A Case For Point Shooting.

Given the opportunity, I will always use the sights. That said, both self-defense shootings I've been involved in happened very fast at very close range, point shooting, fortunately for me with immediate results.

We're talking about large targets at almost touching distance. That's what it's about, not trick shooting. My hand-eye coordination isn't that great.

My agency teaches aimed fire outside of ten yards, point shooting inside of it.
 
A Case For Point Shooting.
Click to expand...

So you think if the bad guys had been point shooting that they would have finished off the story teller?

I think a better question would be would he have hit the guy had he had training in one handed point shooting.
Click to expand...

Why not one-handed aimed shooting?

Funny thing, from the story, the only shot that we know that was landed was by the bad guy on the good guy. It was the only shot in the fight where the shooter was able to determine when and where to shoot. There is NO indication of any other shots hitting any targets.

So would point shooting have changed the events? Maybe they would have for the bad guys. Since the story teller could have done nothing to prevent the first shot via point shooting (since he didn't even know the bad guys were there or that he was going to be shot) and since he and his family were not reported to be hit by any other shots, I am not sure how point shooting would have done anything more for him or his family.

As near as I can tell from the story as posted here, the good guy fired 1 or more shots (not stated) without apparently hitting a single bad guy (and he had 6 potential targets) and yet he was able to be victorious in the fight against multiple threats without ever hitting one. So this sounds like an excellent example of how you can miss fast enough to win a fight and to win it against overwhelming odds. Point shooting would not have lessened his injuries. In the end, he was still injured and won the fight.

More information is needed to dissect the situation further.
Click to expand...
I do agree with John on this point, but thought it might be interesting to show how the same limited data could be used to refute the original claim.
 
So this sounds like an excellent example of how you can miss fast enough to win a fight and to win it against overwhelming odds. Point shooting would not have lessened his injuries. In the end, he was still injured and won the fight.
Click to expand...

Goes back to being armed and willing, the act of resistance had ended as many confrontations without bloodshed as with, I would guess.
 
I see many here with the assumption that point shooting is..

A) Not accurate.

B) Takes too long to learn.

C) Requires natural talent to master.

All of which are false assumptions, BTW.

Yes, he found himself in a bad situation, and was taken by surprise.
As any of us can be, especially when coming home with our wives and children.
Body armor?
How many non LEO's are actually going to wear body armor in our day to day lives?
It is a shame that he had no training for this type of reactive situation, since this is the norm--multiples, low light, close range, etc, etc) for the vast majority of gun owners.
PS..the article also states that SA has over 50 murders a day.
And I recently met a SA police officer who told me that they have over 300 cops killed in the line of duty each year.
 
I am more than likely short of Matt one of the biggest proponents of the "PS" method, but I think more info needs to be forth coming here,,from what little is reported it appears he is just damn lucky his "sounding" shots drove them off

Funny post on Mr.Jordan he all ways thought that "PS" had a reason for being.

I have the highest respect for all the newer warriors and instructors out there, but no matter what is taught "PS" has saved the bacon for eons and will continue to so even Mr.Bryce used his sights "when needed" but it wasn't often:p

Dave James
 
There's just no way

It has been proven over and over again that sighted fire is superior to unsighted fire.

I can see he value of point shooting with your first shot at very close range (3 yards or less), but if all possible then acquiring the sights will lead to more precise shot placement.

Is not the main thing we all stress shot placement? If you want your shots to be well directed at the sternum and brain, use your sights.
 
"I have the highest respect for all the newer warriors and instructors out there, but no matter what is taught..."

What is typically taught is sighted fire and point shooting, with an emphasis on the sighted fire. Typically taught as in I cannot think of anyone teaching otherwise; even the most ardent sighted fire proponents teach some point shooting solution to managing close-in threats, after all.
 
I just think a gunfight is the wrong time to discover that your training is incomplete.
I never said that point shooting is superior to aimed fire--why does everything have to be either or?
Leadbutt is correct that Bill Jordan was a big fan of point shooting for situations
when aimed fire is nearly impossible.
 
Since most confrontations occur at 7 yards or under, I'd say instinctive shooting (I believe that's what Bill Jordan called it) is a wise practice routine. Annie Oakley rarely used the rear sight of her levergun and hit some pretty small targets with amazing regularity. I practice drawing my weapon to a ready position and to full extension and firing the first shot towards where I'm looking. Under 10 yards, It's not hard for me to nail the center of mass. One hole drills are good for developing that instinctive alignment.
 
What I took from this case is a lack of situational awareness and the importance of getting the first good hit on a bad guy.

I didn't even know that the slug hit me squarely in the middle of my chest. But my subconscious did, because it instantly sent gallons of adrenaline into my system, turning me into a stumbling zombie.
Click to expand...

Stumbling zombies don't point shoot or use sights very well. Getting good hits fast is very important as it could cause your attacker to miss were he otherwise would have hit.

It has been proven over and over again that sighted fire is superior to unsighted fire.
Click to expand...

Question....If you can get really good hits point shooting very fast or very good hits sighted but not as fast.....what do you do?

A point shooter will likely get his bullet out first and possible turn the sight fire guy into a "stumbling zombie".


