View Full Version : Israeli point shooting method?
Andy T
09-02-2014, 07:14 PM
I just finished reading Brotherhood of Warriors by Aaron Cohen. He mentions how IDF uses a form of "point shooting" method in CQB applications that still allows for a lot of accuracy. Has anybody had first hand experience with this method and its use/was taught it?
I am curious to hear more about it.
Thanks!
This should be interesting.
HopetonBrown
09-02-2014, 08:19 PM
If you can watch this and not laugh, please let us know.
http://youtu.be/OalP-Ler7vM
They do this stuff at a range in my area.
Andy T
09-02-2014, 08:32 PM
I am trying to research more about the point shooting method only. Not the entire Israeli system, with which I generally disagree (stance and empty chamber).
Alpha Sierra
09-02-2014, 08:42 PM
I suggest buying a copy of No Second Place Winner by Bill Jordan. Here's an old FBI video showing several of the techniques that Jordan wrote about:
http://youtu.be/1ftXWvkPj1k
I suggest buying a copy of No Second Place Winner by Bill Jordan. Here's an old FBI video showing several of the techniques that Jordan wrote about:
http://youtu.be/1ftXWvkPj1k
The sprinting/pushups/sprinting stuff before firing shown in the original video has some validity for those who might be in a firefight after a lot of physical exertion.
Andy T
09-02-2014, 08:52 PM
Thanks Alpha Sierra.
Jeep, I agree with you, regarding the physical exertion, but that's not what I am trying to learn more about.
Chuck Haggard
09-02-2014, 10:08 PM
It's point shooting, I'm not sure what else you are looking for.
I did attend an Israeli shooting method class back in the '90s, dude teaching was a legit retired Mossad guy according to my sources. It was an interesting class but I was not impressed.
The stance was in integral part of the method. Two hand grip, basically an isosceles stance with a pronounced crouch. Look over the gun at the target, start shooting.
Alpha Sierra
09-03-2014, 05:59 AM
If you can watch this and not laugh, please let us know.
http://youtu.be/OalP-Ler7vM
They do this stuff at a range in my area.
I could not watch it and not laugh
The Israelis teach point shooting and condition 3 carry for the same reasons other organizations have in the past - it's a cheap fast way to teach large numbers of people to be at least somewhat effective. If they had the time /$$$/ resources I'm sure they would teach sighted fire.
Below eye level point shooting aka "half hip" etc is abysmal. Sure I've rolled soda cans with it. It's a stunt. That's all.
Using "index" at eye level at very close range with just "metal on meat" index is completely different and pretty decent at very close ranges very fast. USPSA shooters even do that on occasion.
orionz06
09-03-2014, 08:36 AM
Below eye level point shooting aka "half hip" etc is abysmal. Sure I've rolled soda cans with it. It's a stunt. That's all.
Using "index" at eye level at very close range with just "metal on meat" index is completely different and pretty decent at very close ranges very fast. USPSA shooters even do that on occasion.
It is a way that I have had success teaching people to shoot who struggled with the sights. Tape them off and give them an easy target.
A famous instructor does something similar but we are supposed to hate him.
Chuck Haggard
09-03-2014, 08:48 AM
The Israelis teach point shooting and condition 3 carry for the same reasons other organizations have in the past - it's a cheap fast way to teach large numbers of people to be at least somewhat effective. If they had the time /$$$/ resources I'm sure they would teach sighted fire.
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.
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.
A famous instructor does something similar but we are supposed to hate him.
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. ;)
Alpha Sierra
09-03-2014, 09:45 AM
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.
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.
Chuck Haggard
09-03-2014, 10:00 AM
Bill was also rather gifted, and had the use of LOTS of free ammo.
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.
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.
Bill was also rather gifted, and had the use of LOTS of free ammo.
Free ammo is a very good thing!
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.
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".
Alpha Sierra
09-03-2014, 11:00 AM
Bill was also rather gifted, and had the use of LOTS of free ammo.
Indeed. It's been my experience, replicating his techniques, that they are very perishable.
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.
3 yards. Sure. With a ton of practice. Out at 10-12 yards hitting empty soda or coffee cans could be done with practice to impress and that's a stunt. I've done a lot of it in the past and occasionally still do. It sucks. I don't know that this particular technique per se made Bill Jordan someone not to be trifled with.
But the douche (still owes me the $ for the toothpaste, breath mints and disposable camera I ran out to buy him before day one started, but his wallet was always elsewhere all weekend) that taught PS at the first WarriorTalk symposium (2002?) at Rangemaster years ago was doing this out at 7 yards with students and the hits were ankle to crown of head or somewhere. Tom Givens was spitting tacks re the topic during out classroom stuff with him.
JustOneGun
09-03-2014, 11:41 AM
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.
.
