For those who think sighted fire won't work at close range

[NRAhab]

When I was training a lot I regularly did 20 rounds in 5 seconds, all in the "A" zone at 5 yards. That was from low ready, not from the holster.

Again, the speed itself (20 rounds in 5 seconds is a 0.25 split) isn't the impressive part, it's the combination of speed, movement, and a 4 inch group that made me incredulous. On the other hand, I find nothing unusual or unbelievable about your statement of 20 rounds in 5 seconds all in the A zone (I assume you mean an IPSC target). Instead of the aforementioned 4 square inch group/target, the A zone on an IPSC target is 6 inches wide and 11.02 inches tall, and at five yards from the low ready with no movement, well suffice to say that I'd be disappointed if all the hits weren't in the a-zone. In fact, had Matt said "all hits in the a-zone" I wouldn't have even responded to the thread, because that level of accuracy doesn't stretch the imagination.

To explain it another way - the "X-ring" on a standard NRA Action Pistol target is 4 inches in diameter. The 10 ring is 8 inches, and the 8 ring is 12 inches in diameter. I have seen top level professionals miss the 4 inch x-ring from 10 yards away, while standing stock still using the finest custom guns money can buy, which is why when matt says "a fist sized group" while moving at 7 yards away and shooting 11 rounds in 3 seconds, I am incredulous to say the least.

But 20 rounds at five yards into an IPSC A-zone in 5 seconds? That I believe, because as claims of speed and accuracy go, it's not outlandish or unusual.

Now, what this post doesn't mean is that I think what matt claimed is impossible or that he/his students can't do it - as I've maintained this whole time, just because I'm a disbeliever doesn't mean I can't be converted, it just means I'd have to see it to believe it.

 

[Skyguy]

How exactly do you use the sights at close range without losing focus of the bigger picture?

Given speed and a startle response, at close range, you can't focus on both the sights and the bigger picture.
But don't fret that, if you are attacked it'll most likely be an ambush. Rarely would you be ready.

The closer the threat, the harder it is to use iron sights. Because of fear, you will focus exclusively on the threat. Therefore it is senseless to try to use your sights at stickup range. Use metal on meat or silhouette sighting. Of course, you 'must' move off the x.

Sights come into play when you are not threat focusing and have time....yards not feet. But at those distances it is wiser to seek cover and shoot only if necessary.

In most low light scenarios, projecting a laser dot on the target at just about any sensible distance eliminates the need to use iron sights and allows one to concentrate on the bigger picture, the threat and the poa.

For self-defense, train like you will fight.
.

 

[NRAhab]

The closer the threat, the harder it is to use iron sights. Because of fear, you will focus exclusively on the threat. Therefore it is senseless to try to use your sights at stickup range. Use metal on meat or silhouette sighting.
...
For self-defense, train like you will fight

That's a rather tautalogical line of reasoning, don't you think? You'll do X in this situation so you might as well train to do X, so that you'll do X? It's analogous to saying that "if your car is about to hit something, you're going to naturally slam on the brakes, so you should practice slamming on the brakes so that you'll slam on the brakes REALLY WELL".

I'm not saying that it's necessarily the wrong action, but taking the view that "your natural response is X so train on X" eliminates a lot of solid and beneficial training options. Because I don't know about you, but my natural response to an "ambush" is to sprint away like a little girl, so I guess instead of gunfighting, I should work on my 40 yard dash time.

 

[David Armstrong]

That's a rather tautalogical line of reasoning, don't you think? You'll do X in this situation so you might as well train to do X, so that you'll do X?

Not really. The reasoning is more along the lines of:
"Research has shown that there are certain natural, physical responses that will occur in all of us given the proper stimuli. One of those responses if focusing on the threat during sudden surprise encounters at close range. As this reaction is natural and expected, one should train to incorporate that into your response."

 

[Deaf Smith]

And tell me david, if the 'natural response to this proper stimuli' was to roll over and faint like sheep that have myotonia congenita, would one incorporate that into their training?

Wouldn't be better to train some to overcome some of these natural, physical responses that get in the way of fighting better?

Like I showed at the first of this thread, you can see the sights at virtualy any range you can bring the weapon up to eye level.

