A Case For Point Shooting.

[Playboypenguin]

This whole thread has turned into wild speculation, speculation about a scenario that I don't even know actually took place.

That has bothered me a bit about this thread too. Most of it is simple fun but a lot of it is bordering on Rambo-ism.

The thread started by discussing an almost certainly fictional account from a magazine and then evolved into people, most of whom have never truly been shot at in their lives, talking as if they are experts on the situation. I hate it when gun "experts" or gun mag writers do that. Not everyone is guilty of this but some are.

People are also confusing what they can do at the range with what they will do in real life a whole lot. Being great in a simulation is one thing but being able to not crack under true pressure is another thing all together. Practice is great and essential but don't start thinking you know all there is to know because you can put small groups on a piece of paper. Practice all you can, realize you have no idea what will happen in a true fire fight, and hope for the best. A lot of men qualify as expert on the range in the military but in a true fire fight a whole lot more bullets miss their mark than actually hit them.

People also love to talk about split second reactions and not having time to think. Every time I hear someone say that I know they have never been in a life or death situation. Your perceptions alter greatly in such situations. You will be surprised at what you can think of in that split second. Ever hear victims of tragedy speak of how it seemed like the world was moving in slow motion? That is a very real phenomenon and not one your can recreate at the range. The trick is being focused and thinking the right things.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Actually, some research indicates that you really don't see things in slow motion during the incident but you remember it as being in slow motion as you recreate the incident. Folks have done some timing perception tests during some really stressful simulations that have the folks reporting slo-mo after the fact but their actual judgements are regular 'mo'.

Interesting, isn't it.

But as usual, PBP makes a good point.

 

[Playboypenguin]

Actually, some research indicates that you really don't see things in slow motion during the incident but you remember it as being in slow motion as you recreate the incident

I would like to see that research. It would run contrary to accepted scientific opinion. Actual testing methods have shown that you do indeed speed up your thought processes in a panic situation. They way they do the tests is quite ingenious.

They fit you with a digital display and then flash a series of numbers (a five digit series separated by a solid flash) on the display. The flash random series of numbers faster and faster until they become a blur and the subject can no longer discern individual numbers and cannot make out the series. It just looks like a fully lit display blinking. They then increase the speed of the series even further. They then take the subject and suspend them high in the air from a crane and drop then a great distance into a net. On the way down they flash the numbers at the speed which was even greater than the point where they became unreadable in a regular situation. Consistantly the subject is then able to make out the numbers while falling.

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

My coworker, embarrassed by freezing, scolded the guy with some foul language and ridicule.

Which is what MOST people will do. Hence the need to train away that behavior. Obviously, your training has equipped you with the proper reaction. I have to say, Well Done.

The idiot could care less how close he came to being shot.

I am continually amazed at peoples ability to be stupid. The % of people who go through life mindless and confused without even knowing it astounds me.

Somebody in this forum has a signature like "The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has it's limits." Nothing truer has been said.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

A researcher out of Baylor - don't have the reference in front of me and I'll be out of town for awhile.

I'll search it out in a week or so. Interesting to see if he is correct. Most of the reports I see are anecdotal. So to the data bases but later.

 

[threegun]

In my incident there is not doubt in my mind that things were in slow motion. As it was happening I was conscious of how slow I was moving. I was really surprised when my coworker told me that my draw was smooth and fast. As we discussed the incident I was amazed at all the things that went through my head in such a short period of time. I thought about it for awhile and am now convinced that "slow motion" is really the brain speeding up to the point that everything else seems slow. Its the only way to explain being able to process so much in so little time while feeling as if you are moving slowly.

Nate45,

Not at making consistent hits and the difference is a fraction of a second. I know I have a timer.

If you could make consistent hits a fraction of an second faster why not? I'm gonna dust off the old timer and hit the range soon I'll try to get some video.

Yes, but I don't know how much or how far they can move in a second or less.

It doesn't take much distance to make a good head shot a clean miss. Its one of the reasons many pro's urge us to shoot for the much larger vitals in the upper body. The same movement that caused a clean miss to the head would only cause a less than perfect hit in the vitals.

I've stated several times that none of us know what we will or will not be capable of doing if attacked in such a manner as outlined in the OP.

Agreed especially if hit from the start.

 

[Stone Cold]

I recently went through a shoot, no shoot live fire house. After going back through the course to examine targets and discuss strategy, I realized that I didn't remember aiming most of the shots. I imagine that's pretty normal.

 

[nate45]

It doesn't take much distance to make a good head shot a clean miss. Its one of the reasons many pro's urge us to shoot for the much larger vitals in the upper body. The same movement that caused a clean miss to the head would only cause a less than perfect hit in the vitals.

