Jeff Cooper on Point Shooting

[Brit]

The sights tell where the shot went

Time to place a bullet on a place you wish to hit, in sport or fighting, is paramount.

The best place to hit on a human target, is that spot, at the distance the individual (individuals) is/are, from you. Simply put, the left eye is a great place to hit, from the holster with a 127g +P+, but realistically, at 20m?

So say your adversary is at 15 feet, the fastest way to hit, IMHO, is to draw and punch the pistol forward in to two hands, and the shot break as the two hands reach the end of their forward travel. Probably the thoracic area.

The front sight in recoil tells you where the shot went! Not where it is going!

 

[David Armstrong]

David, IDPA states most targets must be inside 15 yards or less.

Yes, Deaf, I know. For about the 100th time I've shot IDPA, I was the local IDPA club President, I was the local rangemaster for IDPA, all that sort of stuff. But the post did not refer to IDPA in particular, it also included IPSC and PPC. And of course while the rules suggest most targets must be inside 15 yards they do not prohibit a significant number being beyond 15 yards. As those targets are also included in the scoring equation, they must be considered in the discussion even though it tends to make your point irrelevant.

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

And the PPC "X" ring is 50x75 millimeters. And in IPSC the "A" zone for the head is 10x5 centimeters.

IPSC is different, but IPSC can give alot of feedback for defensive use of firearms.

Which has nothing to do with the question, which was , "....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? "

IPSC is different, but IPSC can give alot of feedback for defensive use of firearms.

Yes, just like all shooting games can. Again, not sure what that has to do with anything under discussion here.

 

[bofe954]

In regard to action shooting and it's relation to point shooting:

I just thought I would add this- I'll either paraphrase or quote from Practical Shooting Beyond Fundamentals with quotation marks. According to Brian Enos you need to see what you need to see to make the shot, that is it. He breaks this down further into 4 types of focus:

Type 1- "For the single target at extreme close range where I need an extremely fast hit, there is no directed focus on the sights or target. There may be some focus on the sights or the target, but it doesn't really matter. In other words I may be looking for the sights to come in to my peripheral vision, but I may not wait to see them."

Type 2-"When I'm faced with multiple targets at extreme close range and, as above, I need extreme speed, I first confirm correct body and gun alignment (my index) on the first target, then I simply focus on the scoring surface of each target. The sights may or may not be in my peripheral vision. Once I confirm my index, then the gun just appears wherever I look."

Keep in mind that this is for "arm's reach" types of shots. He refers to type 3 shooting as "standard" and it requires focusing from target to sights, type 4 requires "seeing the front sight lift".

I would say Enos is definitely an authority on action pistol, and that he is definitely describing point shooting.

There was a fairly successful practical shooter who shot a 1911 with no sights, but you could argue he still aimed.

In sport or otherwise, the fastest way to hit the target is the goal right?

 

[Shane Tuttle]

In sport or otherwise, the fastest way to hit the target is the goal right?

I personally have a hard time entangling sport and "otherwise" together. What may be effective technique in sport may not necessarily be as effective in the "otherwise" category. My example of "otherwise" would be self defense.

Although not absolute, I think the most accurate way to hit the target is my goal.

I don't know Brian Enos from the next guy. But an element to keep in mind is that no matter what technique is taught, quite often this phrase pops in my head:

"You won't rise to the occasion....you'll default to the level of training." by Barrett Tillman

And I don't think he was stating in context to the level of training that you just learned that day. I believe that he meant the most comfortable level of judgment and skill that you can process and execute under dire circumstances.

People react very differently under true stress than manufactured environments.

Understanding exeptions to every rule: If I have the ability to fire my gun in defense without emminent danger of the assailant overtaking my firearm, I'm using my sights. If I can't gain sufficient distance from my assailant and I have that cold sweaty feeling my life is going to end if I don't immediately fire my gun to stop, then point shooting is in play.

Of all the supposed scenarios and techniques out there, I've learned that the fundamentals and sound judgment is what it all comes down to, not how fast I can whip out my gun and fire a shot.

 

[Bogie]

Guys, one thing is paramount for this to work.

Make sure your gun fits you ergonomically. That it points naturally for you. For instance, I can dump magazine after magazine into a pie plate at 7 yards, pretty much as fast as I can pull the trigger, from a 1911... It's just naturally -there- for me.