This is where point shooting breaks down. If you are a genetically normal person, the tunnel vision you will more than likely have will not allow you to see that front sight anymore. Meaning that index will be gone in a gunfight. People did find that bringing the sight up to eye level allowed them to use most of the hand eye coordination, muscle memory, proprioception, kinesthetic awareness or whatever we are calling it now, that point shooting brings, to good effect. That's where flash front sight, target focused shooting, seeing what you need to see or whatever we are calling it today came from. IMHO, if you can't reach out and touch someone, thus shooting from a retention position then you might want to index the front sight is some way.
A second problem with the distances you talk about is that same tunnel vision tends to keep most people from accurately guessing how far they are from the bad guy. So saying you will point shoot from 10 yards and in may lead a person under tunnel vision to shoot from 15 or 20 yards when they think they are at 5. Until you've had tunnel vision it is hard to believe how your ability changes.
The reality is that there are a lot of draw backs to point shooting that can be fully fixed by indexing the front sight in some way. Even the distance problem is mitigated by using the same sights to train at various distances. Then indexing the front sight gives a lot of feed back in a very short amount of time. For me I didn't actually think about how I shot, I just did what I always did with that sight index. I still thought I was at 15 yards but was actually at 45 yards.
This is where point shooting breaks down. If you are a genetically normal person, the tunnel vision you will more than likely have will not allow you to see that front sight anymore. Meaning that index will be gone in a gunfight. People did find that bringing the sight up to eye level allowed them to use most of the hand eye coordination, muscle memory, proprioception, kinesthetic awareness or whatever we are calling it now, that point shooting brings, to good effect. That's where flash front sight, target focused shooting, seeing what you need to see or whatever we are calling it today came from. IMHO, if you can't reach out and touch someone, thus shooting from a retention position then you might want to index the front sight is some way.
A second problem with the distances you talk about is that same tunnel vision tends to keep most people from accurately guessing how far they are from the bad guy. So saying you will point shoot from 10 yards and in may lead a person under tunnel vision to shoot from 15 or 20 yards when they think they are at 5. Until you've had tunnel vision it is hard to believe how your ability changes.
The reality is that there are a lot of draw backs to point shooting that can be fully fixed by indexing the front sight in some way. Even the distance problem is mitigated by using the same sights to train at various distances. Then indexing the front sight gives a lot of feed back in a very short amount of time. For me I didn't actually think about how I shot, I just did what I always did with that sight index. I still thought I was at 15 yards but was actually at 45 yards.
That's really interesting and I can't say I recall seeing that laid down like that before but it sounds totally believable.
This is where point shooting breaks down. If you are a genetically normal person, the tunnel vision you will more than likely have will not allow you to see that front sight anymore. Meaning that index will be gone in a gunfight. People did find that bringing the sight up to eye level allowed them to use most of the hand eye coordination, muscle memory, proprioception, kinesthetic awareness or whatever we are calling it now, that point shooting brings, to good effect. That's where flash front sight, target focused shooting, seeing what you need to see or whatever we are calling it today came from. IMHO, if you can't reach out and touch someone, thus shooting from a retention position then you might want to index the front sight is some way.
A second problem with the distances you talk about is that same tunnel vision tends to keep most people from accurately guessing how far they are from the bad guy. So saying you will point shoot from 10 yards and in may lead a person under tunnel vision to shoot from 15 or 20 yards when they think they are at 5. Until you've had tunnel vision it is hard to believe how your ability changes.
The reality is that there are a lot of draw backs to point shooting that can be fully fixed by indexing the front sight in some way. Even the distance problem is mitigated by using the same sights to train at various distances. Then indexing the front sight gives a lot of feed back in a very short amount of time. For me I didn't actually think about how I shot, I just did what I always did with that sight index. I still thought I was at 15 yards but was actually at 45 yards.
Those are excellent points. Thanks for a well-thought out post.
KevinB
09-03-2014, 01:30 PM
JOG, Great post.
Years ago (spring and summer of '92) myself and some Army buddies had the opportunity to play with this with rifles -- Somalia was looming and we had access to a lot of ammo.
After a few months it was very easy to shoot Fig14 (Hun's Head's) out to 100m indexing the rifle and looking over the sights (like 6" over). One of my buddies had a dad with an interesting past, and all sorts of VN era FAG's and former Rhodesian SAS guys came out to help teach (RIP AH, leukemia from time in defoliant areas got him a few years ago).
Looking back on it - it took a lot of ammo to do pretty much nothing faster than could be done with sights, but if you see Taran Butler do some of his things - you can be pretty damn fast and accurate if you have the ammo and time (and I'd never recommend doing it for defensive usage anyway)
I've been told one of the Israeli rationales for the empty chamber was the safety on their P-35's was very awkward to disengage - thus faster and more reliable to draw, cock and fire -- assine if you ask me, but I've not been very impressed by Israeli techniques from much more than damn can they clean a DA site ;).
