point shooting vs aimed shooting

C

cana

New member
Some people say that in a gunfight, you won't be able to see the front sight. Other people say that you'll be able to see your sights, just like in a range session. I wanna know if anyone here who has been in a gunfight has seen (or not) the sights. Point shooting vs Aimed shooting really confuses me, but i think that in short distances you'd better point shoot. Also, is there any PD that trains cops to use point shooting more than aimed shooting?

Thanks in advance for your help, guys
 
This topic has been discussed at great length. I can tell you our conty Sheriff's Office does train point shooting at close yardage. The other agencies still teach front sight even if just a "flash".
 
Hello, Cana. Yes, you can see your sights in a gunfight depending on light, at least in my case. There is a place for point shooting and aimed fire in my opinion although I'd try and go for the flash sight picture whenever possible. Best.
 
As Ron pointed out this topic has been discussed at length here. (Since you are new here you would have no way of knowing that and the remark is meant as no disrespect.) When the topic is brought up I have not commented heretofore. You must understand that gunfights are personal for lack of a better term and not especially talked about by those whom have been invovled in one.
Without elaborating, yes, I have been invovled in two gunfights. No, the sights were not used.
One department I worked for would not alow the officers to use their sights at any range closer than 15 yards. If one was "caught" using their sights closer they were admonished severly. I rarely use sights for anything closer than 15 yards and score high 290's out of a possible 300.

It is a valid question but don't expect a great deal of response.

------------------
Gunslinger

We live in a time in which attitudes and deeds once respected as courageous and honorable are now scorned as being antiquated and subversive.
 
Police are trained in, and tested on, current shooting methods of applying deadly force in close quarters armed encounters.

However, a review of 900+ videos of shootouts, shows that those shooting methods ARE NOT used in real close quarters (CQ) shootouts.

Futher, police shootout accuracy is very bad. Four out of every five bullets shot by police in CQ armed encounters, miss.

Here is what a training expert, the one who reviewed the 900+ vidoes said, "You still ASSUME you will look at the gun in a real shooting. Wish we could find it on REAL videos of such things. We are still looking 900+ videos later."

The current shooting methods being taught are: Sight Shooting (using one or both sights to shoot with), and Point Shooting (pointing the gun at the target without the use of the sights and shooting). Sight Shooting does not occur, and Point Shooting defaults to Point and Blast.

I have seen several such videos. In them, shooters do not aim. They just point their guns and blast away.

I am an advocate of the P&S method of shooting. It is a natural and instinctive method of AIMED close quarters shooting that allows one to aim a gun fast, automatically, and accurately at night or day, in all kinds of conditions, and with little or no training. It also works with most standard sized guns and it's FREE. As such, it may be a method that you should look at.

Here's a brief on it. P&S is AIMED shooting that utilizes our instinctive ability to aim our index finger automatically, fast, and accurately at anything. The index finger can be used to aim a gun fast, automatically, and accurately at a target. You place your index finger along the side of a gun, point it at a target, and pull the trigger with your middle or left index finger.

Just point and pull. No more, no less. It's a no brainer, and it works because the gun barrel becomes a slave to the index finger. And because the action is instinctive, it can be used in close quarters shooting situations where instincts take over and rule.

It is not new, but it is not well known and accepted in the gun community as a survival shooting method. I was told to use it and did use it away back in 54 when I qualifed with a sub-machine gun. It worked then, and still does.

Also, with the move to DAO guns and heavier trigger pull requirements for safety purposes, using the middle finger to pull the trigger will become popular over time, as it is scientifically the stronger and superior digit for pulling the trigger in terms of body mechanics and accuracy.

More information on the P&S method of shooting and scientific evidence in support of it, is available on my web site. The URL is: http://members.aol.com/okjoe/ps.htm

There is a picture there of Jack Ruby using P&S to shoot and kill Oswald with one shot. P&S works.
 
Point shooting at extremely close range is accepted by most schools of thought on combat and defensive shooting. The key word here is "extremely."

Front sight, flash sight, etc shooting is taught by the lion's share of combat and defensive institutions out there. Yes, the majority of prominent instructors who have been involved in shootings who teach fromt sight, squeeze. Look around. Search these and other forums.

I have never had to fire, and hope never to, though my recollection of the "almost" shootings all revolve around clear pictures of my front sight centered on the subject's upper torso.

Erik

[This message has been edited by Erik (edited April 12, 2000).]
 
Hi, guys,

There is definitely a range factor. No one would use the sights at a distance of two feet. No one would point shoot at 50 yards if sights could possibly be used.

Between the two is a point that will vary with the skill of the shooter and the practice involved. Practice can extend that point outward to 5 feet, 10 feet, 10 yards or more.

