"Point & Shoot" - What's the good word?

Yesyerday I shot my first cowboy action match - it was the most stressful shooting I've done yet. Granted, it's not "OMG, I'm gonna die!" stress, and the targets are big & close. So take this as you will...

With my pistols (1860 Army cap and ball clones), I shot some stages with sights and some just by instinctive point-shooting. For example, one stage had two moving paper plates at about 15 feet. I wasn't confident in my sights (they're 8 or 10 inches low by 50 feet), so I simply shot "by feel" as fast as I could cock the hammer and pull the gun down from recoil. I successfully got all ten shots on target (actually, I got 11 hits with 10 shots...we think one of my wads hit the target, as well as the 10 balls :) ).

Still, from watching some of the really good shooters, it seems like with enough practice, you can use the sights just as fast as you could point-n-shoot (though unless you have night-sights, non-point-shooters will be at a disadvantage in the dark).
 
"...hits with sighted fire in the 20% range..."

AIN'T SIGHTED FIRE!

Maybe they're "started out with a sight picture and jerked the trigger" fire, but they're not talking about proper use of the sights plus trigger control, and one without the other isn't useful.

LawDog makes excellent points in his post.

Point shooting, that is, shooting with no visual index, whether you call it shooting "reflexively", or with "muscle memory", or "instinctively", or any of several other names, MAY work sometimes for some people.

Some talented folks believe that their own positive experience with point shooting is generalizable to everybody, and they advocate point shooting as a replacement for sighted fire.

Others believe point shooting has a limited place, mostly for close-in, gun-protected fire at "reach out and touch" distances, and even then only when the downrange risk to innocents either doesn't exist or is minimal.

If I could always hit my target every time with adequate precision at all conceivable distances using point shooting, I'd use it.
But I can't.
If you can, great.
I'll stick with using the sights.
 
When people make the pronouncement that it is impossible to teach someone to use the sights, or that it is impossible to teach someone to break out of the 'instinctive reaction to threats', a couple of cases tend to come to mind.

I believe it was in the 1970's when a couple of similar instances came up regarding rookies getting killed.

Seems these rookies were found shot to death with empty cartridge hulls stuffed in their pockets. Witnesses who were interviewed stated that the rookies checked out of the firefight in order to pick up their empty cases.

Further research found that that during the training period, the new cops were being taught to pick up their empties before checking their targets.

This led to many, many academies forbidding their cadets to pick up empty hulls during training.

Seems to me if we can teach rookies to take their eyes off the threats, look down at the ground and start locating/picking up/depositing empty shells in their pockets with critters shooting at them-- and train these kids to do this by accident -- then it should be fairly obvious that you can be taught to glance at some front sights located in line with the threat.

But that's just me.

LawDog
 
Point shooting owes its popularity to Fairbane of WWII combatives fame.

It is a effective answer to the following scenario:

Officers will receive a minimum amount of basic instruction in the use of their sidearm, a dozen or so cartridges to practice with, and nothing else but grim advice before being thrust into what was at the time the world's most violent and crime ridden city, Shanghai.

Something, arguably anything, would be better than that.

Point shooting was Fairbanes's answer. His course was simple to teach, simple to learn, and ultimately found to be effective in the crowded, violent streets his men worked.

Skip forward to WWII.

Fairbane ends up tasked with training Britain's commandos. They are taught, among other things, point shooting. Reports from the field indicate that it works.

The USA enters the war, cross trains our special forces with their commandos, and our best learns piont shooting, among other things. Reports from the field indicatge that you don't have to be British in order for it to work.

As the war goes on, the UK and the USA train their spies in point shooting. Decoded reports (bbep, beep-beep, beep...) indicate that it works. Even better, it is discovered/proven that it works years after training, with no practice or requalification in the interum.

The war ends, everyone goes home, and before you know it people "discover" what our best where taught. And as everyone knows, commando/special forces/spy training must be the best, right?

And that's an arguably long winded account (sorry) of where point shooting came from and why its so popular.
 
All of that said, re-read LawDog's posts, dwell on the concept of "bullet ownership," recognize that quality training abounds, that you are not restricted to a dozen cartridges a year to practice with, install night sights, and the reasoning against point shooting has a way of standing out.

Enough blah, blah from me, though.