And hey, Matt, you still havn't answered the question I posed. I suspect your 'natural response to this proper stimuli' is to not answer questions with answers you know won't agree with your way of thinking.

 

[NRAhab]

Deaf Smith sort of hit on what I was driving at. You see, research has shown that a person is more likely to focus on the target in a threatening situation than on the sights, but what research hasn't (and can't really) show is whether or not focusing on the target is objectively better than focusing on the sights. Not you think it's better, or Rex Applegate said it's better, but if it can be categorically demonstrated that focusing on the target produces more effective results.

That's my concern with point shooting, is that you're training a technique that's built around the body's panic reaction as a "catch all solution". Sure, in some instances of a vehicular incident punching the brakes is the smart thing to do, but just because that's the instinctual thing to do doesn't mean it's the best course of action.

I feel like a lot of advocacy for point shooting reduces itself down to the argument that "science says this is what you're going to do in a fight, so you should train around that", while completely ignoring the fact that science doesn't say if indulging your instinctive response is the objectively "best" or most effective course of action.

 

[David Armstrong]

And tell me david, if the 'natural response to this proper stimuli' was to roll over and faint like sheep that have myotonia congenita, would one incorporate that into their training?

Please, Deaf, try not to be any sillier than you usually are about this stuff.

Wouldn't be better to train some to overcome some of these natural, physical responses that get in the way of fighting better?

Only if you can show that these natural physical responses get in the way of fighting better. They don't. One can use them to improve the fighting ability. That is what Matt, Brownie, and a host of others since the Fairbairn and Sykes days have demonstrated over and over.

Like I showed at the first of this thread, you can see the sights at virtualy any range you can bring the weapon up to eye level.

So what? You confuse what can be done after extensive training with what usually happens to the typical gunowner. You want to spend lots of your time training for winning matches and shooting on the range, go ahead, but some of us prefer to focus on the training that allows most folks to win actual gunfights.

That's my concern with point shooting, is that you're training a technique that's built around the body's panic reaction as a "catch all solution".

But no recognized point shooting instructor that I am aware of trains that point shooting is a catch all solution. IIRC, they all teach that it is one part of a well-rounded shooters options.

..what research hasn't (and can't really) show is whether or not focusing on the target is objectively better than focusing on the sights.

Research has shown that, repeatedly. Research has shown that under the proper stimuli the eyes cannot physically focus on the sights. Thus target focus, which is the more natural response, will give better results. Also, point shooting, especially one-handed point shooting, seems to be faster without any noticeable reduction in practical accuracy at close ranges (5 yards and less).

 

[matthew temkin]

David has hit the nail on the head with this.
The reason that the Fairbairn method of point shooting is so effective is that it flows with the body's natural reactions to danger, rather than fighting it tooth and nail.
And as David points out, there is no evidence that this gets in the way of effective fighting.
In fact, quite the opposite is true.
And that is the key, is it not--effective, accurate and very fast shots at close range with man killing/stopping accuracy?
From any angle, any position and in any lighting--or lack of---conditions.
Actually the real goal of point shooting is to place a burst of bullets in the exact spot that one's eyes are focused within a heartbeat.
This can be learned in a matter of minutes, owned in a matter of hours and refined over the course of a lifetime--should one desire.
Why on earth would a gun owner not want to own this skill?
For those seeking videos on the subject I recommend the series by Rob Pincus, available at:
http://www.icestore.us/servlet/StoreFront

 

[NRAhab]

Research has shown that, repeatedly. Research has shown that under the proper stimuli the eyes cannot physically focus on the sights. Thus target focus, which is the more natural response, will give better results. Also, point shooting, especially one-handed point shooting, seems to be faster without any noticeable reduction in practical accuracy at close ranges (5 yards and less).

Research by whom, exactly? I'm not picking nits, but actual, quality research into this sort of thing is pretty rare, but there are a lot of people using insufficient data to draw conclusions that are not necessarily scientific or accurate. Hence, when someone says says "research", it tends to activate my "show me the money" reflex.

