Self-Defense Shooting is NOT Bullseye Shooting

Status
Not open for further replies.
I would define center mass on a human target as an 8" diameter pie plate.
On dealing with lethal force on a single human with a firearm...such as with a pistol or a rifle, is to put the subject down with a volley of fast accurate fire, so as to make him incapable of returning fire.

If the bad guy's shoulder is the only target exposed to my field of fire...I'll go for the shoulder.
Two shots into one center mass hole, in 1.5 seconds --- is effective---but six shots in 1.5 seconds, all over the human body torso, is alot more efficient.
That means....I'm not worried about wasting meat on a human target, such as I would be worried about wasting meat on a gunshot deer. It means that I'm going to take fast effective/efficient shots all over the human torso, too a bad guy that deserves it.
 
When it comes to accuracy and speed, training for either without the other is setting yourself up for failure.
 
Self defense isn't bullseye,

BUT;

It certainly wont hurt.

I shoot a lot of bullseye, it hasn't slowed down or affected my ability to get my 642 out of my pocket and on target at bad breath distance.

If you were to take you pocket revolver and practice some bullseye, you wont win, but you'll certainly improve your abilities with your self defense gun.

I also, practice bowling pins, steel, ICORE and other action type matches with my 642.
 
This is the same argument as point shooting vs aiming.

Sometimes two things are complimentary.
Click to expand...

Actually point shooting IS a form of aiming. In point shooting you still index your body to the target as well as the shooting arm.

See all aiming with sights does is make a more solid index on the target. The sights form the index. Sighted fire you still index part of your body and shooting arm(s) to achieve faster indexes.

Jeff Cooper wrote that if you cannot see your sights (as in night or near-night conditions) then perform the same presentation (draw that is) AS IF YOU COULD SEE THE SIGHTS. I.E. you form the same index!

Deaf
 
The biggest myth in training is that one can prepare (train) for any and all situation(s). That is just not possible, especially on most ranges. One has to build enough confidence and expertise enough to handle the unexpected. (How can one train on a conventional range for a situation like dealing with a car-jacking? Where do you park the car? Will it bother you if you blow a hole in your car door while training? Will your insurance cover a bullet into the overhead camshaft?)

As for aim vs. point, the difference, normally, is the distance. At three feet, no one is going to "acquire a sight picture" - the BG may well have a knife and "acquire a picture" of your insides first. Remember, that just displaying a gun will NOT always stop the BG, and a good knife artist will slice and dice you if you don't stop him instantly.

To me, all the "combat shooting" games are just that - games. In that respect they are no different from bullseye shooting and have as little relevance to real world conditions. The real difference was brought out by the famous Ed McGivern, who was the fastest man with a revolver in the world (at that time). When asked if he could have beaten some Old West lawman, he replied that he would lose - the difference was that he (McGivern) was a shooter while the old lawman was a killer.

The main requirement in training is not in the stance, or trigger control, or sight picture. It is acquiring the skills and mindset of a killer without becoming a murderer.

Jim
 
The main requirement in training is not in the stance, or trigger control, or sight picture. It is acquiring the skills and mindset of a killer without becoming a murderer.
Click to expand...

Thank you. I feel people have this washed up idea that they can just buy and gun and call it a day. They keyword in the term "gunfight" is "fight". With whatever it is you have. The main point is for the good guys to come home. At whatever the cost. They won't show and honor or mercy. They chose a life of crime and do whatever it takes to get what they want, which is just what you have. Everything from the watch on your wrist to your life. So why not train for the worst and hope for the best? Why handicap yourself?

What stops a bad guy with a gun? A good guy with a gun.

Why do you carry that gun? Yes, to save your life. But why a gun? To stop the person trying to potentially end your life. At all costs. We train for center of mass under stress for a reason, it's the biggest target and has the 2nd best vitals with the head being runner up. Even then there have been insane occurrences.

Why do we train with the "Mozambique Drill"? So make sure that that threat is gone.

Train hard and train under stress. Take a class. Many classes. I myself want to take more and more classes. From different people. There is always something new to learn. You can take from every class and incorporate it into yourself. Open mindedness is key. Drop the ego. I go in as a "new shooter". I keep that mentality. Am I a new shooter? No...but I'm new in that class and I'm a lifetime student. They're there to help you. (and make money)
 
The biggest myth in training is that one can prepare (train) for any and all situation(s). That is just not possible, especially on most ranges. One has to build enough confidence and expertise enough to handle the unexpected. (How can one train on a conventional range for a situation like dealing with a car-jacking? Where do you park the car? Will it bother you if you blow a hole in your car door while training? Will your insurance cover a bullet into the overhead camshaft?)

As for aim vs. point, the difference, normally, is the distance. At three feet, no one is going to "acquire a sight picture" - the BG may well have a knife and "acquire a picture" of your insides first. Remember, that just displaying a gun will NOT always stop the BG, and a good knife artist will slice and dice you if you don't stop him instantly.

