Point shooting: Useful tool, or reckless fool?

[DPI7800]

they arent all really "unsighted", although you arent actually getting a traditional sight picture. With the gun up in the periphery below your line of sight, or your body indexed, your brain is getting a subconscious sight picture of sorts, and is aiming the gun, just not doing so in a manner most target shooters think.

If the gun is in front of my face why would I not use the sights, especially when a single round is most likely not going to stop the threat? Also if the gun is below the line of sight how can there be any kind is sight picture? Sight picture is most commonly defined as seeing the front sight with the top of the front sight even across the top of the rear sight having equal lines of light on both sides centered on the target.

As far as Rob and USPSA there are plenty of stages that the shooting box is one large area and the stage says engage T1 -T whatever as they appear. This allows for open interpretation and allows shooter to shoot the stage as they best see fit which does mean shooting on the move. But again even up close targets that are three yards and less your top shouters will still use their sights.

 

[AK103K]

If the gun is in front of my face why would I not use the sights, especially when a single round is most likely not going to stop the threat?

How well do you do with holding your focus on the target and your sight alignment, while moving and shooting at speed?

There are times, when shooting over the gun with your focus on the target, is more effective, than trying to focus on the sights.

Also if the gun is below the line of sight how can there be any kind is sight picture?

Your brain uses your gun/hands, or in lower positions, your body index to align "the sights". (Im not saying this might not take a little practice on your part. But a little practice is usually all it takes to start to see and understand the benefits.)

A simple test to this, is pick a light switch on the wall across the room, present the gun by pointing it at the switch, just below your line of sight, and then slowly lower your head an "look" at the sights. Where are they when they are "aligned"? 99% of the time, mine are on the object I was looking at when the gun was presented. The other 1%, just slightly off it.

I shoot like this a lot, and I shoot with the sights a lot. Which way I shoot, normally depends on my distance to the target, how Im shooting, and what Im trying to do. I find as the distance closes, and Im moving, I do better focusing on the target and shooting quickly over the gun, than I do trying to hold focus on the target and sight alignment and shooting, while Im moving.

If you feel you need precision, all you have to do, is simply stop and bring the gun up a hair, and you have your sights, pretty much already aligned.

Im not shooting for, or trying to shave "points". Im simply looking for fast, "good", effective hits, and I find I usually get just what Im looking for at the closer ranges, especially while moving, when Im shooting over the gun.

 

[AK103K]

Just to better explain my point.

I just shot these about an hour ago. The only "traditionally aimed" rounds you see there, were the small group just above the nose in the fourth pic, which was a full, 17 round mag shot pretty quickly at about 7 yards.

All the rest were fired drawing from a concealed holster, while quickly moving off diagonally, left and right, and firing over the top of the gun, with my focus on the target, as I went. Most were multiple double and triple taps (6-8 rounds fired each draw), fired quickly at COM-head, and varying back and forth, from target to target as I went. Distance was 5-7 yards and mostly moving forward.

Now I guess the question is, do you think those "hits" would suffice, or should I have taken more time to "aim"?

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Now I guess the question is, do you think those "hits" would suffice, or should I have taken more time to "aim"?

That brings to mind the question, "How much more time does aiming take you?"

I'd like to see some good old fashioned shot-timers busted out. Here is my target point shooting. Here are my times point shooting. Here is my target aiming. Here are my times aiming. I think that would speak more to the utility (or lack thereof) of point shooting than anything else.

The last time I tried something like that, my results were (from concealment at 5m, all 0 zone hits on an IDPA target): Best sighted fire run 1.29 sec for 2 shots with the slowest run at 2.06 sec. For retention/unsighted fire, the best run was 1.37 sec. and the worst 2.24 sec.

Which is one of the reasons I remain skeptical about point shooting.

Also a .4 draw and a hit really? Sorry I just have a hard time buying that one unless you are using a SASS fast draw rig, gun and stance.

Well, although he didn't describe it, based on past discussions with kraigwy, I believe he is starting with his hand actually on a 642 in his pocket sans pocket holster, which I am going to guess cuts down on presentation time quite a bit.

 

[JN01]

I don't understand why shooting without getting a perfect sight picture would be SLOWER than traditional sighting. I could understand it being less precise, but longer times I don't get.

I have experimented with using the traditional hard focus on the front sight, centered in the rear notch, while moving laterally, but things bounce around a bit while running, so the precision alignment of the sighting elements is near impossible for me. Standing flat footed, sure, no problem.

Holding the gun just below line of sight and seeing very coarsely aligned sights in periphery (ala Ayoob's Stressfire) allows me to make the hits at reasonably close range (20-25' or so).

 

[AK103K]

That brings to mind the question, "How much more time does aiming take you?"

I'd like to see some good old fashioned shot-timers busted out. Here is my target point shooting. Here are my times point shooting. Here is my target aiming. Here are my times aiming. I think that would speak more to the utility (or lack thereof) of point shooting than anything else.

