A Case For Point Shooting.

Nate:some call that the zipper.
Others call it vertical tracking.
A very good method, BTW, which combines the best of both.
I should add, however, that all of those shots in that video could have been made with point shooting.
Still, a very good example of what I consider to be the most useful combat shooting method ever devised for "in your face" distances.
PS:SweatnBullets:I would not call this a stupid debate, but rather restating a position for those who are new to these forums.
Some will agree, some disagree and others will do their own research/testing.
Which is how it should be.
 
Last edited:
Nate,,some call that the zipper.
Click to expand...
I did a quick fire test of my Seecap using that exact method once and this was the result. I can see why they call it "the zipper" method. I will probably never be able to recreate this effect again as long as I live. :)

LWStarget1.jpg
 
Very good shooting indeed--and I am sure you will have no problem doing the same over and over again, since it really is quite simple and natural.
And 2-3 yards is where most handgun encounters occur.
 
To SB and all other trainers of and advocates of point-shooting who believe that:

...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
Click to expand...

...this is simply false. It may seem a fine point, but let me offer an observation.

There are records of a number of up-close assault victims, whether they came out afterward as winners or losers, who recall very clearly being able to see the gun muzzle pointed at them from only inches to a few feet away, in exquisite, almost magnified detail, such that they were afterward able to describe, quite accurately, the details of things like nicks in the muzzle crown.

The argument here isn't that of being physiologically incapable of seeing the sights because of inability to focus on near objects, in turn attributable to unavoidable pupillary dilitation. That doesn't apparently actually happen, even though a degree of pupillary dilitation does occur.
Rather, the issue is the near-unavoidable occurence of "threat focus"; in a life-and-death situation, most people will focus on the threat to the exclusion of other nearby objects, such that in defending oneself, the ability to remove ones attentional and visual focus from the threat and transfer it to the (intermediate) visual object(s) of the sights may prove to be simply impossible. Sympathetic nervous system responses such as sweating, pupillary dilitation, blood pressure elevation and blood volume redistribution are aspects of this but do not, in themselves, account for the interesting (and apparently "hard-wired") phenomenon of threat focus.

Jeff Cooper said "blessed is the man who, in the face of death, thinks only of the front sight", and that may well be true, but I would suggest that most folks simply won't be able to do it on demand in a true life-and-death attack, even with training in "The Modern Technique".
Some may, but I believe that most won't.
 
In reality, when stress takes over, so does training. If you spend years upon years training using your front sight, you're gonna use it when stress kicks in wheather you realize it or not.

I never shoot my pistols or rifles without using the front sight. (the exception is a very little time playing with the crimson sight on my 642 making sure it would work in no light situations.

In Combat, I found my self looking down the sights of my M16 (Vietnam). Even the few times I couldnt get out of being volenteered to crawl down some slimmy tunnel, I had my 1911a1 up so I could see my sights. In LE, (20 years w/APD) in situations I thought I may have to use my service revolver I found my self looking down the sights of my Model 28 Smith.

Its training. If you train using your sights, you're gonna use them, if you dont train you're just gonna blast away wheather you choose sights or point shooting.

Its training, constant training. No one is a born shooter, no one can learn to shoot and maintain their abilities unless training is constant. Shooting is not like riding a bike, you loose the edge if you dont keep at it.
 
What I draw from the story is that the family man had gone into shock- at which point he lost steady reflexes. When one is shot it is important to stay calm. ..

Perhaps if he had more practice with his firearm it would have been natural to acquire his target.. but I wouldn't know, I've never been shot :P

- - - the attacker was moving around and not standing still. Most likely he was afraid and unable to make the decision to run, or stay and fight. - meaning he did not expect the family man to retaliate with his own firearm. He didn't think that such a person would be dangerous.- in addition he could have thought he had a bullet vest on since he was still moving after being shot. haha

shooting innocent civilians is stupid.
 
