Point shooting any one?

Status
Not open for further replies.
The zipper technique, at least as taught to me, is rounds on CNS starting from the first possible moment the gun can be brought to bear on the target and working up to the thoracic cavity. One begins shooting pretty much just out of the holster and uses rounds fired during the draw stroke / presentation to put a line of rounds up the bad guy's centerline.

Tell me why that's a bad plan if you have the skill and that's what the circumstance dictates.
 
The zipper technique, at least as taught to me, is rounds on CNS starting from the first possible moment the gun can be brought to bear on the target and working up to the thoracic cavity. One begins shooting pretty much just out of the holster and uses rounds fired during the draw stroke / presentation to put a line of rounds up the bad guy's centerline. Tell me why that's a bad plan if you have the skill and that's what the circumstance dictates.
Click to expand...

As I was taught the 4 points of draw from Randy Cain, the firearm is immediately tucked away from the assailant under the pectoral muscle tight against my rib along the side. The smallest fraction of a second from holster to that position doesn't really justify slinging bullets in the meantime. Actually, it leaves fewer rounds available to attempt center mass if anything. Other than that, you've proven my point that there may be a time for the zipper technique and don't see where we're disagreeing.
 
alot of the debate seams to be over the terminology,in a defensive situation there isnt always time to bring the gun up and get in a perfect weaver stance and align the sights before the shot is taken.what applgate,fairbain and sykes were refering to as point shooting still involved bringing the gun up to eyelevel and aquiring the front sight before taking the shot.so it isnt shoot from the hip oldwest pointshooting it is sighted fire.mas ayoob uses the term "flash sight picture" which i think acuratly describes modern point shooting and what most of us are talking about.
if you carry a gun defensevly you should practice all types of positions because we never know the circumstances of the fight till were there,therefore we owe it to ourselves to know how we shoot in different positions.
 
Holes in, blood out is never a bad thing (on the BG) IMO.
Click to expand...

Yet it's even better to have a bullet available to hit where it will be more effective.

Hmmmm.....bullet in the gut or in the heart?....I choose the heart.
 
I see no need to practice "point-shooting" because I practice sighted-fire with a consistent draw-stroke. What this does for me is ingrain specific index or reference points within my draw-stroke that can serve as "non-sighted fire solutions" if the need were to arise (proximity to target, movement, etc.).

However, practicing point-shooting does not really help build your skills for precise aimed-fire.

In other words, good sighted-fire can degrade to good point-shooting, but point-shooting does not upgrade to good aimed-fire.

The problem I see with most people who strenuously defend/advocate point-shooting is that they seldom have any specific time/accuracy standards they can point to (sorry, couldn't resist the pun :P). It's not hard to find a ton of examples of fast, accurate sighted fire (IDPA/IPSC videos, etc.)...when was the last time you saw someone turn in a competent run on a drill like El Pres or the F.A.S.T. using point-shooting?

I guess it seems that to accept point-shooting as the preferred method, you often have to be willing to accept a significantly lower accuracy standard at anything beyond kissing distances.
 
Last edited:
I am a point shooter.

I build up the natural muscle memory with each given gun.

For one of my berettas I am scary accurate with point shooting (of course I have 7.5k of documented rounds thru the gun).

Only time i actually aim with a gun is a new gun or when I am silhouette shooting with one of my encore pistols or hamerelli target pistols.
 
I don't play keepaway by firing low and working my way up. I'm not going to use the zipper technique of I have a chance for other methods I feel is best.
Click to expand...

The term "zippering" may be the wrong term to describe what I mean. I am talking about instantly leveling the muzzle just as it clears leather, followed by rounds into the torso, while simultaneously bringing the pistol up to eye level, all while shooting and moving back and laterally. I didn't think of it as working my way up but it would seem the term implies working up. The whole idea is to get hits on the guy across from you before you take a hit. With consistent practice, I still think it is a viable solution when you're up close and personal.
 
I don't think the debate is entirely about terminology at all. Part of the problem is a question of how good is good enough. For average or less than average people, like myself, there is no way we can practice enough of any particular shooting method to satisify most people's standards on this forum, if I read the posts correctly, much less become a trick shooter like Bill Jordan. I'm 64 years old and I've still haven't fired 7.5k (undocumented) in total for my entire life. No wonder I was such a terrible shot.

