Point shooting: Useful tool, or reckless fool?

[Deaf Smith]

Jeff Cooper opined that if you used sighted fire, like the Modern Technique, or Isosceles, then if you could not see the sights, you just still brought the piece up AS IF YOU COULD SEE THE SIGHTS, and the indexing you normally practice while seeing the sights would keep the gun aligned on the target, AT CLOSE RANGE, as good as anything.

That way you just learned a form of retention fire (speed rock or other methods) and a form of SIGHTED FIRE.

Makes the training easier and quicker as you don't have to learn a third method of delivering fire.

Deaf

 

[AK103K]

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.

I agree, and Im working on it.

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.

I think we might be back to "what" point shooting is, or perceived. Ive have and have read "Kill or Get Killed" (on a number of occasions), which I believe is really the "primer" for this type of shooting, and know what youre referring to, but its not mostly what Im referring to when I say point shooting, although I have, and occasionally still do shoot that way, if for no other reason to have that feeling in my brain.

Normally, when I draw the gun, its driven straight towards the target, sights or no sights. No "bowling" involved. If Im moving with the gun out in SUL, then there are different possible scenarios for different levels/modes of point shooting, which I think some are mistaking for "all" instances. You can rock the gun out of SUL at contact distances and fire, or at any point on the way out to full extension. In those instances, except coming towards the end, the gun is well below the line of sight and you use your body as the index. You dont point or "aim" with the gun.

Something you said early on keeps coming back to me, and I think is one important reason to have "unsighted" shooting ingrained in your psyche. You said when shooting FOF early on, you didnt initially use the sights. I understand the theory of under stress, you fall back on your training, and it sounds as though your have trained to find and use your sights while moving, which is great, its just Im not convinced that when the targets are shooting back for real, that your brain wont over ride you and focus on the target, especially closer up.

Ive read and heard enough accounts of exactly that happening, even if later in the fight, the shooter did in fact start looking for the sights (lack of ingrained point shooting skills, and loss of focus on the front sight in a time of stress).

I find that at close range, I do focus on the target, and do better when shooting over the gun, when doing so. The sights are actually more of a distraction to me then, as its breaking my focus on the important thing. As I said earlier, all things being equal, time is really meaningless, if the "unaimed" hits on target, are better than those that are "aimed". The goal is simply good hits, is it not?

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.

I dont understand either, but Im thinking we're all learning a little more here, and in all directions.

Jeff Cooper opined that if you used sighted fire, like the Modern Technique, or Isosceles, then if you could not see the sights, you just still brought the piece up AS IF YOU COULD SEE THE SIGHTS, and the indexing you normally practice while seeing the sights would keep the gun aligned on the target, AT CLOSE RANGE, as good as anything.

It does.

Just think shooting in the dark with unlit sights, or looking at the target as you start to present the gun and close your eyes before you do, but shoot at the end of the presentation.

One thing Ill ask here though is, what is considered "close range". Seems there are some differing opinions.

 

[DT Guy]

The 'Hit Triangle' is always the same:

Distance to target x Size of target x time to shot

If you're only measuring groups, and not time, you're not really gaining any data, IMHO. Subjective impressions of 'that felt fast!' are notoriously unreliable.

I was taught point shooting as an LEO many years ago; my instructor was very 'old school', with the elbow bent and gun held at chest level, the genuine 'point shooting' as it used to be taught. When I kept putting sighted shots on target faster than his pointed shots (and with better hits) he finally left me alone.

The confirmatory 'flash sight picture' is the short range alternative, and, FOR ME, generates better hits, FASTER, than actual point shooting. But again, this requires both a target AND a timer; you have to measure the three sides of the triangle, to get actual data.

Larry

 

[Deaf Smith]

what is considered "close range".

AK,

Simply what each person considers it.

Jerry Miculek might consider it 20 yards. The once a year shooter might consider it 2 ft.

So it will be hard to quantify except maybe for us average shooters 5 yards or so, and that's a maybe.

Just depends on the person and their skill level.

Deaf

 

[2damnold4this]

Jeff Cooper opined that if you used sighted fire, like the Modern Technique, or Isosceles, then if you could not see the sights, you just still brought the piece up AS IF YOU COULD SEE THE SIGHTS, and the indexing you normally practice while seeing the sights would keep the gun aligned on the target, AT CLOSE RANGE, as good as anything.

That is a good point. Using proper technique while practicing sighted fire is training for point shooting.

 

[JeffK]

Does anyone practice quickly pointing without using the sights, but using a laser? I used to fence epee, and epee fencing is all about point control - put the tip of an epee blade exactly where you want it to go, just by looking at that point. You get good at that by practice, practice, practice and more practice. Seems to me you could build up that sort of muscle memory with a handgun using a laser sight to give you the feedback on where you pointed it vs. where you wanted to point it - without firing it.

 

[kraigwy]

what is considered "close range"

Depends on what you're shooting, Rifle, 200-300 yards. But I think we are discussing pistols/revolvers so I'll address that.

Its different in competition and self defense. I don't use or practice point shooting for competition as I do for SD. Competition its 10 yards or so. In SD its much shorter.