At one time, I could shoot bottles off a fence at 50 feet with a K22, point shooting, DA. Note the ".22". I could not have afforded to shoot any other caliber enough to get that good. And I didn't use any fancy techniques, or modifications to the gun except a Fitz grip adapter.

Neither point shooting or sight shooting is the whole answer. Too much depends on the circumstances and the speed required, as well as the mental attitude and state of training.

Training is also neither a panacea nor is it, as some contend, worthless. But too much training involves simple mechanical practice with the gun, and too little with mental control in an emergency situation.

Jim
 
You will fight the way you train, if your training is proper and you stay current. Part of that training should maybe included some index shooting, but that's up to you.

If you really think it's possible to hit accurately wihout sighting in SOME way, try this-shoot at a target with something solid blocking your view of the gun at all. See if you can hit a target without being able to at least index the muzzle. Chances are, you won't.
There's aimed shooting using the sights, and there's aimed shooting using index principles, but true unaimed shooting usually results in misses except at contact ranges.

------------------
Shoot straight regards, Richard at The Shottist's Center

[This message has been edited by 45King (edited April 12, 2000).]
 
okjoe at aol.com
I just looked at your webpage...
Finger Rests?
Point Shooting worked for Jack Ruby because it was almost a contact shot.
You stick a pistol in someone's gut and you'll score a hit. Whats the point.

CANA - Most gunfighting schools teach Aimed fire for a very good reason. Think about it.

I have seen plenty of police shooting videos myself... You know what I saw?
I saw aimed fire - flash sight shooting from an iso stance... while moving. Results, the Officer survived - the criminal didn't.
I also saw aimed fire from Weaver stances. Same results as above.
The point shooting I observed resulted in the criminal getting away and the officer calling for a medic.

Aimed Fire will win. Being fast doesnt mean anything if you miss.
I know this for a fact - first hand.




------------------
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
 
front sight is a religion that does not take heretics well.

after 5yards, i need sights quite frankly. a larger ammo budget could probably take that to 7yards.

bill jordan, advocated point shooting up to 7 yards (the max distance of most shootings). but pistol craft is a religion of the cooper shcool that also does not taking heretics very well either.

read that cops shot almost 200rds at columbine, missed the suckers too. (plusp wasn't around so i had to do say something about a miss rate by professionals).

[This message has been edited by 6forsure (edited April 12, 2000).]
 
I will *NEVER* train to point shoot, even at two feet! Why? Anything that can go wrong, usually will. People have shot and missed, even at short ranges. Try explaining in civil and/or criminal court the fact that you hit the innocent little 6 year old girl in the head, killing her with a shot meant for the Bag 'o Sh*t felon because he was within 15 yards and you have trained not to aim within that range!! Good luck, and don't drop the soap in the showers!!

IMHO, it's hard enough these days to justify an intentional self defense shooting of the "Bag" that you hit with aimed fire.

Your training and level of awareness when the encounter starts will greatly determine whether or not you see your sights. If you don't train enough and are in condition white (totally oblivious to your surroundings) when the feces hits the fan, you won't use your sites and will probably lose because of your decided disadvantage of being caught off guard. If you train and practice regularly and stay aware of yor surroundings and spot the threat before it strikes, chances are your training will kick in and you will be able to see your sites.

JMHO,
R6
 
I began my P&S quest in 1997. Then I did not know all of what I do now. As I have gone along, I have been beaten often and soundly about the head and shoulders with blustery words by my obvious betters, but I have yet to be put in my place with any hard facts. I also have been given encouragement and more information from time to time, which has only added to and firmed up my thinking that change is not only necessary, but a must.

I take full responsibility for not making things crystal clear to all, and for not having a perfect solution fully staffed out, tested, produced, put in a box, and tied up all nice and pretty with a satin bow, and then presented on a silver tray for approval.

My solution or any another, may not be perfect and require changes in both means and methods. So what? Something better than just pointing a gun and blasting away, which is what is done now, is needed.

If I would be in a CQ gunfight, I would be very glad if the other SOB used sight shooting and squeezed off rounds after he/she quieted the gun down after it recoiled with each shot. Let's here it for the short lived sight shooting bullseye guys.

Also, I will now butt out. You have all heard too much from me on this before and now.

- - - - - - -
6forsure's comments make the most sense 2 me. What we have here is a gun jihad.
- - - - - - -
Dingy dang, Bobby Joe, what do you rekon we should do about that?
- - - - - - -

Edited 9:07 am



[This message has been edited by okjoe at aol.com (edited April 12, 2000).]
 
FWIW, being a professional cop does not automatically meant that you are a "professional" shooter. As departments and agencies are getting more and more "green" new hires to try and fill positions, they are getting more poeple that have never held a gun. They teach them enough about shooting to pass a qualifying course with a minimum requirement of around 70-80% accuracy and then put them on the street.