I must agree with SawBones.
For whatever reasons many focus on the threat in close range, surprise combat
situations, I do not think that physical reactions are the culprit.
I will also disagree with Kraigwy---too many well trained sight shooters have failed to use their sights during actual combat and in quite a few FOF sessions.
Some may, but others will not always use the sights.
 
---too many well trained sight shooters have failed to use their sights during actual combat and in quite a few FOF sessions.
Some may, but others will not always use the sights.
Click to expand...

And that's about the size of it.
I believe that both point shooting and sighted shooting have their proper places in combat or defensive close-quarters shooting.

It's not "always one and never the other", but it's definitely my observation that devotees of sighted shooting almost all seem to denigrate point shooting, and that while there certainly is a lot of sighted shooting taught on the "square range" (most of it involving making holes in stationary targets seven yards and more away), there is almost no training in point shooting readily available, and this in spite of the fact that most assaults take place within inches or a few feet! Why?
 
When the threat is further away (than point blank) and your subconscious focuses on that danger it becomes difficult to focus on your own sights close up (possibly).

For me I remember seeing my front sight (can't recall if it was a blur or not). Then I remember focusing in on the bad guys gun (which turned out to be a bb gun). So detailed my view that I knew it was the same bb gun I had as a kid....I could see it from 10 yards away. I did both (focused close and far) however I can't remember if I did them at the same time.
 
Why?
Because many are brainwashed into believing that they, "Will do as they train"
under stress, which is not always the case.
Because point shooting has been bashed as either not accurate "spray & pray"
or something that takes years of practice by a gifted few.
None of which is the truth, BTW.
One thing with your statement that I must disagree with..
Sight shooting does not denigrate into point shooting, but rather results in a lot of missing due to the unability to use the sights in some stressful situations.
IMHO unless one has trained/practiced point shooting then he is just plain missing.
 
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.
Click to expand...
that is essentially the main issue that needs to be recognized. The reaction may not come to everyone every time. The raction may come at different times for different people, or even at different times for the same person in similar situations. But AFAIK ALL the available evidence indicates that we are all subject to it given the right set of circumstances.
 
I did a quick fire test of my Seecap using that exact method once and this was the result. I can see why they call it "the zipper" method. I will probably never be able to recreate this effect again as long as I live.
Click to expand...


PBP, 2 things...

1) If you've been reading that knife vs gun thread, you should be glad that guy didn't have a knife, that little Seecap would be no match. :rolleyes:;)

2) You missed the heart by a GOOD 3 inches, gotta do better when your life depends on it....;):D:cool:
 
Because many are brainwashed into believing that they, "Will do as they train" under stress, which is not always the case.
Click to expand...

I sure hope someone tells the miltary. Looks like for many decades the USMC, SF, Rangers, and the like have been mistaken.

You fight as you train for the simple reason it's all your body knows (presuming it's good training and very through.) The habits are ingrained.

It works like this:

1. No training. Expect nothing. Just nothing. No self confidence.

2. Little training. Expect nothing, hope to be lucky. Little self confidence.

3. Casual training. Expect some of the most basic defense techniques to be tried (I didn't say work, just attempted.) Might even succeed.

4. Steady training. Expect the basics to be tried and some of the techniques to work. Fair self confidence.

5. Rigorous training. Expect some advanced techniques to be tried and the basics all work. Strong self confidence!

6. Long term rigorous training. Actually expect some of the advanced techniques to work! Lots of self confidence.

Deaf
 
I'm not sure if the technique he attempted to use was the problem or the fact he was not mentally prepared for the incident he stumbled into and was in the process of regaining control over his body so he could do what he was trained. I have personally observed this happen to soldiers in combat and if they survived long enough the shock wears off and anger takes over.

Both point and sighted fire are necessary components of shooting and I have used both for real. When people get out from behind the keyboard and actually learn these skills (point and sighted fire), the gaps in their training becomes very apparent.

Combat shooting is not about scoring "A" hits but about winning a fight against an opponent that is focused on killing you first.
 
Deaf Smith said:
matthew temkin said:
Because many are brainwashed into believing that they, "Will do as they train" under stress, which is not always the case.
Click to expand...
I sure hope someone tells the miltary. Looks like for many decades the USMC, SF, Rangers, and the like have been mistaken.
Click to expand...

