Does anyone here practice point shooting?

Applegate

Yes, Applegate advocated bringing it up to eye level and shooting when the gun "covered the target." As a matter of fact, F&S did too, except at very close ranges. Their proposed "recruit training" started with raising the pistol to eye level, and shooting the moment it covered the target. The recruit was supposed to concentrate on the middle of a human figure centered on an 8' x 8' target.

A weakness in my first foray into point shooting is that I looked at the box, rather than concentrating on the center of the box. . .the larger "target" probably let me shoot faster, at the cost of some precision. FWIW, F&S asserted that 50% hits was OK, as "experience had proved that to be adequate to the purpose in view." (I love the old-fashioned British lingo!)

Without double-checking the book, F&S basically advocated:
* 1/4 hip (heel of firing hand snug against your ribs) at grappling distance, i.e. 1 yard.

* 1/2 hip (elbow touching hip, gun on centerline of body) at 2-3 yds.

* 3/4 hip (elbow bent, gun below eye level, gun on centerline of body) at 4-5 yds.

* Eye level, gun on centerline of body, at ranges from about 5-12 yds. I believe they seemed to accept 35 ft. as the approx. outer limit of effectiveness; Applegate, I think, stated about 50 ft. as max.

Yes, thanks for the reminder on the title of Applegate's book, Kill or Be Killed. I also bought a DVD of the WWII training film he helped put together on combat pistol shooting. It's about 15-18 mins. long, and shows his basic "pump handle" technique as demonstrated by some soldiers using M1911A1's with tracer ammo vs. silhouette targets. His approach basically simplified F&S to a single stance, i.e. raising gun to eye level, rather than the several F&S variations mentioned above. Good, simple, easy, fast. I do, however, want to see if the F&S techniques let me shoot faster and better at extremely close ranges, to lessen the chance of having my raised pistol snatched.

Also, as nNobby 45 points out, SD/HD shooting for a civilian is highly likely to occur in low light; that's another point emphasized by F&S + Applegate. And I also agree with his hope that this isn't becoming a "my approach is better than yours" thread. I'm simply tossing out there what I recently learned (1930's techniques!! :-) and my results so far, plus summarizing the proponents' reasons for their techniques. My opinion is strictly "to each his own." But with my weakening eyes and recently-developed hand tremor, as well as the low light condition of my house at night, I really appreciate these new-to-me techniques that don't emphasize good vision, steady hands, and visible sights. :-)
 
The issue of speed. . .

I forgot to mention that F&S + Applegate emphasized speed. That's especially true with F&S, who strongly emphasized getting your shot off first, asserting that even a fast near-miss was likely to gain you up to 2 seconds "as your opponent recovers his wits." :-)

I didn't time myself in my point-shooting, but believe I was going from low ready to putting 2 hits in each of 3 targets in about 2.5 - 3.0 seconds Probably increase that to 3-4 secs. if all 3 tgts had been at 15 yds. I think it would take me a good 5 seconds to go from low ready to surely hitting a 4" target at 15 yards, double-action. Even longer for a 2" target.

In other words, in the time it would take me to hit the small target once, I could hit three BGs solidly, 2 times each. And I could do it in low light with little decrease in speed or accuracy, while leaving my weak hand free to open a door, fend off a blow, or hold a flashlight.

Kodiak, I think F&S and Applegate would take your comment that "anybody could do that" as the highest possible form of praise, because their techniques are intended to turn a novice into a combat-effective shot in an afternoon. Applegate's book has a great photo of a bullet-riddled silhouette target, shot by the book's photographer. He'd never fired a pistol before, and shot this target after photographing the demonstrator using the point schooting techniques, plus undergoing about 15 mins. orientation on pistol operation & safety. Not a bad advertisement.
 
Okay, I'll go off the edge here.

Not only do I practice point shooting, that is pretty much all I practice. Not only is it pretty much all I practice, I do it dressed exactly as I walk around day to day, I do it from my concealment holster, I do it while getting off the x and I do it with reloads, moving to cover, falling to the ground, getting up from the ground, and with both hands. I shoot hammer drills, zippers, "failure drills" and from contact distance to about twenty yards tops.