You could actually test whether or not point shooting produces more effective results than sighted fire, but I'd imagine it's never actually been tested is because the time and expense involved in setting up 3 groups of test subjects (point shooters, sighted shooters, control group). Then you'd have to devise a course of fire which subjects the student to stress so as to activate their natural stress reaction. Too bad I couldn't get a grant from the government to run the experiment.

Ultimately though, the debate over point shooting vs. sighted fire boils down to a matter of bias. It's almost as bad as Glock vs. 1911 debate in terms of the passion it generates on the parts of the people who participate in it. Some guys are going to believe Rex Applegate and Gabe Suarez, and some guys are going to believe the Army Marksmanship Unit and Jeff Cooper. You're probably never going to convince the Applegate fans that sighted fire is better than point shooting, and you're never going to convince the Jeff Cooper/Army Marksmanship Unit/Todd Jarrett/Robbie Leatham/Bruce Piatt/Doug Koenig/Jerry Miculek/etc fans that point shooting is superior to sighted fire.

But it sure is fun to run around in circles.

Edit: matt, the body's natural stress reaction is to run away - which takes me back to the "maybe we should just practice sprinting" instead of gunfighting.

 

[7677]

Edit: matt, the body's natural stress reaction is to run away - which takes me back to the "maybe we should just practice sprinting" instead of gunfighting.

This is not true with all people...it is called fight or flight for a reason.

Ultimately though, the debate over point shooting vs. sighted fire boils down to a matter of bias. It's almost as bad as Glock vs. 1911 debate in terms of the passion it generates on the parts of the people who participate in it.

I do not look at sighted and point shooting as verses issue because in my book a good shooter will know both and will employ the best method based on the circumstances surrounding the incident. Simply put, it is a incorporated system.

The distance, time, and groups presented by Matt are typical of students that have been trained in threat focused shooting techniques. Some of us are even faster. As far as anyone not believing it can be done, is welcome to come and shoot with me. However, in Deaf's case...shoot against with sims guns.

That's my concern with point shooting, is that you're training a technique that's built around the body's panic reaction as a "catch all solution". Sure, in some instances of a vehicular incident punching the brakes is the smart thing to do, but just because that's the instinctual thing to do doesn't mean it's the best course of action.

Threat focus/point shooting techniques utilize the body's natural fighting stance not a panic stance. No amount of training and/or technique taught by anyone is going to help someone who has lost control of their body period.

I understand your reservations but I can tell you from my own personal experience that when I have used it for real and during stressful training events it has worked and my focus on the target is more intense then it is on the range and my shots hit exactly where my eyes were focused on. I have used both sighted and threat focused shooting techniques while I was in Iraq and they both have their place in the shooting continuum.

 

[David Armstrong]

Research by whom, exactly?

By Whom depends on the research on what, as there are a number of different concepts that come together here. For a good overview of it I recommend Bruce Siddle or David Grossman's work.

I'm not picking nits, but actual, quality research into this sort of thing is pretty rare,...

While I will certainly agree that the quality issue can be debated, as that is a strictly subjective concept, it does not negate the fact that there has been a lot of research done in the area of, and all that research has been fairly conclusive regarding involuntary reactions, stress response, and similar. Admittedly not all, or even much, for that matter, of it was directed at gunfights, but unless one wants to claim that the presence of a gun makes a difference in the responses it is a non-issue.

You could actually test whether or not point shooting produces more effective results than sighted fire,

Thta has been done, with varying degrees of scientific rigor. Plus we have the on-going quasi-experiment of actual gunfights to look at. There was a pretty good article on it in the latest IALEFI magazine, in fact.

Ultimately though, the debate over point shooting vs. sighted fire boils down to a matter of bias.

Why is there even a debate? Target focus advocates all say that you should use the sights when possible, but should also know how to use the gun when the sights cannot be accessed through physiological or environmental factors. Target focused advocates all say that you can train yourself to push the surprise stimulus and its effects down the line, but the distances at which it is needed lend themselves to target focus being as effective so why spend all those resources training to counter a response that works well.

You're probably never going to convince the Applegate fans that sighted fire is better than point shooting, and you're never going to convince the Jeff Cooper/Army Marksmanship Unit/Todd Jarrett/Robbie Leatham/Bruce Piatt/Doug Koenig/Jerry Miculek/etc fans that point shooting is superior to sighted fire.