JustOneGun
09-03-2014, 02:32 PM
JOG, Great post.
Years ago (spring and summer of '92) myself and some Army buddies had the opportunity to play with this with rifles -- Somalia was looming and we had access to a lot of ammo.
After a few months it was very easy to shoot Fig14 (Hun's Head's) out to 100m indexing the rifle and looking over the sights (like 6" over). One of my buddies had a dad with an interesting past, and all sorts of VN era FAG's and former Rhodesian SAS guys came out to help teach (RIP AH, leukemia from time in defoliant areas got him a few years ago).
Looking back on it - it took a lot of ammo to do pretty much nothing faster than could be done with sights, but if you see Taran Butler do some of his things - you can be pretty damn fast and accurate if you have the ammo and time (and I'd never recommend doing it for defensive usage anyway).
Yes, I've seen the videos of Taran Butler. It is impressive to watch. But sometimes he is faster than the competition and sometimes he isn't. Even for him it's no great improvement. So with my previous points translating better to most gunfights I'll stick with a sighting technique that translates well for all distances under sever tunnel vision.
We all think as young studs, or young geeks in my case that we will be the next Taran Butler. But as I'm fond of saying, Just because Taran Butler can do it doesn't mean I should do it. I ain't no Taran Butler. And if you are 99% of all shooters, neither are you. :)
As a youngster every time I tried to be like THAT GUY, it didn't turn out like I planned, usually for the worse.
KevinB
09-03-2014, 02:35 PM
Agreed 110%
JustOneGun
09-03-2014, 02:57 PM
Earlier when I said the sight will go away, that would be from my peripheral. I didn't mean that you can't see your sight during a gunfight. That piece of gun lore has been put to rest long ago.
CR Williams
09-03-2014, 07:09 PM
I've had training in the Israeli methodology from an Israeli instructor who still goes back to Israel to conduct training about twice a year. I would call it an introduction more than anything else, a good 8 hours worth. My analysis:
First, let me make it clear that the shooting method has nothing to do with chamberless carry and does not require it. Tier One units in Israel load a round up. My understanding is that some civilian schools are teaching condition one as well.
That said, the Israeli method is designed primarily to set up the body structure during the presentation so that the gun is driven straight and level to the target a eye level or close to it. Do it correctly and it's all but impossible physiologically not to drive the gun out level in a straight line. What you find is that the gun 'screws' itself on extension such that there is no arc or dip as you drive forward. Wide stance is built in to provide a stable and solid gun platform. I note that the rotational movement on extension can be partially adapted to the presentation most of us know from training in the US and was interested to see that very thing in a training video of the LA County Sheriff's Dept. that was done I think in the 60s, maybe 70s (the deputies were using revolvers in the film).
There is no shooting on the move. If movement is required, you pull the gun in, move, set, extend, shoot. Turning is done by a pivot on one leg either forward or back. So if you're pointed in one direction it's retract, pivot, set, extend, shoot. With practice this can be done quickly. Preference in movement in the Israeli system is to move to the attack, always the attack. Vertical displacement is also taught as you would expect. Usual mag change and malfunction methods as we see here.
That's the nutshell version of the method as I was taught it.
My instructor told us that what we were taught in one day, the core of the method, is a two week block of instruction in Israel. I infer that there is a LOT of drilling of individual and small blocks of technique and segments of technique involved.
Al T.
09-03-2014, 08:52 PM
Tagged.
Mr_White
09-04-2014, 11:29 AM
There is no shooting on the move.
My instructor told us that what we were taught in one day, the core of the method, is a two week block of instruction in Israel. I infer that there is a LOT of drilling of individual and small blocks of technique and segments of technique involved.
No shooting on the move in a two week block of instruction?!?!??!?!?!?!?!
Shooting on the move seems to me like a pretty important skill.
Kyle Reese
09-04-2014, 11:30 AM
No shooting on the move in a two week block of instruction?!?!??!?!?!?!?!
Shooting on the move seems to me like a pretty important skill.
You don't say. :D
Mr_White
09-04-2014, 11:35 AM
You don't say. :D
No, no, I do say, I really think so. :)
I heart shooting on the move!
HopetonBrown
09-04-2014, 12:04 PM
I read somewhere that Paul Howe said he never shot on the move.
Mr_White
09-04-2014, 01:23 PM
I remember reading of Howe's preference for move-plant-shoot, but don't remember it being 'never shoot on the move.' Maybe someone who has trained with him directly can clarify.
I still heart shooting on the move and personally consider it an indispensable skill.
Drang
09-04-2014, 02:05 PM
Anyone have any exposure to the Army's "Quick Kill" training from the 70s?
Mr_White
09-04-2014, 02:17 PM
Paging Brownie...
