New (to me) Shooting Technique - Comments?

One-handed, perhaps pellet gun, but a visual:

Yeah, that's me with my G19 airsoft. It works the exact same way with live fire.

People do not understand that the fundamentals of combat shooting have nothing to do with the fundamentals of marksmanship. Therefore, training in combat shooting with your airsoft is just as valuable as training with live fire.

"Grip it and rip it!"

But I make the first shot of my zipper count. Parallel to the ground gives me hits right in the gut. One of the "oldtimers" favorite target.
 
Why Not Restate What Was Actually Said

[4] So I still think it's recless to suggest that one routinely and as a general practice begin firing as soon as the gun clears the holster and without any real intention or expectation of necessarily hitting the target with the initial rounds fired.

This must be the 20th poster who didn't read what I actually said, especially a clarification several posts past the original. Fine if you don't want to read every post, but then don't restate text of the posts. What I said can be found. I'm not re-posting it.
 
Last edited:
quote:
I teach that the first shot is taken as soon as the gun clears the holster and it is parallel to the ground.

+1

follow up shots while bringing the gun up to eye level. Of course, this depends on how far the attacker is and what's beyond. If pressed for time shoot as soon as gun clears and is parallel to the ground and pointed to the attacker. If not pressed for time, aim the shots! Just my .02 cents!




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmKR6evZRQQ :)
 
Another critic.

And to be clear, it isn't a criticism of point shooting or suppressive fire. We're talking the about the willful firing of rounds without the reasonable expectation of hitting an assailant which won't have the effect of keeping him behind cover or with his head down, after all.

The advise given to the OP, specifically the part between the draw and the third (or forth? or fifth?) intended shot, is very bad advise, beginning with the dogmatic acceptance that the two opening shots may miss, that by missing you will ulimately be faster when your rounds eventually make it on target, and that all rounds including the missed ones will have any sort of measurable, telling effect.
 
and that all rounds including the missed ones will have any sort of measurable, telling effect.



Well I think anyone would have to agree that as soon as shots are fired everyone in the immediate vicinity is going to show some sort of effect. That is the sort of thing that will get your attention in a hurry.

As to whether the effects will be to your advantage or not is another question.
 
All You Have To Do IS READ

Here is what I said that few bother to read:

"
The suggestion was not to blast the ground but to shoot starting low, (and in the event it was way too low that a ricochet might have an effect anyway). It also wasn't suggested to shoot indiscriminately, but to shoot twice - point shooting - on the way up, in an arc, at the perp - and a quick follow-up at center - at the perp. It's rapid point-shooting along a "string" - as the term was used here - moving up the target to gain a pause in the attack hopefully, so as to recover control of aim when one is about to be literally "over-run".

That's not to say this makes it a good technique, but that it is the technique described to me. If something other than that came through in my description -- my error in composition."

------------


Here is what I said that few bother to read:

"
The suggestion was not to blast the ground but to shoot starting low, (and in the event it was way too low that a ricochet might have an effect anyway). It also wasn't suggested to shoot indiscriminately, but to shoot twice - point shooting - on the way up, in an arc, at the perp - and a quick follow-up at center - at the perp. It's rapid point-shooting along a "string" - as the term was used here - moving up the target to gain a pause in the attack hopefully, so as to recover control of aim when one is about to be literally "over-run".

That's not to say this makes it a good technique, but that it is the technique described to me. If something other than that came through in my description -- my error in composition."

-------------
Here is what I said that few bother to read:

"
The suggestion was not to blast the ground but to shoot starting low, (and in the event it was way too low that a ricochet might have an effect anyway). It also wasn't suggested to shoot indiscriminately, but to shoot twice - point shooting - on the way up, in an arc, at the perp - and a quick follow-up at center - at the perp. It's rapid point-shooting along a "string" - as the term was used here - moving up the target to gain a pause in the attack hopefully, so as to recover control of aim when one is about to be literally "over-run".