But that is the problem, again. Target focused shooters don't say that one method is better, or that it is superior. We recognize that they are different, and propose that a good shooter should recognize that difference and be able to utilize whatever skill is best suited for the problem they encounter. We know that sighted fire is an abysmal failure in actual gunfights, in spite of relatively high levels of training. We know that target focus/point shooting doesn't work for most folks out there at 50 yards or so. Instead of pushing the sight focused one-size-fits-all (if all train to an extremely high level) solution, let's work toward the strengths and minimize the weaknesses of the different methods.

Edit: matt, the body's natural stress reaction is to run away

I'm not Matt, but the actual reaction is flight OR fight. The reaction is to prepare the body for either.

 

[Skyguy]

Some folks are beyond learning, especially those who've never been in a fight. But for those who care to learn, see below:

Train as you'll fight means.........Instinctive reaction training.

Face the threat square
Crouch....it's a natural response to an attack
Focus.....both eyes open looking at the threat; binocular vision
Point......arm or arms out in an instinctive posture of repel-create distance
Move......move, seek cover
Aim.........metal on meat
Shoot......hit or miss, just shoot

Practice for a fluid, all in one motion. It comes easy.

Tips:
1. Learn that 'quick draw' is a game.....and 'early draw' is a tactic.

2. Self defense handguns 'need' a laser sight.

3. Train using gross motor skills – threat focused binocular vision

4. The first shot is not the last shot in a gunfight.

Train in the fear-of-dying responses that one 'will' default to in a sudden CQ gunfight, such as; assume a combat crouch, focus with both eyes on the threat and not the sights, point-extend arm/s, one-handed/two-handed, tight grip, instinctively move as you look at the threat and squeeze off multiples......because that's how most people will react to the fight.
.

 

[NRAhab]

Dave Grossman has serious methodology issues, not the least of which is his repeated insistence on "violent video games" desensitizing people to violence, thus making them more prone to violence, an assertion which is of questionable veracity. Of course, that's an entirely tangential topic.

This however is the crux of the point shooting position:

We know that sighted fire is an abysmal failure in actual gunfights, in spite of relatively high levels of training.

No, we don't know that, and that's the problem. There are varying degrees of documentation which can suggest that point shooting or sighted fire are superior in life or death encounters; but as has been pointed out, there is not an definitively authoritative position.

I don't have an objection to point shooting, and as David has pointed out, many advocates of point shooting do not see it as panacea for all shooting problem. When you view "combat shooting" as a martial art, then target-focused shooting would have a place in the spectrum of shooting techniques. My concern, as always is the advocating of point-shooting (or target-focused shooting) as a "preferable" solution, when at your own admission it is simply another skill set in the toolbox.

Of course, I'm also a big proponent of using laser aiming devices on defensive guns, which then moves me into the "target focused" shooter's camp, doesn't it?

Edit: it's amusing how skyguy assumes things about people's histories.

assume a combat crouch, focus with both eyes on the threat and not the sights, point-extend arm/s, one-handed/two-handed, tight grip, instinctively move as you look at the threat and squeeze off multiples......because that's how most people will react to the fight

Wait, I'm confused - am I supposed to be crouching, then moving, or moving while crouching, or crouching and doing ninja shoulder rolls while firing John Woo style?

 

[David Armstrong]

Dave Grossman has serious methodology issues,

Agreed, but it is not just Grossman. In fact, AFAIK everyone who has looked at this issue from a research perspective has pretty much come down on his side with the reactions to stress concept. There may be some out there, but I'm not aware of them.

No, we don't know that, and that's the problem. There are varying degrees of documentation which can suggest that point shooting or sighted fire are superior in life or death encounters; but as has been pointed out, there is not an definitively authoritative position.

We'll disagree. I think when the sighted fire hit rate consistently is in the teens or single digits according to virtually every report, when agency hit rates increase significantly after incorporating point shooting into the trained response, when test after test shows that at close range point shooting is faster and just as effective, I'd suggest we know something about as much as we will ever know it, pending some major shift in the information gathering/processing abilities.

