Point shooting any one?

[BlueTrain]

Here are my thoughts on the subject. It isn't everything there is about shooting handguns. Most people are not elite, either socially or professionally. Most ordinary people will never attain the high skill levels of any of the men already mentioned or of those who are well known in the world of shooting sports, although those who can devote the time and money might. But that's all beside the point. Shooting a handgun does not demand a high skill level, although the more skill you have, the better.

Unless you go to the range and shoot a couple of boxes of cartridges each weekend, you'll never be a competitive pistol shooter either. If you do, you'll quickly reach the point where ordinary handguns aren't competitive enough. But ordinary people can do very will--or well enough--with relatively little training and practice, given the expectations of what most people might need a handgun for in the first place in the way of self-defense. I think a lot of the disagreements revolve around what constitutes an adequate skill level and what an armed person should expect to need. And it goes without saying that there is disagreement about what can be accomplished with anything less than carefull use of the sights. I'll put it that way because apparently different people might have a different idea of what point shooting is and I'll leave that out of the discussion. It might be possible that the missing element here is the reality of how much practice and training that most people are able to get in, with the resources they have.

 

[Shane Tuttle]

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.

And what recent posts are you referring to that are anti-point shooting? Looks like to me a few may favor one or the other and many see it 50/50. But no one against it...

 

[booker_t]

May I present you with this commemorative holster?

That made me chuckle.

BlueTrain, I think you're spot-on with all your points.

 

[Brit]

The circumstances of the confrontation, more than anything, depicts the method of firing your pistol. This incorporates amount of assailants, time of day, light, or lack of it! And the all important distance, or perceived distance!
to target ( yes target, a person is a target, when engaged with gunfire)

Perception of distance? When adrenalin kicks in? All change, everything changes, big time.

In shooting in a IPSC match, many years ago, in Florida, at the time I lived in Canada. A group of targets were placed behind yellow plastic sheeting, you could see the heads of the targets only.

Your shooting position (the dreaded IPSC shooting box!) was seven yards from the big sheet of plastic, some targets where close to the sheet, some several yards further away! Therein was the problem! Most people fired with same cadence, on all targets, I think about 8 targets.

Hits on close targets, quite good, the sneaky further back ones? On average, misses galore... PERCEPTION! The same thing happens with adrenalin induced perception VS reality.

If your problem antagonists are sight line distance away, say 7m, punch that gun out to eye level, 1m, no.

 

[BlueTrain]

I want everyone here to know that a lot of these threads really make me think and experiment. I'm not sure I can say I'm making much progress or that I'm on my way to discovering anything, but at least they are of some value. Take this subject, for instance.

Since getting off that critical first shot is so important, and which leads to the question of a shooting stance, we have threads like this. I suppose it is good to isolate some part of an event (for lack of a better word), yet real world events are not generally so simple in that they might turn on one shooting form over another. In fact, other minor factors, shall we say, can easily overwhelm other factors in your attempt at a quick response.

Two of my holsters have thumb snaps. One is for a revolver but I've largely left them alone now and concentrated on automatics, though I'm still hanging onto a couple of K-frame S&Ws. The other was made for one model Walther I have and it has the kind of restraining strap that goes over the top of the gun. To release it, you press inward, to the left and towards the body. In theory, it is simple and fast. In practice, it is still simple but requires a degree of concentration. The concentration isn't the problem, it is the speed of the thing. I suppose I'd have to admit it is a matter of practice more than anything. However, I have long ago concluded that in making a (fairly) fast draw, you first concentrate on getting a good or proper grip on the handgun. Then the rest is easy. That thumbsnap really slows things down and it is for that reason, I'm not a fan of cocked and locked, although that's only one reason. It isn't because I consider that method of carry to be unsafe, which I could easily be accused of because of some things I've written.

All the same, I don't think it (either the thumbsnap or a regular Colt-type thumb safety) is critical to a draw because I don't think a super fast draw is critical. A "positive" draw, to be sure, but outdrawing someone is a vain fantasy.

And I suppose none of that had much to do with point shooting.

 

[BlueTrain]

Maybe this post will speak a little more to point shooting.

Something I haven't noticed here in this thread, not that I've exactly analyzed it, is little reference to the handgun that might be used. I think that makes a difference, perhaps a big difference.