No, but we are talking about a distance of six to nine feet. I also practice Mozambique Drills and a modified one to the chest one to the head. Look if you can draw and do a Mozambique Drill in less than 1.5 seconds without a flash sight picture from the hip or chest level or what ever it is you do thats great. I'm going to keep using the sights unless it is a weapon retention situation.

I draw and fire double taps in around 1 second flat, Mozambique Drills in around 1.5, I can draw and empty a full mag, of full power .45 ACP in 2.5 seconds or less, I've done it in less than 2. I feel like this is fast enough given that my shots are accurate.

The big question is can I do it with someone shooting at me or already having shot me and the answer is, I don't know.

 

[sesquipedalian101]

Boy Howdy, a lot of text has been "fired" since I checked in last

On a previous page, someone took my statement that some people have a "natural talent for point shooting" to mean that one cannot become good at it, even with practice, unless they are "talented." I want to take a moment to clarify that such is not my meaning. Practice (at least Good Practice) does indeed improve one's skills -- either with or without sights. I will contend, however, that one will not become "great" at point shooting (or, arguably at sighted shooting) unless they have some "natural ability" to back up the practice.

To illustrate with a non-firearm example: I can run; practice, to a point, makes me a better runner; but, I'll never be Olympic (or even Special Olympic) caliber.

Is Point Shooting better or worse than sighted shooting? Well, in my opinion, point shooting "fits" some people in some situations better than sighted shooting. For other people, it just doesn't work… There is a lot of variability in the individual and in the situation. I would never suggest that people who have found "nervana" with sights abandon their sights; I would not suggest that excellent point shooters start using sights all the time because somebody else gets better results with that technique…

A lot of the variability comes from the firearm and the method of carry too. My middle son started practicing point shooting (by the way, we call it "hip shooting" around here) several years ago. We have a "family thing" for single action revolvers; however, much to his embarrassment, he found himself to be far better with his big brother's little semi-auto than with any of the revolvers in our collection.

Living out in the country, we get to practice things that are difficult to impossible to do at a "standard" pistol or rifle range. For example, when Middle Son started point shooting, it was at pinecones (the little ones off Lodge Pole Pine). When he got good at hitting them sitting still, he started tossing them in the air with his left hand and shooting them with his right. When that got tame, he started tossing them with his right hand, then drawing and shooting them with that hand. Finally, once he was reasonably sure of not embarrassing himself in front of big brother, he started having Big Bro throw them at "random" times and in "random" directions… Now to be fair, even though he was hitting them consistently, none was more than 30 feet away and all were moving in relatively predictable courses (curve balls aren't easy with pine cones)… On the other hand, all of the shots (and I've seen him do 10 or more in a row w/o missing) are "from the hip."

…Which brings me to the statement on which I want to comment this evening…

If the person using sighted fire is using the sights to align the gun in the first place, that's noticeably slower.
But if they're using the sights only to verify the alignment, looking at the sights adds no extra time and might very possibly prevent a miss.

Using the sights may or may not prevent a miss; however, depending upon the method of carry and the type of draw, it can be considerably slower -- even if all you are doing is "verifying" the alignment. In the target practice I described above, the pistol was drawn from the right hip pocket and the shot taken as the muzzle came level with the target (obviously, or it would have been a miss ) but still a good 18 to 20 inches below eye level. The time differential is what is required to raise the firearm that last foot and a half plus the time required to get the "flash" sight picture.

In fact, in this case, it is probably even longer because you are not pointing "at" the target; you are aiming "ahead" of it. There is nothing on which to align your sights because you are shooting at the "point in space" where you expect the pinecone to be when the bullet is done traveling its course. If you shoot right "at" the target, you miss -- thus, if using the sights, you have to check your "lead" on the target a couple of times before squeezing the shot... The "trick" instead is to employ the same "instinct" that lets some ball players run backwards at full speed then "snag" a ball that has passed out of their sight behind their head. You simply "point your finger" at the space where the target will be while watching the target, not the space, and shoot...


As to shooting one or two handed, nearly all our practice rounds, even with the heavy revolvers, are one-handed. Part of the life we lead involves critters and tools and working "out and about." I am not dropping the reins or a lead rope or a running chainsaw to "use both hands" should a "snap shot" become necessary. Further, not all situations allow one to position one's body according to the "Modern" or "Isosceles" or "Bladed" or other stance one has practiced on the "range." Bear or cougar or coyote aren't always willing to to line up conveniently nor are they courteous enough to wait for you to dismount and get set…

Misses add a lot of extra time...

