What do you think about point shooting?
- Thread starter RastaMan
- Start date
- Status
Do a search on "point shooting" and "hip shooting". You'll find several threads on this topic.
As for me... I've been taught sighted shooting most of my life. However, I do sometimes practice the one-handed "point shooting" techniques when I have the ability to practice from a holster. Why? Because that's the most likely to save my life in a crunch.
If you carry concealed then the most likely thing is for someone to get close to you before getting hostile. If this happens, you won't necessarily have the time and distance needed to bring the gun to eye level. And in some cases, even if you did, you'd only be presenting your oppoent with a chance to grab -- or slap away -- your weapon. Drawing and firing from the old "FBI crouch" position or even what's called a "speed rock"¹ position is more in line with reality.
Reality says that any gunfight you're involved in will NOT be anything like what you trained for. It will be inelegant, chaotic, clumsy and imperfect. Your opponent will refuse to stand there like a B-27 silhoutte and may run, hide or attack. One example is the night you stop for bread & milk at the grocery and decide to buy your wife that expensive bottle of wine too. When you leave, your weakhand is encumbered and you don't want to drop that expensive bottle. That's when crap happens. Knowing how to shoot with one hand without using the sights may save your bacon (or wine).
¹ The Speed Rock technique is used in extreme CQB (bad breath distance). You draw the gun from the holster, rock your elbow down and hand up so the gun is level and fire from just above or above/forward of the holster. This keeps the gun retained from a grab while allowing you to fire.
As for me... I've been taught sighted shooting most of my life. However, I do sometimes practice the one-handed "point shooting" techniques when I have the ability to practice from a holster. Why? Because that's the most likely to save my life in a crunch.
If you carry concealed then the most likely thing is for someone to get close to you before getting hostile. If this happens, you won't necessarily have the time and distance needed to bring the gun to eye level. And in some cases, even if you did, you'd only be presenting your oppoent with a chance to grab -- or slap away -- your weapon. Drawing and firing from the old "FBI crouch" position or even what's called a "speed rock"¹ position is more in line with reality.
Reality says that any gunfight you're involved in will NOT be anything like what you trained for. It will be inelegant, chaotic, clumsy and imperfect. Your opponent will refuse to stand there like a B-27 silhoutte and may run, hide or attack. One example is the night you stop for bread & milk at the grocery and decide to buy your wife that expensive bottle of wine too. When you leave, your weakhand is encumbered and you don't want to drop that expensive bottle. That's when crap happens. Knowing how to shoot with one hand without using the sights may save your bacon (or wine).
¹ The Speed Rock technique is used in extreme CQB (bad breath distance). You draw the gun from the holster, rock your elbow down and hand up so the gun is level and fire from just above or above/forward of the holster. This keeps the gun retained from a grab while allowing you to fire.
spacecoast
New member
In a SD situation, it's highly unlikely that you will have a choice but to point shoot, whether or not you have practiced it. If you don't carry, and don't have any loaded guns at home for SD, then don't bother, but if you want to do as well as possible in such a situation then you should practice point shooting.
Best way to get started with practice is to take a SD shooting class, they will (or should) show you close-range point shooting techniques, including shooting from the retention position.
Best way to get started with practice is to take a SD shooting class, they will (or should) show you close-range point shooting techniques, including shooting from the retention position.
redstategunnut
New member
To completely rip off one of the premier point shooting instructors out there, the answer is that it is not "either / or" it is "both." Point shooting is applicable on the continuum where the initiative, distance and circumstances of the situation call for it. This would typically, but not always, be when you are in a reactionary position, in close proximity to the threat, and working to get off the x and take back the initiative. If you survive that process, the application of sights may be in order.
Take a class. You'll get it.
Take a class. You'll get it.
In a non-gun scenario...
... this is kind of like debating whether it's better technique to attack to the weak side or strong side of an assailant in a hand-to-hand scenario.
The answer is: who knows, until it happens?
If I notice the attack early enough, I should be able to go either way. If I don't, the options get much more limited.
If I'm perfectly balanced, I can lead with either foot. If most of my weight is on one foot or the other, I pretty much have to lead with the less-weighted foot.
You get the idea - there are a bunch of variables that will prevent me from making the call until the time comes.