I teach a Lady's Firearm Safety and Self Defense class. 90% of the shooting is 3 yards or less. The remainder is 25ft.

Self Defense is just that, mugging, car jacking, or sex assaults, all occur in relatively short distance.

I have a young lady who helps with my class as a tech. advisor. She is a forensics firearm investigator and has a Masters from Syracuse Unv. in Forensics firearm investigation, based on her education and experience involving hundreds of shootings.

She tells us that a huge majority of SD shootings is about 5-6 ft. That calls for the speed point shooting gives you.

How I came up with the 25 foot distance is at the first of each class, I tell the girls to go home, and measure the longest straight line distance they can see in their homes. I had one that came up with 28 ft. She lives in a large house, the rest, we under 25 ft.

At 25 ft. I teach the use of sights.

 

[DT Guy]

While I agree the majority of SD shootings are short range, it doesn't take much effort to find situations where that would not be the case:
Can You Shoot Well Enough?


Larry

 

[45_auto]

Larry, the problem with that article is that it recommends that people actually use timers (imagine that) and compete against other people (oh no!)to evaluate their skills. The VAST majority of shooters will NOT engage in any type of comparison that will prove how bad they really are. People tend to feel pretty silly when they're point shooting but the guys using their sights are shooting twice as fast AND twice as accurately! As long as the vast majority of people can "feel" that they are fast and accurate that's good enough. Proven by this entire thread!

the skills gained from any of these competitions are simply too valuable to pass up, and difficult to gain elsewhere. They include the ability to shoot under the pressure of time, reloading under pressure, shooting from various positions and at a variety of distances.

But the single most important thing you'll gain from competitive shooting is becoming familiar with what you can and cannot do with your defensive pistol in a wide variety of situations. You'll be able, with time, to gauge your chances of successfully making a difficult shot at a distance, target or in a time frame that will test your ability. When confronted by an attacker, this can easily be the difference between successfully defending yourself and a tragically misplaced shot.

For example, AK103 posts:

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.

I have NEVER seen anyone point shooting at 5-7 yards who was even close to as effective as someone using their sights. At 5-7 yards you're bringing the gun up anyway, it takes no additional time to confirm a flash sight picture. But who knows, as long as AK103 is careful not to actually compare his technique against others, he may be right. Could be that he's the best point shooter in the world.

As kraigwy (someone who both competes and teaches, therefore has some valid reference points) points out, point shooting is very effective at 1 or 2 yards. But at 25 feet (8 yards), he teaches use of sights.

Best thing for most people here to do is keep shooting the way you are, believe that it's the best thing possible, and be very careful NOT to take any classes or participate any activity that would actually evaluate your technique!

 

[Pond James Pond]

Best thing for most people here to do is keep shooting the way you are, believe that it's the best thing possible, and be very careful NOT to take any classes or participate any activity that would actually evaluate your technique!

Look, as thread OP, I am interested in all opinions that come to the table whether I agree with the content or not, but I don't see a great deal of benefit in sarcasm and condescension.

I don't recall seeing the same tone from other posters so far.

I don't doubt that you have useful insight to share, given your background, but how you say it can have a great deal of influence on whether people see it as useful or belligerent.

 

[WW2]

Fast and Effective point shooting

Just watch a SASS fastdraw competition. You will see EXTREMELY fast and effective point shooting. The competitors in this competition that use their sights rarely move beyond the first couple of rounds. You must HIT the target to move on. A miss means you are "dead" and out of the competition.

See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MBj8PPnZtm0 as an example.

I enjoy fastdraw and have not used my sights when doing so. Typical distance to target is 5 to 7 yards. It has been many years since I participated so I don't know the actual distance used today.

Also in cowboy action shooting (Also SASS) you do use your sights. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1BwUJ4--Qw the video is only 40 seconds long and starts with 20 seconds of two guys shooting the bull before the need to shoot in "Self Defense" pops up. Ten rounds of .45 Colt from two SA revolvers, 9 or 10 rounds of .45 Colt from a lever action rifle and 5 rounds of 12 gauge from a pump shotgun that started unloaded (only 4 targets, he missed one) all done in under 19 seconds! That's 25 rounds from 4 different guns including loading the shotgun and 10 different targets!

 

[Deaf Smith]

So why aren't these SASS fast draw shooters in IPSC or IDPA?

Kind of strange.

Now I do know, since I have been in IPSC and IDPA for 30 or so years, that after a while you can develop an index where the draw and 'stance' allows you to form the index even before the sights come into alignment and at the closer ranges that is all you need (it's the old 'see what you need to see'), but I assure you, it takes lots of practice and competition to get that skill.

Unless the shooter is going to dedicate alot of practice to form a index before the sights are even seen, then using the sights is the better way, even if all you see is a rough sight picture.

Deaf

 

[Bentonville]

I apologize for my ignorance but please explain what "shooting over the gun" means. Thanks. I am really enjoying this thread.