That is well said! Though, since I am thinking of my Dad in this post, I'll share a bit of wisdom he gave me forty-some years ago. I once asked him, "How fast do I have to be? I mean, if I get in a life-or-death situation, how long do I have to draw and fire?" He answered, "The rest of your life, Son, the rest of your life…"

-101-

 

[nate45]

Using the sights may or may not prevent a miss; however, depending upon the method of carry and the type of draw, it can be considerably slower -- even if all you are doing is "verifying" the alignment.

Are you sure, have you ever timed it? Do you have range timer? The reason I ask is that I've met quite a few people over the years who thought they were fast, but the range timer said otherwise.

The time differential is what is required to raise the firearm that last foot and a half plus the time required to get the "flash" sight picture.

How much time is that? Again I'll ask, do you have a timer?

People on this forum often reference Jerry Miculek. Notice when he's setting this world record with a revolver he uses his sights.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gk7LPklNFRw Wonder why he took the extra time to use the sights?

This is what getting hammered with a 1911 looks like. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wX_-0FnRUBg&feature=related

El Presidente in 3.02 seconds.

I've been practicing the modern technique for over twenty years and the fastest way, to make reliable hits, is to use the sights.

 

[threegun]

Nate is that you shooting the El Presidente drill? At the distance in the video (looks to be kinda far for point shooting) I would have to use my sight to insure hits. Thats really fast shooting and smooth mag changing if it was you.

BTW the movement I was referring to is only head movement. A simple dip to the left or right can turn a hit into a miss on a head shot.

 

[matthew temkin]

Even if there is time to use the sights there may be other factors--such as lighting conditions or close distance--which make sighted fire impossible.
Which is why, IMHO, the man in this story fared so poorly.
I keep hearing people mention on how, "One can't miss fast enough"
Why do you equate point shooting with missing?
What evidence do you have to support this belief?

 

[Slopemeno]

Well, five years of heavy competition in club-level USPSA type shooting, ten years in paintball (and airsmith to the world champion Ironmen at one point in there), worked for a top 100 pistolsmith for four years, took and assisted in his training classes, and in my humble opinion- missing under heavy pressure is common.

I think Jeff Cooper learned a lot of these lessons back in the Big Bear Leatherslap days. Jack Weaver showed up and rather than point shooting, he used two hands and the sights, and cleaned up.

 

[bds32]

Threegun,

I encountered a situation close to yours when I responded to a suicidal man with a handgun. I met him coming out of a room at the end of a hallway. I was about six to seven yards away. He had the gun in his hand and was not initially aware of my presence. He froze when I told him to put the gun down. There was a brief stand off and he chose to lower the gun to the ground with the muzzle coming towards me. I almost shot him as I side stepped. Thankfully, the gun continued to the ground. I have no memory of looking at the front sight, but he was in clear focus at all times. That has been my experience over and over again in training and in real life. Everyone is a little different. I have been shot at in another situation. I did go on autopilot and complete my assignment(pulling curtains out of a window), not being in a position to shoot back because I coudn't see the target. The guy next to me was in position and did shoot back, saving the day.

 

[nate45]

Ok I'll point shoot if I can use the Cajun machine gun.

Cajun Machine Gun

Cajun Machine Gun 2

I'd rather use the sites like this though.

Blake Miguez Triple Bill Drill including target

Nate is that you shooting the El Presidente drill?

No, I'm not that fast and I hardly ever practice the El Presidente anymore. Not that it's not a great drill.

Look at very close range i.e. inside 2 yards, I might point shoot, but if all possible I'm going to continue bringing the pistol up to eye level.

Something like this. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dv_jLVxPfkM&feature=related

Do you really think that at close range I can't make hits without using the sites?

Even if there is time to use the sights there may be other factors--such as lighting conditions or close distance--which make sighted fire impossible.

Thats why they invented night sights.

 

[David Armstrong]

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.

Many parts of SA have become literal warzones it seems, and the government seems unable or unwilling to control the violence. Last time I talked with an SA colleague he said the statistics were that 70% of the police would be in a shootout within 3 years. Sad to see what has become of the place.

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

Yes, it is superior. However, the problem is lots of research has indicated that superiority frequently cannot be utilized during typical CCW incidents, which is the basic issue IMO.

Hmmm he had a wheel gun in the age of automatics. Kind of wonder about him. Please enlighten us.

The age of automatics may be here for LE, military, and games, but in the real world of personal self-defense the revolver is still quite common. Given the difficulty of obtaining handguns in many overseas countries the fact that the driver was carrying a revolver is not at all unusual.

