PDA

View Full Version : Why Point Shooting?



5shot
02-13-2012, 08:54 PM
There are several types of Point Shooting which is a term used for shooting sans sights.

It differs from Sight Shooting which employs one or both sights and the use of a two handed grip, and which is the fastest and most accurate competition shooting method.

However; studies, the literature, and videos of CQB situations, have established that Sight Shooting does not carry over to close quarters life threat situations.

In most all real defensive life threat Close Quarters shootings, where there is the greatest chance of one being shot and/or killed, Sight Shooting is not used.

The oft heard mantra that you will fight as you train, sounds good and reassuring, but it is just hope, and not reality. If it was true, the hit rate in those situations would not be the recognized and dismal rate of less than 20%.

Blame for the failure of the use of Sight Shooting can be placed on our instinctive "Fight or Flight" response, which science says will kick in automatically in defensive life threat situations, and cause physiological changes such as the loss of near vision which is needed for focusing on the sights.

The dynamics of CQB, and time and environmental constraints such as bad lighting, can prevent the use of Sight Shooting. And strong hand only shooting is used in most all cases. Also, a crush grip will be used in CQB which will result in low left shooting with autoloaders.

Blame is due to those who fail to recognize and deal with these and other constraints on its use.

So, if you have a gun for self defense, and you are not a SEAL or a super gun operator training 24/7 or close to it, it makes sense to know about and become proficient in some type of Point Shooting, as that is what you will default to, when someone is trying to kill you at CQ.

Here are links to Wikipedia articles on Point Shooting with links to sources:

Point Shooting

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_shooting

Center Axis Relock

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_Axis_Relock

TGS
02-13-2012, 08:59 PM
This forum is based on discussing credible information, and you've made some pretty out-there claims without anything credible to directly support it (wikipedia is not a credible source, and I'm not fishing through wikipedia sources to find something you should reference directly in the first place). Do you have anything to back up your claims? Because from what I've seen, OIS hit percentages went up when departments started teaching sighted shooting rather than instinctual point shooting.

For one, your 20% statistic is not the end all, be all. Have you ever read SOP-9?

TGS
02-13-2012, 09:07 PM
As to sighted fire being ineffective unless you're a SEAL, you may want to check out Tom Given's students and how they've done in lethal force encounters....56-0, I think. Just normal everyday people.

JodyH
02-13-2012, 09:11 PM
Good aimed shooting can always degenerate into decent point shooting.
Good point shooting will never upgrade into decent aimed fire.

The majority of serious shooters here can make aimed hits 2x as fast as your best draw to hit point shooting.
You aren't going to get much traction on this forum with hyperbole and half truths.
You're going to have to have quantifiable, repeatable proof on the range and in FoF at a minimum to impress anyone here.
Less talk and more walk.

Failure2Stop
02-13-2012, 09:12 PM
I do agree conceptually that at extremely close range, one can get decent hits without sights.
However, if you ever expect to hit anything smaller than a basketball at anything further away than 3 yards, you better learn to use your sights in a rapid and precise manner while under duress.
Those people that don't use their sights in gunfights are generally those that have not been trained to use their sights in gunfights.

Mitchell, Esq.
02-13-2012, 09:24 PM
Also, a crush grip will be used in CQB which will result in low left shooting with autoloaders.


Shitty trigger control, poor fundamentals & lack of training will result in low-left shooting.

Don't blame the situation for fucked up execution of basic skills.

Dr. No
02-13-2012, 09:30 PM
Shitty trigger control, poor fundamentals & lack of training will result in low-left shooting.

Don't blame the situation for fucked up execution of basic skills.

Yup.

Using OIS as stats is almost laughable. 99% of cops only shoot when they are forced to - once a year at qualifications and during the one day of mandatory training.

If you think that actually *fixes* shooting problems, you are mistaken.

I would say that point shooting is a great crutch for people to gain confidence in their abilities to shoot when they don't want to practice and actually learn how to shoot properly. "I just point shoot" is a great copout to "I can't hit shit when shots get hard".

In the last thread I outlined numerous OIS's I have been involved in or a party to. In all of those, accurate aimed fire stopped the threat.

GOP
02-13-2012, 09:35 PM
Wow.

Not to be rude, but you probably also think that competition will get you killed, MMA doesn't work on the str33ts(!!!), and that your body cant handle any "fine motor skills like hitting a slide lock" under stress.

Mitchell, Esq.
02-13-2012, 09:45 PM
Given the amount of money involved in finding a better way, and cashing in on it at shooting competitions, you'd think that if someone was able to make point shooting work so well, they would have stepped up and cleaned house at a competition.

Mitchell, Esq.
02-13-2012, 09:47 PM
Wow.

Not to be rude, but you probably also think that competition will get you killed, MMA doesn't work on the str33ts(!!!), and that your body cant handle any "fine motor skills like hitting a slide lock" under stress.

Fuck, that a 1990's flashback...

Odin Bravo One
02-13-2012, 09:48 PM
There are several types of Point Shooting which is a term used for shooting sans sights.