If you go to the range and target shoot for fun, have fun.

I go to the range to keep my survival skills sharp.

Truth is, you could take the sights off my Glocks and it wouldn't change a thing for me.
 
I see way to many people at the range try to start off learning to shoot at 15-25 yards. Lots of folks just go out to the range set up a target. Go back to 15 yards and hit very badly. They are practicing marksmanship not gunfighting. I've taken several people that have been doing this for years to the range. I start off at much closer distances than they are used to and teach them the basics of point shooting. Within the short distances that point shooting is used and in a very short time they are nailing the man shaped target very effectively. In fact they are amazed.
The truth is people don't mugged, raped, stabbed or shot at 25 yards. So if you are practicing for a self defense it makes sense to do lots of up close shooting, one handed, two handed, seated, weak hand, odd positions, and so on. When you are attacked you will focus on the threat. It is in our nature. So at greater than a few feet distance the Applegate technique of bringing the gun up to your line of sight (which is on the threat) and "looking over the gun" works very well. I think this is the same idea as Mr. Coopers "flash sight picture". You are in efect aiming the gun (indexing the weapon) so I don't know if it's point shooting or not. Again the greater the distance the more of a proper sight picture you can get.
But what are most civilians chances of firing at someone at 15+ yards? Very slim. And probably hard to justify legally. Alot of folks think that if they practice marksmanship at 25 yards and get good groups it will work at two yards. It won't. The teaching of men like Sykes, Fairbain, and Applegate were designed to teach people who were being dropped behind enemy lines where the only possible weapon they might use is a pistol. He had to have a system that was fast to teach large numbers of people fast. And it had to work. And it did.
The "Modern Technique" was developed for the tightest groups when engaging a paper target. It works for that and greater ranges. But if you watch some of the films from police car cameras or stores cameras you will see most people will end up crouching, pointing, and shooting with one hand.
Read the latest F.B.I. reports. They say the bad guys hit at something like 70% of the time. Almost twice as well as the various LEO organizations are hitting. They say they do practice with their guns, point their guns at things like tin cans and blast away. They almost always shoot first. So they have a "combat mindset of sorts". Somewhere statistically 65% of shootings by LEO's and civilians are done with one hand. Some schools of shooting actually tell you to never shoot with one hand. In a recent article one instructor said alot of the students coming through their classes to great shooting two handed. When asked to shoot one handed they couldn't hit the broad side of a barn because they never practiced it.
One of the reasons people freeze in a fight is they have not given their unconcious mind the tools it needs to handle attacks. The time of the attack is a hell of a time to learn to fight. Just saying train from every distance, position, one handed, two handed, weak handed and so on. We usually will not get to choice the time, place, or method of attack. Learn to shoot in every possible situation you can think of. Do force on force training if you can. In most situations a civilian will get into the ammo you have on board will be what saves you. Very few civilian gunfights involve reloads. The best reload is a second gun. Not saying not to teach reloading. But chances are if your gun is empty and you and/or your opponent is not down trying to reload you may soon be.
 
point & shoot, CQB, methods-tactics....

I disagree with the draw & shoot tactics. To make fast accurate shots with a handgun is fine but you should not condition yourself or train others to make fast draws & turn on the bullet hose. :(
As many US law enforcement officers(cops, state troopers, federal agents etc) will tell you; they draw sidearms often but fire them rarely(if at all on duty). As a armed citizen, you should be aware of who or what you are shooting at. That is critical in a lethal force incident.
CQB(close quarter battle) or close range incidents like the pizza shop event can take place but proper tactics & training can address those issues.
Proper methods and tactics like those taught by the OSS, SOE, etc worked well & have merit but newer methods like the Modified Weaver work too.
Laser aiming units can help ID targets or aid in marksmanship but even the makers(like Crimsontrace) state in the owners manual that using pistol sights are also required.
Your goal in a use of force event is to LIVE! No one will be impressed with your speed or your match grade level shooting.
 
