Point Shooting

[NousDefionsDoc]

What do you guys think about point shooting?

:munchin

[BadMuther]

It has a time and place........for close ranges 0-15 yards, I use a variation of it called "target focus" developed by California Highway patrol......basically you look through your sites while focusing on the target.

I've practiced enough with it, that I am pretty quick with it, and all my shots are in about a 4 inch circle at that range.

Some folks will slam this technique, but it works for me.

[The Reaper]

Originally posted by BadMuther
It has a time and place........for close ranges 0-15 yards, I use a variation of it called "target focus" developed by California Highway patrol......basically you look through your sites while focusing on the target.

I've practiced enough with it, that I am pretty quick with it, and all my shots are in about a 4 inch circle at that range.

Some folks will slam this technique, but it works for me.

If it is stupid, but it works for you, it wasn't really stupid.

I use it at very close ranges where extreme precision is not required.

TR

[NousDefionsDoc]

I think a lot of the detractors were never shown how to do it properly - like a lot of things. They proally read some guru in a magazine say it doesn't work and made a half-assed attempt at it. They also may not be using it at the right distances, etc.

Lot of people been shot in the face by point shooters.

It seems to me that the more you practice the flash site picture and the faster you get, the more you are doing point shooting. That muscle memory kicks in and you get going so fast you just do it.

A while back, I moved my holster a little further back on the belt to hook it in behind that tool loop on the 5.11s. I noticed as soon as I did, I had to slow way down at very short ranges until I got used to it. It was changing all the muscle memory and I had to relearn. I'm pretty much back where I was now. Funny how little things make a big difference.

Like hanging a rucksack on a Golden Knight. LOL

[BadMuther]

TR-

Sir, from my police training, shooting from the hip was taught at 0-3 and point shooting was taught from 3-7.

Personally, I am comfortable shooting "target focus with sights" out to 15 yards.

At what range do you switch from point to full sight picture shooting?

[BadMuther]

Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc


It seems to me that the more you practice the flash site picture and the faster you get, the more you are doing point shooting. That muscle memory kicks in and you get going so fast you just do it.

Like hanging a rucksack on a Golden Knight. LOL

NDD, with your "flash site picture" are you focusing on the front site or the bad guy?

The target focus is basically a flash site but focusing on the target...and I know what you are saying about the muscle memory....


Golden Knights and rucksacks.......or SEALs! :p

[The Reaper]

Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
Like hanging a rucksack on a Golden Knight. LOL

Good one.

TR

[NousDefionsDoc]

Probably the target. I'm so fast I can't really tell and I don't really think about it - just sort of Nike it. :lifter

[The Reaper]

Originally posted by BadMuther
TR-

Sir, from my police training, shooting from the hip was taught at 0-3 and point shooting was taught from 3-7.

Personally, I am comfortable shooting "target focus with sights" out to 15 yards.

At what range do you switch from point to full sight picture shooting?

Hate to say this, but METT-T dependent.

I would prefer not to be trying to align sights with a target less than a second away, so 7 yds. would be about my limit.

That would seem to make most non-discriminating CQB shots best taken as point shots, would it not?

Where is the Team Sergeant on this?

TR

[NousDefionsDoc]

I would say 0-3 meters point, 3-7 flash, then start using sites.

Of course of you're shooting around something or don't have a good full target, you'll need to get a little more precise.

[BadMuther]

Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
I would say 0-3 meters point, 3-7 flash, then start using sites.

Of course of you're shooting around something or don't have a good full target, you'll need to get a little more precise.

That's a good rule of thumb. My 15 yard TF sfots aren't pretty if I haven't practiced in awhile.

[NousDefionsDoc]

Of course I don't measure...:D

[BadMuther]

Hell no....you are "Nike'ing it", right?

Prolly so quick on reloads you didn't know you did it until you tripped on the empties too, huh? :p

[Smokin Joe]

Originally posted by BadMuther
It has a time and place........for close ranges 0-15 yards, I use a variation of it called "target focus" developed by California Highway patrol......basically you look through your sites while focusing on the target.

I've practiced enough with it, that I am pretty quick with it, and all my shots are in about a 4 inch circle at that range.

Some folks will slam this technique, but it works for me.

Some other FI's in my department are die hard Jeff Copper fans and will only teach front site flash techniques. I (personally) use and teach what you are talking about BadMuther looking through your sites but concentrating on C.O.M. from 0-10 yards. Some people (usually the ones who are the faster shooters) Like the technique.

We also teach a body indexing where you square you shoulders with the target and shoot from the top of the hoslter for 0-3 feet.

I believe point shooting has its place as long as it is practiced!

[GackMan]

Originally posted by Smokin Joe
We also teach a body indexing where you square you shoulders with the target and shoot from the top of the hoslter for 0-3 feet.


LAPD guy shot him self through the back of his weak side elbow at the range... keep your dick beaters out of the way when practicing this.

I can only imagine the pain.

Anyway, There was a good discussion on this over on glock talk:
http://www.glocktalk.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=242688

I won't re-hash it. Check it out, Gabe Suarez is more eloquent than I am.

[ktek01]

I use it for very close ranges, I like to bring the weapon up ready for point shooting, but going for the front site if I have time, and a complete sight picture if I have plenty of time. I find that I get a quicker sight picture if I do it that way, and if shit happens before I am fully up then I at least have a very good probablilty of hitting the target before I can get my sight picture. Not sure if that makes sense, several long days and crappy food, but that is what I try to do. Same with the rifle, always in a point shoot mode, ready to present and fire if needed, but still going for the sights at the same time.

[Team Sergeant]

Originally posted by The Reaper
Where is the Team Sergeant on this?

TR

Here I am reporting as ordered.....

Ah, Point shooting, don’t know how I missed this thread, currently my favorite discussion topic.

As a trained military professional, weapons and weapons training is/was as important to me as breathing air. Knowing that when called upon to go to work I would be employing my skills to defend the Constitution of the United States and not looking out for “number one� made all the difference.

Point shooting is not only a “shooting technique� it is a mindset, and a defensive mind-set at that. It is mostly employed by those that might someday actually be forced to use the weapon they carry on a day to day basis to “defend� themselves. It is also employed by those with little to no formal or professional weapons training. It is a last resort of far too many that believe speed is the answer to any firefight and which is what separates the amateurs from the Professionals.

A few points to ponder concerning point shooting;

Most criminals utilize point shooting techniques, which makes me sleep well at night.

Special Operations CQB is performed at very close ranges, and most employ specialized optics, hell why not point shoot?

All Hollywood actors “point shoot� in their movies, hit everybody they are aiming at and never have to reload.

Point shooting has no place in professional weapons training, period.

Team Sergeant

[BadMuther]

Originally posted by Team Sergeant
Here I am reporting as ordered.....

Ah, Point shooting, don’t know how I missed this thread, currently my favorite discussion topic.

As a trained military professional, weapons and weapons training is/was as important to me as breathing air. Knowing that when called upon to go to work I would be employing my skills to defend the Constitution of the United States and not looking out for “number one� made all the difference.

Point shooting is not only a “shooting technique� it is a mindset, and a defensive mind-set at that. It is mostly employed by those that might someday actually be forced to use the weapon they carry on a day to day basis to “defend� themselves. It is also employed by those with little to no formal or professional weapons training. It is a last resort of far too many that believe speed is the answer to any firefight and which is what separates the amateurs from the Professionals.

A few points to ponder concerning point shooting;

Most criminals utilize point shooting techniques, which makes me sleep well at night.

Special Operations CQB is performed at very close ranges, and most employ specialized optics, hell why not point shoot?

All Hollywood actors “point shoot� in their movies, hit everybody they are aiming at and never have to reload.

Point shooting has no place in professional weapons training, period.

Team Sergeant

Well, what about flash site pictures focusing on the bad guy at very close range?


TS, I'd think that you would agree that target focus flash site pictures are a lot different from unaimed point shooting.

Jim

[Team Sergeant]

Originally posted by BadMuther
Well, what about flash site pictures focusing on the bad guy at very close range?


TS, I'd think that you would agree that target focus flash site pictures are a lot different from unaimed point shooting.

Jim

You sir, are now speaking my lingo….

A flash front sight is what I use to make my fastest shots. It’s the difference between grazing an opponents ear or placing a round through his left eye socket.

TS

[BadMuther]

Gotcha.....

Now we are both on the same sheet of music TS.

Let me ask you this though.

At Ranges of say 0-7, when you are using a flash site picture, are you focusing on the target or the front site?

Thanks,

Jim

[Bill Harsey]

Col. Rex Applegate had always stressed to me that point shooting as he taught it was AIMED FIRE and to always bring the handgun to eye level before shooting. I'm starting to think what he was doing was very close to what you call getting a Flash Front Site.

[Team Sergeant]

There’s only a few people on this planet that I allow within three feet of me. So let’s talk 5 feet and beyond and yes I would use a flash front sight. The target is always in focus when using a flash front sight, that’s the idea, when you see the front sight “flash� upon the tgt you used a controlled trigger pull to place rounds on target. I also temper that with the reality one may have to make a “high value� shot and if so the focus would change back to the front sight.

TS

BTW, I do hope you do not allow anyone within 0 feet of yourself unless you are wearing a condom…;)

[Team Sergeant]

Originally posted by Bill Harsey
Col. Rex Applegate had always stressed to me that point shooting as he taught it was AIMED FIRE and to always bring the handgun to eye level before shooting. I'm starting to think what he was doing was very close to what you call getting a Flash Front Site.

I have not read any of the Col's shooting techniques so I cannot comment on what he meant. But "Aimed Fire" to me would be employing a sighting system of some sort.

TS

[Bill Harsey]

First, I do not pretend to be an expert on this topic but I can repeat what Rex Applegate taught me. Col. Applegate always stressed that point shooting was aimed fire, not "sighted fire". He was careful to make this distinction. This is what makes me think you guys might be closer rather than
farther apart. Also of note he taught the handgun as offensive shooting. He said this was the quickest way to insure the outcome of a gun battle in our favor.

[Smokin Joe]

Originally posted by Team Sergeant
There’s only a few people on this planet that I allow within three feet of me. So let’s talk 5 feet and beyond and yes I would use a flash front sight. The target is always in focus when using a flash front sight, that’s the idea, when you see the front sight “flash� upon the tgt you used a controlled trigger pull to place rounds on target. I also temper that with the reality one may have to make a “high value� shot and if so the focus would change back to the front sight.

TS

BTW, I do hope you do not allow anyone within 0 feet of yourself unless you are wearing a condom…;)

TS,

If you don't mind would you appease me in a scenario question.

I'm not trying to split hairs here, nor am I trying to be condescending by my question. I know Bad Mofo used to be a cop and I currently work in the LEO field. So he can relate to my scenario. Unfortunatly there are a zillion variables in any give situation but how would you handle this situation? I understand you are not, nor were you a cop, and I'm not trying to mix your training and experience for that given to a standard cop. I'm just trying to possible learn something new.