That's not to say this makes it a good technique, but that it is the technique described to me. If something other than that came through in my description -- my error in composition."

------------------
Here is what I said that few bother to read:

"
The suggestion was not to blast the ground but to shoot starting low, (and in the event it was way too low that a ricochet might have an effect anyway). It also wasn't suggested to shoot indiscriminately, but to shoot twice - point shooting - on the way up, in an arc, at the perp - and a quick follow-up at center - at the perp. It's rapid point-shooting along a "string" - as the term was used here - moving up the target to gain a pause in the attack hopefully, so as to recover control of aim when one is about to be literally "over-run".

That's not to say this makes it a good technique, but that it is the technique described to me. If something other than that came through in my description -- my error in composition."

-------------
Here is what I said that few bother to read:

"
The suggestion was not to blast the ground but to shoot starting low, (and in the event it was way too low that a ricochet might have an effect anyway). It also wasn't suggested to shoot indiscriminately, but to shoot twice - point shooting - on the way up, in an arc, at the perp - and a quick follow-up at center - at the perp. It's rapid point-shooting along a "string" - as the term was used here - moving up the target to gain a pause in the attack hopefully, so as to recover control of aim when one is about to be literally "over-run".

That's not to say this makes it a good technique, but that it is the technique described to me. If something other than that came through in my description -- my error in composition."


-------------
Here is what I said that few bother to read:

"
The suggestion was not to blast the ground but to shoot starting low, (and in the event it was way too low that a ricochet might have an effect anyway). It also wasn't suggested to shoot indiscriminately, but to shoot twice - point shooting - on the way up, in an arc, at the perp - and a quick follow-up at center - at the perp. It's rapid point-shooting along a "string" - as the term was used here - moving up the target to gain a pause in the attack hopefully, so as to recover control of aim when one is about to be literally "over-run".

That's not to say this makes it a good technique, but that it is the technique described to me. If something other than that came through in my description -- my error in composition."
 
You're right:

"The technique the instructor explained was firing very quick shots in the arc of the gun being brought up, AS IT IS BEING RAISED, say at 30 degrees, 60 degrees and 90 (the usual shot point); the first would be quite low, might even ricochet off the sidewalk but perhaps into his body, second also low but a possible leg/low-groin hit, the last though very quickly following might well get a hit somewhere in center. The hope is the phyisical -or if even none hit - just psychological reaction to such an overwhelmingly quick opening- fusillade will cause a pause of shock in the attacker. In the pause you now have a breath to more carefully get control of the situation and aim for other shots, at about the same time your normally would be firing your first shot anyway. Perhaps the threat falls wounded or runs in the slight pause. (Not the point of the technique to monitor this, but who knows.)

In other words, you're shooting "before your first shot", so to speak.

If it doesn't work, you're no worse off than you would have been save for the 3 less shots, but in a semi-A., at least, you have quite a few left for one person. (A revolver might be more problematic this way.)"

---

"...the first would be quite low, might even ricochet off the sidewalk but perhaps into his body..."
Might as in might not. Perhaps as in perhaps not.

"...second also low but a possible leg/low-groin hit..."
Possibly as in possibly not.

"...the last though very quickly following might well get a hit somewhere in center."
Might well as in might not.

You're right. I don't know where we're getting the idea that the intent and advice is to accept missing. If the instructor in question, or you've, poorly described zippering, so be it. I have no problem with zippering, be it with sights or not. But it seems he's described and you have stated what he meant, which can't really be dismissed much better than Jordan did decades ago. (See above.)

And, I fail to see how shooting twice anywhere before the third shot is faster than just shooting that third shot as your first. Same start position, same draw, same arc of movement... But with the dynamics of shooting added. It isn't faster. It cannot be. As fast? Maybe; unlikely, but possible.

"The hope is the phyisical -or if even none hit - just psychological reaction to such an overwhelmingly quick opening- fusillade will cause a pause of shock in the attacker."
The hope seems to be justifying a plan to miss with wishful thinking at best. What about the not so insignificant number of times where there physical and psychological reactions are absent? Then what?