To me, all the "combat shooting" games are just that - games. In that respect they are no different from bullseye shooting and have as little relevance to real world conditions. The real difference was brought out by the famous Ed McGivern, who was the fastest man with a revolver in the world (at that time). When asked if he could have beaten some Old West lawman, he replied that he would lose - the difference was that he (McGivern) was a shooter while the old lawman was a killer.

The main requirement in training is not in the stance, or trigger control, or sight picture. It is acquiring the skills and mindset of a killer without becoming a murderer.
Click to expand...

I think I'm going to get this printed up on some nice heavy card stock and have it framed. Can't disagree with a single word.
 
One trains so they can adapt to different situations. As Bruce Lee said, "Adapt, improvise, overcome".

See, the stances you learn in shooting (or marital arts) are not set in stone. You learn them in training and also learn to adapt them for in real life it won't be anything like the dojo or gun range (even the dynamic gun ranges.)

Competition helps one learn to adapt. Be it IPSC/IDPA/NRA etc... or just about any marital arts tournament (including boxing and MMA). The faster and more dynamic the tournament the more you learn to adapt.

But even then, it isn't a real fight.

Deaf
 
Obviously, it's best to be both fast and accurate.
But as a rule, as speed increases accuracy almost always decreases.
I honestly think that most folks who practice "combat shooting" would do better to SLOW DOWN.
Take the time to actually aim, and YES, use that front sight.

It is frightening how often police and military personnel miss their target in shootouts.
And every miss could mean another dead innocent bystander.
 
It is frightening how often police and military personnel miss their target in shootouts.
Click to expand...

Police and military often engage their targets at greater distances than your typical CCW SD or HD situation. You can find plenty of videos of normal people involved in shootings that miss plenty as well, especially as distance increases.
 
Actually for police the main reason they miss alot (well some do but some don't!) is they tend to be ambushed. Cop killers don't wait for the cop to draw, nor do they warn them they are going to try to take their lives.

Of course there are exceptions. Some cops just loose it and spray 100 rounds or so and hit a few bystanders (or hostages as in NY.) Others are quite accurate.

The military tend to, on the other hand, ambush others! But their antagonist also have lots of automatic weapons as well as RPGs and mortars. That tends to force the military to expend ammo to keep the other side down while they maneuver (like flanking) or generate fire superiority.

Deaf
 
I used to obsess over shooting bullseyes. Then I took my ccw class taught by a gentleman who specialized in self defense shooting. Now, as long as I can draw and double tap an 81/2 x 11 sheet of paper quickly, I am smiling big. In fact, the ccw instructor pointed out that my double tap producing one large ragged hole wasn't as effective a deterrent to a bad guy as 2 nice holes 4 to 5 inches apart.

One of the reasons many LEO's aren't more proficient is because many small departments only alot them 100 rounds per year for practice (unless they buy their own ammo to practice with).

Shooting well is a diminishing skill, if you don't practice, you don't retain your skill level.
 
Actually the majority of LEO's simply don't care about shooting. They came for the badge, prestige, uniform, and civil service benefits.

To them qualification with their guns is a hassle and bore.

Deaf
 
Deaf Smith blabs:
Actually the majority of LEO's simply don't care about shooting. They came for the badge, prestige, uniform, and civil service benefits.
Click to expand...

Your continued display of your disdain for LEOs got really old quite some time ago. Dispite your lack of knowledge on the subject, and your public hate, those LEOs will continue to embrace the "prestige" of being willing to lay down their lives for you.

How about a little mature and responsible dialog on these topics instead of turning every one into the "Here's why Deaf Smith hates cops" showcase?


Sgt Lumpy
 
SgtLumpy,

A lot of my friends are LEO.

While Deaf may (or may not) dislike cops, I do not.

That said, among the cops I know, Deaf mostly isn't wrong about their enthusiasm for shooting.

In my experience, more rural cops / deputy sheriffs are shooting hobbyists than not, while more city cops are not shooting hobbyists than are.

Also, in my experience, the more gun control an area has, the less likely its cops are to be shooting enthusiasts. Of course there are exceptions, but those are trends I've noted.

My cop friends and acquaintances who are NOT shooting enthusiasts tend to look at things this way:

1) People interaction skills are used much more often, and can head off trouble;

2) Hand to hand, mace, and Taser are much more likely to actually be employed than are guns;

3) The department only provides the minimum ammo required for training and recurrent qual, and they are already working security gigs at night or overtime for the department to make ends meet.

My cop friends and acquaintances who ARE shooting enthusiasts generally tend to come from military backgrounds, or were country boys growing up; some of them go for SWAT / ESU or equivalent, one was HRT, a couple were training officers.

Generally speaking (and again there are exceptions), I can outshoot most of the cops I know - but not the HRT guy (by a long stretch), and only on a PAR with the former Customs raid guy.
 
I think this one's run its course, now that we're debating cop motivations instead of discussing the original topic.

Closed.

pax
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top