range, I shot my old Beretta Model 71. I did because I had mentioned it on the form and remembered I hadn't shot her in a while.

From the low ready position I fired several strings of 9 shots, at an ISPC target placed 5 yards away. My best string was 2.13 seconds with a .56 first shot time.

To accomplish this I bring the pistol to eye level and shoot looking through the sights. My vision is focused on the target, but the pistol is as high in my line of vision as is possible, without being over it.

I also managed a, from low ready position, .98 Mozambique drill with my PM9. And a .90 flat double tap from the draw. I included the PM9 times just to brag.

 

[Deaf Smith]

I have found that Coopers MT, 'Modern Technique' actually had some point shooting in it.

Don't believe me?

Well in his field manual he said that if you cannot see your sights due to such as darkness, to bring your gun up JUST AS IF YOU CAN SEE THE SIGHTS and fire.

And really, point shooting such as Applegate showed, was to bring the gun up to eye level and look over the top of the gun.

As you can see, there is not much difference in the idea, is there?

So practice sighted fire as much as you can, one handed or two, but memorize the hold needed so if you can't see the sights, bring it up to the same position AS IF YOU COULD SEE THE SIGHTS.

Deaf

 

[Brit]

A real help in the eye level shooting, is having sights that imprint themselves on your eye balls, without actually focusing on them, like TruGlow.

 

[sliponby]

+1 TruGlo TFO's

A big +1 Brit to the TruGlo TFO's. Put them on my G26 and the improvement in sight aquisition, in bright or low light, is remarkable.

 

[Patriot Prepper]

I think a lot of people, maybe instructors included, are confused by point shooting. I think they believe it is a careless, aimless, spray and pray tactic. It is not. Point shooting involves a degree of body alignment as well as sometimes employing the front sight. In extreme CQC, body alignment is more than enough to stay on target.

I practice both point shooting and shooting for accuracy. Both are tools used for different purposes. There are instances where point shooting is the best defense and vice vera.

I started point shooting when I was 7 years old and that was a long time ago. To me point shooting is vital to self defense. But it is a little more difficult for some people to master. It requires a different mind set and a new set of skills.

People need to have open minds, including instructors.

(In LE there are some people often more concerned with legal ramifications than self defense. They may think of point shooting as not aiming and taking wild shots, and be concerned with lawsuits. That is an unfounded concept and dangerous.)

 

[BlueTrain]

You are probably correct in that many may see point shooting as shooting wildly, although it is entirely possible to be using the sights and firing wildly, too. I realize that sounds contradictory but that little gun can sure jump around in recoil.

It is hard to get across in writing, much less in one thread (although the opportunity comes up often enough), the dynamics of point shooting, to put it one way. Clearly some practice is necessary, just as it is when you are using the sights. I think people's opinions diverge on only a few points.

One is how much practice is necessary. Some seem to think that so much practice (as well as training) that ordinary people couldn't possibly get in enough practice to become sufficiently proficient.

That leads to the question of proficiency and what is good enough. You can be proficient and deadly efficient and still not be either a good NRA target shot, much less a trick shot. But is there any NRA target shooting at five yards?

It is also worth saying that different people will have different requirements for their handgun proficiency level. If you carried an Elmer Keith Special in the event you thought you might need it when you met a bear, your entire approach to the activity would be a little different and probably point shooting just might not be what you should be considering in your plans. But you might work on your draw nevertheless.

Practice is going to be problematic for most people. It was for me, to an extent, though the problem was more a matter of what you could do at an indoor range. While it was sometimes possible to darken the range if I happened to be the only one there, at least on one side (the range being divided in half, more or less, by a partition), and that increased the challenge but only some. But there was no way it approximated any physical similarity to places I thought a shooting might take place. But not all was lost.
Something of value was learned and retained. You nearly always get something out of a shooting experience at the range, although you may reach a level when it becomes boring and unproductive.

The biggest thing about the indoor range was that it was indoors. That sounds a little dumb but I found that everything seemed to be different out of doors and the biggest difference was time of day.

Another point of disagreement is exactly what constitutes point shooting. I won't get into that beyond saying that I don't mean "hip shooting," even though that actually seems to be taught in some courses, with names like speed rock and so on. I'm not saying there's no place for hip shooting, only that I'm not talking about hip shooting. Besides, they frown on you doing that at the range.