You are on foot patrol in an urban area, you stop and talk to an individual and find out he has a Violent Crime (Felony) warrant out for his arrest. You tell the guy to turn around and place his hands behind his back, the guy is totally cooperates, you close the distance to place him into handcuffs, when you are about a foot away the guy turns and pulls a gun.

If anyone else wants to add how they would handle this I'm all ears.

Thank you Team Sergeant.

[Sacamuelas]

Smokin Joe-

I am not pretending to and won't try to chime in an answer to your scenario. I have a simple question after reading your scenario though.

Your scenario of being <1 foot away and being drawn on in surprise ...wouldn't that dictate the use of a different tactic due to the close range involved. Due to him having the drop on you already at that range, wouldn't a H2H disarming tactic or strike to deflect his weapon away from your midline be better as your initial response verses trying outshoot a suspect that has already drawn down on you? I would think your chances are slim to none if you try to draw/aim or "point"/fire faster than he can simply pull his trigger.

Just a question.. I am not LE or by any means someone like the TS... Just asking a question. Thanks

[Smokin Joe]

Originally posted by Sacamuelas
Smokin Joe-

I am not pretending to and won't try to chime in an answer to your scenario. I have a simple question after reading your scenario though.

Your scenario of being <1 foot away and being drawn on in surprise ...wouldn't that dictate the use of a different tactic due to the close range involved. Due to him having the drop on you already at that range, wouldn't a H2H disarming tactic or strike to deflect his weapon away from your midline be better as your initial response verses trying outshoot a suspect that has already drawn down on you? I would think your chances are slim to none if you try to draw/aim or "point"/fire faster than he can simply pull his trigger.

Just a question.. I am not LE or by any means someone like the TS... Just asking a question. Thanks

Its your discreation. Do you want to duke it out fist to gun or go to guns on the guy?

I personally might try and trap the gun while I shove one of my knives through his larynx past his upper palet trying to get his brain stem (it would be a lucky shot but who knows). Or trap the weapon and stick my gun to his head. It all depends METT-T dependent. As this scenario goes your close REAL close and you are behind the curve so you need to do something to survive. I have done enough martial arts and defensive tacitcs to know that in a situation like this you need to comit to something disarming him may take too long or he may have backed away from you enough to catch you overly commited and completely outstretched.

This is what we call a "What-if" scenario that I/we do all the time. That way you have a plan in case this does happen. What you do is your decision but it maybe your last. In short I DON'T have the correct answer. Sorry.

[Team Sergeant]

SJ,

I am not going to get into “what if� scenarios on this board. In my line of work we didn’t “what if� we had “contingency plans� for various scenarios. I am sure you also have departmental protocols for most situations you might encounter.

Anyway it would seem you have already answered your own question. Let’s get back to point shooting.

TS

[Razor]

Joe,

Are we to assume we're LE, and we're alone? I ask because from a non-LE viewpoint, if I had to (and were able to) close with a known violent person to apply restraints, I would approach with my weapon ready and aimed at his melon so that the first sign of his resistance would be met with instant incapacitation. Even better would be to have a buddy also targeting him and skew from my line of approach so that once I've reached arm's length and require the use of both hands the bad guy is still covered by someone able to quickly end the threat should he show any signs of resistance.

[Smokin Joe]

Originally posted by Team Sergeant
SJ,

I am not going to get into “what if� scenarios on this board. In my line of work we didn’t “what if� we had “contingency plans� for various scenarios. I am sure you also have departmental protocols for most situations you might encounter.

Anyway it would seem you have already answered your own question. Let’s get back to point shooting.

TS

Understood Team Sergeant.


Razor yup your a cop trying to affect an arrest and you are alone.

[Sacamuelas]

Originally posted by Smokin Joe
I personally might try and trap the gun while I shove one of my knives through his larynx past his upper palet trying to get his brain stem (it would be a lucky shot but who knows). Or trap the weapon and stick my gun to his head. It all depends METT-T dependent. As this scenario goes your close REAL close and you are behind the curve so you need to do something to survive. I have done enough martial arts and defensive tacitcs to know that in a situation like this you need to comit to something disarming him may take too long or he may have backed away from you enough to catch you overly commited and completely outstretched.
:eek:

If you had time to unsheath and use your knife on him before he pulled his trigger then I agree with you that a gun is your better option.
I don't think I worded my question clearly. I will probably get my my questions cleared up as this scenario gets expounded in the future. I don't want to hijack the thread any longer. Thanks Joe.

[BadMuther]

Originally posted by Team Sergeant
There’s only a few people on this planet that I allow within three feet of me. So let’s talk 5 feet and beyond and yes I would use a flash front sight. The target is always in focus when using a flash front sight, that’s the idea, when you see the front sight “flash� upon the tgt you used a controlled trigger pull to place rounds on target. I also temper that with the reality one may have to make a “high value� shot and if so the focus would change back to the front sight.

TS

BTW, I do hope you do not allow anyone within 0 feet of yourself unless you are wearing a condom…


TS-Okay, You and I are on the same sheet of music. I guess for a proper discussion, we would all have to agree on the meaning of certain terminology.

The reason I asked about where you are focusing on a flash site picture as I have had instruction at the police academy where the instructors referred to a "flash site" as a quick site picture where you are still focusing on the front site. He was one of those, "Front site focus NO MATTER WHAT" guys.

Thank you for your response.

As for folks within o yards of me.....I went to a Ranger gettogether last weekend, and you just never know about them gay Turd Batters....sneak up on you in a second!! ;)

[Guy]

I'm not getting into a knife fight.

As far as H2H...I'm not doing that either. I just need to create enough distance to "point shoot".

The closer the distance...you can and most likely will "point shoot" because the threat is imminent and the body/mind will react accordingly.

[NousDefionsDoc]

I think Mr. Harsey is right about Col. Applegate's definition of point shooting. I went through the subject in Close Combat Files again.

Team Sergeant - its a shame you don't have more of an opinion on the subject.:p Not like you to beat around the bush so.

Thinking about this some more, I'm starting to think that its a combination of what everybody has said - body position, practice, muscle memory, confidence, etc. I thought about it yesterday a little while doing an easy exercise - I think the TS is right about the flash site. Even if I wasn't conscious of it. With the body/weapon position the way it is, I can't help but see the front site - its between the ojo and the target. It also seemed I was different on the trigger - harder if you will, and less conscious of it. Doing the same things as always, just not as refined and not a conscious effort. Nike Shooting. LOL

[NousDefionsDoc]

I have ordered, to further research the topic and to complete my library, Capt. Fairbairn and the Colonel's books on the subject. Will report back after I beat the Team Sergeant in head to head competition. May take a while, so don't wait up.

[Team Sergeant]

NDD,

Please post a link (or PM) to where you purchased these books. I wish to read what the good Col wrote regarding shooting techniques, I’m not convinced he was speaking about "point shooting" as we know it.

TS

The glove is thrown. I await your arrival. .45’s, combat loads, iron sights. Loser sends SOWF $100. Winner buys the beer. Bring it on.

[NousDefionsDoc]

Amazon.com

I ordered Shooting to live by Fairbairn and Bullseyes don't shoot Back by Applegate.

You'll have to wait. I'm on Protracted War strategy. My target is too strong for me to attack now. I think with this deal, the winner will end up spending more money than the loser. LOL

[Team Sergeant]

Let me know what you think of “Bulleyes don’t shoot back�. If all the shooting instruction is by the Col I’ll buy it, if Michael Janich discusses point shooting than it’s a no go. He’s got no experience with handguns and absolutely zero in the creds area as an operator. He’s nothing more than a SPE. (Self Proclaimed Expert)

“Janich is also one of the foremost modern authorities on handgun point shooting.�

http://www.martialbladecraft.net/biography.htm

This is the very reason I give point shooting zero credibility. All those that profess point shooting famous capability themselves are nothing but novices in the field of shooting (less Col Applegate). I also find it amusing that all are self proclaimed subject matter experts.

Again I’m not convinced the Col was referring to point shooting as the professionals refer to a flash front sight. If this is the case than it’s not the “point shooting� as everyone thinks, it’s actually a flash front sight.

While we used to actually teach point shooting in SOF we have long since evolved.

Shooting at a target 3-7 feet away could also be called “Blind shooting� because even a blind man could execute that kind of shot each and every time. Blind or Point shooting has no place where innocents are close by or there are more than one bad guy. While I’ve never seen someone miss at 3 feet, I have witnessed hundreds miss between 3-7 meters. A point shooter would not survive in this sort of close quarters combat.

TS

[NousDefionsDoc]

I agree with what you said. There is a chapter devoted to point shooting in "Kill or Be Kilt", and having read it again, I don't think he is using a flash sight picture. Point shooting, as espoused by the Colonel is NOT for hostage rescue. It was developed to teach large numbers of people how to defend themselves with a handgun at very close range in the shortest amount of time possible. Mostly agents having an encounter with Nazis in a train station or such. It is therefore, a defense technique IMO and not related to hostage rescue, which requires high speed precision shooting and is offensive (especially to the hostage takers). Two different techniques for two different problems.

The other reason I would call point shooting defensive is the continuous talk of reaction and convulsive movements. This to me implies a defensive move after the fact.

Having said all this, I think point shooting is still a valid technique if used for its intended purpose.

Good discussion.

[Team Sergeant]

And therein lies the vast difference between law enforcement and SOF. We do not instruct our men in "defensive" handgun tactics or techniques.

As everyone has told me about the Col he was trying to impart his knowledge to the LEO's, which makes sense teaching them such techniques. (Until you have two armed bank robbers hold off 100 LEO's for 45 minutes because defensive point shooting techniques suck.;))

TS

[NousDefionsDoc]

Even more than attempt to teach LEOs, I think the whole mindset of the times when Fairbairn, Sykes and the Col. came up with point shooting was defensive. There was a big fear of a Nazi invasion of Britain. In addition, what agent would intentionally start a gunfight?

Also, as we have discussed, Fairbain and Sykes developed most of their systems while members of the Shanghai Police, so it all makes sense.

[Team Sergeant]

OK, no more until I read the Col books!

TS

(I’m not reading anything with Janice as an author, in my book he’s a wannabe that has tied his wagon to a real legend.)

[NousDefionsDoc]

Point Shooting

"In zee name of zee Fuher, stop zee train."

"You are looking much like zee Ameri-can. Give me zee papers!"

"BAM BAM!"

"RUNAWAY!"

[NousDefionsDoc]

If you don't want to see Janich, don't get Bullseyes Don't Shootback - he's the demo for all the photos.

Shooting to Live is a pocket book and I like it better. The information in both is the same.

It will work, I think, but it goes against the grain of what we already know and I think will cause development of some bad habits for our business. probably very good to teach large numbers of people to defend themselves in a very short time.