To begin with, I suspect that very small handguns, of the pocket variety, may not lend themselves to what is thought of as point shooting and some might say even good shooting. But I've only a limited experience with really small handguns.

When I was in better form than I am now, I used to think it was easier to do certain kinds of shooting with certain revolvers. Of the ones I have now, a heavy barrel K-frame, a Model 13 with a 4" barrel, has excellent "pointability," to put it one way. The one Model 65 I had with a 3" barrel seemed to have the same feel. I've had revolvers with longer barrels but I won't go out on a limb and say they were better. The N frames, at least the Model 29 with a 4" inch barrel, had great pointability but it was significantly heavier and obviously larger, so it was decidedly slower on the draw, though it wasn't at all awkward to use. In fact, it was an excellent choice for some circumstances.

I have used extensively some automatics that had fairly good pointability and a good muzzle heavy feel. The Colt .45 automatic is probably the best example but the dynamics of operating it, especially the trigger (it being a single action) rather worked against it for my idea of point shooting. It's hard to put in words but you had to be deliberate with it. The revolvers were, well, just different. But those were just a few examples and just mention of a couple of characteristics that enter into the equation. Grips make a difference, too, more so with revolvers, but you can make more changes with a revolver grip.

But like I say, I'm not in my best form anymore.

 

[Brit]

But like I say, I'm not in my best form anymore.

You are what you are Blue Train, work in that space, the real you!

Affected portions to a fast draw. Weight of Pistol, loaded, position of holster, ease of removal, angle (strait up and down) my choice Glock 19.

Concealed holster, Kydex no thumb break, tight at front of trigger guard, only.

 

[BlueTrain]

I like to think I've been making progress since the Webley and the C-96 back in the 1960s.

 

[Brit]

Memorys!

I was issued a Webley, or was it an Enfield, as a Wireless Operator in my National Service in the Army, when in the ATV. I tried to talk the Armory waller out of a Sten Gun, no chance.

As a 27 ton Armored vehicle was something to get away from! Even giving me my issued bolt actioned Rifle. Really accurate one at that.

As we were not issued ammunition on schemes! A mute point!

 

[BlueTrain]

I'm still experimenting, mostly as a reality check on what I've been posting here. For one thing, I dug out the revolvers. One was smooth as satin with the trigger and pointed like a flashlight in the dark. The other one, a recent production tapered barrel Model 10, marked 10-11 (surely a rare one), had a stiff trigger and a barrel that was all over the place. Both were difficult to grasp in the holster, a Bianchi inside waistband type but they concealed easily.

With either automatic (a Ruger P345 and a Walther P5), it was much easier to get a secure and hopefully proper grip, at the cost of a marginally less concealable handgun. I couldn't tell much difference in the two as far as pointability goes, although this wasn't a live-fire experiment, but they did not have the muzzle heavy feel of a Colt Government Model. But I also know that theory doesn't always stand up too well to experiement, so I hesitate to be at all dogmatic about how they really handle in comparison to my Model 13 revolver. But I did notice one thing.

My shooting has evolved, presumably, over the last 45 years, and may be in the process of devolving at the moment. However, at the range I shot one way. In practice (not at the range) and in trying to be quick about it, my form, if you can call it that, was decidedly different. It was one handed and it was what is sometimes called a shoulder point. I clearly want that pistol out there in front of me in the line of sight. So maybe this point shooting is "almost" using sights after all.

 

[Brit]

I started this in 2011! Jan.

This thread had some great posts, good discussions (some a bit feisty!) but since shooting quite a few IDPA matches, point shooting is still valid in some circumstances.

One stage in particular comes to mind. After shooting my Glock 19 dry, a rapid reload, and forward movement to a wall (a prop wall, but very solid) behind this wall was three close targets.

Most shooters still used two hand fire. This was hard to do. I fired three double taps, one handed, all three targets two hits, two inch apart, high chest (if you would, hits) point shooting, sounded like three shots, according to the RO, not 6.

At that moment, I remembered all the practice I had done in years gone by, point shooting. Not something (apparently) you forget.

The pistol I use, I carry.

 

[Jim243]

At that moment, I remembered all the practice I had done in years gone by, point shooting. Not something (apparently) you forget.