My concern, as always is the advocating of point-shooting (or target-focused shooting) as a "preferable" solution, when at your own admission it is simply another skill set in the toolbox.

As opposed to sight focus shooters advocating? Again, point shooters don't advocate it as preferable, we advocate it as an alternative selection at times. Just because it is another tool in the toolbox doesn't mean it isn't preferable for a particular situation. A hammer and a screwdriver are both tools in the toolbox, but depending on the situation one is preferable to the other.

 

[NRAhab]

I think at this juncture we've exhausted all possible lines of logic and reason that are available to either of us.

I find myself, in a moment of unadulterated narcissism quoting from my own material:

If you’re happy with your training methods and instructors, then more power to you. Since I don’t believe that point shooting is dangerous or is going to get you killed, then as long as people are pulling triggers and buying ammo, I’m pretty happy with the result. Just don’t try and preach to me that your chop-sockey is stronger than mine, okay?

Now you'll have to excuse me, I need to start a Glocks vs. 1911s thread while I practice my combat waddle around the house so I can get off the "x".

 

[Skyguy]

Wait, I know I'm not cute, but I am confused - am I supposed to be crouching, then moving, or moving while crouching

NRAhab, I kinda figured you as a hard learner.
I'll take instinctive reaction training a bit slower and step by step....just as I did with Brownie a few years back.

Crouch:

The brain needs to decide in an instant between fight or flight, therefore the body will be squared to the threat, enabling both eyes and both ears and both nostrils to gather as much intelligence as possible to assist the brain to make the correct decision.

The squared position also gives a choice of four weapons (two arms and two legs). The arms will tend to be held out in front of the upper body, which will be leaning slightly forward with the lower back flattened. There is no better position to be in at this instant.

The instinctive crouch reflex is part of the classical fight-or-flight response and a perfect body posture that is consistently reproducible during threat of physical violence.

Your next lesson would have been threat focus. But you've surrendered....so, checkmate.

 

[pax]

Just once, I would like to see a pointshooting/target focus/sighted fire thread die a natural death of old age, instead of needing to be closed early for excessive rudeness among the participants.

Just an observation!

(Think twice, then think again, before posting any personal comments in this type of thread. Please...)

pax

 

[7677]

NRAhab,
I have to agree with you about Grossman. However, I have done the research on this subject and I discovered that LEOs are losing close quarters gunfights. I looked at what caused the officer's deaths and compared it those that survived to what the suspect did and didn't do.

Not surprising, a large number of LEO deaths were caused by the same age old mistakes and the simple fact that action beats reaction. However, the theme that I saw kept reoccurring in majority of cases is that close quarter gunfights usually started as simple fights/attacks that escalated. The knowledge of defensive/offensive h2h tactics and point shooting are needed to deal with this type of fighting.

Notice, I didn't say retention shooting. Retention shooting is something you go to if your weapon is already drawn and a unarmed threat approaches within lunging distance. The weapon should not be drawn until the person have their opponent in a position of disadvantage and where it can be drawn and immediately used. Drawing a weapon to a retention position without having your opponent in a position of disadvantage is just asking to have the gun grabbed and/or diverted before the shot can be made.

From reading this thread you seem more turned off by the messenger then the message itself. I offer this to you, the only way you will know if "it" works is to experience it yourself because seeing is believing and "it" is not as hard as you have been made to think it is by certain trainers.

 

[NRAhab]

The knowledge of defensive/offensive h2h tactics and point shooting are needed to deal with this (extreme close quarters - ed) type of fighting.

I'd submit that this is and should be the fundamental precept of advocacy of "target-focused" shooting, because in that sentence I find no argument. Gunfighting is a martial art, and all too often it's viewed without the component of hand-to-hand combat, and the applications on what to do when the gunfight reaches "phone booth" distances.

 

[7677]

The other useful component of threat focused shooting is being able to move dynamically off the line of attack and still be able to engage targets out to seven yards with fist sized groups. IMHO this is why threat focused shooting techniques so valuable to learn as it fills in the gaps that are not covered by sighted shooting techniques.