Remember, Fairbairn and especially Applegate worked with people who had mostly no firearms experience and were going to be armed with virtually no training. In Applegate's case, he had the luxury of perhaps a day's training with a revolver before they went off to war. Typically, that's probably how much effort most civilians put into learning to use their revolvers before putting them in the top dresser drawer, in case it was ever needed.
 
.bullet in the gut or in the heart?....I choose the heart.
Click to expand...
As would I. But you know as well as anyone (or you should, being a mod and all) that the dynamics of a fight don't necessarily allow us to put them where we want to every time.

Heck, we might even miss altogether a couple of times :eek:

Reality sucks sometimes.
I am talking about instantly leveling the muzzle just as it clears leather, followed by rounds into the torso, while simultaneously bringing the pistol up to eye level, all while shooting and moving back and laterally. I didn't think of it as working my way up but it would seem the term implies working up.
Click to expand...
That is actually a very good description of the 'zipper'.
The whole idea is to get hits on the guy across from you before you take a hit.
Click to expand...
I agree.

If a gun fight is getting hits while avoiding getting hit yourself, which is more important?
 
As would I. But you know as well as anyone (or you should, being a mod and all) that the dynamics of a fight don't necessarily allow us to put them where we want to every time.
Click to expand...

Knowing moreso isn't a requirement of a Staff member...

Heck, we might even miss altogether a couple of times
Click to expand...

I hope we never have to be in the situation to find out.

bds32 said:
The term "zippering" may be the wrong term to describe what I mean. I am talking about instantly leveling the muzzle just as it clears leather, followed by rounds into the torso, while simultaneously bringing the pistol up to eye level, all while shooting and moving back and laterally. I didn't think of it as working my way up but it would seem the term implies working up. The whole idea is to get hits on the guy across from you before you take a hit. With consistent practice, I still think it is a viable solution when you're up close and personal.
Click to expand...

A viable solution? Absolutely. For me, though, as I explained my draw stroke earlier, it isn't going to be beneficial to expend the effort to level the firearm as soon as it clears the holster to fire. Even if I do, (giving the assailant is of average height as well as me) the bullet path will be entering the stomach area. I believe if I'm having to point shoot in this manner at contact/close distance in the heat of the moment bullet placement there isn't going to do a dang bit of good but have me with one less available shot. The time difference between this and firing one from retention is so miniscule that it just doesn't seem to make sense to do it.
 
Some time back I read an article in a gun magazine about this, where a firearms instructor at the FBI training academy said, "if you get into a face to face gunfight, you can be sure of two things: one, you'll shoot one handed, and two, you won't use the sights."

That's probably true. If you're pulling and snap-shooting, it's probably a situation where your attacker ALREADY has his gun out, and the extra second it takes to see your sights could easily get you killed.

You should certainly practice enough with your gun to be able to whip it out and hit an 8 inch paper plate at 15 feet. A challenge here is that a lot of popular self defense handguns, especially those carried concealed, have TINY little barrels, many under 2 inches. Even WITH sights, it's hard to hit the freakin' side of a barn with those things without extensive, regular practice, not to mention under the pressure of a split-second self defense situation.

I can hit that paper plate all day with my Ruger Blackhawk, firing instantly from the waist, but then it has a 6 1/2" barrel and I've shot a gazillion rounds through it (I reload). If I got a little concealed carry gun like a S&W Bodyguard, I'd have to go back to Square One.

Just my $.02 worth.
 
A big debate, a lot of posts when seemingly contradicting one point of view, or the other, are more or less agreeing!

Dry fire, punch draw, click! The front sight should be at the point you want the round to impact! At that exact instance the pistol stops.

Same to be repeated, on the range, time and time again! Single, multiples!

To strike vital areas of the human body, consistently, holding your pistol, in two hands tightly, works best, level in front of face (IMHO) you strive for this, but if not possible, you do the best you can.
 