I'm sticking with flash sight - I'm already so fast doing anything else wouldn't be fair.:lifter

[Bill Harsey]

I'm going to go out on a limb here, a really big strong limb. I believe that Col. Rex Applegate would enjoy the hell out of this thread. I know he was always looking for a better way to use a handgun. His interest in this came from personal experience. NDD is exactly correct about why Col. Applegate taught point shooting. The reason Col Applegate took his point shooting and turned it towards law enforcement is that cops were getting their ass kicked in close quarter gun fights across the nation. In Col. Applegates own words to me, "There are always the gun nuts in a police department, these are the guys who take a great interest in training to shoot and learning about firearms. Many other cops recieve poor training and can't shoot under stress, this is shown in the incident reports in many big police agencies across the United States." Cops were losing too many gunfights for the Col.s taste so he decided to turn what he knew about shooting towards law enforcement. This was a late development in his life, I know this because, at Col. Applegates request I re-did his WW2 drawings of point shooting from soldier to cop for publication in the police magazines.

[Bill Harsey]

On behalf of Col. Applegate, I'll thrown in ONE Harsey Custom Titanium bottle opener (from the Harsey Dept. of Clandestine Operations) to the winner of this competition. Be sure the beer payment is bottled.

[mffjm8509]

hhmm.......

Where will this competition be & when will it commence?

Maybee we could make a day of it?

mp

[Bill Harsey]

I'll check with Team Sergeant and see how big his backyard is...

[The Reaper]

Originally posted by Bill Harsey
On behalf of Col. Applegate, I'll thrown in ONE Harsey Custom Titanium bottle opener (from the Harsey Dept. of Clandestine Operations) to the winner of this competition. Be sure the beer payment is bottled.

I can attest to the quality of this very HSLD beer opener and as usual, can post pis, if desired.

No serious gear collection would be complete without one!

TR

[Kyobanim]

Originally posted by The Reaper
I can attest to the quality of this very HSLD beer opener and as usual, can post pis, if desired.

TR

I'm sure it's a very high quality opener, but please, don't post a picture of the after effects. :D

[Razor]

Talking about the opener but not showing pics is as frustrating as a fan dance!

[The Reaper]

Since you asked nicely....

With one of Mr. Reeve's Sebenza folders.

Very nice combo.

TR

[Bill Harsey]

That's the latest pattern titanium opener. Note the chisel front for light prying of the shoe polish can lid or emergency screwdriver work. I haven't tried carrying one of those thru an airport yet, maybe it would be ok with a round end.

[The Reaper]

Originally posted by Bill Harsey
That's the latest pattern titanium opener. Note the chisel front for light prying of the shoe polish can lid or emergency screwdriver work. I haven't tried carrying one of those thru an airport yet, maybe it would be ok with a round end.

I think you credit the TSA employees with too much intelligence, and I cannot afford to have it confiscated by a former minimum wage 7-11 employee now wearing a badge.

Here it is in a native habitat. For you 10th Group guys.

TR

[Razor]

TR, close, but I'd prefer the background to be a Paulaner dunkel weizen. ;)

[The Reaper]

Originally posted by Razor
TR, close, but I'd prefer the background to be a Paulaner dunkel weizen. ;)

Guess you can go thirsty here then.:D

Closest I have. I am sure that you can find the Class VI Store.

TR

[NousDefionsDoc]

Originally posted by Razor
TR, close, but I'd prefer the background to be a Paulaner dunkel weizen. ;)

I like beer.

[The Reaper]

Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
I like beer.

Let's see, for you, my brother, I have assorted cans of Coors Light, bottles of Bud, Yuengling Light, Yuengling Black and Tan, Dundee Honey Brown, Warsteiner, and of course, Guinness.

All cold and waiting.

Got some fine whiskey here as well, if you ever get back up this way.

I think AM and Bill can vouch for the quality of the potables here.

The 10th Group guys can stop by the store on the way and get whatever exotic crap they want.

TR

[Bill Harsey]

Originally posted by The Reaper
Let's see, for you, my brother, I have assorted cans of Coors Light, bottles of Bud, Yuengling Light, Yuengling Black and Tan, Dundee Honey Brown, Warsteiner, and of course, Guinness.

All cold and waiting.

Got some fine whiskey here as well, if you ever get back up this way.

I think AM and Bill can vouch for the quality of the potables here.

The 10th Group guys can stop by the store on the way and get whatever exotic crap they want.

TR Yep.

[Roguish Lawyer]

Originally posted by Bill Harsey
Note the chisel front for light prying of the shoe polish can lid or emergency screwdriver work.

Looks like that would work well for opening cans of dip too.

I want one, Mr. Harsey. Please PM where I send my money and how much!

[Roguish Lawyer]

Originally posted by Bill Harsey
I'm going to go out on a limb here, a really big strong limb. I believe that Col. Rex Applegate would enjoy the hell out of this thread. I know he was always looking for a better way to use a handgun. His interest in this came from personal experience. NDD is exactly correct about why Col. Applegate taught point shooting. The reason Col Applegate took his point shooting and turned it towards law enforcement is that cops were getting their ass kicked in close quarter gun fights across the nation. In Col. Applegates own words to me, "There are always the gun nuts in a police department, these are the guys who take a great interest in training to shoot and learning about firearms. Many other cops recieve poor training and can't shoot under stress, this is shown in the incident reports in many big police agencies across the United States." Cops were losing too many gunfights for the Col.s taste so he decided to turn what he knew about shooting towards law enforcement. This was a late development in his life, I know this because, at Col. Applegates request I re-did his WW2 drawings of point shooting from soldier to cop for publication in the police magazines.

Sounds kind of like CPR training for laymen. You know they'll probably screw it up, but at least try to get them to do something useful when an emergency happens. Better than nothing.

[Roguish Lawyer]

Originally posted by Razor
TR, close, but I'd prefer the background to be a Paulaner dunkel weizen. ;)

I like the Salvator, personally.

[Roguish Lawyer]

Originally posted by The Reaper
Let's see, for you, my brother, I have assorted cans of Coors Light, bottles of Bud, Yuengling Light, Yuengling Black and Tan, Dundee Honey Brown, Warsteiner, and of course, Guinness.

All cold and waiting.

Got some fine whiskey here as well, if you ever get back up this way.

I think AM and Bill can vouch for the quality of the potables here.

The 10th Group guys can stop by the store on the way and get whatever exotic crap they want.

TR

TR's home sounds like a cache of great gear and beer, among other things.

[NousDefionsDoc]

I have the video of the original OSS movie made at the training ground. Quite a good piece on point shooting. Not like layman CPR at all.

[Bill Harsey]

Originally posted by Roguish Lawyer
Sounds kind of like CPR training for laymen. You know they'll probably screw it up, but at least try to get them to do something useful when an emergency happens. Better than nothing. RL, I've seen some of the training films from the OSS days because Col. Applegate told me to sit down and pay attention while he played them The one that sticks in my mind is that of point shooting being done with trainee using a .45 auto firing tracers. This was impressive because while the shooter was moving and engaging targets as directed by the instructor, we can watch the tracers bore into target after target at a good rate of speed. This was not beginning shooting.

[Bill Harsey]

I look at the WW2 era as an important step on the evolutionary chart of shooting. Knifemakers are about third from the left on the other one.

[Razor]

Originally posted by The Reaper
I am sure that you can find the Class VI Store.
TR

Actually, that's where I get my fix nowadays. :) Sorry, I admit that I'm a bit of a beer snob, but after living a while where they've been brewing for over a thousand years and have it pretty much figured out, I got spoiled.

[Bill Harsey]

I just put two seperate pieces of information together. One of the things Rex Applegate taught was to face the target (threat) head on and look where you want the bullet to go, raise the handgun to eye level and shoot when the gun reaches the target. I just remembered a statistic that my longtime knifemaking student and friend quoted me (long time cop, swat team leader, tested gunfighter), He said that in close up shoots that the cops often missed while bad guys shot the cop in the face because that's exactly where they were looking. The advantage of using police statistics is that No. 1, they get in shooting situations. No. 2 the incident reports are public knowledge which means we can study and quote them. QUESTION- When you guys are trained well enough to be good at flash front sight, doesn't it just become shoot where you look?

[NousDefionsDoc]

Interesting and very relevant I think. We have to be careful, as we're getting close to the line - but you see this very often in students. When they first get over the fear of the weapon and actually start shooting, they will often hit the part of the anatomy that they were instructed to check first. In addition, there are numerous stories of weapons being shot out of the bad guy's grasp. This isn't good shooting, its shooting where you are looking and being more than a little lucky.

[Bill Harsey]

I wasn't trying to in any way demean Flash Front Sight. I'd just had a thought...

[NousDefionsDoc]

LOL - and a good thought it was. I mean the OPSEC line.

[Bill Harsey]

Got it.

[mffjm8509]

Originally posted by Bill Harsey
IQUESTION- When you guys are trained well enough to be good at flash front sight, doesn't it just become shoot where you look?

I dont think thats good enough for offensive combat.

To elaborate on what NDD has already said, we are of course trained to check the hands prior to engaging, but if one is fixed there and not trained to focus on the front sight on the desired point of impact, he will shoot the bad guys hands.......thus leaving a still very alive threat in the fight.

From my own experience I can say that when I've engaged targets, and dont physically remember seeing front sight, my shots are not where I would have liked them to be. So in every AAR of a shoothouse, stress fire, or Critical Task Evaluation, I always inquire about what the shooter remembers seeing. Most of the time, they dont remember the front sight, (as is the case with most real police gunfights). To me this means we spend more time on the range workign fundamentals...

just my .02

mp

[Team Sergeant]

Originally posted by Bill Harsey
I wasn't trying to in any way demean Flash Front Sight. I'd just had a thought...

You won't.

There lies a world of difference between defensive and offensive shooting. The same goes for the mindset involved.

[NousDefionsDoc]

Originally posted by mffjm8509
I dont think thats good enough for offensive combat.

To elaborate on what NDD has already said, we are of course trained to check the hands prior to engaging, but if one is fixed there and not trained to focus on the front sight on the desired point of impact, he will shoot the bad guys hands.......thus leaving a still very alive threat in the fight.

From my own experience I can say that when I've engaged targets, and dont physically remember seeing front sight, my shots are not where I would have liked them to be. So in every AAR of a shoothouse, stress fire, or Critical Task Evaluation, I always inquire about what the shooter remembers seeing. Most of the time, they dont remember the front sight, (as is the case with most real police gunfights). To me this means we spend more time on the range workign fundamentals...

just my .02

mp

Excellent post! I even chant it under my breath when I'm working. Little whisper to the CQB Dieties - "Front site, front site, front site - BLAM!" LOL. Good rythm aid for a white boy that can't salsa too.:D

[larfive]

Point shooting is all I ever trained on. I know it my seem I'm limiting myself but I have always been taught to keep my eyes on the target not the sights. My old man was always training us for in house shooting, hence the importance on point shooting.

I love it myself. The only reason I ever look at my sights are in low visability, (and that takes about a split second) to make sure the weapon is leveled. At night we tend to shoot high so that is the only reason I do it. In "serious social work" missing your target sucks, what even sucks worse is you missed because of the time it would take to aquire target acquisition. Which brings me to my next subject.

I just started using Ghost rings on my Glock and .45. They allow you fast target aquisition with both eyes open and as long as you have the area of aquisition within the ring you will more than likely hit your target. I am not a big fan of using sights unless I'm behind my SAKO TRG41, but these Ghost rings are very good. I know their not knew but compared to how I have been shooting they do make a difference in my thinking towards sights on hand guns.

