What do you think about point shooting?

Status
Not open for further replies.
aaron :

"So again I say,,, Why not! " Because the awful worst-case scenario may crop up: collateral damage / death. At that point, better to never mention "point-shooting." But yes, P.S. IS a skill-set to have trained for and at which to be adept.
 
The trouble with these after action reports is that you may not have much memory of what you actually did, if you were in an actual gunfight. On the other hand, because of the way time slows down in a high stress situation or seems to, you may remember it quite well, not that you need to tell anyone.

In any event, one reason I made the points in my previous post is to point out some of the controversies that have been present for decades. Perhaps more so than ever, some trainers appear to think their own methods are the best to the exclusion of all others. That's sort of a reflection of the "best" or "worst" evaluations things seem to receive these days. Nothing is ever adequate or ordinary.

But one trick you have to decide (or have decided for you) is what contributes to effective combat handgunning--once you have decided what effective combat handgunning is! And clearly different people have had different ideas about that over the years and still do.
 
BlueTrain

After re-reading my post I can see where I may have been misinterpreted. I definitely do not advocate or agree with practicing point shooting to the exclusion of aimed fire, in fact, the greatest percentage of my practice is with aimed shooting. Too, the initial one or two shots made using the point method at CQ distance are to be completed on the way to raising the pistol up to the aimed sight position, not in lieu of using aimed fire.

Also, I do not dogmatically adhere to all the precepts outlined in the Shootong to Live book. For example, I always have a round chambered in any pistol that I carry (to me, practicing to develop a quick response and then carrying an empty chambered pistol is patently absurd!).

Unfortunately, just as in Fairbairn's and Sykes' day, most private citizens who purchase a gun (and even quite a few LEO's) never practice or do more than the minimum required to qualify with their weapons. Given this actuallity, I think that these people would be better served to at least pick one method and try to familiarize themselves with it.
 
The book actually mentions that it is appropriate to use the sights beyond a certain distance. Actually most of the stuff in the book is pretty modern except the chamber empty carry doesn't seem to be so popular, although I don't understand why people are so passionate about other carry methods. But I am saying there is a certain degree of vagueness in the book that no doubt is due to the difficulty of putting certain things in writing and that's where the instructor comes in. Also keep in mind that the book was written principally with the police in mind with a policeman's background.

I think it is likely a surprising number of "successful" shootings are by people who have hardly practiced at all.
 
Looking back

In reading these many-many stories/instructions/lesson plans. And of course, "Point shooting is the only way" OR "They would not have put sights on the things, if you were not supposed to use them"

Target shooting, is the most wonderful way to start with the hand gun.

This is where you learn the sight alignment, moving the trigger, and not disturbing those sights, follow through, repeat shots. Then compressing all of those components of marksmanship, via all of the dry fire/drills/different distances/light/and lack of light. Till you are hitting all the time, in the most efficient time frame possible.

A step back if you would... take your pistol in to the kitchen, strip it to its smallest part... Take the the 4 components of the cartridge, cartridge case/primer/powder/and BULLET!

The only part, component on that table that matters, is the projectile/bullet.

If you can not place that 127g +P+ WW Ranger 9mm (in my case) into a vital area, and enough of them to do the job, you are making noise.

The target club I belonged to in Toronto Canada has a Plaque above the Range door, on the Club room side.
It has my name, with the top center fire score ever fired (still) in the 100 year plus that the club has been open, 298 out of 300 I was 40 YOA then.

And using that same skill, but in IDPA, last month, I came 12th out of 61, in a club match, but what is worth noting, I will be 75 YOA, this month.
 
spacecoast said:
in the extra second it takes you to find your sights you are risking taking a debilitating hit.
Click to expand...

Do you routinely use a shot timer when you shoot? I find it difficult to believe that it takes the average person an extra second to find their sights.

For that matter, can anyone who practices point shooting quantify just exactly how much faster they are? Looking at this video of point shooting advocate Matthew Temkin, it appears to take him about a second to draw and fire his first shot at a target 3 yards away using point shooting (and I'm not counting reaction time). See the video at 2:39-2:40 and subsequent videos.

It has been awhile since I've gotten in some quality training; but I'm confident it won't take me 2 seconds to put good hits on target at 3 yards.
 