;)
 
A little common sense is needed when discussing point shooting. If the guy is so close that you will have to angle the weapon more than 45 degrees to miss his vitals, point and pull. If the guy is so far away that he's smaller than the front sight, get a rifle. Anywhere in between, use the sights.:)
 
My humble opinion on the matter, after several thousand rounds
of rapid fire range time, hundreds of draws, and some IPSC
shooting, is that with some practice, you can use a good sight picture as fast as you can point shoot, with more accuracy.

After all, the best shooters in the world are using their sights in
competition, and are far faster and more accurate than any of us
could hope to be (yes , I realize there's a difference, but what's
good enough for them is good enough for me).

For what it's worth....
Steve.
 
I got a SW617 (.22) to practice point shooting...and a .22 conversion kit for the Glock. That way I could fire a lot of ammo, fast and without beating myself up on recoil.

Here's my impression:

Some guns point well (HK P7, Sig 232, Colt Govt.380), some so-co (Glocks) and some not well at all (CZ52, TT33). For those of us who routinely alternate between different gun types, point shooting ability is reduced.

Point shooting requires constant practice, also requires a particular posture. Sighted shooting is more flexible. It is slower but, except at almost contact distances, more accurate by far. At least in my case, I can't fire follow-up shots fast enough to make the first round worth missing.

Crouch+look over the sights concept works fairly well but it is only applicable to a small number of situations (no cover available, short range). Also, if the target moves on a tangent with you (dog going for your leg), sometimes pointing works better...but sighted shooting seems to be a necessity, at least for me.
 
IMO, point shooting would be most useful in very up-close and personal situations, where weapon retention may be an issue. While I don't believe anyone could argue against using sighted fire for accurate hits on target, some situations may recommend against extending your arms and raising the pistol to eye level.

Some fam-fire maybe worth the time - in the interest of a well rounded education.:D
 
Point shooting is a lost art IMO. I have an SP101 with a CTC laser grip that is a blessing for point shooting. I spent the first 3 weeks I had it practicing on everything in my house. I got pretty good at it...and feel I can hit pretty well with the gun. EVEN without the laser..it just helps to "train your brain, hand/eye coordination" I may need to use it sometime..hope to never have to, but its nice to know I will do fairly well if it does happen......
Shoot well
 
LawDog, your buddy's one gutsy SOB!

Were it me, I would've dumped my WunderPistole in the dirt and proceeded to engage him in fisticuffs.:mad: IMO, he needlessly took his life in his hands by doing that and handing the kid a LOADED GUN!:eek: Or, was this a class in the Israeli Method where such training was what he signed-up for. :confused:

You also referred to the infamous Newhall Incident(Massacre) in California. Certainly the low-water mark in CHiPs history of gunfights. It was commonplace in LE training of the day for everyone to police their brass. IIRC, qualification in that era was based on the PPC competition that was en-vogue at the time. I don't recall reading that the issue with shell-cases was witnessed by anyone, though I'm not disputing it, either. I seem to remember reading that shells were found in the pockets of one of the dead officers. My point is, with the whole of America LE training that way, why is THAT the only such recorded instance?

I used to be of the 100% front sight mentality. Afterall, I grew up reading Masaad Ayoob.;) Does anyone recall his article in American Handgunner last year(?)? He took about 100 shooters, some of whom were familiar with Glocks, and some who weren't. He had them go through a course of fire at 3-5-7-12-15-25yds. with the standard pistol. Then, they repeated the excersise with the same model pistol with its sights REMOVED. In summation, he didn't notice any degradation in accuracy/score until the 12yd. point. It was not markedly different until the 15yd. point! He must've tasted foot in his mouth, as I've not read of him ever mentioning it since then.

No proponent of point-fire/shooting defends it's use much past 10yds. Heck, I'm looking for a front sight at that point. However, after research and trial for myself, I've come to the realization that not only do you not need your sights in-close, they can slow you down. Granted, the difference is probably measured in tenths of a second, but we know just how long of a period of time that really can be. Reaction time from accelerator to brake pedal on the road and the Tueller Drill(AKA-21ft. Principle) are two illustrations which quickly come to mind. That miniscule amount of time can mean the difference between you getting at least a coarse hit on the goblin, and him deflecting or getting hold of your weapon, or YOU.:o
 
Ironbarr,
I just did a search on "point and shooting" and "point". Too many returns to peruse. So I'm asking for some tried and true facts and actions re point and shoot technique(s).
Click to expand...
You're too lazy to read what's already been posted about the subject so you want TFLers to "say it again" in this one convenient place for you, is that right?