This discussion illustrates some key points.

1. The first rule of combat is -- don't die!
2. Only hits count in a gunfight.
3. Handgun defensive shooting requires multiple techniques.
4. No one can become "skilled" any shooting technique in a day or two.
5. In a life or death fight, shooting tight groups isn't a priority.

#1 and #2 are self-explanatory.

#3 - Shooting at a target at 25 yards should be considered a standard distance for someone carrying a gun for defense. Some will say it's hard to argue that someone 75 feet away is an imminent threat when in court. That's nonsense if that person is shooting at you or another person. For some, that's the distance from your porch to the curb. I'd certainly prefer to have the skills to stop someone shooting into my house at that distance.

#4 - We can teach people to shoot "good enough" to protect themselves at close range (10 yards or less) in a day. We can't teach the skills needed to shoot both close and far in one or two days and expect a high degree of accuracy. Both practice and training/coaching is necessary to create highly skilled shooters.

#5 - When forced to use a gun in self-defense, few people are going to judge the results by how tight your groups were. The preferred results will be that you won and the other guy lost. The results matter, not the technique used. It does not matter if all your shots covered 7 inches or just 1-inch. You stopped the attack.

Up close and personal fights - at distances under about 12 feet - you may not be able to raise the gun to eye level and if you can, it may be deflected away and/or cause a wrasslin' match for control of the gun. As F&S indicated, in fight, we naturally crouch in defense, so firing from a crouched position makes sense. (I think it makes sense even from the 25 yard line.) Knowing how get the gun pointed at the target in these situations and score hits is the essence of instinctive shooting (call it what you will).

If you have the luxury of distance or time to get your gun to eye level, then some form of aimed fire is generally prefferable. Whether that aimed fire is "proper" sight alignment or simply putting the front sight on the target and shooting will depend on the shooter and circumstances.

Certainly, we all want to avoid a gunfight in the first place. But if we do engage in a gunfight, we'd prefer that our hits reflect good shooting rather than poor shooting. We'd prefer to use the fewest shots possible, not because we are cheap but because we are not gratiuitous killers. But the number one, overriding desire if a gunfight occurs is to survive. Your technique may not be pretty, but if it gets good results then it doesn't matter, does it?
 
If I had to get into a "gunfight" from a holster I'll stick to my Frontier Six Shooter.
All the tactics about eye level and aiming are over dramatized in Hollywood today with CSI's (not gunfighters anyway) lurking into buildings with handguns pointed and aimed with tunnel vision.
Get a relaxed open carry Colt SAA of significant caliber at a "gunfight" range and it can be cocked, pointed and fired quicker than any other holstered gun.
013-2.jpg
 
pythagorean has sent us off on another path here.
If it's agreeable to pursue it, I'm in - it's one of my favorite subjects, comparing the guns and gunfighters of the Old West to the techniques and guns of today.

So, if there's no objection, here goes:
The Sixgun has always been my favorite.
I must have watched way too many westerns, instead of doing homework.
it can definitely deliver a fast shot out of the holster - for the first shot.
After that, the modern guns have so much advantage, even in the hands of the average user, that it would not be my choice for defense.
Especially, if the statistics on gunfights can be believed.
Something like 85% of the rounds fired in gunfights miss their intended targets, by both the police and civilians.
Of the remaining rounds that do hit what was aimed for, very few have the immediate effect seen in the movies.
So, it seems that fast follow up shots are the order of the day for surviving.
While expert sixgunners can really crank those rounds out, it's best done with two hands, with the support hand operating the hammer.
Two handed shooting is not always going to be available in a tight situation.
One handed shooting with a sixgun would be quite a disadvantage against a high capacity autoloader, or even a double action revolver.
A disadvantage I would not care to have.
Love those sixguns, but not these days.
 
This thread is becoming very interesting,,,

I went to Amazon dot com to see about ordering the book,,,
"Bullseyes don't shoot back".