 

[sesquipedalian101]

Nate45:

Thank you for the thoughtful and well reasoned come-back; I appreciate the time you took, both with framing your opinion and with looking up and posting the links you provided.

You asked several questions; let me try to answer them ad seratim...

Using the sights may or may not prevent a miss; however, depending upon the method of carry and the type of draw, it can be considerably slower -- even if all you are doing is "verifying" the alignment.

Are you sure, have you ever timed it? Do you have range timer?

Actually, yes I have verified it. I did, courtesy of a friend, have timer access some years ago…

My best times ever were about ½ second; I averaged (last I checked -- ten years back) about ¾ of a second (buzz to hit) I am afraid that I am considerably slower now -- arthritis setting in and eyesight fading out, coupled with not enough practice time -- being the major contributing factors..

The reason I ask is that I've met quite a few people over the years who thought they were fast, but the range timer said otherwise.

Well, you are not meeting someone who "thinks he is fast" here...

My typing speed used to be about 100 to 120wpm (a side benefit of my day job as a "network guy") I am now down to 60wpm on a good day -- a result of decreasing manual dexterity which, though I haven't measured it, I can "feel" has also affected my pistol shooting. (In fact, I am mostly doing shotgun for "fun" -- at least when people can see me; there they think that letting the birds get way downrange is "showing off" rather than the fact that my hands "fumble" more and my eyes track less well than they used to...)

But, I am digressing -- which is a natural tendency I over-indulge...


I'd have to say, no, I am s-l-o-w; odds are, even the slowest folk on this forum are now better than I -- whether they use sights or not…

However, whether or not I am personally "fast" isn't the point (pardon the pun); the issue is whether or not "instinctive shooting" is accurate enough that any "speed advantage" you might gain from it is worth the time, effort, and ammo required to pursue the skill…

I still say, for some people, it is worth it. I am also perfectly willing to admit that it probably is not worth it (or may even be detrimental) for others -- particularly if you are blessed with "fast eyes." I've never been anybody else; I don't directly know what challenges others might face. I do know that "point shooting" has worked for me.

The time differential is what is required to raise the firearm that last foot and a half plus the time required to get the "flash" sight picture.

How much time is that? Again I'll ask, do you have a timer?

In my case, the differiential was about 1/3 to 1/2 second… Pointing from the hip was last measured at about 3/4 second buzz to shot; bringing the gun to eye level and sighting stretched things out to somewhere between 1 second and 1-1/4 seconds (I had more variation in finding the sight picture than in pointing -- depending on the target and distance). I don't know my personal variation now.

Just so we are clear here, I am NOT arguing that one should never use sights (or even seldom use sights); I am simply claiming that sometimes being able to shoot w/o sights is an advantage. As I said, I am a big fan of Bill Jordan who championed "instinctive shooting" in close and sights for farther away.

I believe a LEO posted earlier in this thread that his department teaches "point shooting" inside of a certain distance & sights outside of that. I would echo that sentiment -- except to say that the appropriate change-over distance varies based on individual capabilities and practice levels rather than on a set measurement. Lots of "mass training" is predicated on what works "best" for the "average" person and neglects what works "best" for the "worst" person or "best" for the "best" person; often these techniques are dramatically different.

With the "optional" use of sights in mind, and even if you think him a charlatan as many do, I still find this Bob Munden clip (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=woILVt30QV8&NR=1) "instructive" -- you will note, for example, that Mr. Munden uses his sights when going for accuracy. We also know (right?) that "balloon busting" is done "shotgun like" with powder residue and lots of times the guns are specially modified (aluminum barrels, et cetera) to increase speed.

That said, there is still accuracy required; lots of the folk who do this sort of stuff (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnu4P0Y-JAk) can do nearly as well with wax bullets and (first shot at least -- before recoil has to be compensated) with full-power ammo… I know because I've seen it done. Am I that good? No. Was I ever really good? Not anywhere near the skill level of the people around whom I grew up -- Not in my wildest dreams.

Just to anticipate some follow-on questions... Have I ever had to shoot "under stress" at close (less than 30 feet) range? Yes. Did I "point shoot"? Yes. Did I miss? No. Was it luck? Maybe. Do I want to go back and try it again? Not today. Was I fast? I don't know…

The "opposition" certainly didn't shoot faster than me, but that might be because both situations involved four-legged critters who wanted to "mess up my day" on a very personal level -- so all they had were teeth (or in one case, tusks) and attitude.