LarV

[NousDefionsDoc]

you will more than likely hit your target.

And therein lies the problem. "More than likely" ain't sat in our world.:munchin

[larfive]

Tushae NDD,

Right you are. Just my opinion of them. Im a sure that with more time on the range, that quote can be cleared right up.

L5

[Sacamuelas]

Originally posted by larfive
They allow you fast target aquisition with both eyes open ...

You shoot with one eye closed when using standard sights on a pistol???

[Team Sergeant]

Originally posted by Sacamuelas
You shoot with one eye closed when using standard sights on a pistol?



I do and it works quite well for me.

But then again, what do I know.

TS

[Sacamuelas]

You advocating me shooting/practicing with one eye closed Team Sergeant?

[NousDefionsDoc]

Originally posted by Team Sergeant
But then again, what do I know.

TS

LOL

[Sacamuelas]

I have a picture somewhere of a certain Team Sergeant shooting a 'quiet' pistol... BOTH his eyes are open, facing target with isoscles stance with arms extended straught out towards target.

Team Sergeant-
Were you taking out a target of opportunity (me) by saying that you "can" shoot with one eye closed when you want... or was your post meant as I read it, to say that you almost always shoot with one eye closed?

I am interested, really, as I have always shot with both eyes open. :munchin

[CPTAUSRET]

Great thread!

Terry

[Team Sergeant]

Originally posted by Sacamuelas
You advocating me shooting/practicing with one eye closed Team Sergeant?

Not at all tooth puller.

I would however advise against questioning someone’s shooting techniques until you’ve dropped the hammer on 500,000-1,000,000 or so rounds, or of course attended some world class shooting school.

You don’t see me questioning anyone’s surgical techniques do you?

TS

[Kyobanim]

Ouch! That's gonna leave a mark

[Guy]

Determines whether I shoot with both eyes open or one eye closed.

[larfive]

Originally posted by Sacamuelas
You shoot with one eye closed when using standard sights on a pistol???

NEGATIVE brother,

I always shoot with both eyes on the target! I only used the sights on the pistol for night shooting just to ensure my weapon is level. :)

L5

[Guy]

Originally posted by larfive
NEGATIVE brother,

I always shoot with both eyes on the target! I only used the sights on the pistol for night shooting just to ensure my weapon is level. :)

L5

You damn sure will not be hitting a moving target while keeping both eyes on the target.

Target shooting is just that...TARGET SHOOTING!

Combat shooting...that damn target aint standing still. Throw in shooting & moving and you will miss every time unless you are acquiring a front sight pic and tracking the target.

[Roguish Lawyer]

I have finished Kill or Get Killed by COL Rex Applegate. The section on point shooting reminded me of this thread, which I have now re-read. I think there are several erroneous statements in the thread, and that the following are correct:

1. COL Applegate maintains that point shooting is an offensive, not defensive, method. (Chapter 5, first paragraph). In fact, he says that "defensive shooting" is a fallacy.

2. He advocates learning to shoot without using the sights at all only in close quarters (less than 50 feet).

3. He says that training to shoot without sights is important because the shooter may lack the time or light needed to use the sights, not that aiming is not a good idea.

4. He refers to a study which found a dramatic improvement in shoot-house performance after point-shooting training is provided.

5. His suggested method for raising the weapon seems to differ from the Team Sergeant's method.

[NousDefionsDoc]

One thing to keep in mind is that they were not doing what we call precision shooting - they were shooting center mass on a known hostile.

What the TS does is shoot eyes out over shoulders.

CQB is about precision shooting - a lot of people forget that part for some reason. It is discriminatory.

The other thing to remember is that those guys were Innovators. They would kick our collective asses if we stagnated and failed to move forward.

I hadn't seen Guy's post above yours - he makes a great point. Heads move a lot.

[Team Sergeant]

I have finished Kill or Get Killed by COL Rex Applegate. The section on point shooting reminded me of this thread, which I have now re-read. I think there are several erroneous statements in the thread, and that the following are correct:

1. COL Applegate maintains that point shooting is an offensive, not defensive, method. (Chapter 5, first paragraph). In fact, he says that "defensive shooting" is a fallacy.

2. He advocates learning to shoot without using the sights at all only in close quarters (less than 50 feet).

3. He says that training to shoot without sights is important because the shooter may lack the time or light needed to use the sights, not that aiming is not a good idea.

4. He refers to a study which found a dramatic improvement in shoot-house performance after point-shooting training is provided.

5. His suggested method for raising the weapon seems to differ from the Team Sergeant's method.

Thank you for your input, Grasshopper.

This has been discussed ad nauseam but for you we can continue to beat this dead horse.:rolleyes:

Had the Col attended a recent Special Forces shooting school I’m sure he would agree with how we’re now doing things. In fact I’m sure he’d be impressed. We’ve come a long way from point shooting…….. While I would agree that point shooting had its day that day has come and gone. Some of the Special Forces Vietnam Vet's taught me to point shoot, both pistol and rifle. Those techniques were good but now we've evolved to bigger and better methods.

Here are a few things to ponder, no one in the National Shooting leagues, that wins, point shoots. You will only find about one or two "firearms" instructors that actually advocate or teach point shooting. I know that no one in Special Operations is taught to point shoot, (well cept maybe our doorgunners…..) and the reason is point shooting is not surgical enough when firing into a mixed crowd. While not every SF soldier has attended our surgical shooting schools, many have and those that have teach those that have not.

Many in the US military carry pistols, very very few have been taught to use them offensively and only a handful with tack driving precision.

Please feel free to learn point shooting and I will continue to use the sights, all the time, every time.

I almost forgot, didn't I teach you to shoot a bullet hole through a bullet hole?
You cannot do that point shooting.

Team Sergeant
"Gun Whisperer"

[Cincinnatus]

Some training buddies and I took the Hocking College point shooting instructor course a couple of years ago. This is part of the Ohio POST curriculum as taught by Hocking and is the most direct Applegate lineage instruction available (the COL went and met with them, designed the curriculum and taught their first instructors.) I think I was third or fourth in the class of twenty one students.

That said, Sneaky is exactly right. Point shooting is NOT precision shooting and even very skilled and practiced individuals cannot achieve the degree of precision that TS and Sneaky do. When I'm really on my game, have been practicing faithfully and am having a good day, I can hit a beer can two out of three times at ten yards using Applegate's methods. At that same distance, they're putting bullets through the same hole. Something to think about.

Both methods have their place. As Sneaky points out if you're at relatively close proximity to the BG, across an average size room or closer, a saucer sized group in the chest is probably more than adequate.

Among people I know who've really trained in both sighted shooting and point shooting, there is no "controversy" over which method to use. There is unanimity that sighted fire with both hands on the weapon is most desireable for both accuracy and rapid recovery. There is also recognition that there are likely to be times when circumstances make this untenable and being able to get hits shooting one handed without using your sights is a desirable skill to have.

A few interesting data points;

- D.R. Middlebrooks has repeatedly demonstrated that he can hit a plate out to fifty yards using a pistol w/o sights in a sort of Mod-Iso point shooting hybrid.

- In our class at Hocking everyone could get good hits (roughly saucer sized groups COM) at five yards. Perhaps three quarters of the class could do so at seven yards, only a third could consistently accomplish this at ten yards.

- A buddy was in a FoF class where the front sight had fallen off the training gun, he, and several other students, went through several iterations before anyone noticed the sight was missing. In close range confrontations even those who have trained sighted fire extensively may fail to use their sights (though they may think they are doing so.)

HTH

[Cincinnatus]

Oooops, cross posted with TS. Not taking issue with anything he posted and no disrespect or disagreement intended.

[Roguish Lawyer]

Thank you for your input, Grasshopper.

This has been discussed ad nauseam but for you we can continue to beat this dead horse.:rolleyes:

Had the Col attended a recent Special Forces shooting school I’m sure he would agree with how we’re now doing things. In fact I’m sure he’d be impressed. We’ve come a long way from point shooting…….. While I would agree that point shooting had its day that day has come and gone. Some of the Special Forces Vietnam Vet's taught me to point shoot, both pistol and rifle. Those techniques were good but now we've evolved to bigger and better methods.

Here are a few things to ponder, no one in the National Shooting leagues, that wins, point shoots. You will only find about one or two "firearms" instructors that actually advocate or teach point shooting. I know that no one in Special Operations is taught to point shoot, (well cept maybe our doorgunners…..) and the reason is point shooting is not surgical enough when firing into a mixed crowd. While not every SF soldier has attended our surgical shooting schools, many have and those that have teach those that have not.

Many in the US military carry pistols, very very few have been taught to use them offensively and only a handful with tact driving precision.

Please feel free to learn point shooting and I will continue to use the sights, all the time, every time.

I almost forgot, didn't I teach you to shoot a bullet hole through a bullet hole?
You cannot do that point shooting.

Team Sergeant
"Gun Whisperer"

Thank you, TS. Still trying to grab that pebble . . .

[Bill Harsey]

The other thing to remember is that those guys were Innovators. They would kick our collective asses if we stagnated and failed to move forward.


Correct.

Also remember the Col. Rex Applegates book was written on how to take a large number of men, who may have no experience or interest in firearms and give them some proficency to shoot in combat while conducting this training in the shortest possible period of time.

This is also what police departments have to do thus the Col.s work with Hocking College.

Team Sergeant,
I can safely state that Applegate would be thrilled to see the evolution into what is being done today.

[Team Sergeant]

Oooops, cross posted with TS. Not taking issue with anything he posted and no disrespect or disagreement intended.

None taken.

That was a well written post.

Our missions dictate our level of training. One of our missions is counter-terrorism;

"Hostage or Sensitive Materiel Recovery. These are operations conducted to rescue hostages and/or recover sensitive materiel from terrorist control, requiring capabilities not normally found in conventional military units. The safety of the hostages and preventing destruction of the sensitive materiel are essential mission requirements."


It would not bode well to have an "accident" on one of these type missions.;) And the reason we are taught to shoot surgically....

TS

[Smokin Joe]

- A buddy was in a FoF class where the front sight had fallen off the training gun, he, and several other students, went through several iterations before anyone noticed the sight was missing. In close range confrontations even those who have trained sighted fire extensively may fail to use their sights (though they may think they are doing so.)

HTH

I was fortunate enough to go shooting with the Team Sergeant a few times.

Since then I have run a few FoF evolutions. Most of these evolutions by design put you behind the curve. I now try to use my sights all of the time. Although there have been a few evolutions that I have run where I don't remember if I used my sights or not. But, after looking at my paint rounds on the BG's and reviewing video tapes. I'm sure I use my sights all of the time.

I'm now a firm believer in using sighted fire all of the time. Also I think that you can train to a point where you will either consciously or subconsciously us your sights all of the time. But, I'm still working on consciously using my sights all of the time.

The long and short of it is, using sights = more accurate hits.

However, I am but a Padawan

[HOLLiS]

Correct.

Also remember the Col. Rex Applegates book was written on how to take a large number of men, who may have no experience or interest in firearms and give them some proficency to shoot in combat while conducting this training in the shortest possible period of time.