I am NOT commenting on the quality of military training in this post; however, after having consulted for graduate-level research statistics for a number of years, I feel qualified to spot "sample bias." I have heard personal testimony for years, in multiple contexts, that "training matters." There is a catch however... If we assume, for the sake of argument, that the defensive techniques taught, when followed correctly, dramatically increase the odds of survival, then there is a self-selection factor going on... Those who were able to respond in the manner that they were trained will, naturally, credit their training for their success. Those who fail to follow their training, for whatever reason (maybe the training was not appropriate for their personal circumstance), will tend to be under-represented in the final tally -- because they will be "structurally unable" to report.

Further, there is a tendency to stop the inquiry once the "Did he follow training?" question is answered without necessarily finding out why the training was ignored (lack of good practice? circumstances not covered in training? panic? equipment failure? physiological failure? psychological failure? plain Bad Luck? et cetera?).

Back when I was diving regularly, I used to follow the accident/injury/fatality reports pretty closely. Most "accidents" and/or fatalities were deemed a result of failure to follow procedures properly. Regardless of the cause, seldom was the victim able to provide a "reason" for his departure from training ("So tell us: Why did you hold your breath and shoot to the surface from 60ft of depth?"). The bottom line is, in most hazardous endeavors, we know more about why someone sticks to their training successfully (because they get to report) than about the things that cause deviation there from.

I remember a sky diver who accidentally left his parachute aboard the aircraft on his 500th jump; we'll never know why for sure (though the new video camera with which he was playing likely had an effect).

-101-
 
This is one thread that I kinda skipped over so I may have missed some things such as INSTICT SHOOTING.

My Dad taught me this from the beginning with a bow, he was a tri-state archery champ at the time. Point and shoot comes pretty naturally to me, I've never used any sights on a shotgun but come out of the field with my fair share of game. When hunting larger game (rifle) I usually just have to adjust a minimal amount for the breadbox shot.

It's really pretty easy. Buy a brick of .22's and a cheap semi-auto and just go out and pop off the rounds. Pick anything at the spur of the moment, a rock, a tin can, what ever is safe and shoot it FAST. Eventually you'll get it.
 
The military is constantly evaluating and changing what it teaches.
Quite often it is discovered that what works well in training during peacetime tends to fall apart during actual combat.
This trend has probably been going on since Cain killed Abel.
And quite often the old, proven methods are brought back into service due to a pressing need.
Back in January in Mississippi I ran a US Army soldier ( 18 years in service, two tours in Iraq and a close quarter rifle/H2H instructor) through the WW2 point shooting/unarmed combat syllubus.
Here is his review which was posted on another forum:http://www.warriortalk.com/showthread.php?t=34500


I spent this last weekend with Matt Temkin, his friend Paul and Southnarc. Southnarc was a great host to all of us! Those of you who are still wondering about the Fairbairn-Sykes/Applegate PS concept, let me tell you: it is valid and it should be a part of any gunmans reportoire.

We worked on PS with rifle and pistol; going through the whole of what Matt has been talking about for a while now. For the close fight, which as we all know, is close, quick and violent, these are some of the best techniques I have seen for dealing with a situation of this type. My goal now is to work out for myself where they fit in my bag of tricks along with what I have in there already.

Matt also beat me up for a while using the WWII combatives out of "Get Tough" and "Kill Or Get Killed." Yeah, it hurt. But, I'll be showing it to my LTs when I get back to work in a few weeks. It is extremely effective, and isn't the watered down, PC crap that passes for fighting skills these days.

I want to thank these guys for letting me hang out with them, and pick their brains for a while. Train with Matt if you get the chance. Just bring lots of ammo, Matt likes to shoot...a lot!
 
There is only one way to settle this reduced loads, body armor, ballistic collars and eye protection.
Click to expand...

Isn't that FOF? I mean if you know you aren't going to be killed then its just a more painful FOF training.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top