Here's the thing, though - if I haven't trained to lead from either foot, attack to either side, move forward and back and to either side, use either hand or both at once - and if I haven't trained to do any and all of those things instinctively - then when the time comes I'll have to think about it. And the odds are I will not have time to think. That scenario leads most folks to freeze like deer in the headlights.
So, I practice all that stuff, several hours a week.
Not much difference between defensive handgun and defensive hand-to-hand, when it comes down to that. Of course, I can't afford to practice with a handgun several hours a week, but I do practice as often as I can.
... this is kind of like debating whether it's better technique to attack to the weak side or strong side of an assailant in a hand-to-hand scenario.
The answer is: who knows, until it happens?
If I notice the attack early enough, I should be able to go either way. If I don't, the options get much more limited.
If I'm perfectly balanced, I can lead with either foot. If most of my weight is on one foot or the other, I pretty much have to lead with the less-weighted foot.
You get the idea - there are a bunch of variables that will prevent me from making the call until the time comes.
Here's the thing, though - if I haven't trained to lead from either foot, attack to either side, move forward and back and to either side, use either hand or both at once - and if I haven't trained to do any and all of those things instinctively - then when the time comes I'll have to think about it. And the odds are I will not have time to think. That scenario leads most folks to freeze like deer in the headlights.
So, I practice all that stuff, several hours a week.
Not much difference between defensive handgun and defensive hand-to-hand, when it comes down to that. Of course, I can't afford to practice with a handgun several hours a week, but I do practice as often as I can.
Tucker 1371
New member
Slow is smooth, smooth is fast. I practice getting sight alignment as quickly as possible, both with my AK and my 1911.
Sighted shooting seems to be a waste of time for concealed carry. You've got to be able to quickly draw your weapon and hit your target at close range, generally while operating your gun with one hand, and from akward positions. This means that most folks are going to rely on point shooting. That's how I practice, anyway.
FWIW, I'm not going to be taking any shots at distances greater than 10 feet when I'm carrying. If someone is 15 feet or more from me, they either aren't an imediate threat, I can run the other way, and there is greater than a 1-2% chance of missing my target. At 10 feet or less, I'm confident that if I get a shot off, its going to hit my target; and I'm also confident that the threat is imminent.
FWIW, I'm not going to be taking any shots at distances greater than 10 feet when I'm carrying. If someone is 15 feet or more from me, they either aren't an imediate threat, I can run the other way, and there is greater than a 1-2% chance of missing my target. At 10 feet or less, I'm confident that if I get a shot off, its going to hit my target; and I'm also confident that the threat is imminent.
aarondhgraham
New member
It's not a question of why practice point shooting,,,
It's a question of Why Not!
Besides, it's fun.
.
It's a question of Why Not!
Besides, it's fun.
.
I've thought about it and practiced at these distances. For purposes of knowing when and when not to engage - I've put my range at 10-15 feet. That's it. The bottom line is that I'm not confident with the small gun I choose to carry beyond those distances under a stress situation.
Personally, I think everyone needs to know their own limitations when it comes to concealed carry and shooting whatever you are carrying. One of my limits is distances greater than 15 feet. I'm not saying that there could never be a serious threat to me beyond this, but the tool and its user has limitations.
HEAVYDUTY77
Inactive
USE BOTH!
I read Fairbairn's and Sykes' "Shooting to Live" book years ago and practice the methods described therein whenever possible in addition to aimed fire practice. My reasoning being that, if I were ever confronted with an adversary that required a response with a gun, the sooner I would be able to fire the better my chances of survival. The point method makes a faster response possible. While bringing the pistol up to a position to obtain a "sight picture" for aimed fire, you will already have been able to fire one or two fairly accurate shots at the adversary. I don't think enough credence is given to the physiological impact on an attacker resulting from an immediate response of gun fire (even though it may not be accomplished using a perfect aiming technique).
My rationale for this is based on the assumption that a BG has chosen me as a victim based upon some action of mine that makes him think I am vulnerable and, as a result, an easy target (or, I might just be in the wrong place at the wrong time!). I think that under these circumstances he would be somewhat surprised to be suddenly confronted with my gun fire and, hopefully, tend to make some mental errors that might allow me a chance to escape or at least move to cover. I may be way off base with this logic but it's what I think and it's how I plan to respond if confronted with this type of scenario. Point shooting would obviously play a significant part in any situation similar to this.