Is anyone else reminded of Bruce Lee saying,,,
"Boards don't hit back."

I found I could read about half of the book right there.

I did order it just to have it on my shelf,,,
But the gist of the technique is there for free.

I want to state that this thread is becoming very interesting,,,
As well as being extremely civil.

I'm reading and digesting your comments with great interest.

Aarond

.
 
Although I enjoy accuracy shooting, in the real world if you can't clear leather and fire, you are "Dead". Whether it be with my SAA clone from a fast draw holster, or one of my 22m NAA's from my pocket, I practice shooting from the hip, the time it takes to raise the gun to eye level is all the time your adversary needs to perforate you.
003-1-1.jpg
 
Yup, and don't forget to move yer creaky old butt out of the way, too.
They have a tough time hitting you, if you ain't there any more.
Does anyone practice moving and shooting?
 
I, too, am enjoying the discussion & appreciating the tone.

Although I have my gun in a holster at my "range" (the big gully I mentioned that's 150 yds behind my house), it's not a concealment holster for CCW. Since I don't have my license for that (yet), my focus is on HD, so I practice engaging from "gun-already-in-hand," as though I were checking out my house. I'd practice getting up out of bed, too, but the sand, chiggers, and mosquitos back in that gully--along with heat index of 105-108 these days--makes that a bridge too far! :D

The other place I have a gun handy for SD is in my truck, which is legal in my state. Guess I ought to carry out a lawn chair to the gully and practice shooting from the sitting position at very close targets both to my left and right, i.e. driver's side & passenger side attacks. Will have to see what works.

The reason I've never pursued a CCW permit is because I spent 24 yrs in the Army, moving place to place, mostly in states where that wasn't an option, and God forbid we let soldiers carry guns on post!! Although I've been retired 5 yrs now in LA, I teach JROTC at a high school, a "gun-free zone." Will go ahead soon & get a permit anyway, for the rather rare times I'm out & about on weekends, and so I need to get serious about selecting carry techniques, holster(s), and practicing draw, etc.

I used to shoot some CAS and love the old guns for fun, but agree with g.whillikers that I want DA for serious use. (Or auto, but I've become a revolver guy once again :-) So did McGivern, F&S, Applegate, Jordan, to name a few. Even Old West gunfights rarely matched two men face to face, where speed of draw was the issue. That's movie & TV stuff.

Will also offer this slight, but I believe important, modification to BillCA's excellent summation: only hits count, but other shots canbe effective. In the Army, we call it "suppressive fire," and have long taught its value--especially in covering the "maneuver" part of "fire and maneuver." Of course, some devolve into spray & pray, which is a serious mistake. Nonetheless, my real point is to emphasize that I believe F&S had it right by emphasizing speed, striving to get in the first shot to unsettle your opponent & hopefully hit him in the process.

Please don't misunderstand me as advocating a lot of misses;) One miss might be one too many. OTOH, 5 misses might unhinge your opponent while your 6th shot wins the battle. As others have said, style points don't matter--winning does.

And although you must take long enough to decide SHOOT/DON'T SHOOT, which is probably why BG's generally shoot first if SigXDer is right (and I expect he is), I think that the laws in certain states may narrow the odds a bit in our favor. Here in LA, if I respond to a noise in the house at night and quickly shoot someone I discover, I'd be considered justified. His presence here, at that time, is considered reason for me to fear death/grievous bodily harm & respond with deadly force. And no, I'm not advocating shooting my daughter's friend who unexpectedly spent the night, etc. etc.

So in my case, i.e. HD under such conditions, I respectfully emphasize that I'm not facing the situation the cops & my fellow soldiers in Iraq & Afghanistan have to face--I'm not going into a pizza joint, figuring out whether the guy with money in his hand is simply giving someone change, or is an armed robber. So, sometimes I might move to cover first, and other times I might shoot my way to cover, or I might shoot fast & hard from where I stand, only moving to cover afterwards to assess whether I've really won or not. . .So, instead of "only hits count," maybe I'd substitute "only winning counts." We certainly all agree that's THE key point, regardless of how you package it.
 