Most affirmative, Sir. For most people, getting buy works, for those whose missions require more, that will not do. I sometimes feel that what I learned in the Marines is not much different than in the times of the Civil War compared to the professionism and expertise being taught today.

It is almost as though in RVN we faught with buck N ball.

[CoolT]

I know that I may be beating a dead horse here, however I just wanted to add something on this subject. Try using the method of keeping the gun in and parallel with your line of sight whether using your sights or not.

If you are being attacked and the "bad guy" is 7 yards in front of you, do you really think you will need to use your sights on his high center chest if there is no penalty for a miss? The gaol is to find YOUR balance of speed and accuracey that is realistic for a fight. Your brain will try to force you to keep both your eyes open therefore using your sights is an advanced mechanical skill.

I'm not by any stretch of the imagination saying that sights are not important. Sights are only important if that's what you need to use to get the hit. If it's a one hole drill you will need them, if it's a high center chest at 7 yards you shouldn't but everybody's competencey is different.

In my classes I get my students to find their personal balance of speed and precision. They do this by shooting at a close distance and shooting at different sized targets and not using their sights. I like the S.E.B. target for this specific drill. High center chest is 4-6 shots and all numbers and head shots are 1 shot only. Always shoot as fast as YOU can while still getting combat accrate hits. Instead of focusing on the front sight, focus on the exact spot in the center of mass that you want to hit. If the gun is in and paralled with your line of sight, you will hit inside that combat accurate target area. Therefore you are working with what happens to you naturally in a fight instead of against it.

As you move back you will slow down and you will get to the distance that you will need to use your sights to get the hit in the combat accurate area. This is not point shooting, the gun is in the same place, the same way every time......in and parallel with your line of sight. There is a lot more to it, but if you just give it a try you may find that this will make you much more efficient in the context of a fight.

[Team Sergeant]

I know that I may be beating a dead horse here, however I just wanted to add something on this subject. Try using the method of keeping the gun in and parallel with your line of sight whether using your sights or not.

If you are being attacked and the "bad guy" is 7 yards in front of you, do you really think you will need to use your sights on his high center chest if there is no penalty for a miss? The gaol is to find YOUR balance of speed and accuracey that is realistic for a fight. Your brain will try to force you to keep both your eyes open therefore using your sights is an advanced mechanical skill.

I'm not by any stretch of the imagination saying that sights are not important. Sights are only important if that's what you need to use to get the hit. If it's a one hole drill you will need them, if it's a high center chest at 7 yards you shouldn't but everybody's competencey is different.

In my classes I get my students to find their personal balance of speed and precision. They do this by shooting at a close distance and shooting at different sized targets and not using their sights. I like the S.E.B. target for this specific drill. High center chest is 4-6 shots and all numbers and head shots are 1 shot only. Always shoot as fast as YOU can while still getting combat accrate hits. Instead of focusing on the front sight, focus on the exact spot in the center of mass that you want to hit. If the gun is in and paralled with your line of sight, you will hit inside that combat accurate target area. Therefore you are working with what happens to you naturally in a fight instead of against it.

As you move back you will slow down and you will get to the distance that you will need to use your sights to get the hit in the combat accurate area. This is not point shooting, the gun is in the same place, the same way every time......in and parallel with your line of sight. There is a lot more to it, but if you just give it a try you may find that this will make you much more efficient in the context of a fight.

And when there is a "penalty for a miss" what do you teach then?

If you teach to "always" use your frontsight you will not miss. Try a "flash" front sight when in close. When in a close fight most will default to training, and if you teach to use the frontsight that will become the default.
This is how Special Forces is taught to shoot, we stopped point shooting decades ago.

[nmap]

Thank you, Team Sergeant - this answers a question I've had for some time.

A CCW holder who hits the wrong target - or, for that matter, misses the target - might face a considerable penalty for a miss.

[CoolT]

Not trying to start a debate by any means but "point shooting" can be done with the gun in any position. Again the gun is in the same place whether you are using your sights or not.

I recentley had an SF guy down here in one of the classes and I saw the method you use. I'm not saying that the method is bad. I used to use it myself.

People will naturally slow down or use their sights when there is a penalty for a miss. I let them experience it for themselves in a drill I have.

Unfortunatally this is just one of those topics that is just much easier to demonstrate and teach someone in person. If you want more info just PM and i've got some.

[Team Sergeant]

Not trying to start a debate by any means but "point shooting" can be done with the gun in any position. Again the gun is in the same place whether you are using your sights or not.

I recentley had an SF guy down here in one of the classes and I saw the method you use. I'm not saying that the method is bad. I used to use it myself.

People will naturally slow down or use their sights when there is a penalty for a miss. I let them experience it for themselves in a drill I have.

Unfortunatally this is just one of those topics that is just much easier to demonstrate and teach someone in person. If you want more info just PM and i've got some.


But you have, once again, started the debate and I'll be the first to tell you point shooting is dead.

If you teach individuals to a higher standard they will strive to maintain that standard, and we teach a much higher standard.

Ranger Paul Howe teaches this method, using sights. I actually do not know of any Special Operations instructor that uses or teaches a point shooting method.

And you work for?

[CoolT]

I know who Paul Howe is. Great book. I'm a contract instructor. But that is only until March when I leave. I've taught some of his students as well considering i'm in Houston just a few hours away. Haven't had the pleasure to train with him personally yet.

I'm not disagreeing with your method, point shooting aside. Your absolutley correct that the student will default to their level of training. If they have an understanding of their balance of speed and accuracey and believe in their application of that ability they will always get the hit. Misses are not acceptable in our program either. I just don't believe that in Extreme Close Quarters people will look at their sights when being attacked.

I have a link that I think that you would find really interesting but my computer is acting like a shit bag right now. Please go to this website and take a look at this study.

http://www.forcesciencenews.com/home/index.html

Go to transmission #135. I believe the original study is in transmission #134 but #135 sums it up pretty good.

[SF_BHT]

I know who Paul Howe is. Great book. I'm a contract instructor. But that is only until March when I leave. I've taught some of his students as well considering i'm in Houston just a few hours away. Haven't had the pleasure to train with him personally yet.

I'm not disagreeing with your method, point shooting aside. Your absolutley correct that the student will default to their level of training. If they have an understanding of their balance of speed and accuracey and believe in their application of that ability they will always get the hit. Misses are not acceptable in our program either. I just don't believe that in Extreme Close Quarters people will look at their sights when being attacked.

I have a link that I think that you would find really interesting but my computer is acting like a shit bag right now. Please go to this website and take a look at this study.

http://www.forcesciencenews.com/home/index.html

Go to transmission #135. I believe the original study is in transmission #134 but #135 sums it up pretty good.

How about answering the question TS asked....... And you work for? :munchin

[CoolT]

My bad, i'm currently doing work for 360 Tactical Training in Houston and Crow Global Inc. in Toronto. I have been asked to go to SOTG for the CQB instructors and the Sig Academy before I leave.

Please keep in mind that i'm not the typical instructor that refuses to progress and stays in the box. I'm always looking to better myself and my students and i'm glad I brought this subject back up because at the end of the day it will make me a better teacher and student.

Three of the instructors at 360 have been to several of Paul Howes classes. I called them this morning to discuss what has been brought up here. My question to them was "What are you seeing when the gun is at extension and on target from 7 yrds and closer when trying to hit a high center chest"? Their collective answer was that their primary focus was on the threat but they could see their sight and it was blurry. My next question to them was "Is this what you learned at Howes courses"? There answer was a collective "yes". Thay haven't heard the term "Flash" front sight before but they agreed that it was a great term for what they are seeing. I also agreed that because the gun is "in and parallel with my light of sight" I also see a blurry front sight or flash front sight with my primary focus being on the spot that I want to hit.

If there is a misunderstanding here guys, please let me know. If i'm wrong, explain it to me. This is always a hot topic in the shooting industry and people are very passionate about the subject when they discuss it. I'm just always on the hunt for the best and most realistic methods for a fight, i'm not looking to piss you off.

[Team Sergeant]

My bad, i'm currently doing work for 360 Tactical Training in Houston and Crow Global Inc. in Toronto. I have been asked to go to SOTG for the CQB instructors and the Sig Academy before I leave.

Please keep in mind that i'm not the typical instructor that refuses to progress and stays in the box. I'm always looking to better myself and my students and i'm glad I brought this subject back up because at the end of the day it will make me a better teacher and student.

Three of the instructors at 360 have been to several of Paul Howes classes. I called them this morning to discuss what has been brought up here. My question to them was "What are you seeing when the gun is at extension and on target from 7 yrds and closer when trying to hit a high center chest"? Their collective answer was that their primary focus was on the threat but they could see their sight and it was blurry. My next question to them was "Is this what you learned at Howes courses"? There answer was a collective "yes". Thay haven't heard the term "Flash" front sight before but they agreed that it was a great term for what they are seeing. I also agreed that because the gun is "in and parallel with my light of sight" I also see a blurry front sight or flash front sight with my primary focus being on the spot that I want to hit.

If there is a misunderstanding here guys, please let me know. If i'm wrong, explain it to me. This is always a hot topic in the shooting industry and people are very passionate about the subject when they discuss it. I'm just always on the hunt for the best and most realistic methods for a fight, i'm not looking to piss you off.

I would suggest you take more classes, find and talk to some high level shooters and do some reading.

There is nothing more important than the front sight, period. If you take the time to read on this website you will find some very good posts concerning the front sight and why it is so important. I will tell you that I am sure Paul Howe stresses the front sight and has probably told individuals something like "front sight, front sight front sight squeeze."

This holds true for pistol, submachine gun and short assault rifle (unless you're using optics). And if I had to guess I'd speculate that the ability of using the front sight is greatly diminished because of the current and heavy use of optics.

When you level a weapon at the intended target you should be concerned with three objects, the target, rear sight and the front sight, which one is in focus and why?

I don't listen to the "shooting industry" as most are non-military or non-combatants. Most are weekend "civilian" shooters (like weekend golfers) that enjoy throwing lead down range and really don't care how well they do it. Most cannot hit the water if they fell off the boat.

Every law enforcement officer (city, state or federal) will have a different opinion on marksmanship and most teach some form of forty year old marksmanship techniques. This goes on today all over the country. There are individuals teaching federal law enforcement officers that have never been in harm's way yet they are marksmanship/weapons training "directors" and they're are "city" law enforcement officers that consider themselves "military Special Operations Instructors", there's a gunstore owner in Scottsdale, AZ that has NEVER been to sniper school consulting/teaching the Scottsdale police department "sniper techniques, tactics and procedures. I digress. My point is the "shooting industry" is rife with idiots thinking themselves as weapons instructors.

Do some reading here, there are a few threads concerning marksmanship. When you're done with those ask me more questions.

[CoolT]

Will do TS. Thanks again.

[akv]

Three of the instructors at 360 have been to several of Paul Howes classes. I called them this morning to discuss what has been brought up here. My question to them was "What are you seeing when the gun is at extension and on target from 7 yrds and closer when trying to hit a high center chest"? Their collective answer was that their primary focus was on the threat but they could see their sight and it was blurry. My next question to them was "Is this what you learned at Howes courses"? There answer was a collective "yes".