The last time I tried something like that, my results were (from concealment at 5m, all 0 zone hits on an IDPA target): Best sighted fire run 1.29 sec for 2 shots with the slowest run at 2.06 sec. For retention/unsighted fire, the best run was 1.37 sec. and the worst 2.24 sec.

Which is one of the reasons I remain skeptical about point shooting.

Were you moving and shooting when you shot them?

I don't understand why shooting without getting a perfect sight picture would be SLOWER than traditional sighting. I could understand it being less precise, but longer times I don't get.

I dont understand that either. But then again, Ive never officially timed it.

I have experimented with using the traditional hard focus on the front sight, centered in the rear notch, while moving laterally, but things bounce around a bit while running, so the precision alignment of the sighting elements is near impossible for me. Standing flat footed, sure, no problem.

Same problem I have, and I "feel", it slows me down a lot. I also dont seem to shoot as well, "hit" wise, unless I stop.

When Im moving and shooting over the gun, it all seems to flow.

 

[Pond James Pond]

I may be wrong but I think the point (geddit?) that AK103K is trying to make is that moving can be as important as shooting in some circumstances and that moving (ie running, not sauntering) and shooting together is also a big advantage. I can also imagine how running whilst trying to keep the front and rear sights aligned on target would be an impediment to one's speed, whereas letting your brain point the gun the way you would your finger is much easier to do.

It is like running along with your finger pointed out ahead of you and trying to keep the tip over an object ahead, as opposed to running and pointing your finger in the direction of the object. To do the former your speed would need to drop whereas doing the latter it does not and practice can still make it a surprisingly accurate way of shooting.

We loose a little accuracy for proportionally more movement.

Perhaps I am wrong, but that is how I understand the point.

PS: this post was a bit of a waste given that AK103K had already posted an answer in the interim...

 

[mavracer]

But then again, Ive never officially timed it.

If you don't know how fast you're shooting how the heck do you know you're shooting fast?

 

[AK103K]

If you don't know how fast you're shooting how the heck do you know you're shooting fast?

Your absolutely right.

I must be somewhat quicker than some though, as they wont let me shoot anymore at a couple of ranges, and I was making a concious effort to slow down to appease them.

 

[45_auto]

I must be somewhat quicker than some though, as they wont let me shoot anymore at a couple of ranges, and I was making a concious effort to slow down to appease them.

You might be surprised at how quick some of those people are when they're really trying..

You seem to believe that you're quicker than some because you got kicked off a range by shooting quicker than the people who were following the range rules.

Kind of like believing that your Yugo is faster than a ZR1 Corvette because you passed one and got a ticket in a school zone while he was obeying the speed limit ....

 

[AK103K]

I was being a smart ass (sort of).

Im not saying Im Speed Racer, nor am I saying Im faster or better than anyone else, Im simply saying, for me, I shoot faster and more accurately while moving, when I point shoot. Cant help you beyond that.

 

[45_auto]

Im simply saying, for me, I shoot faster and more accurately while moving, when I point shoot.

How fast and how accurately do you shoot when aiming while moving? You can't tell us.

How fast and how accurately do you shoot when point shooting while moving? You can't tell us.

Enter a few local IDPA or IPSC events and find out how fast and accurate you really are using each method. Even better would be some force-on-force (Simunitions) type training, but it's more expensive and harder to find. There's a good chance that you'll find out why the good shooters use what's called a "flash sight picture" any time there's enough room to extend their arms when they're moving.

On the other hand, you may be the bestest, most natural point shooter that the world has ever seen. No way to know without real data!

 

[Pond James Pond]

How fast and how accurately do you shoot when aiming while moving? You can't tell us.

How fast and how accurately do you shoot when point shooting while moving? You can't tell us.

Unless the results are very close indeed, I am quite capable of judging if my shooting was faster one way than my shooting another way. After all, I'm the one shooting.

So, if AK says that his shooting on the move is faster with point shooting than with aimed shooting, I don't see why we should not believe that.
If the claim was that his point shooting was faster than someone else, that'd be a different story.

 

[AK103K]

Your right, I cant tell you exactly how fast.

I can see how accurate, and the difference in accuracy between the two, although I dont have that set of targets to show right now.

Still, assuming all things are equal, time wise, Im still ahead with point shooting while moving.

I have done a bit of force on force, and at close range, I dont use the sights in the traditional manner. Mostly a meat and metal index. I do understand a "flash sight picture", and its use though.

As I said earlier, Im not claiming to be the bestest, or even anything remotely close. Unless aimed sighting enters you into some sort of time warp Im unaware of, and I actually do somehow shoot faster that way, Im still going to point shoot, as I shoot more naturally and accurately when in motion doing so.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Unless the results are very close indeed, I am quite capable of judging if my shooting was faster one way than my shooting another way. After all, I'm the one shooting

I used to think that myself until I bought a shot timer. A few tenths of a second can be a long time in shooting, yet it is hard to count.

Were you moving and shooting when you shot them?

I wasn't though I don't know what difference it would make. I've got more than a few timed runs that required movement, including shooting at targets 90 degrees to me at a full run. I used my sights there as well, though obviously the sight picture was coarser.