More like "the luck of the Irish" I would say, but then again you are not Irish, what!. I do seem to remember seeing my front sight on those fast draws and close in shots at IDPA, but some would say it was "point shooting" even though it was aimed shots, it just happened so fast that it seemed like something else.

May you be on the road to Heaven an hour, before the devil finds out your dead.

Have a pint on me.
Jim

 

[Brit]

My Grandmother on my Mothers side was Irish, a Kelly. I did like to fight as a younger man! I have been out of fights, had my last one at age 69, some young chap wanted to hug my Wife, in an elevator, I dissuaded him!

 

[sigxder]

As you know most situations happen in feet not inches. Most every situation a civilian will run into is an ambush. You will not have time to draw, get a good sight picture, and place nice exact shoots up close and dirty. If you try to extend your arms to shoot two handed, up close your gun will most likely be grabbed or redirected. Plus more than likely a civilian will have to draw their gun from concealment.
Contrary to tv almost no one can draw and shoot a gun faster than when someone already has a gun pointed at you. Action beats reaction. You will probably need that free hand to get the opponents gun out of your face to get yours out and not get shot. Even then it's iffy. You need to be angling off away from the opponents gun to get out of the line of fire. Even the "Modern Technique" teaches a "speed rock" and a "flash sight picture". Which are point shooting from the hip (speed rock) and Col. Applegates Method of point shooting with the arm extended using what Mr. Cooper would call a flash sight picture.
The method of point shooting was developed when classic target style shooting that was taught at the time was getting the British Shanghi Police killed. Something had to change. Target based shooting they were taught was not working plain and simple.
After switching to this technique they began to win gunfights. Then it was transferred to the U.S. and taught by Mr. Applegate and his students. It was a technique developed and used in battle. Not based on competition shooting as was Mr. Cooper's system. If you read the history of it it started out as friendly competition between Mr.Cooper and some of his peers. They started off shooting one handed as they were taught. Mr. Jack Weaver came and used two hands and strated whipping their butts.
But of course shooting for scores based on how tight a group you could shoot at a paper target several yards away had little to do with what happens in a real situation. And many who are against point shooting imply that point shooters never shoot two handed with sights. Of course you do! If you are far enough back that you have time to draw a gun and while moving to cover get a good sight picture for God's sake. Use both hands and shoot. If you look in Shooting to Live their is a picture of a police officer using two hands in what we would refer to as an Isoceles Stance while behind cover.
Point shooting is only for short distances. The inventors of the point shooting system never said not to not use two hands and sighted fire when you had the time and distance. It's not like the old Wild West tv shows we had when we were kids.
In the movies the good guy would shoot at the bad guy from 30 yards and shoot the bad guy gun out of his hand from the hip. That's tv, not real life. But again most bad things happen in low light and up close. You don't have time for target shooting at those ranges. Plain and simple. All one needs to do is look at the dismal hit rate of most police officers of between 14%-25%. According to an F.B.I. report when they interviewed bad guys who survived multiple gunfights their hit rate was 70%! Why??? They got up close, pointed the gun at the opponent with one hand and fired.
Of course their were other factors. Again they usually ambushed their opponent. And most said as long as they got the first hit they won. They didn't hesitate. Most had been shot and survived. And were intent on never being shot again. Bruce Lee used to teach the idea of ranges. Nose to nose your grappling. A little farther back elbows and knees. Then kicks and punches. The right tool for the right job.
A person should be versed in shooting at all distances, from every posible position, and learn to move when you can. And know some empty hand techniques. Sometimes you've got to fight to get to your gun. Again if you are training for self defense most of your practice should be done from a concealed draw at short range. Again that's how it usually happens. Airsoft and simunitions can teach you a lot.
I worked a couple of weeks ago with a police trainer who had been taught in the two handed, target based system. Once he got tired of being shot in the chest with marking rounds he wanted to learn something new. Although it's was really old. As I said you need to learn to shoot from greater distances with two hand sighted fire. And up close from the draw. Again the speed rock and flash sight picture taught in the Modern Method and agree with the need for point shooting. They just have a different name for it. And the founders of the point shooting system say you need to learn both. It's not either
or.
A great example is Mr. Lou Chido. When he first began teaching point shooting his agency they had the same dismal hit rates as most LEO's (but not all). After teaching point shooting with the Modern Method hit rates went up to the 90's percent rate. Much like the Shanghi Police that developed the technique. It's proven, it works, and should be a part of anyone serious about defensive shooting.