Shooting statistics, like ballistic data reports,are questionable at best. Given enough similar shooting incidents you could use the statistics to either prove or disprove ANY technique. There are simply to many variables involved in real life situations to "monday morning quarterback" them.

I'd rather take the extra second it takes to see the sights than to empty a clip a second quicker and put them into non-vital parts of the body, or much worse, into the air around the target. If you miss, you lose regardless of how fast you got your shots off. A slightly slower vital hit is tons better than a fast miss or non-fatal hit in ANY situation. If I am ever involved in a gunfire exchange, I hope they use point shooting. If your gun hits where the sights point, sighted shot is always superior to a pointed shot, barring pure luck.

FWIW, training and practice will put you much closer to the slightly quicker point shoot times than a slower, deliberate sighted bullseye target shot.

FWIW. like the "which bullet is best" argurment, this one will never be settled. :D

Cheers,
R6
 
An excellent tape to review is "Shooting for Keeps" by Col. Rex Applegate, from Paladin.
In close to 50 years as a LE firearms instructor, I have never found answers that could be distilled into reliable advice. I am, at the present consulting with top medical and psychological doctors and hope to have some usable data published before I die.
I do know this for absolute certain: In my two worst lethal encounters, both of which happened at about 30 feet, I used pure point shooting. I was a reasonably proficient bullseye shooter, but in both of the cases citged, I was returning fire reactively.
I have a friend who was a captain and a firearms instructor, who could consistently hit a silhouette target in the K zone at 75 yards from the hip. This man could not get successive hits on the target with aimed fire full auto, using the same M-1 carbine. I believe this was due to the much harder grip he applied when point shooting, that was not possible from an aimed fire position.
I don't teach point shooting from the hip; only from the extended point. Aimed fire, but not sighted fire.
 
Everyone I know as well as myself who has been there has point shot.Some of these were out to as far as 10 yards and further all with good results.To be honest I dont know anyone who has used the sights on the street. I am sure some people do just no one I know.Why fight your bodys natural desire to look at the threat, when it happens you are fighting enough things without adding more.
 
Oh, Lordy, not again.

Okay. Those who cite the 'Police Miss Ratio' would do well to research what is defined as a 'miss'. The results may be enlightening.

Been there. Used the sights.

LawDog

[This message has been edited by LawDog (edited April 12, 2000).]
 
Into the fray...

Whether you see the sights or not is really a matter of training. Even the good LTC COOPER says that you may not see the sights the moment the shot breaks, but when you do it will confirm that your shot was on target.

Think of it this way. When you train you are conditioning yourself. When I have been a coach at the range, I could instantly tell who was focusing on the target and who was watching their sights. The soldiers who focused on the target invariably were shooting at the outside edges of the target, regardless of how big or small the target was. Front sight shooters always had much tighter groups.

Thus, my opinion (and I'm in good company) is that when you TRAIN you are conditioning a minimum arc of movement. The probability is that stress will open up the arc of movement of the weapon, therefore if you are already shooting a wide group, you will shoot even wider. A shooter conditioned to shoot tight groups may have his groups open up, but whose groups will be tighter in the end. A buddy of mine actually shot faster and more accurately under stress.

Whether you see the sights or not will also depend on how YOU perform. No it is not impossible to see your sights, many shooters have. Many shooters have also not seen their sights. Nothing is proven. Pointing at lots of videos is entirely irrelevant and is operating on a faulty assumption. How many LEO's are good shooters?

The assumption is that LEO's are trained shooters. Of these trained shooters, a certain percentage are involved in gunfights, and a percentage of those involved in gunfights either do or do not use their sights.

Sounds good, but the reality is that most officers are relatively poor shots, and do not train consistently, nor do they train properly. So the reality is that most officers involved in shootings are probably not highly trained, dedicated shooters, making the large array of shootout videos available an invalid argument for point shooting. It only proves how a poorly trained shooter will perform a certain percentage of the time. Of course that is operating on the assumption that most officers in gunfights are poor shots. The argument gets circular here.

Sports psychology has given us arousal theory and the inverted U hypotheses. Essentially, with a certain amount of training and a certain amount of stress we will perform at a "peak" level. If there is too much stress then performance declines. Both the level of stress and the level at which the athlete is trained are factors in performance. Thus the better trained and psychologically conditioned athlete will have an advantage and a higher "arousal" level. In other words he/she will better be able to cope with stress.

The point: train hard and train realistic and you will use your sights if that is the way you have trained.

Chuck
 
However, a review of 900+ videos of shootouts, shows that those shooting methods ARE NOT used in real close quarters (CQ) shootouts.

The question has been asked many times, never answered, and is now asked again: What was the training and practice history of those doing the shooting? The "900+ videos" line remains meaningless unless some basic relevant statistics are produced.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top