Agree With Mr. Howe And Vickers

While I agree with Mr. Vickers and Howe; I see two problems with holding a gun at eye level when the enemy is at arms length. The first is the weapon may be taken away, and second the gun, hand, and arm can block your view.
I can hit at a distance of 12' using point shooting using the chest as the target. With many BGs using vests I would if at all possible use the sights, and likely go for the bridge of nose.

" If you can't shoot faster than the other guy; Shoot straighter".- Chic Gaylord
 
Do you routinely use a shot timer when you shoot? I find it difficult to believe that it takes the average person an extra second to find their sights.
Click to expand...

I don't. It's significantly faster to use point shooting... why else would it be a strong emphasis at self defense handgun classes? The point is, you might as well practice it and use it because it's almost guaranteed that under time pressure you are NOT going to make effective use of your sights, or if you force yourself to use your sights you are going to be significantly slower than if you didn't. Point shooting is based on pointing your finger. Notice that when you (or most people, at least) point quickly at something that the hand is not oriented up/down, but rather 30-45 degrees to the horizontal because it's the most natural and comfortable position. That is how we were taught to point shoot. The bullets don't care how many degrees the gun is rotated. I guarantee that most people rotate the gun up/down to use their sights, which by definition takes extra time/effort if it's not the most natural pointing position. It also takes extra time to get the gun up to eye level. Point shooting does not rely on eye-level shooting.
 
spacecoast said:
I don't. It's significantly faster to use point shooting.
Click to expand...

Exactly how can you determine that it is significantly faster to use point shooting if you aren't using a shot timer? Are you telling me you can subjectively tell the difference between tenths of a second, let alone hundredths of a second?

And if the point of point shooting is speed, then who is teaching you to point shoot but not using a shot timer to demonstrate improvement?
 
At the class I attended we did use a shot timer. We tested how long it took to get 6 shots on a COM target before and after a class which taught a number of SD techniques, including significant time spent on point shooting. Almost without exception the time to perform that task was halved or better, starting times ranged from 4 (best case) up to 11 seconds, including the time required to get the gun out of the holster from a hands-on-ears starting position. I attribute at least half of the speed increase (which was 2-5 seconds in most cases) to getting somewhat accustomed to point shooting and practicing with at least 50 rounds.

Point shooting IS significantly faster if done correctly and practiced.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Deleted some unacceptable rudeness.

Remember, guys: disagree with each other all you want, as long as you remain reasonable polite. Snarl at each other like rabid dogs, and a moderator will come along to dump icy cold water on the furball.

pax
 
What people too often fail to realize is that the whole school of point/reflexive/unsighted/whatevertheycallitthisweek fire was mostly developed before the advent of modern sport training science. Those writers resorted to those methods of shooting under stress because because they didn't have a reliable, consistent, quantifiable (shoothouses, video playback, shot timers, reactionary targets, etc) methods of training. Couple this with modern stress inoculation and deadly force psychology and we have the ability now to train to a point of respond versus react.

When you look at it, Paul Howe, Kyle Lamb, Larry Vickers and Pat McNamara (an very distinguished SF small arms NCOIC) all pretty much have dismissed point shooting as anything other than a retention/low/no light method. What always amuses me is the number of point/reflexive/unsighted/whatevertheycallitthisweek firing instructors that like to use the term 'its another tool for you' as a way of defusing criticism against their methodology.

Whole lotta guys died in due to volleyed fire and bayonet charges back in the day, doesn't mean that we should return to that method of fighting.
 
spacecoast said:
why else would it be a strong emphasis at self defense handgun classes?
Click to expand...

Whose class do you keep referring to? Offhand I can't think of a single top tier instructor that "strongly emphasizes" point shooting. Just because somebody out there teaches it doesn't necessarily make it a credible argument. I could teach you to scratch your ass with your elbow but that wouldn't make it the best technique for doing so. 4 of the most credible instructors available to civilians have been mentioned in this thread as to their views on point shooting, all of which are based on real experience and you could add Clint Smith, Chuck Taylor, Louis Awerbuck, and Magpul Dynamics to that list as well and that's just the guys I can think of right off the top of my head.

spacecoast said:
you might as well practice it and use it because it's almost guaranteed that under time pressure you are NOT going to make effective use of your sights
Click to expand...