"In the pause you now have a breath to more carefully get control of the situation and aim for other shots, at about the same time your normally would be firing your first shot anyway."
What pause. Oh, the assumed one. What about when there isn't one? What then?

"Perhaps the threat falls wounded or runs in the slight pause."
There's that perhaps again... Again, what about when the assailant deviats from the script? Then what?

"In other words, you're shooting "before your first shot", so to speak."
Who was it that said you cannot miss fast enough to win a gun fight?

"If it doesn't work, you're no worse off than you would have been save for the 3 less shots, but in a semi-A., at least, you have quite a few left for one person."
If it doesn't work you've wasted time and ammunition, perhaps (Doh! There it is again! Lots of mights, maybes, perhapses and ifs... Too many to be taken seriously.) shot and killed others besides your intended target, and might not be in a position to use whatever rounds you have left in a more traditional manner.

But they, thanks for bringing it to the attention of folks who might not have heard of it before. It is always nice to see and/or talk about what is going on the community at large.
 
Last edited:
Still reading:

"Here is what I said that few bother to read:

"
The suggestion was not to blast the ground but to shoot starting low, (and in the event it was way too low that a ricochet might have an effect anyway). It also wasn't suggested to shoot indiscriminately, but to shoot twice - point shooting - on the way up, in an arc, at the perp - and a quick follow-up at center - at the perp. It's rapid point-shooting along a "string" - as the term was used here - moving up the target to gain a pause in the attack hopefully, so as to recover control of aim when one is about to be literally "over-run".

That's not to say this makes it a good technique, but that it is the technique described to me. If something other than that came through in my description -- my error in composition."

---

Shooting low and indescriminantly appears to be exactly what has been advocated, hence the need for all of the "if you miss at least something positive will come of it" justifications. If your instructor friend said them, then it is what it is. If you added them... well, did he or you? I ask because it sounds like you did a good job describing something many happen to disagree with, as oppossed to the other way around.
 
Let's turn on the way back machine, shall we?

The technique the instructor explained was firing very quick shots in the arc of the gun being brought up, AS IT IS BEING RAISED, say at 30 degrees, 60 degrees and 90 (the usual shot point); the first would be quite low, might even ricochet off the sidewalk but perhaps into his body, second also low but a possible leg/low-groin hit, the last though very quickly following might well get a hit somewhere in center.

We all carefully read what you wrote, gvf. Perhaps you should go back and read it for yourself.

If you are shooting with the gun barrel pointed at an angle of 30 degrees from the ground, you are pointing at the ground, not at the perp. Deliberately firing a round while your gun is pointed at the ground instead of the perp is not only bad tactics but negligent as well. There is a lawyer attached to every round you fire.

I don't have a problem firing from retention, point shooting, or firing during the extension of your arms. I don't have a problem with John Farnam's zipper technique. I don't know John Farnam. He's not a friend of mine. But this sure ain't his zipper technique.

I do have a problem when you suggest firing while your gun is pointed at the ground.

You can't miss fast enough to make up for not hitting the target.
 
We all carefully read what you wrote, gvf. Perhaps you should go back and read it for yourself.

Perhaps you should read this then as well: do not make little digs, like the last phrase - to me. It is insulting. I don't care how you think about this, just do not do it.

(No you didn't read what I posted, likely 5 times, plus the first time, a clarification of what the man had said.)
---------
Erik :
Shooting low and indescriminantly appears to be exactly what has been advocated, hence the need for all of the "if you miss at least something positive will come of it" justifications. If your instructor friend said them, then it is what it is. If you added them... well, did he or you?

Yes, then that first low shot is not a good idea. Though, he meant to try and hit the target low. I don't think you care though. You are in a court, and taking down an opponent, so you will pick apart the words, so you can win the argument.