Gentlemen,

Respectfully, I attended CSAT's Tactical Pistol Operator course last month. While it is certainly possible I was the class dunce, the above description is inconsistent with the methodology taught by Mr. Howe, and the course notes he prepared for students.

[jatx]

Three of the instructors at 360 have been to several of Paul Howes classes. I called them this morning to discuss what has been brought up here. My question to them was "What are you seeing when the gun is at extension and on target from 7 yrds and closer when trying to hit a high center chest"? Their collective answer was that their primary focus was on the threat but they could see their sight and it was blurry.

That's not what Paul teaches, so they missed the point or have chosen to unlearn it. He teaches his students to push the weapon out from a modified retention position with the muzzle angled up so that the front sight is acquired and the trigger squeeze begins before the arms reach full extension. This allows you to break the shot upon "first good sight picture". If their sights are blurry their attention is not where he taught them it should be.

[CoolT]

Roger that. I will say on their behalf that it's been a few years since they have been to his class and they have been to many different schools since but i'll be sure to tell them it's front sight, front sight, front sight.......squeeze. Thanks

[Razor]

CoolT,

Certainly, if you're firing from retention (such as the pectoral index as taught by Southnarc) or from less than full extension, such as Position 3 in the 4 count drawstroke, then it is nearly impossible to attain a sight picture as the weapon is out of your physical cone of vision. In those cases, you would need to employ indexed shooting techniques. However, if you're going to full extension before firing and putting the weapon into your vision cone, why not take the fraction of a second required to obtain at least a flash front sight picture? Is that 10th or 100th of a second time advantage actually going to have an appreciable effect in the outcome of the shooting?

[Blitzzz (RIP)]

over the years there is always "some better way" to acquire and engage targets under stressed conditions. Whose method is better can only be tested in a one on one room to room duel. Winner wins. What ever is taught now certainly is good enough for the newly informed. To banter back and forth can only let each person believe his way is best. I learned and practiced a certain way and occasionally evaluate other systems for some enhancement over what I do. My thoughts are what ever system a person trains to comfort and confidence should work split second well.
Still trying for the best well place shot and the very split second difference may allow me the better shot.....or not. Unless I do some paint ball duels I'm not likely to know...

[CoolT]

Razor,
I agree with what you are saying. The split second used to pick up the front sight won't make much of a difference. I do see the front sight on the target when at full extension, however my visual focus is in the center of mass of the area that I want to hit with a blurry front sight. But this is only at extremely close distances.....about 7 yds and in. If the target is small or far I will use a hard focus for more surgical shooting or slow down, depending again on my own balance of speed and accuracey. Either way I still shoot as fast as "I" can and still get the hit. The only real difference is as you stated, you focus on the sight no matter the distance, and at ECQ I focus on what the threat is doing and where I want to get the hit. I do that because it works well with what happens to the human body naturally in a fight. Keep both eyes open and focus on what is trying to kill you.
Did you happen to read that Force Science News article? Transmission #135.

But like you said, or someone else said. As long as you can do what you were taught well it doesn't matter. It's symantics. Still a good conversation to have though.

[PedOncoDoc]

But like you said, or someone else said. As long as you can do what you were taught well it doesn't matter. It's symantics. Still a good conversation to have though.

I'd have to disagree with this statement. If you were taught something incorrect or that is later shown to be ineffective it doesn't matter how well you do it or how much you train it - you have been set up to fail. If you have an appropriate mentor/instructor and train hard to precisely perform exactly what was taught at a very high level it shouldn't matter.

Take a look at a lot of the martial sports out there - the technique is designed to score points without neutralizing a threat (injuring an opponent will get you penalized.) You can train those techniques to a very high level but will find out how useful those skills are should you find yourself in a no bullshit combat moment. You should train how you want to fight because you WILL fight how you train.

[CoolT]

Ped,

Let me clarify. That statement was in reference to the two different methods of shooting that we were discussing. Both are good and both work. BJJ or JJJ, both are good and both work.

[Blitzzz (RIP)]

Unlike Martial Arts, rarely do shooting styles focus on wounding the opposition. Most generally...to shoot is to kill.
Of course if one is trying to shoot a weapon from an opponants hands, the front and rear sights may be necessary...
Good shooting everyone... Blitzzz

Another note; For those who believe me to be a smart ass, yes, often when given the ammunition..Thanks.

[frostfire]

I know that I may be beating a dead horse here, .

The horse is (and should be) dead indeed.

FWIW, here's MSG (ret) Paul R. Howe's own words on point shooting:
http://www.combatshootingandtactics.com/published/tactical_shooting_thoughts.pdf
Most folks here have read it.

I subscribe to the "if it works, it works" and "if it ain't broken, don't fix it" mindsets. However, there are scenarios where if you find it doesn't work, you don't get a second chance. For these, I look up to those who've been there, done that, more than a few times (so that luck had nothing to do with it), and emulate their TTP's.

[Team Sergeant]

The horse is (and should be) dead indeed.FWIW, here's MSG (ret) Paul R. Howe's own words on point shooting:
http://www.combatshootingandtactics.com/published/tactical_shooting_thoughts.pdf
Most folks here have read it.

I subscribe to the "if it works, it works" and "if it ain't broken, don't fix it" mindsets. However, there are scenarios where if you find it doesn't work, you don't get a second chance. For these, I look up to those who've been there, done that, more than a few times (so that luck had nothing to do with it), and emulate their TTP's.


The horse is far from dead as there are tens of thousands that swear by point shooting and are teaching it as a "credible" shooting technique.

I actually don't mind, I'd rather not have tens of thousands shoot as well as we (SF) do.:D

[dr. mabuse]

Good reminder frostfire. I occasionally get a question in class about point shooting and remind them it was popular when I was 6 or 7 years old. We've moved on to something better now.... :D

[5shot]

Found this site ping ponging around the web.

I am interested in Point Shooting, and plan to start a discussion of it for use at CQ.

Been discussing it and getting cussed at for bringing it up for around 10 years or so. As such, I have become thick skinned over the years, but still can be crabby. :)

My interest is narrow - my focus is only on aiming a handgun (pistol) at CQ (less than 20 feet), where if you are going to be shot, there is the greatest chance of that happening. (80%.)

Those are police based numbers, but probably have applicability to SOF.

My interest is also in improving the hit rate in CQ situations, which is less than 20%. Again that's a police based number, but one has to go with what's available.

..........

In previewing this post, I note that my sig line is showing. I tried to blank it out, but have not been able to do that. If it is not in accord with your rules, please erase it. Thanks.

[5shot]

I fixed the sig line. Funny, just happens to be a thread on point shooing. Next time you cite statistics, especially weapons statistics you'd better provide a source also. You might be the only individual left on the planett that actually teaches "point shooting".

http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1559

Thanks I will add a response to it rather than here.

Just a short note about it for now:

I noted that most of the thread was from 2004, and the focus was on Applegate. I got stuff and quotes and selections from his book in articles. There also is Quick Kill, and Lou Chiodo's (Calif CHP) Threat Focus shooting, which was mentioned.

The US Army recommends Isso shooting at 15 feet or less and for shooting at night.

I'll be happy to add in my articles to the PS thread, plus stats and studies that back up what I say. I also have pics and videos on it. All the videos are on YouTube.

As to me, I don't teach Point Shooting. The method I use is so simple, most anyone can do it with little or no training, and it can be maintained with little or no practice. And it's free.

I was told to use by a WWII Sgt when shooting my grease gun from the hip back in 54. And the US Army in its combat pistol manual as late as 2003, says it works.

But and however; accurate Point Shooting just doesn't happen by magic. You have to know how to do it. And practice can improve performance.

Thanks again for your response.

[5shot]

Some basic info on why you should learn AIMED Point Shooting or P&S.

Sight Shooting has been proven by studies not to be applicable or effective in close quarters self defense situations where most all gunfights occur, and where there is the greatest chance of being shot and/or killed. (If you are going to be shot and or killed, there is an 80% chance that it will happen at less than 20 feet.)

The still relevant NYPD SOP 9 study of thousands and thousands of police combat cases, found that Officers did not use Sight Shooting in most all cases. They reverted to untrained "instinctive" shooting.

They also with few exceptions, shot with the strong hand.

The gunfight hit rate at CQ is less than 20% and its been that bad for years, and years, and years. (So much for shooting as you train.)

As to using the sights, scientific studies have established that it is not possible to use them in close quarters life threat situations. In those situations, adrenaline is dumped into our system. And it in turn, relaxes the ciliary muscle of the eyes to enhance far vision for focusing on the threat. That unfortunately, causes the loss of near vision which is necessary for focusing on the sights.

As such, if a person does not know another shooting method that is accurate at close quarters, they will have no effective means of self defense in those situations where there is the greatest likely hood of being shot and/or killed.

Sight Shooting has been taught to be used in those situations for over the past 100 years, but sadly, there are no recognized studies or stats to prove either its applicability or effectiveness in CQ self defense situations. If proof exists, including pics or videos of it being used effectively, I will gladly post it to a page that awaits that info. Been looking for some for the past ten years, and there is none, nada. You got some? Please let me know.

Also, according to the literature, in life threat situations (CQ) both eyes will be open and you will be threat focused.

You will have a crush grip on your gun so you can forget squeezing the trigger, or holding your thumb without pressure against the gun, or keeping you index finger aloof from the gun so it can be used to manipulate the trigger, as marksmanship requirements dictate and competition pros emulate..

And if the lighting is bad and your gun and sights are dark and the target is wearing black (and possibly moving), how will one see the FS to complete the FSP mantra.

.........................

I readily agree that SEAL training or SF training could be such that operators could reflexively shoot and hit under any and all conditions at CQ.

But all soldiers don't carry pistols or are they trained to the level that allows them to shoot someone between the eyes without fail in very adverse conditions.

....................

So what's one to do if they are in a close quarters situations and their armament is a pistol.

Well there is what I call AIMED Point Shooting which provides one with automatic and correct sight alignment plus an automatic and correct sight picture, both of which are necessary to hit a target.

Basically the index finger is placed along the side of the gun, pointed at a target, and the trigger is pulled with the middle finger.

Here is what the US Army says about our ability to point at things. It is found in the US Army's Field Manual 3-23.35: Combat Training With Pistols M9 AND M11 (June,2003).

"Everyone has the ability to point at an object.

"When a soldier points, he instinctively points at the feature on the object on which his eyes are focused. An impulse from the brain causes the arm and hand to stop when the finger reaches the proper position.

"When the eyes are shifted to a new object or feature, the finger, hand, and arm also shift to this point.

"It is this inherent trait that can be used by a soldier to rapidly and accurately engage targets."

The method is not precision shooting, but it works, and can be learned and maintained with little or no training.*

It's not a bar to using the sights or FSP if there is time for that and conditions are such that the sights can be seen and employed using hand eye coordination to align the sights correctly and place them/it on the target correctly.

P&S works when moving, on moving targets, and even on aerials.