There isn't much talk of speed around here in the old fashioned quick draw sense, although it is often implied, especially when the subject of carry method comes up (referring to condition, loaded chamber, empty chamber, etc.) but speed is what it's all about. So ultimately, it becomes a question of whether or not using the sights, any sights, helps with hits without slowing you down or not, or if an alternate method is faster--and good enough-- for what you expect to happen.

 

[sigxder]

At the distances most confrontations take place with civilians point shooting, threat focused shooting, body indexing, whatever you want to call it is a needed skill. Bad guys don't mug, rape, or hold up a victim at 25 yards. According to the F.B.I. almost everything happens within 7 yards and most much closer than that. If you draw your gun and extend both hands in the "New Method" way you are handing the bad guy your gun. No one has to justify point shooting because up until the "New Method" came into. It was used and used is used effectively to this day.
I don't know why people get so polarized. If you do get into a gunfight and you have enough distance to safely use your sights you are going to. Point shooting is a close combat shooting system. You need to learn both sighted and point shooting to cover all the bases. According to the latest F.B.I. report the bad guys get better than 70% hit ratios. At best most LEO groups taught the two handed method get around 30% at best. If you get a chance to see some of the shootings from a store security systems or on a police car camera it's a real eye opener.
When the gunfight is close most of their two handed shooting methods go out the door. The point shoot as they try to remove themselves from the area of danger ASAP. Training civilians as opposed to Military and LEO's is a different ballgame. Military and police often know they are going into a hairy situation and already have guns drawn. The same F.B.I. report said that 65% of all shootings are with one hand. I've trained under some schools that don't even teach one handed shooting. Both work within their proper range. Sights at bad breath distance are nearly impossible. Point shooting when you have the time and distance to use sights is simply not the best choice. Learn both. You need both.

 

[nate45]

Both work within their proper range. Sights at bad breath distance are nearly impossible. Point shooting when you have the time and distance to use sights is simply not the best choice. Learn both. You need both.

^^^^^^

We could prune this whole thread and the others we've written on this subject down to the above quote.

If we wanted to be really succinct, the portion in bold sums it up nicely.

 

[BlueTrain]

Something worth mentioning here is that in the early days, before Jeff Cooper enlightened us, pistols and revolvers came with relatively poor sights. Finding the sights and aligning them in great haste, under pressure, was difficult. Sights on handguns today are generally better, so that is mostly a practical gain when it comes to sighted fire. Some early practitioners always favored what were called target sights anyway, although probably not earlier than WWI. Bill Jordan favored a Model 19 S&W revolver, which has adjustable target sights, though he also used a plain Jane M&P revolver for some of his demonstrations.

Ed McGivern, who used mostly revolvers, did not limit himself to one kind or sight or one barrel length. He was more of a trick shooter but he claimed that he always used the sights.

Sights as they are used today on handguns would be worthy of a long discussion (which has probably already happened here) and vary widely, from a groove on the top of the slide to basic adjustable target sights. If nothing else, it allows buyers to find something they're happy with.

 

[Willie Lowman]

+1 to poor sights. Just look at the old cap and ball Colts, the rear sight was part of the hammer. I have a 6" 1920 vintage S&W .38 (stamped .38 S&W Special) whose rear sight is a microscopic grove in the top strap. New J frame snubbies have better sights than my old .38.

 

[booker_t]

The time difference between this [aimed/"punch" fire] and firing one from retention is so miniscule that it just doesn't seem to make sense to do it.

My 135gr Nosler JHPs have a Vo of 1600fps, give or take. At ten feet, that puts lead on target just about 1/160th of a second after the trigger breaks. That's 0.00625 seconds.

How long does it take to get your gun up from "out of retention" to your typical index?

 

[BlueTrain]

That's just it; it takes as long as it takes. Some people would do their best, I imagine, to get a good sight picture and so on. Others might panic and fire wildly. There are so many conflicting claims on the subject that one might as well start from scratch and figure out your own solution to the problem.