I read Fairbairn's and Sykes' "Shooting to Live" book years ago and practice the methods described therein whenever possible in addition to aimed fire practice. My reasoning being that, if I were ever confronted with an adversary that required a response with a gun, the sooner I would be able to fire the better my chances of survival. The point method makes a faster response possible. While bringing the pistol up to a position to obtain a "sight picture" for aimed fire, you will already have been able to fire one or two fairly accurate shots at the adversary. I don't think enough credence is given to the physiological impact on an attacker resulting from an immediate response of gun fire (even though it may not be accomplished using a perfect aiming technique).
My rationale for this is based on the assumption that a BG has chosen me as a victim based upon some action of mine that makes him think I am vulnerable and, as a result, an easy target (or, I might just be in the wrong place at the wrong time!). I think that under these circumstances he would be somewhat surprised to be suddenly confronted with my gun fire and, hopefully, tend to make some mental errors that might allow me a chance to escape or at least move to cover. I may be way off base with this logic but it's what I think and it's how I plan to respond if confronted with this type of scenario. Point shooting would obviously play a significant part in any situation similar to this.
Bartholomew Roberts
Moderator
Unless I am shooting from a retention position, I practice to see my sights every time, all the time. Depending on the range and size of the target, I may use a much coarser sight picture; but I use the sights.
Time and time again I see guys who take their time and use their sights beat guys trying to go fast as possible. I've also noticed that guys who do a lot of sighted fire seem to have little trouble point-shooting should the need arise.
Think of it this way, the purpose of the sights is to confirm that your pistol is indeed aligned with the target. By making sure you have a good sight picture, you are building good muscle memory. This is why dryfire practice is very helpful even though you aren't actually shooting.
As far as being unable to use sighted fire under the stress of a real gunfight, here is what Paul Howe of Blackhawk Down/Delta fame wrote on the matter regarding point shooting. I think he has some excellent points and having been in a gunfight or two, I think he has a better base of experience then most to discuss what will work.
Time and time again I see guys who take their time and use their sights beat guys trying to go fast as possible. I've also noticed that guys who do a lot of sighted fire seem to have little trouble point-shooting should the need arise.
Think of it this way, the purpose of the sights is to confirm that your pistol is indeed aligned with the target. By making sure you have a good sight picture, you are building good muscle memory. This is why dryfire practice is very helpful even though you aren't actually shooting.
As far as being unable to use sighted fire under the stress of a real gunfight, here is what Paul Howe of Blackhawk Down/Delta fame wrote on the matter regarding point shooting. I think he has some excellent points and having been in a gunfight or two, I think he has a better base of experience then most to discuss what will work.
To Heavy Duty 77, I have a copy of "Shooting to Live," and it's one of my favorite books on the subject. Everyone here ought to love it because the authors like the .45 auto. But there are some places where the book falls short.
As you probably know, they were believers, for safety's sake, in a chamber empty carry. They even pinned the thumb safeties in the "off" position. But while they claim that a fast (enough) draw could be made with a chamber empty carry, the specifics are vague. Maybe I'm not reading it closely enough or maybe that's just something that has to be covered by the instructor. But a couple of points need to be made about their viewpoint.
Their methods were developed for use with a large police force, the members of which were assumed (I assume) to have had not previous experience with firearms or at least with handguns. But he recognized just the same that an individual with enough interest could develop his own methods that would work just as well. Even Elmer Keith said in so many words that you have to work out your own methods. But the Sykes-Fairbairn book cautioned against target shooting, which they admitted was fine in its own way, but might cause problems when the chips were down. I can't quote where they say that because I haven't memorized the whole book yet. However, other well-known gunfighters, all of whom seem to have been with the Border Patrol, were also accomplished target shooters and so was Elmer Keith. I don't recall what Applegate thought about that.
Another thing about the Sykes-Fairbairn approach as well as Applegate, was that there simply wasn't going to be a lot of training for one reason or another but such as there was, was definately going to be combat oriented and of a practical nature with "plain" firearms. And they all claimed their methods were good enough.
As you probably know, they were believers, for safety's sake, in a chamber empty carry. They even pinned the thumb safeties in the "off" position. But while they claim that a fast (enough) draw could be made with a chamber empty carry, the specifics are vague. Maybe I'm not reading it closely enough or maybe that's just something that has to be covered by the instructor. But a couple of points need to be made about their viewpoint.