If I try to do that with a J-Frame Smith, I'm about 24-30" low...

Make sure the gun fits. Then start working on tightening the cone of fire. You -will- be amazed at what happens. Do not knock point shooting. And while "front sight" is fine, it's good to be able to skip that part if you absolutely have to.

 

[matthew temkin]

Excellent points, Bogie.

 

[Swampghost]

Nate45, like I said, it becomes natural. I've been doing it for over 50 yrs. My .44 SBH doesn't even have sights, I had them taken off back in the '70's for quickdraw competition. Heck, I can't even see the sights well enough to line them up today, rifles or pistols. I've NEVER used the bead on a shotgun but have enjoyed many a meal of Dove and Quail.

Learning your weapons is the key and the mind is the worlds best computer. Ergonomics for pistols helps a lot but the brain compensates. The grip on my SBH is really too small for my hand and it should fire to the left but over the years my brain has compensated. My S&W fit perfectly from the beginning and will always be my 'go to' weapon. Shotguns are pretty much a natural.

Just get out there and do it! Lots of rounds are required.

 

[nate45]

Well, I'm convinced, I'm going to abandon the Modern Technique, the Weaver stance, the flash sight picture and all the rest of it. All these years the teachings of Cooper, Taylor, Smith and the rest of them were wrong. They tried a system and it failed.

What we all need to do is go back to the pre WW2 techniques. I'm going to start carrying my SAA and practice drawing and shooting it from the hip. It is obviously much superior in terms of speed and accuracy, to a two handed hold, a flash sight picture and a 1911.

 

[Deaf Smith]

Whoa...

Just get out there and do it! Lots of rounds are required.

I thougt it was 'natural'. Swamp, if it's that natural why so many rounds?

Think about this guys. Walk before you run. Learn the basics, that is sighted fire first. And then, once you are quite good with it, try other methods.

But don't tell me it's 'natural' yet takes lots of rounds to get good with it. Sighted fire takes rounds to, and since it's eye-hand coordination, it's 'natural' to.

 

[NormOps]

I have to agree with the statement in the first post: the best way to hit a target is by using your sights. Of course, at a certain distance sights become irrellevant. One merely looks where he wants to shoot, and shoots.
I forget the author, but I believe the name of one book I read on the subject was 'Bullseyes Don't Shoot Back'. It had to do with the Fairborn/Sykes method which, put simply, is 'raising the gun to eye level [whilst looking at your target] and firing'. this is natural; and very effective, whether one actually uses the sights or not, depending on the distance.
Basically, this is the method I use, but in a two hand configuration. The strong arm straight, without a bend in the elbow, creates a natural sight path on which one lines up the sights; or at short distances, simply the barrel axis on the target. The second hand/arm, with a bend in the elbow, provides the "back and forth" pressure between the fist of the strong hand, and the palm/fingers of the off hand. The main, and important function of this is repeated target acquisition; that is, keeping the alignment during multiple shots.

Eli W.

 

[Bogie]

Guys, it's not "do this -or- do that."

Why not do both?

Here's a concept - Next time you're at a range where you feel comfortable with the backstop, try drawing, point shooting as fast as you can -while- the gun is coming up, and for the second shot, go for the front sight... You might surprise yourself.

Don't get too hung up on one single style. Because you may get in a situation where a weaver stance just won't work - where you're having to shoot and move, maybe shooting one handed, etc...

 

[NormOps]

Indeed, there is more than one way to skin a cat, and what works well for one guy may not so well for another.
Personally, I am more comfortable with spending an extra split second to bring the gun up to eye level at anything further than three yards or so...

 

[nate45]

You know guys we went over this all before with Matthew. In this thread A case for point shooting, look at this post I made and others, I'm well aware of almost every different way to use a defensive handgun. I'm not against other ways, but just read the OP, he quotes Cooper from a 1958 book, if thats even when he wrote it and seems to discount the next 30 years and make it seem like the father of the modern technique taught point shooting as the preferred method.

But up close pointer fire can be murderously effective, and it's mastery is often the difference between life and death

Up close lets define up close, I say its 3 yards and less. I agree that knowing how to make hits up close without sites might prove to be a valuable skill, but I also believe bringing the weapon up to eye level you will always be able to deliver more precise shots. Body hits anywhere on the torso won't get the job done, handguns are puny in power and well placed shots are going to take a determined adversary down, not random hits to the body.