I really think your personal training would benefit from a shot timer. If nothing else, you'd have objective data about whether or not you are faster point shooting.

Two other things to consider, break out the old WWII standby "Kill or Get Killed" by Rex Applegate. Look at his position for point shooting (half hip). Then flip to the section on disarming someone with a pistol - does that stance look familiar? You are also teaching yourself to bowl your draw and lessen the amount of time you have to align sights when you do want to use sighted fire.

 

[Dragline45]

Point shooting is perhaps one of the most useful tools you can practice, and with enough practice it becomes instinctive and natural. If you have the time to line up your sights, go for it, chances are most of the time you won't.

I remember back when I was younger and I worked landscaping, the crew leader who was a Marine and a Vietnam vet. got to talking about shooting since he knew I was big into guns. One of the things he said was they barely used their sites unless they were picking off a target from a great distance. He then went on to say that they fired their rifles in basic and in combat enough that their rifles pointed so naturally for them that they almost negated the use of sites at all. He said that most of the engagements were pretty damn close so were not talking about 100yd+ gun battles here. Now this is one guys stance on the matter, and while I do agree with him, who would I be to argue with him, he walked out of the war in one piece so he had to be doing something right.

One of the things I practice at home is to pick a target, draw from my holster, and without initially looking at my sights see how fast and how close I can get them on target. Do that enough and you can draw and fire a COM shot all day without ever looking at your sights.

 

[45_auto]

Unless the results are very close indeed, I am quite capable of judging if my shooting was faster one way than my shooting another way. After all, I'm the one shooting.

Are you also quite capable of judging how accurate you are when shooting one way than another way without a target? Unless the results are very close indeed, why even worry about a target? You don't need any actual time data to evaluate your performance, why worry about actual accuracy data? Must be correct if you "feel" that one is more accurate than another.

If you're happy believing that you can evaluate your skills with no physical way to compare performance except "I think this one is better", good for you! I would expect that you'll always be very impressed with your skills, although you'll most likely be in for a VERY unpleasant surprise if you ever have to compare them to someone who actually has analyzed and focused their performance using real data.

So, if AK says that his shooting on the move is faster with point shooting than with aimed shooting, I don't see why we should not believe that.

I've been running pistol matches, High Power (rifle) matches, and conducting training classes for almost 20 years. I've seen too many people badly surprised by the results of their actual measured performance compared to their perceived performance to even consider believing what someone says or thinks about their performance is a fact.

No big deal, feel free to believe anything you like. After all, it's on the internet and you're not allowed to lie or be wrong on the internet (that's from a humorous TV commercial, you probably (luckily) don't have it in your part of the world)!

Just as a matter of curiosity, what do you consider "very close" results time-wise? I personally consider .5 seconds to be HUGE, most people can easily do shot splits (multiple shots) with less than .25 seconds between shots. I wouldn't want to give anyone 2 extra shots at me. I would consider less than .1 second to be "close". Do you really believe that you can perceive a difference of even .5 of a second (huge, not even close) when running and shooting?

 

[Pond James Pond]

Are you also quite capable of judging how accurate you are when shooting one way than another way without a target?....If you're happy believing that you can evaluate your skills with no physical way to compare

This is about telling other people their own experiences are wrong just because they don't match yours. I much prefer Bart' Roberts approach of suggesting the use of a timer, rather than the implication that if someone hasn't they must be wrong.... or lying.

You claim AK lacks physical data to back up what's been claimed. In other words personal experience.
Yet you also lack physical data to say what you seem to claim is true: that AK is wrong and deluded in his conclusions.
In other words personal experience.

In the absence of said data, I am happy to trust what a member claims about their own shooting and the possibility that data would support it based on their being there, and not me. Likewise I am happy to trust your own claims about results in your matches.
However, I don't see why those two conclusions need be mutually exclusive.

I've not thought about what a big time difference is, but then I am not a fast shooter; not fast at all.
So my splits are well within the range of human judgement.

I will doubtless use a timer, if I can get hold of one, but I am certainly going to add point shooting to my practice regimen.
Given my personal applications for it, I think it useful.

 

[JohnKSa]

Not retention shooting. My arm is more extended than that: my elbow is not in contact with my body.

In the picture, the gun is already so high that it's hard to imagine bringing it the inch or three higher that's required to line up the sights would cause a significant delay.

I used to think that myself until I bought a shot timer. A few tenths of a second can be a long time in shooting, yet it is hard to count.

I watch a lot of competition video and I find that it can be difficult to gauge how fast a shooter is actually putting rounds on target without a timer. Sometimes the cadence can make one shooter sound very fast while another whose cadence seems slower to the ear actually ends up with the better time.

 

[smokehouse4444]

Not sure why this is soo hard. The OP asked if point shooting is a useful tool. Of course it is a useful tool. I practice using my sights all the time, but I also practice point shooting at every session. I really point shoot as well, meaning I'm not "cheating" to make the target look good. I'm thrusting the handgun out, looking "over the top", and firing. On some of my handguns, I doubt I could even see my sights in many situations.