There is NO way a person living a normal life can keep his distance from everyone he sees. It's simply not possible. YES, SA is clearly important, but it can not be the scapegoat for every situation that goes bad. I think too much is blamed on SA and people count on their SA too much to keep them out of trouble. It's critical to maintain SA, but even if your SA is perfect it can't save you from every situation.
Click to expand...

Six guys walking out of a McDonald's as you walk in vs.......
The scene is in South Africa in 1996, where a family man is parking his car at home when he is attacked by six gun toting thugs.
Click to expand...
.........six guys in or around a car in front of your home. This guy was not using his BG radar. Had he done so he might not have been shot. There are times when SA won't give you valuable time to react however if I see six guys bailing out of a car parked in front of my home I can promise you that I won't have to worry about accessing my gun and preparing for trouble.
 
Matthew, Don't know as I've never been shot. I do practice both just in case.

I base which to use on distance and position in the reactionary curve. If I'm ahead, no need to rush. If behind and within my ability to hit.........I'm point shootin.
 
Question....If you can get really good hits point shooting very fast or very good hits sighted but not as fast.....what do you do?

A point shooter will likely get his bullet out first and possible turn the sight fire guy into a "stumbling zombie".
Click to expand...

If you can really get better hits faster with point shooting, why don't top level IDPA and ISPC shooters use this method to trounce their slow sighted fire opponents?

I've shot both ways and know from experience which method is superior and has been proven to be superior.

Since 1986 I have used a range timer to measure just how fast I can draw and fire, draw and fire quality hits. Prior to that time I used point shooting, I could draw and fire all six rounds of full power .357 from my Model 66 in 3 to 3.5 seconds and some of them were in the A-zone some of them weren't. In fact I had no idea how slow I was till I started using a timer.

Now I typically do Mozambique Drill's in 1.5 seconds or less and can draw and fire an entire magazine from my 1911 in less than 2.5 seconds, I have done it in less than 2.
I always use the sights, my hits are in the A-zone.

100_0200.jpg

I drew and fired the above 8 rounds from 5 yards in 2.31 seconds.

In regard to the OP in my mind the main question still is, can any of us put our training into practice, after being shot and attacked by six assailants.

Firstly I hope I never have to find out, and secondly with all the speculation and armchair quarterbacking aside, I don't think any of us will truly know until it happens.
 
Last edited:
Nate45..from what I have read many competitors do use target focused/point shooting techniques on some of the closer close range courses of fire.
Brian Enos is a classic example of hard/soft focus techniques.
Which just reproves that there is a place for both.
Then again, what a professional shooter can accomplish compared to the typical Joe may not be a fair comparison
And quite a few writers who have been shot at also sing the praises of both shooting methods
 
If you can really get better hits faster with point shooting, why don't top level IDPA and ISPC shooters use this method to trounce their slow sighted fire opponents?
Click to expand...

I didn't say better hits faster. Let me clarify. You can get good COM hits faster by point shooting. Your first shot is faster point shooting and your splits should be faster because you don't have the micro second delays involved with using the front sight. Its not for every situation and sighted fire should be used when ever possible. For me PS will only be used when I'm behind in the reactionary curve or when shooting from a retention position.

Also when talking about fighting with the gun there is a line of thought that suggests speeding up until your groups open up a bit. Your all A zone hits while beautiful and fast could be A & B zones hits even faster while still being effective.

Personally I don't use the sights on the real close action shooting targets.
 
I have read the works on point shooting before that you site in the article you wrote Point Shooting Lesson Plan By Matthew Temkin before, I read No Second Place Winner in the 70's, I taught myself to draw and point shoot before I learned the Modern technique, there is a place for point shooting I fully agree. I just don't see how it would have helped the subject in the OP from the description of events.
 
Also when talking about fighting with the gun there is a line of thought that suggests speeding up until your groups open up a bit. Your all A zone hits while beautiful and fast could be A & B zones hits even faster while still being effective.
Click to expand...

In a competition I would whole heartedly agree with you and I know for a fact that the top competitors give up A-zone hits in exchange for speed.

In a real life or death situation, given the relatively puny nature of handgun rounds and what it actually takes to incapacitate someone. My opinion is that the more well directed the shots are at the sternum and brain the better your odds are of success.
 
Oh no. Not another thread degenerating into a "point shooting vs. sighted shooting" argument.

Both are necessary. It's not either-or but both-and.

It has been proven over and over again that sighted fire is superior to unsighted fire.
Click to expand...

Bunko.
The point (obvious pun:rolleyes:) is to get adequately-accurate and adequately-fast hits on target, on a life-threatening adversary, at relatively close range. Point shooting does this faster, in hands that know how to accomplish it, faster than sighted shooting.
At longer distances, sighted shooting excels point shooting for accuracy, no doubt about it, but that isn't the condition under discussion here.
 
At longer distances, sighted shooting excels point shooting for accuracy, no doubt about it, but that isn't the condition under discussion here.
Click to expand...

What is the condition under discussion? If you can ascertain the time and distances involved in the shooting from reading the OP, please enlighten me, then we can determine whether point shooting may or may not have helped.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top