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

In this way, one technique covers a very wide spectrum.
Click to expand...
Not particularly wide. It covers standing, in a pre-established stance, with the gun brought to eye level. Target focused cetainly takes care of that and a lot more, in a shorter period of training time.
When one can use the sights one should use the sights. But sometimes that cannot be done. And we have seen over and over that those ordinarily trained in sighted fire seem unable to engage the target with any degree of reliability when they cannot or do not see the sights.
 
NRA: I do feel that a laser has a place in some instances--actually at longer distances and for use around cover--- but I do not like anything on my carry gun that could fail, or cause me to slow down.
Plus the fact that very few handguns are laser equipped.
Here is an interesting post from a student of mine from a seminar ( post # 29) that I co taught at in 2005 from a man nicknamed Geezer concerning point shooting and lasers:http://www.warriortalk.com/showthread.php?t=5654&highlight=warrior+talk+symposium&page=3

Oh dear, don't know where to begin. Re point shooting. Matt sounds just like the radio commentator Michael Savage, and speaks with the same temperate, calm and restrained dignity. Next year, when you are in his class, and he states firmly and and with a reassuring tone in his voice that he won't shoot you with the airsoft gun....., duck.

Within ten muinutes of beginning the point shooting demonstration, the first relay had fired some singles, and then mutliples from about 7 feet into the ten targets in front of them. At that point, all of the debate became nonsense. To those who sneer at point shooting, all I can say is argue with the targets.

I took the course again the second day, and became so confident in the method that during one sequence of shooting mutliple targets on the move, I whipped out my BUG snubbie and firing left handed one handed, still made COM hits with all five rounds.

This is so critically important to me, because my eyesight has reached that point where I can no longer focus on the front sight. Up until Matt's class, my bsolution was to paint the front sights dayglow red, and wait until I saw a flash of red superimposed on the target and then press the trigger.

Roger, you know that I have a laser on my carry S&W 640. By the second course of fire, I was shooting and hitting faster than the laser could stop bouncing. It became totally irrelevant, neither a help nor a distraction, because the shooting was over before I could even become aware of it. Under no circumstances could anyone have ever convinced me this could be true until I experienced it.


Geezer ( God rest your soul) So true!!!
 
Last edited:
matt said:
but I do not like anything on my carry gun that could fail
Click to expand...

On the subject of lasers, I find this to be a poor objection to the use of the laser on your gun, because by following that logic, you should not even carry a gun because it might fail. Of course, a proper rebuttal would be to point out that you don't train to become dependent on the laser, you train with the laser to augment your fundamental skills. That way if the laser fails you're not stranded, you're still in the fight.

Additionally, I agree with the lack of utility in a laser at ranges that your student described - at 5-7 feet, you're not in a gunfight, you're in hand-to-hand combat, and I agree with the general assessment that if your muzzle is covering meat you should be shooting as fast as you put rounds downrange. That's called "contact fighting", and is manifestly unpleasant for everyone involved.
 
You bring the weapon up to the same position as IF YOU COULD SEE THE SIGHTS
Click to expand...

That's called point shooting - or metal on meat shooting - or silhouette shooting - or instinctive shooting - or threat focused shooting - or peripheral vision shooting - or indexed shooting, etc.
Click to expand...

Skyguy,

That's (what I posted) from Jeff Cooper's Gunsite Field Manual.

Deaf...what you describe is exactly what I teach.
For example, if you saw me using aimed fire from the MI or point shooting from the same position you would be unable to tell--especially when examining the target--which aiming method that I used.
So how do we differ--except perhaps in semantics--with what we are teaching/doing?
Click to expand...

Matt,

This is honest. You said pretty much the same thing about a year or two ago on Warror Talk.

Now there are some things I like about the MT (Modern Technique). The flash sight picture, the presentation (draw, I'm a big believer in mastering it), and the suprise break. Now the Weaver stance may work for some, but there are other good ways to use two hands. And the push-pull may work for some, but there other ways (I'm an Enos style as for how I grip my weapon.) And I'm not crazy about the 1911 .45 (but it is a very good weapon!)

Since I'm a JKD man (Jeet Kun Do) as for philosophy, I tend to pick what is useful (for me) and discard what is useless (for me.) And being a teacher I know most of the methods used and understand them.

Yes we undoubtably are doing the same but working to it in different ways. The core, as I call it, simply does not use the 1/2 hip or 2/3 hip. It's either 1/4 th or all the way up.