 

[booker_t]

Personally, one of the primary things I train for when doing holster presentation is contact-distance shooting. Pull out while using off-hand to control an arm/weapon or deflect an attack, drop the elbow to level the barrel, and press. Once, twice, three times maybe. That close, I don't want to be sticking the gun out with an extended arm, I want it close to my body for muzzle control and retention. It's all too easy for somebody to grab the slide of a semi-auto from the top or backside of the gun, and cause a malfunction without seriously hurting their hand.

Not all confrontations will be face-to-face. If the opponent is on your off-hand side, it's a fist, palm, or elbow strike to the neck/head, while performing the same gut shot. Bend the knees and drive forward, get underneath and get them off balance like an offensive lineman. This is why I dispise lengthy discussions of stance; fact is during an attack everything is moving. It's messy, but if you've prepared physically (and perhaps more importantly, mentally), the skills will be there so get busy.

Opponent on gun-side, incorporate an upper-body twist with the off-hand strike, getting your body between the attacker and your gun, and continue as before.

Opponent from behind, I'm bending knees using my weight to effectively "box out" the attack as if I was going for a basketball rebound. Bite a hand or forearm if it's available, use the neck and torso muscles to tear and rip. Work the strong hand free, gun clears and this time goes backwards, upside down, about waist level. Push until I feel resistance and press the trigger once, twice, dump the mag if necessary. Break free and retreat if possible, or overwhelm the injured attacker.

There's plenty of studies and reports on LEO shootings. Some say they saw the front sight, just like they trained for. Some say they yanked the trigger as fast and hard as they could, despite all the training. Some don't even really remember what they did, but they got the gun out and put metal on meat.

 

[BlueTrain]

May I present you with this commemorative holster?

Sorry, I always find the word "presentation" amusing when referring to drawing your gun. Nothing personal, understand, and I'm enjoying your thoughtful comments, Mr. Booker_t.

I honestly couldn't say what my reactions might be a contact distance, given that it's been a long time since I've had any struggles at that distance (they were all at contact distance, I might add). I'm not even certain that I would attempt to draw (or present) a gun or other weapon. I think this might be a point at which people might be at a grave disadvantage, for two reasons.

I might be wrong, but I don't think younger people get in fights they way they did when I was growing up, at least where I lived. Anyone who doesn't do things physically, as opposed to sitting at a desk, as I do now, is, I suspect, less likely to be physical in a conflict. I admit that's just a hunch and it is just as likely that someone with some experience in such things could just as easily have the confidence and ability to get out of the situation without trouble. But some people who just sit around all day can still be big and physical.

Now I've already forgotten the second point I wanted to make! However, introducing your own weapon into the mix is decidedly an escalation of the matter that may not lead to where you want to go but if the other fellow has one, everything is different and, besides, they're unlikely to physically attack if they are armed with a firearm, which doesn't mean you're safe by any means.

It probably should go without saying that as you become a little older, your abilities to do anything well just wither away. You have to allow for that. And naturally, smaller people will be at a disadvantage, too.

My father was not much for handing out advice. But in addition to telling me not to wear gloves too much (they make your hands soft), he showed me how an automatic could be disabled by pushing back the slide and how a revolver could be disabled, sort of, by grasping the cylinder. But I'm probably not as fast as he was.

 

[Sweatnbullets]

here is the permalink to the article that smince posted

01/16/2011

Some Thoughts on Point Shooting

By Roger Phillips Suarez International Specialist Instructor

Recently there has been a decent amount of anti-point shooting talk in some circles. While some of this talk comes from people that do deserve a good deal of respect, I feel that it would be wrong to not address some of the misrepresentations that have been made in order to cast a bad light on point shooting. The way that I look at it is, it does not matter how elite you are, if you are going to dismiss the accomplishments and skill sets of the elite that came before you, you have put your comments into the position to be judged by others, the same way that you have judged others. The bottom line is that point shooting as been used successfully by some of “the elite of the elite” for a very long time. It is a combat proven skill set used by some of the greatest gun fighters this world has ever seen, people such as Col. Askins, Jelly Bryce, Bill Jordan, Col. Fairbairn, Col. Sykes, British SAS, and Darby’s Rangers, just to name a few. To suggest that these men did not know how to get it done would be extremely presumptuous.

I am going to give a point by point counter to some of these recent anti-point shooting statements and misrepresentations, my comments are in bold.


Read more here
http://www.warriortalknews.com/2011/01/some-thoughts-on-point-shooting.html