 

[Swampghost]

Y'all can do what ever you want and listen to whoever you want. I'm just telling it like it is. Just a little input. It gets a little different when th VC start tripping your wires or a big hog busts through the brush. It's not fun and games anymore, it's life or death and you have to be ready for the outcome.

Almost 60 yrs. and guess who lost every time.

 

[nate45]

It gets a little different when th VC start tripping your wires or a big hog busts through the brush.

I'll take well aimed sighted fire in those situations over 'instinct' shooting any day. Lets go to the range and shoot at some 25 or 30 yard targets with our ARs, you use 'instinct' shooting and I'll use the aperture sight and see who gets faster, better kill zone hits.

 

[Bogie]

Guys, this is NOT a religion.

And it ain't sex either.

It's okay to try both ways.

I'm a precision shooting nut... I have always been a fan of aim small, miss small. HOWEVER, for a serious social encounter, which will likely happen at a fairly close distance, a split second spent trying to aim may be the difference between you, or your assailant, getting off the first round.

Get a gun that FITS you. Get one you don't have to think about. Then practice until it doesn't just fit, but it's a part of you. Browning knew what he was doing with the 1911.

I can hit bullseyes at 25 yards. I can also buckshot-pattern paper plates at 7 yards.

Those are BOTH useful, survival, skills.

DO NOT DISCOUNT EITHER, and do not exclusively practice one method over the others.

It's about probabilities.

Aiming increases the probability that you will hit.

Practice spent point shooting with a gun that fits will also increase the probability that you will hit.

Also, a side effect of the point shooting practice will be that you'll benefit from an instinctive "retargeting" even when using sights. Been there, noticed that folks...

Combine the disciplines.

Be one with the gun.

 

[Rob Pincus]

Excellent Post, Bogie.

Nate, many of your points above are well made as well.

D.A., Keep fighting the fight.... (PM me if you want a powerpoint slide I use in Instructor Courses to define the difference between gaming and fighting).


FWIW: This podcast contains my thoughts on the "debate" about sighted/unsighted shooting.


****

 

[Swampghost]

I know where this is going and the mods will probably shut the topic down or maybe just shut me down. Either one is acceptable to me.

Use your sights if you need them. Most are difficult to see in the dark. My S&W go to is in a holster and in a place without light, has been in the same place for years. Does anybody think that those Tritium (sp?) sights are going to hold up for 25+ yrs.? I'm certainly not going to depend on them.

 

[Nnobby45]

Point shooting/Instinctive shooting

Dec. 08 issue Combat Handguns: A Jeff Cooper Retrospective. Page 98

In order to avoid plagerism, I've paraphrased as best I can.

Jeff Cooper points out that unsighted fire is a very high art, and is learned, rather than instinctive. While one can instinctively remove his hand from a hot stove, one cannot instinctively shoot, since it's a programmed response.

It should not be encouraged except in people who are prepared to devote a great deal of time and ammo to it. Jeff said they used to practive it a lot, but stopped when they started teaching.

 

[BillCA]

"You won't rise to the occasion....you'll default to the level of training." by Barrett Tillman

Sadly, so very true.
And if your training is deficient, you may die. Four California Highway Patrolmen learned this lesson too late in 1970.

"The gunfight you get into will not be the gunfight you trained for." -- Clint Smith

In the 80's, the Santa Clara Sheriff's department trained officers only in modern tactics with two-hand holds at eye level, arms extended. A deputy checking a house on a prowler call found his right forearm suddenly broken by a pipe wrench when the prowler turned out to be real. Fortunately the officer retreated and drew a backup gun to defeat the prowler who was now armed with the deputy's revolver. Today, they teach several different holds for different purposes.

Fact: Your attacker controls the time and place of the encounter. He also controls the direction of the attack and its speed. Mr. Murphy dictates that he will attack when it's least opportune for you - a bag of groceries in one hand and car keys in the other.

Close range: I prefer 6 yards (or less), since that's about the length of my pick-up from front to rear

Close range encounters are likely to initially start out as frantic furballs and degenerate from there.

Yeah, IF I have time, I prefer to use the sights. In reality, if he's close enough to threaten me without others hearing him, he's close enough to get lucky. My best chance is to do unto him first, fastest and with the most I can muster.