Jeff Cooper on Point Shooting

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

matthew temkin

Moderator
Many years ago Carl Cestari loaned me a book written by Jeff Cooper called Fighting Handguns which was published in 1958.
With a wink Carl asked me to turn to page 97 and read what Cooper had to say about "pointer fire".
Quite frankly I was stunned, especially since this was the height (1992) of the anti point shooting push in the gun rags.
Anyway, Paladin just republished the book, so let's hear about point shooting in Cooper's own words....
....."It's an axiom that hitting your target is your main concern, and the best way to hit is to use your sights, but circumstances do arise in which the need for speed is so great, and the range so short, that you must hit by pointing alone, without seeing your gun at all.
...Pointer fire is not as hard to learn as sighting, once you realize it's range limitations. using the 1911 auto-pistol I have found that I can teach the avjerage infantryman to stay on a silhouette at 10 yards--using pointer fire in two shot bursts--more easily that I can get him into that 25 yard bullseye using slow fire and sights.
Of course this sort of shooting is strictly a way of obtaining body hits at essentially indoor ranges ( 30 feet and under)..
..But up close pointer fire can be murderously effective, and it's mastery is often the difference between life and death."( pg 97-98)
 
"It's an axiom that hitting your target is your main concern, and the best way to hit is to use your sights, but circumstances do arise in which the need for speed is so great, and the range so short, that you must hit by pointing alone, without seeing your gun at all....
Click to expand...

Cooper had an excellent grasp of these things and I agree with him entirely on this point. I have been teaching this concept for about 17 years and it has saved two officers I trained over the years. One in particular resisted it, but I ran him through the yank & blast drills despite his grumbling- and it was precisely that skill that saved his bacon when his 'personal elephant' came calling.

I also recall the period when it was fashionable to deride this type of training. Like many fads in law enforcement training and equipment, I simply ignored it and held fast to things proven to work.
 
matthew temkin

This is not an earth shaking statement by Cooper. Those who actually know, understand regardless of sights or no-sights the first to hit with the most force usually wins.

Recently Eric, said it the best, Sights when you need them, point when you need to point.

In my humble opinion practical shooters have gotten overly consumed by the sighted/pointed debate. The titans of this business of defensive shooting had a lot of very important thing to say about gunfighting BESIDES "fight the front sight onto the target" or "point the muzzle onto the target".

By the way, I read your stuff first, just keep writting, Butch:).
 
Jeff Cooper often said one could learn how to do many things if one took the dedicated time to do so.


At Old Gunsite, we learned to shoot after dark, without light, without tritium sights, and to hit pepper poppers with good consistency. We couldn't see our sights, but we still used them because the Weaver stance with "Front Sight - Press" was well programmed.

Though if the flag flew, would appreciate some light on the subject.


In daylight, we learned to hit our targets at 100 yards with a 1911, but would like to close the distance if we could.


Point shooting was done with 2 x 4 sticks as targets at distances of 3 yards. We did see how difficult it was, but it could be mastered. There was serious debate if it was really any faster than sighted-fire.

And then there was another drill -- think it was the Mozambique Drill, but my memory ain't no good -- slam the target head with your fist, fire two shots into the body, then turn 90 degrees and engage another disappearing target. Some of us got pretty good at it. For me, at least, the two shots to the body were point shooting. Actually, they accused me of putting three shots into the body, but I never could count.



.
 
At Old Gunsite, we learned to shoot after dark, without light, without tritium sights, and to hit pepper poppers with good consistency. We couldn't see our sights, but we still used them because the Weaver stance with "Front Sight - Press" was well programmed.
Click to expand...

Exactly! That is one of the most important parts of the "Modern Technique" he taught. One did not ADJUST the sights, just VERIFIED them. And one used the presentation to align everything in an instant, and use a 'supprise break' to control the trigger.

You could shoot quite well in the dark using this concept (as I've demonstrated in indoor ranges before and posted about it.)

When Cooper wrote his book, "Fighting Handguns" in 58, it was before he had put together his "MT". I've got his book as well as others he has wrote. He progressed as time went on and found there were other ways of doing things.
 
Hammer1, Deaf Smith you men sound like you know what you are talking about.

Exactly! That is one of the most important parts of the "Modern Technique" he taught. One did not ADJUST the sights, just VERIFIED them
Click to expand...

Unless it is a weapon retention situation, the difference in time that it takes between firing as soon as the weapon clears the holster and firing when the weapon reaches eye level is infinitesimally small, the accuracy however is much superior.



matthew temkin I'm going to ask you this one more time, if point shooting is superior in speed and accuracy to bringing the pistol up to eye level, why has no major competitor in IPSC, IDPA, PPC or whatever ever won using this technique?

You act like you have discovered some lost magical shooting skill that us slow front site people have never heard of or tried. Well, I have tried it and 25+ years ago when the .357 revolver was my primary defense side arm, all my fast draw shooting from seven yards and less was done by point shooting. When I learned to properly run a 1911 and the modern technique, the superiority of it was more than apparent.
 
Well Glory be to the Holy Khaki, the crew here right now actually seems to get it!:)
BTW back in 1979 at Gunsite, under the Colonel's eye, I demonstrated the "point shooting" technique I was taught a few years earlier in the DEA academy. I ripped 3 shots into a target at about 5 yards from below eye level and kept them all on the shilo, but NOT in the x ring. The Colonel responded: "have you ever had to shoot at anyone ?" I said affirmative "where did you hit?" the arm, a leg and a hip, I responded, from about 20 feet. "well you were lucky, here you will learn to index your sights and get ACCURRATE hits".
 