Now that does not mean you can't learn the others later, just that one can do with the just the two. And as for the sights... well we already see the index is supposed to get the sights where they belong.

I think the major way we differ is you teach them the fundementals of using the sights, and then teach them to ignore them. I, instead, insist one uses them (but only to verify, not to adjust) everytime. But both of us end up with an index on the target.
 
Deaf...my core is the same as yours.
When I teach my armed guard classes I only include one/two handed full extension ( aimed fire first followed by target focused) and shooting from retention.
I don't teach them to ignore the sights--I teach them to cope when a sighted shot is not possible.
The other methods that you mentioned are saved for advanced students/speciality classes.
PS to NRA--5-7 feet is pretty standard distance for most armed encounters.
Which is why the fast majority of my training, practice and teaching involves that range and closer.
And includes lots of other methods other than just gunfire.
 
Last edited:
Hey, at 5-7 feet I hope you're teaching a little chop-sockey to go with your shooting techniques. The key word in gunfight is "fight", after all.
 
...they kicked in the front door...

I purchased an old block home, and all the doors open out! In the south this works out great, no snow...so I hopefully will always know if someone tries to come a kicking. Glad you were ready, quick & safe.
 
Hey, at 5-7 feet I hope you're teaching a little chop-sockey to go with your shooting techniques. The key word in gunfight is "fight", after all.
Click to expand...

5th dan TKD, JDK and Krav Maga practitioner.

And when you are 5 ft or closer, and you are physicaly strong and skilled, the gun may very well be the backup to the hands and feet. As Miyamoto Musashi would say, "The spirit is to win, what ever the method."
 
NRA..my old man was a member of Darby's Rangers in WW2 and was taught some vicious hand to hand combat, knife fighting, stick fighting and general dirty tricks by the British Commandos.
After Anzio he was assigned as an Army silent killing instructor before his discharge in October 1945.
He passed much of this information to his son who includes this in his classes.
Yeah, you are right.
Up close and personal it is a fight, not a gunfight.
And something that very few, at least IMHO, shooting instructors take into account.
 
Last edited:
Yes we undoubtably are doing the same but working to it in different ways. The core, as I call it, simply does not use the 1/2 hip or 2/3 hip. It's either 1/4 th or all the way up.
Click to expand...
Deaf,
What you think you'll do and what you'll actually do are two very different things. How do I know this? Because, I once made similar statements to later be proved wrong while watching myself on video during fof scenario. I moved. drew my weapon. and engaged the target one handed from 3/4 hip while moving to cover. The gun never made to my line of sight before the incident was over and I hit my opponent three times up his center line.

The draw stroke is not a absolute but a path and a well rounded shooter should be able to shoot any point within this draw stroke depending on the distance to the target. The draw stroke for one handed or two handed with either point shooting or sighted shooting is the same. When the sights are not avaiable, the shooters uses eye/hand coordination to make the shot.
 
But 7677,

When you did the FOF, were you already trained to use 3/4 or 1/2 hip?

That's the point. The core is for those who don't practice much. Give them just two to learn (retention and sighted fire) and let them spend all their practice time on those. It's more efficient in both time and ammo expense. I'm not the only one who fells that way. Just check out Paul Howe.

Now, if after they have mastered that and they want to learn more, sure skys the limit. Long range shooting, point shooting, weak handed drawing, etc... I do all that and more. And I have no doubt you and Matt do to.

But, the core is for those who are very limited in time, finance, or desire to learn more. And an awful lot of pistol packers are in that category.
 
Deaf,
I had been trained 1/2 and 3/4 hip by my grandfather when I was a kid and later quick fire in the army. I used these techniques with success while I was in Iraq and after I returned state side I was assigned to a Training Bn. When I started my law enforcement career in the mid 1990s, I was trained in the modern technique and I shot MT until that fof training occurred.

It was then I realized my grandfather who was at Pearl Harbor, Guadalcanal, and Makin Island with the Raiders was correct that I would do exactly as he taught me when the chips were down. Moreover several other noted anti point shooting instructors have been photographed using 3/4 during fof.

I have not trained with Paul but I've trained with quite a few of the people who trained him and there is more to it then what you read in the books.
 