No one needs this, to read much that has been written about yourself or another man that is laced with hostility, for an innocent question/comment about a passing suggestion new to me. And yes it has often been filling in my words with suppositions, - as was commented on by another poster - and worse has been done print-wise to the other man who none were with or know besides me. There is no call to treat people like this, (though this is but some of the posters).
Especially so when it is from behind the comfortable and seemingly anonymous distance of cyberspace.

The question I asked has been answered to my satisfaction.
 
gvf, Thanks for making everyone think. Anytime we think about our self defense its good. Your post educated many. As a bonus you got Sweat n Bullets to chime in and he is a load of knowledge.
 
"I don't think you care though. You are in a court, and taking down an opponent, so you will pick apart the words, so you can win the argument."

Who, literally, invited criticism? And by extention, criticism of redresses to the criticism?

Oh wait. In reading back I see that it was you. Good advise, that "just go back and read" bit. Apparently though, what I and some others are reading and what you're meaning are different. Hey, that happens. You seem a bit defensive about it, though. Perhaps you are reading something different than what the critics mean? At least, maybe that's possible.

Either way, no biggie. I'm comfy with my position on a largely discredited technique.

To all: Apparently GVF feels my criticism is somehow personal in nature. This is not the case, nor my intent. I wish him well and apologize for any mis-understandings.
 
Last edited:
I hope I'm not in the same parking lot when you guys try this silliness. :eek:

A big thanks to those of you who tried to add a little common sense to this thread.

I'm outta this one.
 
As always situation dictates.

If the BG is a few yards away you can probably snap your weapon up and aquire a decent site picture. If he is a few feet away and moving fast you should draw, snap your weapon IMMEDIATELY parallel to the deck and fire as you bring it up. This isn't something you should just mentally know, its something you must practice. Its muscle memory. Its not something you want to use when the BG is a decent ways away or when you have 0 training with it..IMO its not something that should be used in the civilian world either unless it really is life or death. But like I said above and others have said situation dictates.

-Max
 
Train to aim.

Seems to me that if you have time to recognize a threat exists, you have time to react in the way that you trained in, i.e., controlled aim and fire. There is less chance of collateral damage and mis-placed shots. Plus, it can save shots for a possible unforseen second assailant.
Above all, protect yourself and protect innocent bystanders.
 
The first rule of a gunfight is to SURVIVE!! If that means shooting at his feet, then his leg, then his groin, then his COM, then that's what it takes. Otherwise the inscription on your tombstone may read, "He died, but he played by the rules"!!!
 
I was taught this technic many years ago. Particular if the BG is right on top of you. It is proven and works. In a fight for your life, you want to live. Not die because you second thought what the lawyers might think. There are no rules when it is life and death.
 
OK I think the person who was teaching this practice went alittle overboard. But if you look at it this way if you have to start at his groin and finish at his chest or head then it is a good practice period. I dont agree with firing anything at anyones feet. But hitting him in the groin or lower stomach is more than a viable option. start at the lower extremities and work your way up through center mass. I have been taught this technique as well as other reactionary techniques. It is just another tool in your toolbox. At the point where you are doing this you are already at a disadvantage. Dont get me wrong it doesnt replace good sight aligment and trigger pull but it may again be a another tool for your toolbox and may save your life or the life of others. NO SPRAY and PRAY is not an option. Point shooting you still have to be in control and you have to practice it... over and over and over. Shooting at the ground or someones feet is not an option but dont discount point shooting because someone has their facts wrong
 
Being a slave to a specific technique fails miserably inside of Force on Force (FOF.)

For those that are technique focused, you really need to take those techniques into properly structured FOF. You will immediately see the problem with being technique focused. I have never met one person that went into properly structured FOF and did not see the absolute need to add point shooting and movement to their tool box.

Train in concepts.....not techniques.

Always using the sights at full extention is like only knowing how to throw a left jab. You have no right hand....you have no hooks or uppercuts.....you have no kicks.....you have no ground game......you are a slave to a single technique.

Here is a concept for you "Just shoot the dirtbag!"

Who cares how you do it. Just get it done!
 
Back
Top