Below eye level point shooting aka "half hip" etc is abysmal. Sure I've rolled soda cans with it. It's a stunt. That's all.
Using "index" at eye level at very close range with just "metal on meat" index is completely different and pretty decent at very close ranges very fast. USPSA shooters even do that on occasion.
“Remember, being healthy is basically just dying as slowly as possible,” Ricky Gervais
It is a way that I have had success teaching people to shoot who struggled with the sights. Tape them off and give them an easy target.Originally Posted by JHC
A famous instructor does something similar but we are supposed to hate him.
Think for yourself. Question authority.
It's more than just that. They had such a hodge-podge of guns over the years, and a troop had no idea what they might be issued or could acquire, so they went with a solution that worked for all semi-auto pistols regardless of safety features, quality of sights, or action type.
Tom Givens' article in SWAT magazine on point shooting, with the pics of the .380 he had formerly owned by the Shanghai Municipal Police, is a great example of the issue with sights and safety features.
The Israeli system works if a guy might have a Tok one day, a Mak next month, a Beretta Brigadier (the original single stack SAO version), a P38, 1911, Glock, etc.
Using eye level index, sights taped over, with a hard focus on the target right? Hackathorn ran us through that. We shot it at 7 yards approx. at 8-10" steel plates and it was fun plate ringing.
We did not do SHO "half hip on the run" Karl Malden style however.
“Remember, being healthy is basically just dying as slowly as possible,” Ricky Gervais
Whether or not it is a stunt is highly dependent on distance.
Bill Jordan, in his book, laid out some clear distance guidelines for the effectiveness of the various point shooting positions that he discusses. If by "half hip" you mean elbow down by the hip, forearm parallel to the ground, Jordan limits that to 3 yards.
Bill Jordan was not someone to be trifled with in a gunfight, and his book is written from that point of view. I would not be so quick to dismiss his advice.
Bill was also rather gifted, and had the use of LOTS of free ammo.
I have found that I can "point shoot" with the pistol at shoulder height at 5 yards pretty well--but I've also found that when doing so I'm still looking (somewhat downward) at the front sight. At seven yards it starts falling apart and at ten, forget it. From the hip, my limit is maybe three yards and it ain't pretty.
So I'm not totally down on point shooting, but for me it has to be at very, very close range. Otherwise, I need to be directly looking at that front sight.
Interesting, in his book, "Shots Fired in Anger," LTC John George says that when the was with the Marauders preparing to go into Burma, they worked intensely at determining at what distance they would stop looking at the sights of their rifles/carbines. Basically most of them decided that over 25 yards they needed to look at the sights; under 25 they would just look down the barrel and essentially point shoot and apparently it worked. Of course, you can point shoot at a longer distance with a long gun than with a pistol.
Free ammo is a very good thing!
I get it - these are the same reasons it worked for the OSS - if you have a limited time ( say 8 hours) to teach someone defensive handgun use and don't know what type of weapon the might wind up with condition 3 carry and eye level point shooting is the way to go.
Our curriculum still includes "point shoulder" shooting but in practice it's really more of Jim Cirillos weapon index type shooting using the back of the slide for a visual index.
My point ( pun intended) is that it "is what it is" vs those who think it must be the best method for employing a handgun because " OMG Israeli Commando".
Indeed. It's been my experience, replicating his techniques, that they are very perishable.
Reply With Quote