Suppressive fire

BTW, how many LEO misses are actually intentional, effective suppressive fire? And a closely-related question: how many are shots taken at ranges or at fleeting, poorly-lit targets that almost guarantee a miss. . .but the shot is a potentially "effective" one that should be taken, especially given hi-cap sidearms?

If a BG in my home dives for cover, I'm sending some lead along to hurry his way there, even though it's likely to miss. I'm not worried about hit percentages.

I think we may be too hard on LEOs on the one hand--i.e. not giving due credit for effective suppressive fire--and on the other hand we may be training them too much in precision techniques that don't work optimally under the conditions that F&S and Applegate focused on, i.e. close ranges where BG is shooting back. Not trying to turn the thread towards LEO training, and personally I have little idea how most of them are trained; I'm just wondering how they'd do if they got some training in point shooting, F&S- and Applegate-style.
 
LouisianaMan,

The police and civilian trainers stress the importance of avoiding warning shots, due to the risk of collateral damage, and the personal and legal consequences in our litigation eager society.
As one well known trainer says, "You own every bullet you shoot and everything it hits."
Or something like that.
it's doubtful that when the police miss, that it was intentional.

Here's a Clint Smith video on defending from a car:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3KmZ...4376C4B8&playnext_from=PL&index=32&playnext=1
 
Last edited:
No, I don't mean warning shots & literally intentional misses, I mean firing shots that have a low probability of hitting. For instance, if a BG is diving behind a car to take cover and continue a gunfight, a cop is likely to shoot at him while he's diving, although it's unlikely they'll hit. (Assuming there's not a crowded shopping mall in the background, etc.) The cop may then fire several shots at the fender of the car while he himself moves for cover; again, the bullets may drill thru and get the BG, but probably not.

Assuming that these shots don't recklessly endanger bystanders, I'd call all of these shots "good" ones, not simply "misses" to be scorned as poor marksmanship by LEOs. And although I also used to repeat the mantra that "only hits count," I think that is actually a counterproductive mindset. And in fact, from time to time even the Army figures out that by training soldiers on aimed fire only, or by insisting the "only hits count," that we inhibit them from firing at terrain targets that need to be "suppressed," even though no enemy is even visible.

While I'm not saying that Army = LE = HD, many of the aspects of a close-range gun battle are similar. I believe that intentional "suppressive fire" can be one of them, and we shouldn't overlook it by emphasizing that only hits count. In a crisis, most of us will probably do whatever we think is necessary or helpful anyway, but I think HD can be assisted by an aggressive mindset in some ways, and we shouldn't develop such a relentlessly defensive, reactive, and risk-averse mindset that we risk losing the battle itself. Granted, I live in the country & have a house layout where I can "afford" to miss, which isn't the case for most people, perhaps, but if all I see is an arm, I'm shooting at it. If he ducks behind the corner of an interior wall, I'm shooting at the wall and hoping it penetrates (or that he runs away or surrenders).

That's also why I personally load heavy lead bullets; I assume I'm shooting at someone who isn't standing still, presenting his chest to me. If I have to shoot thru a raised arm, an end table, a sofa, or thru the sheetrock interior walls, I want something that will punch thru with perhaps sufficient energy to end the battle. Again, I live in a rural environment, and I realize that apartment dwellers don't have the same tactical situation.
 
and Aarondgraham, I've been meaning to comment that your tag line is from my all-time favorite TV series! :D

Although Caje was (supposedly) from Louisiana, my favorite was. . .you guessed it, SGT Saunders. What he couldn't do with a tommygun didn't need doing! Come to think of it, my avatar on other forums is a photo of me firing a Thompson. Hmmm. . . .
 
Kirby was my favorite,,,

How can ya not appreciate a smart-ass sad sack with a BAR,,,

Come to think of it,,,
He is a perfect example of point shooting,,,
I can't remember him aiming that BAR very often.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top