I also cannot comment on my "speed" because I have no objective sense of time for either incident. Based on subjective memory, the first seemed to take half a minute; the latter about ten seconds… There were no bystanders on the first occasion, but witnesses to the second event said it was "unbelievably fast" -- so I think I must have done "okay" -- particularly since I made the "draw" out of someone else's hands. Regardless, both seemed slow to me -- kind of "stuck in cement" slow --sort of the time-dilation-effect mentioned elsewhere in this thread.


-101-

 

[sesquipedalian101]

Closed Circuit to PAX:

I take a break from the main theme of this thread for a couple of things:

1) It may appear that I have "picked on you" a couple of times; please know that I only chose some of your verbiage because it provided a better "jumping off point" for some of my ramblings than other's posts -- not because I was necessarily taking issue with what you said or how you said it...

And...

2) Before my last post, I took a moment and followed the "corneredcat" link in your signature... You have some really good stuff there! I haven't had a chance to peruse it carefully, but plan on going back. Thank you for the time and effort you have put into your pro-firearm online presence. I only wish the rest of us were as articulate...


-101-

 

[Sweatnbullets]

Man, am I thankful that I no longer need to take part in stupid debates like this.

Every person default should be to get to his sights. But do not try to get to something that is simply not going to be there. We must realize that when the "fight or flight" response activates the Sympathetic Nervous System (SNS) the pupils will dilate and make it impossible to focus on anything up close. Therefore we must train within the reality of a truely reactionary life threatening situation.

For anyone that believes that point shooting is not necessary.....then you have zero retention skill sets and you are in need of some serious, properly structured FOF. Inside of properly structured FOF, I have yet to witness anyone that did not point shoot.

Everyone with any decent amount of training point shoots (yet they may feel the bizzare need to call it something other than what it is.) The question all comes down to how far you want to take the skill set.

It is nice to fill up my courses with people that have no idea what they are really physically capable of and showing them exactly how all of the dogma of the recent past is nothing more than emotional ignorance.

I have had a couple of guys sign up for my courses to try to prove me wrong. They are now some of my biggest supportors.

Be very careful about "not knowing what you do not know" because the truth will make you look the fool. This has happened on epic porportions over the last ten years. So many experts painting themselves into a corner only to discover the error of their ignorance. Regretting the years of bad mouthing a skill set that they did not understand and now try to teach today.

Do not be that closed minded expert that "did not know what he did not know", because the world is watching and they will remember the emotional dogma that was clung too so tightly.

Yeah.....we will point and laugh!

 

[nate45]

Absolutism? Is it either or, or only?

Man, am I thankful that I no longer need to take part in stupid debates like this.

Yet here you are big as life.

We must realize that when the "fight or flight" response activates the Sympathetic Nervous System (SNS) the pupils will dilate and make it impossible to focus on anything up close. Therefore we must train within the reality of a truely reactionary life threatening situation.

For anyone that believes that point shooting is not necessary.....then you have zero retention skill sets and you are in need of some serious, properly structured FOF. Inside of properly structured FOF, I have yet to witness anyone that did not point shoot.

I came across this article last week while debating this topic.

Sighted Fire vs. Point Shooting.

Argument “A” contends that reliable hits cannot be achieved without awareness of the front sight. Mounds of anecdotal and scientific evidence show that it is possible to be involved in a life-or-death battle and still maintain situational awareness and sharpness of faculties, allowing complex motor skill engagement and sighting system awareness. Further, one of the last things the bullet passes on its way to the target is the front sight. If it is not in line with the target, the bullet will miss the target.
Argument “B” portends that during sympathetic nervous system activation, sighted fire is not likely or is perhaps even impossible, therefore it is necessary to train without using the sights.

Neither the Argument “A” camp nor the Argument “B” camp are necessarily wrong. In fact, both sides provide scientific and anecdotal data that show two sides of the same coin. The reconciliation of both arguments lies in the fact that if your mind interprets the stimulating event as fearful and you undergo sympathetic nervous system activation, then the physiological arousal factors may have a negative effect on performance. In the absence of training to counteract these factors, complete failure is possible. However, if your mind does not process the event as fearful and your sympathetic nervous system is not activated, then many of the detrimental physiological factors may either be inconsequential, or possibly not even present. Time, distance, cover, superior skill, and confidence in your abilities (all of which can be quickly developed through the use of high-quality simulation training) will go a long way to ensure the sympathetic nervous system does not take a heavy toll on performance.

To me the best solution at close range is to begin firing as soon as the pistol comes level with the target and continue to fire as I bring the pistol to eye level. Some thing like this.

Now if you are very close these look like sound tactics. Close Range Gunfighting - Defending SUL

I'm not an either or person, but personally if I've got six feet of distance, I'm bringing the pistol up to eye level.