Because of a flaw in the design of the slide stop pin of the 1911, it shouldn't be used with a 1911. The original military manual on the 1911 (published in 1912), and other military manuals up until the 1940's cautioned against using it with the 1911. [[ "The trigger should be pulled with the forefinger. If the trigger is pulled with the second finger, the forefinger extending along the side of the receiver is apt to press against the projecting pin of the slide stop and cause a jam when the slide recoils."]] As such, and since the 1911 was the standard issue sidearm of US Forces until 1985, there are no doubts lots of military folk who don't know about the method, or will caution against its use.

Why the military did not make a modest and simple fix of the 1911, so its combat forces would have the option of using the method which the US Army says works, in close quarters life threat situations where those forces would be in the greatest danger of being shot and/or killed, is beyond me.

I made a short video of it titled Survival Point Shooting and its on YouTube if your interested. It shows it being used at the range, when moving, and shooting at aerials (pop cans tossed in the air - don't shoot at aerials with a firearm unless you are on an appropriate range).

I understand that some of you are against using Point Shooting, but if it can help you shoot to kill more effectively and reliably under most any condition, what's the problem.

I can provide more info on this or aspects of it such as the grip used which is a strong 4 fingered grip that results in a strong and level shooting platform. It's no sissy target shooting range grip. You can shoot to the front or side, make front punches, elbow smashes, and even use your forearm and the gun as a crude battle axe if needed.

I was told to use it by a WW II Sgt back in 1954 or 55 when shooting my grease gun from the hip. It worked then, and still does.

[The Reaper]

And yet no professional shooter in the world I have seen uses this technique in competition, or in combat.

Why do you suppose that is?

TR

[dr. mabuse]

*

[Peregrino]

Never met a QP so far that taught or was a huge fan of trying to master 2 response systems/techniques for critical open loop high-stress events, but I guess anything is possible.


You have come far young Jedi! :p And no - it isn't possible that I'm going to be teaching multiple response techniques. I have a hard enough time staying proficient with one.

[Team Sergeant]

And yet no professional shooter in the world I have seen uses this technique in competition, or in combat.Why do you suppose that is?

TR

The world is full of amateurs......;)

5shot,
You may want to read this entire thread before you defend point shooting. We are not amateurs.;)
Team Sergeant

[Dusty]

I'd like to see stats on the drop-out rate of pointshooting afficionados during two-way target practice...

[5shot]

P&S has been around since 1835. If you want, I will post a "Chronology of P&S" or you can google for it.

As I mentioned before the US Army was aware of it, but cautioned against its use with the 1911 in the original manual on the 1911 published in 1912 and in several other manuals that I am aware of up until the 1940's. [[The 1911 has a design flaw which prevents the user from using P&S which the US Army also says works, in those situations where there is the greatest likely hood of being shot and/or killed. As such the user is left with no fast, accurate, and reliable means or method of shooting. To bad a simple fix was not made alla the 1911A1. The Tokarev of similar design has a simple fix. If your interested google "The 1911 - A fatal Flaw".]]

P&S is for use at CQB distances where there is the greatest chance of being shot or killed [if you are going to be shot or killed, there is an 80 % chance that it will happen at less than 20 feet.]

It also is not a bar to using the sights if they can be seen and employed for longer or precision shooting.

I understand that competition shooters use or used to use the Weaver, which really is not applicable for CQB according to the literature.

They also use a "marksman grip" wherein the thumb either is not against the gun or doesn't press against it, alla Brian Enos and Dave Sevigny, which also is not applicable for CQB as you will have a crush grip on your gun according to the literature. There's an article and picture of their range grip in an article in Handguns Magazine.

As to this thread, I read it twice, and even took notes along the way. IMO, in only the last few pages was there a "current" discussion, so I just jumped in with both feet.

..........

Can someone fix or erase my sig line. It should read: A pistol is not a rifle, so why shoot one like it is. Thanks.

Thanks for all of your comments, I expected much more flame.

Also, anyone know of or got pics and videos of Sight Shooting or FSP being used effectively in CQB?

Should be thousands, as a member here said in an e-mail, and I agree since SS has been taught for 100+ years, yet I have never seen one.

I have seen the pic of Jack Ruby shooting Oswald using AIMED Point Shooting or P&S as I call it, and the one of a guard using a two handed isso + point shooting while moving, who shoots and kills a robber, and one of a Chinese lady cop using point shooting with her strong hand, and shooting a hostage taker. He falls down and back, and she shoots him a couple of more times for good measure.

[wet dog]

And yet no professional shooter in the world I have seen uses this technique in competition, or in combat.

Why do you suppose that is?

TR

Lee Marvin used Point Shooting in the Dirty Dozen, he hit everything or it at least appeared so.:munchin

[Dusty]

I'm thinking about switching over to "sideways point and shoot" cuz da boyz be bad wid dat style, nomesane?

:D

[7624U]

5Shot
Point shooting might be fine for police shooting, on unarmored people at close range. But now days with the high percentage of body armor on the battle field along with some no fail missions the military has, You will have to use your sights or your going to A. miss, B.have no effect on his body armor or C. worst case shoot a hostage.
Police officers do not know the gunfight is going to happen most the time.
On this side of the spectrum we expect the gunfight and leverage our body armor, speed, surprize, violence of action and numbers.

I will admit not so long ago it was viable when mass human wave attacks happen and I would revert back to pointing and shooting in that situation but for now I will use my front sight post.
You might want to look into Swat shootings also and see if they used Sights or point shooting.

[Team Sergeant]

5shot,
No one is ripping your head off here out of respect for your age.
That said you've now heard from a few Special Forces soldiers that we do not use/teach point shooting anymore and for the same reason we don't use six-shooters in combat. We have evolved in our techniques.

There's plenty posted on here about marksmanship, you might want to do more reading and less posting.

Team Sergeant

[5shot]

Thank you.

I can shoot aerials with a pistol, know rifle quick kill (with airsoft), and shot expert with an M1.

Thank you for your responses.

The information is out there for inquiring minds.

Think I've used enough of your space. So, bye.

Have a good new year and stay safe.

[badshot]

Nothing like being able to practice in your backyard every day. A fellow Montanan
shows some fast point shootin...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqABkG1JpHM

Still has all his toes too :cool:

[Pete]

..............Still has all his toes too :cool:

Due to that little metal deflector on the bottom of his rig. Look close and you'll see some dents.

[wet dog]

Due to that little metal deflector on the bottom of his rig. Look close and you'll see some dents.

What you're saying is, don't be standing to his right while on range.

[badshot]

Due to that little metal deflector on the bottom of his rig. Look close and you'll see some dents.

LOL! Yes, useful for the wax and blank rounds at shows and demos. Notice when using the 250gr rounds the deflector is absent. Same trick but with softballs further out (couldn't find a video of that but know there is one).

You'll also notice where his elbow is when ever he point shots accurately, which he teaches to a few students each year.

He doesn't do it often because its painful, but he can fan his custom colt single action with each finger and point shoot faster than with his custom 1911, accurately. Sounds like a select fire weapon, impressive...

[Dusty]

Here's some fatass I mean badass point shooting...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELol1dHjHEE

[badshot]

Had to go throw up, thanks for the image Dusty...:D

[5shot]

5Shot
Point shooting might be fine for police shooting, on unarmored people at close range. But now days with the high percentage of body armor on the battle field along with some no fail missions the military has, You will have to use your sights or your going to A. miss, B.have no effect on his body armor or C. worst case shoot a hostage.
Police officers do not know the gunfight is going to happen most the time.
On this side of the spectrum we expect the gunfight and leverage our body armor, speed, surprize, violence of action and numbers.

I will admit not so long ago it was viable when mass human wave attacks happen and I would revert back to pointing and shooting in that situation but for now I will use my front sight post.
You might want to look into Swat shootings also and see if they used Sights or point shooting.

As an after thought, below is a link to a pic that you may find of interest. Had never seen a target like that, so I bought one and used it for my first shots of the day with a rental. Someone on another forum complained that I had shot the hostage. I didn't know that it represented 2 people.

The point is that I don't think the talibandits use body armor, and in this case body armor wouldn't keep the target safe.


Also, when shooting in a hostage situation, why not just shoot a leg/s?

When whoever gets hit falls down or moves, shoot the perp.

Sorry for the comback post, but I usually make one or more hits in a 4 inch black at CQ distances, using a 175+ year old method shooting as fast as I can point my finger and pull the trigger.

See ya.

[cmts58]

Fox would sh*t themselves if they received footage of an officer risking a hostage like that.

"BUT IT'S JUST A FLESH WOUND!"


Besides being against everything a police force stands for to the civilian population, enough departments get sued already.

[PSM]

We did Quick Kill in Basic at Ft. Polk. It was the most (only) fun we had. Oddly, my favorite DS got shot in the butt. :eek: I swear it wasn't loaded, er, I mean me. :o ;)

Pat

[cszakolczai]

As an after thought, below is a link to a pic that you may find of interest. Had never seen a target like that, so I bought one and used it for my first shots of the day with a rental. Someone on another forum complained that I had shot the hostage. I didn't know that it represented 2 people.

The point is that I don't think the talibandits use body armor, and in this case body armor wouldn't keep the target safe.



Also, when shooting in a hostage situation, why not just shoot a leg/s?
When whoever gets hit falls down or moves, shoot the perp.

Sorry for the comback post, but I usually make one or more hits in a 4 inch black at CQ distances, using a 175+ year old method shooting as fast as I can point my finger and pull the trigger.

See ya.

I really hope that was a poor joke.

[Team Sergeant]

As an after thought, below is a link to a pic that you may find of interest. Had never seen a target like that, so I bought one and used it for my first shots of the day with a rental. Someone on another forum complained that I had shot the hostage. I didn't know that it represented 2 people.

The point is that I don't think the talibandits use body armor, and in this case body armor wouldn't keep the target safe.


Also, when shooting in a hostage situation, why not just shoot a leg/s?

When whoever gets hit falls down or moves, shoot the perp.

Sorry for the comback post, but I usually make one or more hits in a 4 inch black at CQ distances, using a 175+ year old method shooting as fast as I can point my finger and pull the trigger.
See ya.

This is why we run these fourms, to stop the spread of really stupid advice. Above is really stupid thinking.

5shot, you're done here, please run along and give some other forums your advice.

And by the way, I get "all" of the shots in the 4 inch black as fast as I can pull the trigger, everytime and while indexing from target to target.

Team Sergeant

[SMP9168]

TS, please don't encourage this guy to go to other forums. He's already been kicked out of another before showing up here.

5shot, or should I say okjoe? Lets just go with John. You still never responded to the numerous, simple questions posed to you on another restricted forum. For instance, how you gained access to a law enforcement only website when you've never spent a day in law enforcement. I've also had a hard time relocating your bio on your website, you seem to have hid it well.

Anyway, good luck to you John. I thought the entertainment value I got from reading your posts was over....