I'm still thinking about that, but they probably will.... :D
 
BH... Yup...

I'm still thinking about that, but they probably will....
Click to expand...
and they did... do.. er, will (maybe). :p :)

Actually, I've seen a few threads revived from the dusty archives that have gone on to great success. I'm happy this one is - I've modified my opinion on point shooting some because of these comments. Also, currency is important since experiences and time can change thinking. One of my failings though is getting the attention of others - I have yet to produce a string of "successful" Subject lines (headlines, if you will) - attention grabbers - thus have many of my "fantastic people-moving" pennings fallen flat, relegating, after a read or two, my wonderful prose to a spot right close to the bit bucket.

Alas, Alack - I am but a poor hack.

To all, thanks for your attention and comments. And BlackHawk - I know your joshing me. :cool:

Andy
.
 
I have yet to produce a string of "successful" Subject lines (headlines, if you will) - attention grabbers -
Click to expand...
But maybe you're trying to sell sand to Polynesians.

This particular forum doesn't get much traffic (906 threads right now), and the ones who frequent it are likely the more, shall we say, skilled and knowledgeable (which is why I almost never check it out :D ).

Secondly, "Point & Shoot" doesn't mean anything, and what you meant was "Point Shooting."

Third, "What's the good word?" isn't provocative, it's just chatter bait.

A title like "Point Shooting -- Is it something worth practicing?" might lure the knowledgeable curmudgeons out of their caves to offer more gems of wisdom, or to repeat those already offered.

I used to love point shooting, but I've recently become enamored of a very fast combat stance with aimed shots. Probably looks hilarious to distant observers, but it's fun! :D

Joshing you? Never! Guns and shooting are ALWAYS very serious topics, and we should never kid about any aspect of them! :D
 
But maybe you're trying to sell sand to Polynesians.
Click to expand...
Here in Virginia Beach we are always buying sand for the beach.
This particular forum doesn't get much traffic (906 threads right now)
Click to expand...
Now you tell me. But this has gotten attention, no?
Secondly, "Point & Shoot" doesn't mean anything, and what you meant was "Point Shooting."
Click to expand...
I owned up to that with
'And I realize that there is much yet to learn - not only "technique", but the language too.',
and, '(I'm not up on the learning curve with the language)'
Click to expand...
Third, "What's the good word?" isn't provocative, it's just chatter bait.
Click to expand...
Yes.
A title like "Point Shooting -- Is it something worth practicing?" might lure the knowledgeable curmudgeons out of their caves to offer more gems of wisdom, or to repeat those already offered.
Click to expand...
Other than this: "but Point & Shoot did get (your) attention, right?', I won't touch this.
I used to love point shooting, but I've recently become enamored of a very fast combat stance with aimed shots. Probably looks hilarious to distant observers, but it's fun!
Click to expand...
I wouldn't laugh, but please, watch your vertibrae.
Joshing you? Never! Guns and shooting are ALWAYS very serious topics, and we should never kid about any aspect of them!
Click to expand...
I ;) heard:) that!:D

In fact, I heard it all (and if we keep using this space for jabber, we'll hear about it shortly). Stay :cool:

Thanks, folks for accomodating this - I just couldn't let it pass.

I'm done.

-Andy
 
The idea is to make a shot/shots as fast as possible and get effective hits, right?

Provided that you have learned to index the gun correctly in your hand it boils down to distance and size of the target.

Straight from Ray Chapman's mouth (paraphrased):"...Learn to use as precise sight picture as neccessary.... same goes for trigger pull."

30yd shot will require quite clear sight picture and very controlled trigger break. 4yd shot will need no sights (maybe not even bringing the gun to eye level, but still indexed properly), and the fastest possible trigger pull (without jerking).
 
Other than this: "but Point & Shoot did get (your) attention, right?', I won't touch this.
Click to expand...
Touche!

I wondered what somebody could possibly mean by that, and it had recently been bumped to the top. :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top