Actually Deaf makes several good points. Which, to his credit, he has been making for many years.
Applegate wrote that if he only had an hour to train an agent in combat shooting he would do so via one handed AIMED fire at about 5 yards.
This would allow them to hit a man at close range either with or without the sights.
In my armed guard classes I see them go into 1/2 and 3/4 hip during FOF, even though they were only trained in extension and retention shooting.
I now include some close range techniques in my basic classes, usually two handed "3rd eye" hip shooting followed by one and two handed 3/4 hip techniques, but I do not overly dwell on these methods.
Again, there is a limit as to what can be taught in a six session class that goes from basic nomenclature to tactics.
I have a funny feeling that if Deaf, 7677 and myself shared some range time together that we would be a lot more similar than apart.
 
I moved. drew my weapon. and engaged the target one handed from 3/4 hip while moving to cover.
Click to expand...

You also crouched, used binocular vision and squeezed your weapon.

FOF has a way of teaching people their instinctive reactions and point shooting....no matter how ingrained stand and deliver, first shot wins and sight shooting may be.

Best accuracy is to bring the weapon to eye level (a la Applegate ¾) in order to verify aim, then use point shooting which is actually looking at the threat and shooting through the weapon and not the sights. For example, metal on meat, silhouette, peripheral, instinctive, indexed, etc. It's all the same thing; it's point shooting.

Personally, I have no interest in professional leo tactics such as room clearing, proper draw stroke, suspect control, teamwork, etc.
My interests are self-defense for the ordinary, rarely practiced, physically disadvantaged, weak or elderly citizen....who might also wear bifocals and get caught up in a situation in low light where that citizen couldn't see their sights anyway. Just basic stuff that works.

That's why I always tell folks: Self-defense handguns should be familiar and have a laser sight. Learn to point shoot. Learn and practice your instinctive reaction (crouch, move, etc) because the first priority is to 'not' get shot.
.
 
Sky guy,
I didn't have time to crouch, I took a drop step moved and shot. What it taught me is even though I had not shot one handed from 3/4 hip for several years that under stress I went back to what worked for me in combat. Yes, I did squeeze the weapon and I was focused on the target.

Point shoulder is what Applegate taught and I agree it is the most accurate position for beginning shooters because it brings the gun up just under the line of sight.

Matt,
The point I disagree with Deaf and a lot of other people on is the building of eye/hand coordination. It is the key to unlocking the ability to hit the exact point one is focused on and once this is mastered everything else is a piece of cake. The draw stroke is no longer important because you don't have to wait until full extension to make the majority of the shots one would expect to encounter in a realistic shooting scenario.

As far as the video goes, I bet I can do that drill with a pistol and within those same times.
 
check out the shooting drills--awesome stuff.
Click to expand...

Matt, no dis, but that rifle 'drill' is just a beginner's stand and deliver target practice. Tactically, it has no fight value.
That guy wouldn't last 10 seconds in combat or a real fight.
.
 
I didn't have time to crouch
Click to expand...

Not meant to argue, but review your video and see if you had bent knees. That's a combat crouch. It's very different from the standard drop step and target shooting postures. Fear causes the crouch reaction.
I used to argue the crouch issue with Brownie till he finally figured it out on his own.

If you didn't crouch much it's because in FoF there is only light stress.
There is no startle response and certainly no fear....no fear of dying or injury or even getting your eye shot out.

But, it does teach the basic 'move off the x while shooting' tactic.
.
 
Skyguy,
I'm well aware of what the crouch as I teach it. However, when you are dealing with one person and the other guy draws his weapon and to have to deal with it right then there is no use in dropping your base (crouching) but you move and the fastest way to get off-line is with a modified drop step.

This is one of those thing to have to see in person to understand. BTW, when I do fof I do it with eye protection only. I only wear protection when I'm the designated target over and over again. Why because I want to feel the pain if I mess up and to keep from making it into BB or sims fest.
 
I haven't bothered reading this whole thing, and you do what works for you, and is applicaple to the situation unfolding before you.

But....

I trained quite a bit in the Army shooting instinctive style (Not aiming with sights) up to 15 yards with a rifle. The drill was to double tap at high ready, followed by a single aimed shot. I can tell you that while moving, facing flip up targets, the aimed shot was rarely needed after some practice. I find that the same applies with pistols. The way we started out was to point at the targets with our non firing index fingers(No gun). Human nature is such that when you point at something with your finger, your aim is pretty good too. Well, slap a firearm into that pointed hand, and start "Pointing" at your targets. For whatever reason, I seem to be able to shoot better while running around and pointing naturally, than standing at a firing line taking aimed shots.

Try it out. Pick a spot accross the room and point at it, and take a look down your finger and check the alignment. A laser sight would be a good way to test this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top