[SMP9168]

Oh, almost forgot! You can do some digging and find that 5shot (then okjoe) posted on the Huffington Post about his beloved "aimed point shooting" technique. He tells the Post audience of "the world of the gun," and the reality of gunfights. However, in all of the research I did months ago, all I could come up with was his experience in shooting pie tins and paper targets. He sure has read a lot though!

[Lmmsoat]

I agree with TS. We have moved onto better things. From several friends who can provide anecdotal evidence, when they had to use their pistol at close distance, they didn't see anything. They just pointed and shot.

At first glance one would say, "Aha, point shooting works.". When you decipher their skill level and training you would come to a different conclusion. They were able to hit the bad guy on the first shot because they new what "right looked like". Even great civilian shooters like rob lathem and others will tell you for close in shooting, just aim down the slide. Bottom line is you are still aiming. If you are close enough to shoot from the hip, you are one step from hand to hand and at that point a five year old has the skill to hit the target.

The old school method of point shooting has the shooter holding the pistol above waist level in a particular stance. If you think about it, you are still using a form of aiming. You are training your body to assume a position upon draw. After draw you "point" the gun at the target. If you want to admit it or not, you are still aiming. You have learned what "right looks like" upon draw before firing.

The only difference between modern rapid aimed shooting and point shooting is the ability of the shooter to switch to longer distances. :munchin

[Dusty]

I agree with TS. We have moved onto better things. From several friends who can provide anecdotal evidence, when they had to use their pistol at close distance, they didn't see anything. They just pointed and shot.

At first glance one would say, "Aha, point shooting works.". When you decipher their skill level and training you would come to a different conclusion. They were able to hit the bad guy on the first shot because they new what "right looked like". Even great civilian shooters like rob lathem and others will tell you for close in shooting, just aim down the slide. Bottom line is you are still aiming. If you are close enough to shoot from the hip, you are one step from hand to hand and at that point a five year old has the skill to hit the target.

The old school method of point shooting has the shooter holding the pistol above waist level in a particular stance. If you think about it, you are still using a form of aiming. You are training your body to assume a position upon draw. After draw you "point" the gun at the target. If you want to admit it or not, you are still aiming. You have learned what "right looks like" upon draw before firing.

The only difference between modern rapid aimed shooting and point shooting is the ability of the shooter to switch to longer distances. :munchin

Where were you in '90 when I wasted 6 weeks at Mott Lake?

[hoepoe]

Very interesting and informative thread.

I do realize some of this thread refers to "point shooting" as pointing from the waist. I have always understood pooint shooting as pointing at your target with the weapon eye level so that's what the following refers to.

I have been training in and using point shooting or instinctive shooting for close to 20 years and agree with many of the posts here; you're still aiming at some level. The farther away the target, the more you use your sights. The "point" aspect is simply to get your first round on target asap. If shooting correctly (stance, grip, etc.) if your first shot is a hit, the following shots will follow suite. Even when point shooting, the doctrine states, "see" your target VIA the sights. Sight picture (unless in darkness).

The "pointing" is the method to get "on target" quickly.

Hoepoe

[Bill Harsey]

Col. Rex Applegate had always stressed to me that point shooting as he taught it was AIMED FIRE and to always bring the handgun to eye level before shooting. I'm starting to think what he was doing was very close to what you call getting a Flash Front Site.

... and the words Col. Rex Applegate said surrounding this topic, that stick clearly in my head, were "this is aimed fire, not sighted fire"

Since Applegate's name is attached to some of this I thought I'd better get the quote right.

[Team Sergeant]

On second thought I think "point-shooting" is a great idea!!!!!

More people trained in the "lost-art" of point shooting the better! In fact those that enjoy the point shooting techniques might want to look into the gangsta grip.

Team Sergeant

[I feel a whole lot safer already!]

[Dusty]

1. All fingers are capable of pointing.
2. Never point at anything you do not intend to frighten.
3. Always know what's behind what you're pointing at.
4. Know your fingers.
5. Never pick your nose with a pointing finger.
6. Never point with your middle finger.
7. Never pull the trigger until you're pointing in the general direction of your target.
8. Never load your weapon until you're ready to point it in the general direction of your target.
9. Use shotshell ammunition whenever possible to increase the possibility of a hit.
10. Never drink other than malt liquor when pointshooting.

[Bill Harsey]

Team Sergeant,
Applegate was one of the guys who researched fast shooting (as directed by one William Joseph Donovan) and trained it in WW2 to others.

The 1911 .45 was the standard pistol that I saw in the training films when the OSS files were declassified.

It was how to acquire a target fast and hit it under stress.

This was NOT shooting from the hip stuff. They did the best they could having only months or weeks to train young men to go to war.

The more I've learned about how you all shoot and having spent time around Applegate shooting... these may be converging lines of thought. You all have just taken it further.

Point Shooting was never intended to be shooting from the hip.

Edited to add: One of the things Applegate taught was to squeeze the trigger as soon as the front sight was on the target.
That's why i made the "converging lines" comment.

[Dusty]

If you practiced enough and had the inherent talent to develop the proficiency to engage without using your front sight, you could do it. Bill Jordan was outstanding, as is Munden and others. Jordan more or less teaches the technique in one of my favorite books, No Second Place Winner.

But to standardize and expedite the training of an individual shooter, the front sight technique is basically mandatory in my experience; that point did not hit home with me while teaching LBG's to shoot High Powers, but in readying female medical personnel on their way down south.

Inherently, a woman will most likely be more accurate in her first gunfight if she never shot the handgun during her trainup because of the flinch. Once they do shoot, you have to do dummy drills (no offense) with them exhaustively until they get past the flinching. These drills and others incorporate sighting the weapon on the target, and would inherently be more suffessful in the elimination of a threat than teaching them to shoot instinctively due to the accuracy developed via repitition (mandated by the flinch drilling).

Using female medical personnel who are non-shooters as your base line for your student model, you find out that the quickest, most efficient method of training someone to successfully engage a target is by getting a sight picture as you press the trigger.

That's what I learned, anyway.

[wet dog]

On second thought I think "point-shooting" is a great idea!!!!!

More people trained in the "lost-art" of point shooting the better! In fact those that enjoy the point shooting techniques might want to look into the gangsta grip.

Team Sergeant

[I feel a whole lot safer already!]


I like the shooting techniques of "curved" shots around objects in order hit my target.

[tom kelly]

Train as you will fight & Fight as you train ! Keep your eye on the front sight and NEVER depend on luck.....Regard's, Tom Kelly

[Team Sergeant]

Team Sergeant,
Edited to add: One of the things Applegate taught was to squeeze the trigger as soon as the front sight was on the target.
That's why i made the "converging lines" comment.

We've discussed this before, this is what we call today a "flash front sight" and it's what I use to put all 13 .45 rounds in that 4 inch area as fast as I can pull the trigger.....:munchin

[Bill Harsey]

We've discussed this before, this is what we call today a "flash front sight" and it's what I use to put all 13 .45 rounds in that 4 inch area as fast as I can pull the trigger.....:munchin

Your right and Thank you.

Was somewhat defending Col. Applegate's teaching because it was also called "point shooting". Here is why he named it that.

Before WW2 (and after) Army pistol marksmanship was standing straight up, holding the pistol at arms length with one hand and very carefully placing rounds into a piece of paper by getting both front and rear sights into focus over the long periods of time allowed between shots.

"Point shooting" by Applegate helped change the old military pistol target shooting style of training soldiers to go into combat.

[wet dog]

We've discussed this before, this is what we call today a "flash front sight" and it's what I use to put all 13 .45 rounds in that 4 inch area as fast as I can pull the trigger.....:munchin

...it's not all 13 rounds in a 4" area, it's a 2.50 inch area, with rounds 2 & 3 following round 1.

You have to get real close with a mircrometer, with round 4 he gets a little sloppy, it's very clearly .0042" away from round 3.

From there, he smooths out nicely.

Sorry TS, just had to let others know.

[Razor]

I like the shooting techniques of "curved" shots around objects in order hit my target.

I liked some of the curves in that film, too. ;)

[ZonieDiver]

I liked some of the curves in that film, too. ;)

I'm happy to see that I am not the only one to drag topics slightly OFF-topic! :D

[Kasik]

Bill,

Thanks for stepping in and clarifying the Colonel's thought processes.

As you and he were as close as you were I appreciate your insight and historical recollection.

There is truly nothing new under the sun. We just refine, update and re-title it.

[Kasik]

http://rare.us/story/this-gun-instructors-skills-will-blow-your-mind/

[Gold Eagle]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BMSlCyc-SQQ

[Team Sergeant]

"the Science of the Draw Stroke"


LOL

So should I discuss the "science of flipping eggs?"

Point shooting is for idiots.

[Dusty]

"the Science of the Draw Stroke"


LOL

So should I discuss the "science of flipping eggs?"

Point shooting is for idiots.

I have to point shoot if I'm not wearing my specs, these days.

[cat in the hat]

31929

[PRB]

Whenever I hit square it's science...otherwise...it's something else.

[Mycroft]

Whenever I hit square it's science...otherwise...it's something else.

Research.

[Team Sergeant]

I have to point shoot if I'm not wearing my specs, these days.

Me too.

Then do what I intend to do in a life or death situation, get in close enough so it's 100% steel on target......... ;)

[frostfire]

Col. Rex Applegate had always stressed to me that point shooting as he taught it was AIMED FIRE and to always bring the handgun to eye level before shooting. I'm starting to think what he was doing was very close to what you call getting a Flash Front Site.

... and the words Col. Rex Applegate said surrounding this topic, that stick clearly in my head, were "this is aimed fire, not sighted fire"

Since Applegate's name is attached to some of this I thought I'd better get the quote right.

... and the words Col. Rex Applegate said surrounding this topic, that stick clearly in my head, were "this is aimed fire, not sighted fire"




Since Applegate's name is attached to some of this I thought I'd better get the quote right.

Took me over a decade to finally grasp this concept. I'm a slow learner, but I learn.
COL Applegate was ahead of his time indeed.
With dot-occlusion training these days, this concept becomes more apparent.

This class helped me tremendously.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-1peBVqGpk
Pranka and Stoeger combined USPSA grand master level and JSOC standards in one robust training.


Coming from long range precision and national-level bullseye, it was super unnatural to target-focus. Controlling recoil with vision also sounded mumbo jumbo until it clicked.
I see that perfect sight alignment is but a confirmation of the correct grip resulting in the desired POI. So put the mental focus on keeping that durable and repeatable fingers and wrist tensions throughout the string of fire instead.
I now keep one ragged hole at 15 with the front sight blurry the whole time. Also helps with these old eyes :boohoo:(

[milkman]

I learned how to point and shoot in the Army basic training, 1968.
We had class with point and shoot with lever action BB guns. The method was to have your buddy throw up a tin pan and hit it. With the sound of a hit, then your buddy threw up smaller tin pans until the goal was to hit a tin pan the size of a silver dollar consistently. I used this method the rest of my life especially hunting with a shotgun. I carried a M-79 in Nam and used this technique while walking close to point in Nam.
Of course this point and shoot is good for short range only. The distance is determined by your accuracy. You can improve this technique by practice with smaller caliber weapons and even a BB gun. You will be surprised with your results.