 

[AK103K]

I have NEVER seen anyone point shooting at 5-7 yards who was even close to as effective as someone using their sights. At 5-7 yards you're bringing the gun up anyway, it takes no additional time to confirm a flash sight picture. But who knows, as long as AK103 is careful not to actually compare his technique against others, he may be right. Could be that he's the best point shooter in the world.

Again, and I am saying it again here, regardless if Im cold molasses slow, or mach II fast, "time" is still meaningless, when I compare the targets I shoot with sights and without, when shot in this specific manner Im shooting them.

When Im moving, and I use the sights, in any manner, my hits on target, are not as good, as my hits when fired shooting instinctively, over the top of the gun, and focused on the target. I could care less what youve "never seen",

Im not saying Im something special or some super point shooter, nothing of the sort, Im simply saying "I" do better when Im moving, shooting instinctively, and not trying to deal with the sights. Thats all. If you can do better using your sights, more power to you.

Im also referring to shooting at speed, while moving quickly off the "X", and engaging the targets as you go, coming up to near full speed. Im not referring to running into a box on the line, and firing from a static position, as a couple of the matches Ive shot here locally are set up. They dont want you running and shooting, nor do they even set their stages up for that.


Those targets I posted above, were shot under full motion, and accelerating as I went. I wasnt standing still from the time I started drawing my gun as quickly moved off the "X", until I stopped shooting. The only target shown that I shot "statically" (4th one down), using my sights, was the one with the small group just above the nose. Every other round on those targets was fired under motion, and coming near to a dead run.

I can shoot tight little groups using the sights if I stand still, thats easy. Its easy shooting instinctively as well. I cant do it while moving, and flash sight picture or not, the harder I try to deal with the sights, the longer it takes, and the results are still not as good. I may not have a timer going to prove it (yet), but I do know the cadence of how I usually shoot when shooting over the gun while moving, and it isnt near the same as when I try to shoot using the sights. Nor do I move as fast across the ground while using them. I find myself slowing my pace to deal with the sights.

If you want to use your sights in every instance, have at it, you seem you seem convinced thats what you need to do, and Im not telling you not to. Im still not convinced that under stress in an actual life and death situation, youre going to focus on those sights, or if you do, you will do as well, than if you have some "instinctive" skills ingrained into your psyche as well.

Id rather be comfortable going from one to the other and back as I (subconsciously) deem necessary, than to find out at an inconvenient time, I should have been practicing some other things that gave me the option to adapt to whatever might pop up.

But, thats why I tend to shy away from the "games" anymore, and seek out things somewhat more "realistic".

All we can do, is keep trying to learn more and keep moving on. If we make the wrong choices, or limit ourselves to one technique, we're the one who pays in the end if we were unprepared to adapt.

 

[AK103K]

I apologize for my ignorance but please explain what "shooting over the gun" means.

It means the gun is just below your line of sight, and your brain is using the gun and your hands to index it.

You dont look at or focus on the gun, you focus on the target as you shoot and at the point on the target you want to hit.

 

[45_auto]

I find myself slowing my pace to deal with the sights.

Get some real training, engage in some effective practice, and you'll be amazed at how well you do.

Or not, your choice.

"time" is still meaningless, when I compare the targets I shoot with sights and without, when shot in this specific manner Im shooting them.

I've never seen a combat shooting methodology in which time is meaningless, but since you seem to have discovered your specific manner which lets you shoot in a time warp, you probably should stay with it!

 

[AK103K]

Get some real training, engage in some effective practice, and you'll be amazed at how well you do.

Hey, Im very happy with how its going, you seem to be the one with the issue.

I've never seen a combat shooting methodology in which time is meaningless, but since you seem to have discovered your specific manner which lets you shoot in a time warp, you probably should stay with it!

You seem to be completely missing the point here. Is it intentional or what?

 

[JohnKSa]

...which lets you shoot in a time warp...

Less sarcasm will help keep the discussion alive (i.e. thread unlocked) longer.

That said, when a claim is made that one method outperforms another, it's eminently reasonable to ask for a quantified assessment rather than a subjective statement. Since one of the keystones of point shooting is that it's supposed to be faster than the use of sights, it's also reasonable to expect time to be part of that quantified assessment in this particular case.

 

[DT Guy]

I agree with John; you have to measure the three sides of the triangle (target, distance and time) to come up with valid data.

Now if only we could get large numbers of shooters together and have them shoot at various targets, at various distances, while a disinterested third party times them and then scores their hits....we could use that as a 'laboratory' where we could determine the best techniques.

Hmmm, I wonder how we could do that?

While I see people (and have myself) point shooting at powder-burn distances in competition, anything beyond that tends to be sighted fire, even if only with a 'flash' sight picture. I think the laboratory of competition has demonstrated pretty conclusively that when accuracy, distance and time are scored objectively, sighted fire is *usually* the best way to get fast, accurate hits on the target.


Larry

 

[zincwarrior]

Not understanding the issue. Do what works for you - but practice.

I "point shoot" at short range if I'm not firing from cover, but if I stop and go through what I am doing, I'm actually aiming with the sight. Just at that distance its reflexive and I don't realize it as I am firing once the pistol reaches extension.