Their methods were developed for use with a large police force, the members of which were assumed (I assume) to have had not previous experience with firearms or at least with handguns. But he recognized just the same that an individual with enough interest could develop his own methods that would work just as well. Even Elmer Keith said in so many words that you have to work out your own methods. But the Sykes-Fairbairn book cautioned against target shooting, which they admitted was fine in its own way, but might cause problems when the chips were down. I can't quote where they say that because I haven't memorized the whole book yet. However, other well-known gunfighters, all of whom seem to have been with the Border Patrol, were also accomplished target shooters and so was Elmer Keith. I don't recall what Applegate thought about that.
Another thing about the Sykes-Fairbairn approach as well as Applegate, was that there simply wasn't going to be a lot of training for one reason or another but such as there was, was definately going to be combat oriented and of a practical nature with "plain" firearms. And they all claimed their methods were good enough.
HotShot.444
Moderator
Point-shooting has serious drawbacks.
One of them is, that if (very likely) you inflict collateral damage or death in any back-stop individuals, you'd best hope that the Prosecuting Attorney has never heard of "instinctive", or "point-shooting", or "center-of-mass targeting." You'll hang out and dry a long time if you rely on those philosophies, and have a shot go awry. Guns are made with sights for a reason; except for extreme CQB, use them.
One of them is, that if (very likely) you inflict collateral damage or death in any back-stop individuals, you'd best hope that the Prosecuting Attorney has never heard of "instinctive", or "point-shooting", or "center-of-mass targeting." You'll hang out and dry a long time if you rely on those philosophies, and have a shot go awry. Guns are made with sights for a reason; except for extreme CQB, use them.
aarondhgraham
New member
All joking aside,,,
If you reject a method of shooting and don't train for it even a bit,,,
You are shortchanging yourself of an ability,,,
One that might prove useful someday.
My earlier comment of "Why Not" was delivered as humor,,,
But I did mean it as an absolute serious comment.
Why not spend a little time and ammo on point shooting practice?
What can it possibly do to hurt you to have another skill?
It's one of the reasons I bought a Model 34 snubbie in .22 LR,,,
For inexpensive practice in shooting without aiming.
Many many hundreds of rounds later,,,
I am confident that I have another skill I can use.
So again I say,,,
Why not!
.
If you reject a method of shooting and don't train for it even a bit,,,
You are shortchanging yourself of an ability,,,
One that might prove useful someday.
My earlier comment of "Why Not" was delivered as humor,,,
But I did mean it as an absolute serious comment.
Why not spend a little time and ammo on point shooting practice?
What can it possibly do to hurt you to have another skill?
It's one of the reasons I bought a Model 34 snubbie in .22 LR,,,
For inexpensive practice in shooting without aiming.
Many many hundreds of rounds later,,,
I am confident that I have another skill I can use.
So again I say,,,
Why not!
.
spacecoast
New member
You didn't quantify, but I'll assume that "extreme CQB" means outstretched arm distance. The problem with this is that if the BG is in the process of drawing his weapon to shoot at you, it doesn't make a difference whether his shot takes 25 msec or 5 msec to reach you, in the extra second it takes you to find your sights you are risking taking a debilitating hit. Anything inside of 20 feet you should be (and will be) point shooting in order to get off the first shot. No way you should need to use your sights at that distance for a COM hit. Hopefully you will have time to get your gun up if he's more than 5 feet away, otherwise you will be shooting from the hip, which believe it or not is also easy to miss from at 3-5 ft. if you don't PRACTICE.
Bartholomew Roberts said:
Not surprisingly, Larry Vickers shares the same viewpoint. I've trained with LAV on several occasions and heard him say more than once that point shooting is really only appropriate in low light situations when you can't see the sights and when shooting from retention. He also made the same point Mr. Howe makes that in these situations, shooters who have solid fundamentals using sighted fire will not struggle when point shooting is appropriate. These two gentlemen are among the best small arms instructors in the world, and have unimpeachable resumes to back up that distinction. They've also been in more gunfights than probably any other two men alive, so their advice is well worth heeding.
For me, I've always been trained to use the sights if at all possible and that's the method I believe works. Unlike the instructors referenced above I've only been in one gunfight, but the result was the same. I reverted to my training, used my sights, and I'm alive to talk about it, so I'll continue training to use the sights.
- Status