The recent threads about whether or not to defend yourself and about whether or not you can outdraw someone else has got me to thinking about point shooting. If there was ever a controversial topic, this is it.
I did bring up the subject in one of those threads and at least one person responded that, probably, he would be point shooting. So does anyone practice that? Do you think you should? Or is it a bad idea that we picked up from television and the movies.
One thing is that "point shooting" is an elastic term that can be used pretty much as we see fit. It doesn't have to be hip shooting and I doubt if it matters which way we are facing when we are shooting. I'm not even sure if it even has to be one handed or not. But I have noticed a few things from watching other people.
When people shooting handguns are using a two-handed grip and an isosceles stance, I have noticed that frequently they adjust the grip of the supporting hand, sometimes after each shot. I don't know if that means the grip of the other hand is weak or poorly placed or what. But it slows down the shooting. But perhaps more practiced handgunners do not do that and maybe they even use a different stance. I am referring here to just ordinary people, too, not national champions. Either way, the isosceles stance has been around for a long time.
I find the Weaver stance a little more natural, though that doesn't mean it will give a better result and I suspect I might have been continually adjusting the grip of the supporting hand, too. With a powerful revolver, depending on precisely how you are holding on with your support hand, you may lose contact anyway. I won't go so far as to say it makes a difference but with a heavy recoiling revolver, the shooting will not be fast anyway. But what a "heavy recoiling revolver" is, is another matter. Automatics, on the other hand, have a different dynamic, at least some do, and repeat shots can be quicker.
But if you are close to a human target or anything else with hands, sticking the gun out in front of you is risky. So it would seem that for very close in "work," one hand point shooting is called for.
I think maybe writers old and new may come across in their books and articles as a little more dogmatic than they may actually be. A great deal of flexibility is called for in shooting because in real life, there are no lines on the ground, no timers, no fixed distances, and no neat circles to shoot at. One could even say the distance is always too close (for comfort), the target is hard to see (it may not be broad daylight), and the target refuses to hold still. I don't know if it is relevant to discuss in this thread what distances from the threat is "safe" and what isn't. Chances are, if you can see the threat, it isn't safe. Thoughts on the subject?
I did bring up the subject in one of those threads and at least one person responded that, probably, he would be point shooting. So does anyone practice that? Do you think you should? Or is it a bad idea that we picked up from television and the movies.
One thing is that "point shooting" is an elastic term that can be used pretty much as we see fit. It doesn't have to be hip shooting and I doubt if it matters which way we are facing when we are shooting. I'm not even sure if it even has to be one handed or not. But I have noticed a few things from watching other people.
When people shooting handguns are using a two-handed grip and an isosceles stance, I have noticed that frequently they adjust the grip of the supporting hand, sometimes after each shot. I don't know if that means the grip of the other hand is weak or poorly placed or what. But it slows down the shooting. But perhaps more practiced handgunners do not do that and maybe they even use a different stance. I am referring here to just ordinary people, too, not national champions. Either way, the isosceles stance has been around for a long time.
I find the Weaver stance a little more natural, though that doesn't mean it will give a better result and I suspect I might have been continually adjusting the grip of the supporting hand, too. With a powerful revolver, depending on precisely how you are holding on with your support hand, you may lose contact anyway. I won't go so far as to say it makes a difference but with a heavy recoiling revolver, the shooting will not be fast anyway. But what a "heavy recoiling revolver" is, is another matter. Automatics, on the other hand, have a different dynamic, at least some do, and repeat shots can be quicker.
But if you are close to a human target or anything else with hands, sticking the gun out in front of you is risky. So it would seem that for very close in "work," one hand point shooting is called for.
I think maybe writers old and new may come across in their books and articles as a little more dogmatic than they may actually be. A great deal of flexibility is called for in shooting because in real life, there are no lines on the ground, no timers, no fixed distances, and no neat circles to shoot at. One could even say the distance is always too close (for comfort), the target is hard to see (it may not be broad daylight), and the target refuses to hold still. I don't know if it is relevant to discuss in this thread what distances from the threat is "safe" and what isn't. Chances are, if you can see the threat, it isn't safe. Thoughts on the subject?