 

[Brit]

First move?

In monitoring shooting classes, an association I once belonged to had me doing this at all our National yearly training conference, the ATC.

Basically a safety concern. It was amazing to see portions of each Instructors program was a copy of programs taught every where.

I will bring one up here...

At a distance of 3 feet, to a target, strike the target with the non gun hand, draw and fire, one handed, some had the student step back, some just drew and fired. This exercise assumed a drawn gun by the bad guy, target.

As time is taken with this drill, would not stepping forward be a safer conclusion, as in going immediately to hands on, deflecting, disarming?

A thought.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

I think people overlook the limitations that Fairbairn and Applegate had in their training. For one thing, the pistol sights of that time were barely visible compared to modern sights. Some of the older front sights I have difficulty making out in slow fire they are so thin. That is not the case with any modern design from the last 20 years or so.

Second, they didn't have 3,000 rounds and a week to train their students on basic pistol. They had a day or two and maybe a box or two of ammo.

My personal belief is if you spend time training to not use your sights, you are unlikely to suddenly start using them under stress. On the flip side, you can train to use your sights and revert to using a body index for unsighted fire very easily. Aside from retention training, I just see no point to it.

 

[MT 73]

The past is dead.
Ten years of modern war has taught us the value of modern equipment and techniques.
Point shooting belongs in the attic along with cap and ball revolvers.

 

[jimbob86]

My personal belief is if you spend time training to not use your sights, you are unlikely to suddenly start using them under stress. On the flip side, you can train to use your sights and revert to using a body index for unsighted fire very easily. Aside from retention training, I just see no point to it.

+1.

Other than shooting from retention at booger wiping range, front sight-press just as fast and more accurate.

Point shooting belongs in the attic along with cap and ball revolvers.

The cap and balls look good in a shadow box ...... point shooting .......not so much.

 

[Brit]

Point shooting has it's place. Punching your pistol, straight forward, to eye level, the sights telling you were the shot went! real quick.

Followed by as many as you need, that is the way to go.

This works best in 9mm. Less recoil.

 

[sigxder]

Their were all manner of target sights available at the time point shooting was initiated. Gold beads, adjustable sights (especially for revolvers) and so on for pistols. The Walther P38 has a large front blade sight. Rifles dating back to the Sharps had version of peep sights. I suggest you read the excellent book Fast and Fancy Revolver Shooting by Ed Mc Given. All throughout the book their are multiple examples of page after of revolvers with long barrels and target sights.
He is shown breaking numerous objects in the air (including with a Colt .45 1911), hip shooting (point shooting via Mr. Sykes and Fairbairn), single handed shooting, and surprise on pages 457 and 458 firing two handed from what we would call an Isoceles stance. Imagine that! Good sights on a gun dating from the early part of the last century! He practiced hip shooting (point shooting up close), extended one handed shooting, and using two hands. He also taught shooting on the move and so on. Have you ever seen some of the elaborate sights on some of the early custom deuling pistols?
The reason most military guns had smaller (vestigial) sights was that they were a close range weapon and the sights would be used only at those ranges at best for a quick sight picture. Not because target style sights were not know. The "Big Dot" sights one company sells today were modeled after British heavy game gun sights from the 19th century.
What do you mean by "better" sights? If you mean we have tritium nightsights, various arrangements of dot and bar patterns we do. But the fact is up close because of the distance and time constraints in most deadly encounters either close in body indexing (read point shooting or body rock). Or a flash sight picture as Mr. Cooper would call (Mr. Applegates take on point shooting) with the gun extended looking over the sights. Better sights I'm all for. But they are only useful if you have enough time and distance to get to use them. Saying good sight did not exist years ago is simply wrong. They existed. But in a trench warfare, the jungle, an alley you simply often don't have time to use those great sights you speak of.
Yoy seem to dismiss point shooting by saying sights negate the need for such skills. No matter how good the sights if you can't get them into a positon to use you better know a system that works when you can't use them. You are only seeing half the picture. Again if you know how to kick and punch but not grapple you are half a fighter. Proper tool for proper situation.