I'm going to preface my comments here by saying that I'm asking in the spirit of intelligent conversation/debate and not to be adversarial with the disclaimer that it's often hard to portray tone via written word, but what is this comment based on? Actual real world experience, or something you read, were taught, whatever? There are several instructors out there, Larry Vickers and Paul Howe in particular (I single these guys out from the others because I've actually heard it from them firsthand) who can and will dispute this from actual extensive experience in multiple engagements. I can tell you from my personal experience that the most vivid image I can recall from the one fight I got tangled up in is the sight picture. All the other details are somewhat get blurred from the speed of the engagement, time that's passed, etc., but I can recall acquiring the sight picture of each shot like it happened this morning.

spacecoast said:
I don't. It's significantly faster to use point shooting.
Click to expand...

The other thing that all of the instructors noted above teach is some variation of "Fast is fine, accuracy is final." You simply can't miss fast enough to win a fight.

I'm not saying point shooting doesn't have some place. When you have to fire from a retention position it's all you're going to have. It's useful to a slightly lesser degree in low light environments. For those scenarios, it is certainly worth spending some training time on. Due to the limited scope of those scenarios however, it's a secondary skill set and therefore shouldn't be a primary focus in training.

KellyTTE said:
What always amuses me is the number of point/reflexive/unsighted/whatevertheycallitthisweek firing instructors that like to use the term 'its another tool for you' as a way of defusing criticism against their methodology.
Click to expand...

Well said. It's always interesting to question the resume of those guys as well, as the result is usually equally amusing.
 
:D
In a SD situation, it's highly unlikely that you will have a choice but to point shoot...........

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.
Click to expand...

I don't recall in either of John Farnum's classes him ever teaching anything about point shooting.

Nor in any other classes by different instructors, except for near contact distance where gun couldn't even be raised to eye level.

However, I believe it is useful at close range and should be practiced as secondary to the more effective "use the dang sight" method.:cool:

My definition of point shooting still brings the gun to eye level with focus on target and sights seen peripherally--but still a reference. I don't shoot by "instinct" (which some define as point shooting) except, as stated, at near contact distance.

I recall that Jim Cirillo was involved in a number of gun fights and that his practice was to concentrate on the front sight. In one instance he could clearly see the serrations. Yes, he also developed the geometric point shooting technique---after he retired from real gunfighting (six gunfights in all, I believe).:cool:

moderator will come along to dump icy cold water on the furball
Click to expand...

Ahha. That cat reference again.:D
 
Last edited:
Seems to be a lot of misconception regarding the amount of "extra" time it takes to use one's sights.

I never noticed Jerry Miculek, or Brian Enos slow down a lot by getting on their sights.

Yes, I know, we aren't professionals like they are. But we can learn to very quickly bring the gun up and insert the sights in our line of vision that's looking at the target.

This is so easily demonstrated in the comfort of your own living room with simple dry fire practice, that it's amazing such a notion would be kicked around as long as it has.

TIP: Your eyes don't find you sights. You SIGHTS FIND YOUR EYES.

Works like this. Focus on target. Raise gun in the manner you'd bring the gun on target and insert gun sights into your line of sight.
Switch focus to front sight. SIGHT PICTURE. My eyes are 65 years old and I can still do that.

Practice on the range from low ready, until you're really gettin it, then mix in some draws.

Sometimes it sounds as if some folks techniques are a shortcut to avoid practice.:cool:
 
Last edited:
The shortest distance between two points, is a straight line.

Let us set a test, on timer. We will not use a cover (IE Concealed) the reason being, you can miss a draw, due to being concealed, less chance of that, with gun free of cover, and outside of belt.

One IPSC target, 3 yds directly in front, one at 45 degrees to the right, 5 yds away. Third target, 45 degree angle to left, 7 yds away.

Standard type of carry guns, Glocks/Sig's/S&Ws all 9mm.

Keep a level playing field. Exercise, draw and fire two on each, center right left, done twice, center left, right last time.

12 rounds in all. One point shooter point shoots, the other shooter does not.

If you are versed in the punch draw, times will be as close to identical, normally better hits with eyes level with eyes.
 
I could teach you to scratch your ass with your elbow
Click to expand...

Now THAT would be a cool trick. Does it require point shooting or do you use sights?

You simply can't miss fast enough to win a fight.
Click to expand...

Who's talking about missing? If you point shoot correctly and practice you won't miss.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top