"but circumstances do arise in which the need for speed is so great, and the range so short, that you must hit by pointing alone, without seeing your gun at all."

The key to this statement is "range so short" That is why you practice the speed rock and other close drills. Usually they are at a distance of around 3 yards and in. Anything farther and you are probably going to be able to get the gun up before you fire. At this point, you should be able to acquire a flash front sight picture and start launching rounds.
 
My Dad called this 'instinct' shooting and I learned it as a child with a bow, later with firearms. Basically, hitting a point that you are focused on. I started very young so it is natural to me, starting later in life may be more difficult.

Offhand, I use paper plates for targets and 100 ft. for distance and figure if I can keep a full clip or cylinder on the plate I'm good.
 
Offhand, I use paper plates for targets and 100 ft. for distance and figure if I can keep a full clip or cylinder on the plate I'm good.
Click to expand...

6 to 10 shots all on a paper plate 33+ yards away without sites?

I would really like to see that, why don't you make a you tube video of this exploit so we can all see it, or better yet go around the putting on exhibitions.:p
 
Nate,

I have nothing against point shooting. I can actually do it quite well and I love to hip shoot.

BUT, I feel the core is a form of sighted fire and retention shooting. This can be the 'MT' version of speed rock and 'Weaver/flash sight picture", or SouthNarc's position 1 (of the 4 point draw) and Isosceles with a wrap around grip and type 2 focus, or soft focus or whatever. There are many ways of using ones sights and holding the weapon!

This is the core. One can cover the spectrum with it from zero to well out past 25 yards or more.

Once it is mastered then one branches off and learns other ways to round out their skills if they so desire. This incudes long range handgun shooting as well as point shooting.

The only reason to learn point shooting as ones core is because their eye sight is so bad that using the sights would be very difficult (either very short sighted or far sighted without glasses) or their weapon has a very poor set of sights (and that was not uncommon before WW2 and even later.)

And Nate,

Yes one can shoot at 33+ yards without sights. Practice enough and get the right hold and it can be done. Some of the Steel Challenge masters really don't even look for their sights they have done it so much. They have memorized their hold (just as Cooper said to do.)
 
I have a Detective buddy that is almost blind.

He can't see the Front Sight on his Duty Weapon. When he went to qualify last year he only dropped three rounds, and that was at the 25 Yardline. He's shot so much over the years that he knew where to stand and how to hold his gun to get hits.

Since then they have taken his Driver's License away and he is on "Limited Duty" and looking at a Medical Retirement. I think it's kind of funny, sort of. He can't see to drive, but he can still put bullets in a target.

The only reason they discovered his "eye problem" was because of the three rounds he dropped. So yes, practice can allow one to do things that one wouldn't normally be able to do. If I have time, I'm using the sights. If I don't have that time, I hope my training will carry me through and allow me to "index" the weapon where I need to in order to be able to get consistant hits.

Biker
 
Seems to me that, as Col. Cooper put together the MT doctrine, his opinion of the utility of point shooting diminished.
This in spite of the fact that he was an accomplished point shooter, and apparently had a fair amount of experience teaching it.
A clue, I think.
I shall ponder what this means.
 
matthew temkin I'm going to ask you this one more time, if point shooting is superior in speed and accuracy to bringing the pistol up to eye level, why has no major competitor in IPSC, IDPA, PPC or whatever ever won using this technique?
Click to expand...
I'm not Matt, but the answer to that one is easy. Those games are designed around very precise shooting to include fairly long distances. It's sort of like asking why has nobdy in an acrobatic biplane ever won a high-speed air race. Just not designed for that particular problem. Doesn't mean they aren't real good for another problem.
 
I don't know why Point Shooting causes so much controversy. There is a time and place for everything. Learn the skill. It may or may not be needed in your travels. It won't matter because it's a TOOL SET. End of story.
 
Those games are designed around very precise shooting to include fairly long distances.
Click to expand...

David, IDPA states most targets must be inside 15 yards or less. They also specify that past 15 yards is to only be used occasion to test shooting skill.

And in IDPA speed shoots have to be within 7 yards.

Furthmore the 'O' ring is 8 (eight) inches.

Not exactly 'precise' shooting and not exactly fairly long distances.

At our local IDPA matches virtually every match has targets from 2 yards to 7. Fifteen or more yards is a rareity.

IPSC is different, but IPSC can give alot of feedback for defensive use of firearms.
 
Nate 45..perhaps that question should be directed to Cooper.
Then again, hasn't D.R. Middlebrooks won a lot of competitive events with point shooting?
As as Robin Brown in AZ.
Does Enos not say to see what ones needs to see?
Don't a lot of sport shooters admit to not using the sights at close range, relying on "muscle memory" instead?
Then again ( as David Armstrong has stated here time and time again) there are quite a few serious hombres who feel that sport shooting has as much in common with combat as chalk does to cheese.
 
Last edited:
Nate 45..perhaps that question should be directed to Cooper.
Click to expand...

And what good would come of this? More importantly, HOW would one direct this question to Col. Cooper?

I don't know why Point Shooting causes so much controversy. There is a time and place for everything. Learn the skill. It may or may not be needed in your travels. It won't matter because it's a TOOL SET. End of story.
Click to expand...

I like your way of thinking, Chui. I'm personally not fond of point shooting. However, I do think there's a time when certain techniques are best when others aren't....and vice versa.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top