KevinB
09-04-2014, 02:29 PM
First, let me make it clear that the shooting method has nothing to do with chamberless carry and does not require it. Tier One units in Israel load a round up. My understanding is that some civilian schools are teaching condition one as well..
FYSA - Israel has no accepted Tier1 entity. There are 6 Internationally (peer) accepted Tier1 entities - 2 of those SMU's reside in the US, 1 in Australia, 1 in UK, 1 in Canada and 1 in Germany.
KevinB
09-04-2014, 02:31 PM
I read somewhere that Paul Howe said he never shot on the move.
He prefers not to for HR type precision accuracy.
Kevin B.
09-04-2014, 04:10 PM
Anyone have any exposure to the Army's "Quick Kill" training from the 70s?
A few years back my boss sent me to James Rutland's School. Mr. Rutland learned the "Quick Kill" system from Lucky McDaniel.
I was able to make some fairly impressive shots using the "Quick Kill" methodology using a BB gun (shooting wadded up tissue out of the center of a washer thrown in the air; hitting a quarter and then a dime thrown in the air- I still have them somewhere).
Unfortunately, once we moved to the rimfire range for a more practical application of the "Quick Kill" technique, I had no problem delivering considerably better accuracy at greater speed using contemporary sighting techniques.
In the interest of giving "Quick Kill" a fair assessment, I subsequently used it to engage targets with an M-4 sans sights/optics on a moving target range. Once again, contemporary sighting techniques yielded substantially superior performance.
In all fairness to Mr.Rutland, I thought his program was well-structured and the presentation was very professional. I just did not find the techniques taught to be superior, in any regard, to using the sights.
FYSA - Israel has no accepted Tier1 entity. There are 6 Internationally (peer) accepted Tier1 entities - 2 of those SMU's reside in the US, 1 in Australia, 1 in UK, 1 in Canada and 1 in Germany.
Kevin: While I don't doubt your statement about peer acceptance, the Sayeret Matkal has had a pretty good track record, including Entebbe--an operation that helped to lead to the formation of our own military anti-terror/hostage rescue units. That doesn't mean that I would accept their training methods as being superior (one thing about exclusive units is they can develop a "not-invented-here" tendency over time) but from the start it has shown the ability to not let conventional wisdom stop it from carrying out truly extraordinary actions.
Over the length of its existence, it probably rivals the British unit on the number of extremely difficult ops it has carried out successfully (constantly being at war does that) though my guess is that over the last 13 years the American units have come much closer to evening that score.
LOKNLOD
09-04-2014, 04:43 PM
Man with that first dude rounds the corner and yells "BADADADADADADADA" i was waiting for him to finish with "BAT-MAN!"
If you can watch this and not laugh, please let us know.
http://youtu.be/OalP-Ler7vM
They do this stuff at a range in my area.
CR Williams
09-04-2014, 09:55 PM
FYSA - Israel has no accepted Tier1 entity. There are 6 Internationally (peer) accepted Tier1 entities - 2 of those SMU's reside in the US, 1 in Australia, 1 in UK, 1 in Canada and 1 in Germany.
I was unaware of any formal standard or definition. When I refer to as Tier 1 is simply the upper level of special-operations units in a given country or region. To me, Tier 1 is a way of saying highest quality or highest competency. That's all.
runcible
09-05-2014, 08:15 PM
It's not a euphemism that emerged from the ether; would it be beneficial for you to look up what it really means?
David Armstrong
09-10-2014, 05:06 PM
I just finished reading Brotherhood of Warriors by Aaron Cohen. He mentions how IDF uses a form of "point shooting" method in CQB applications that still allows for a lot of accuracy. Has anybody had first hand experience with this method and its use/was taught it?
I am curious to hear more about it.
Thanks!
I was taught in the Israeli Technique by real Israelis. I like it and have found it to be a viable alternative to other techniques. It is not as precise as sight-focused shooting but for what it was designed for it works well. My instruction was similar to what CR Williams listed, except we did work from C3. Most folks were surprised at how fast and accurate they could be after jsut a little training. And I think that may be the key to the issue. Many of us are very well trained with lots of time and experience under us doing sighted fire from loaded chambers. Where the Israeli method comes in on top is for those with minimal time or training, IMO. It provides a generic platform that offers reasonable safety with acceptable accuracy at a very basic level of instruction.
David Armstrong
09-10-2014, 05:17 PM
grumble grumble grumble...misfire, double tap, AD/ND...groumble grumble grumble
I've point shot at close ranges fairly regularly with long arms in competition where you're 3 yards from the target.
The competition rules are two on the torso.
Now after typing that I sit here and think what god awful training scars that might be creating.
But with a long arm I'm able to keep it fairly tight with an AR inside those ranges.
That being said there are also hostage targets and for those I use sights, every time. Longer distances as well.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.