G.willikers said

How do you teach the proper use of the sights?
The method that works the quickest for me is to concentrate on and practice good form.
Grip, trigger, stance, 'etc all must be near perfect for fast, accurate shooting.
When all else is good, the sights will be on the target, even small ones at the distances you mentioned.
No need to actually think about them.
They will be there.
Is that the method you use?
Click to expand...

Sorry I missed your question, as all action starts from the draw, I taught the draw as the trigger point to hitting the target! So practice, draw, punch, fire.
 
I think you'll get the bickering and debating in every thread, like it or not, and this is one of those topics that brings out the highly opinionated, or so it seems. However, it is hard to get much across in the way of technique and whatnot when there is so much controversy over the basic idea. Besides, it's hard to get much across when there is mutual agreement, it being a dynamic thing. That is, given the limitation of the forum. There have been books on the subject.

An excellent read on the subject is Fairbairn's old book, "Shooting to Live." The illustrations are fairly good, for what they are, the advice is good and he even goes out on a limb and suggests that a thinking man could come up with good ideas all on his own. Anyhow, as you all probably know, he advocated chamber empty carry of a Colt .45 auto. That's another topic of controversy. He claimed a fast draw could be achieved nevertheless. But nowhere in the book can you find a thorough and complete discussion of exactly how you can actually do a quick draw and get off a shot. He tells you how to do it but not how to do it fast, which is a big difference and perhaps the point on which so much controversy turns--or spins.

I have my own issues with training matters which I've mentioned from time to time, which chiefly amounts to not ever being able to either train or practice sufficiently to satisfy anyone's standards.
 
Why all the arguing?

I would hope (God forbid I'll never have to) that if I was forced into a situation where I must draw and fire that I would have eyes on front sight targeted to COM. I do practice this and strive for smoothness, speed and accuracy. Incorporate movement, yada, yada, ya.

BUT, I am fully aware that the circumstances may be that I don't have the luxury to get sights on target, eyes on front sight, COM. Therefore, I do practice point shooting as part of my training. WHY NOT?

You'd be surprised what your technique (form, stance, etc.) will be under extreme stress with milliseconds to react. Most will thrust gun straight out in isosceles, eyes wide open, on threat, bang, bang, bang... Sounds like point shooting to me...
 
Last edited:
I agree, timetohunt, that it may add microseconds, more likely a lot more, but it is more a case of doing one thing instead of another and it is a question of doing the same thing all the time. By that I mean you obviously should practice doing only one method with one gun, although I honestly don't think the difference is that great between different methods. I'm sure plenty of people use both revolvers and automatics with no problems operating two different systems successfully. Besides, the controversy is usually just about single action automatics in the first place. But in my case, I find the safeties on some double action automatics to be even harder, going on impossible, to operate quickly under stress (or not), like the Walther and S&W type of safeties that work "the wrong way," and the same type is found on some Ruger automatics. My point here is that not everyone will find flicking off the safety of a .45 auto all that easy or racking the slide on most (but not necessarily all) automatics to be that difficult, even under stress. But there's more.

All of the business of safeties and different carry methods may be beside the point if you can't get your gun out and shooting in time because your reaction time isn't fast enough.
 
I know of that chamber empty method or commonly known as the "Israeli Method". My issue with that method is it adds an extra step in the process that could be forgotten. It also adds some microseconds of time to the equation and those microseconds can mean the difference between life and death IMHO
Click to expand...

Interesting that your issue with the method doesn't including being totally dependent on having two hands free.:cool:
 
timetohunt said:
I opened this thread thinking that we would be discussing point shooting methods and techniques. However, this seems to be a lot of bickering and debating about whether we should be using this method or not. Can we discuss some techniques and methods or is this thread a debate about whether or not we should use it?
Click to expand...

Bickering? Well, all due respect to the OP and you, it wasn't really specific on the subject at hand. There's a bit of bickering, yes. That's the nature of the beast to a certain degree in subjects such as point shooting. Staff believes it has been at a dull roar and the signal/noise ratio is acceptable.

Debating? Isn't that the whole point of the board? To debate, discuss, and exchange ideas? I've yet to see in public view where anyone has resorted to personal attacks. Attacking statements is a different story from attacking a person's character.

Now, back to the discussion...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top