However; studies, the literature, and videos of CQB situations, have established that Sight Shooting does not carry over to close quarters life threat situations.


The dynamics of CQB, and time and environmental constraints such as bad lighting, can prevent the use of Sight Shooting. And strong hand only shooting is used in most all cases. Also, a crush grip will be used in CQB which will result in low left shooting with autoloaders.




On the off chance you have something more substantial to say on the topic, perhaps you care to educate those of us who do not have the same amount of Point Shooting, and CQB experience that you have on how we, as students of pistol shooting, should adjust our respective training to adapt to this scary CQB phenomenon rather than just post a few links and state your opinions and what you read as fact?

joshs
02-13-2012, 09:49 PM
This is not directed at anyone in particular, but please limit this discussion to point shooting's strengths and weaknesses as compared to sighted fire. Thank you.

ETA: Please try to limit the excessive profanity as well.

Suvorov
02-13-2012, 09:52 PM
While I will certainly advocate the use of sighted fire over point shooting whenever possible, I can certainly see the need to be proficient, and thus train with, unsighted point shooting. While sighted fire will usually result in faster hits than point shooting, at extreme close quarters, there will not be the room and it would likely result in the loss of the weapon. I can tell you that if I where an armed pilot who operated a MD80, 737, or smaller regional jet, I would spend a large amount of time with point shooting due to the fact that by the time the door is opened, the goblin is already within arms reach and would be on top of you within a second. I have read Kyle Lamb is also opposed to "point shooting" but he does see the need for contact shooting which is probably what I am talking about, but none the less is unsighted fire.

Mitchell, Esq.
02-13-2012, 09:57 PM
Here's a weakness point shooting has compared to sighted shooting:

Negligence.

It's intentionally and willfully training to disregard the primary means of making a bullet go to the intended target - The Sights!

The program's core is outside that of the norms of the shooting community.

When someone takes a shot and misses, questions will be asked, and answers demanded.

When one starts with "Oh, no...I don't train to 'aim' the gun..." it get's deep fast.

beltjones
02-13-2012, 10:13 PM
I always see the point shooting and CAR proponents shooting at distances where literally any shooting technique will work. It's not exactly convincing evidence.

The simple fact is that you can train to call shots (by seeing the sights) at incredibly fast speeds via practice. I'm talking splits in the .15 and below range.

The other logical fallacy the point shooters always mention is that you will lose your ability to see, to work the trigger, etc, but somehow you will keep your ability to just "zen" bullets onto the the target, which is by far the hardest thing to do in any circumstances. When it really counts, it's probably better to use any reference points you possibly can to make sure you hit where you need to hit.

TGS
02-13-2012, 10:27 PM
While I will certainly advocate the use of sighted fire over point shooting whenever possible, I can certainly see the need to be proficient, and thus train with, unsighted point shooting. While sighted fire will usually result in faster hits than point shooting, at extreme close quarters, there will not be the room and it would likely result in the loss of the weapon. I can tell you that if I where an armed pilot who operated a MD80, 737, or smaller regional jet, I would spend a large amount of time with point shooting due to the fact that by the time the door is opened, the goblin is already within arms reach and would be on top of you within a second. I have read Kyle Lamb is also opposed to "point shooting" but he does see the need for contact shooting which is probably what I am talking about, but none the less is unsighted fire.

My take is that you don't need to train to point shoot, though.

Any training you do for sighted fire will also create an index that will transfer over to point shooting if in a H2H-ranged scuffle with someone. I guess the only exception for this is shooting from retention using a pectoral index, hip index, ect, which is point shooting. Outside of that, training to point shoot is useless. In my opinion, it serves no purpose to train it, because you're only using it in the first place because you're so close to an aggressor as to know you don't need sights/technique to begin with.

Simply, if you need to do it, you'll just do it.

Center Axis Relock....has anyone here done any of that training?

Mitchell, Esq.
02-13-2012, 10:46 PM
Center Axis Relock....has anyone here done any of that training?

No, but a very good friend is an instructor and will be taking me out on the range soon...even if he doesn't know it yet...He's a night cop, and scheduling is a bit difficult (he claims he needs to sleep...something like that...), but I can report back when mission accomplished.

Chuck Haggard
02-14-2012, 01:05 AM
My department teaches sighted fire 100% of the time unless you are at contact distance.

We have had long runs of OISs where we had 100% hits. Even in more "average" times we run 66-75%.

Marty Hayes
02-14-2012, 01:20 AM
[QUOTE=Dr. No;52478]Yup.

Using OIS as stats is almost laughable. 99% of cops only shoot when they are forced to - once a year at qualifications and during the one day of mandatory training.
QUOTE]


But yet, advocates of isosceles over Weaver use these same police officers who are caught in dashcam videos to validate the claim that isosceles works and Weaver doesn't. hummm...

Odin Bravo One
02-14-2012, 01:26 AM
There is an entire thread dedicated to that worthless discussion..............

Al T.
02-14-2012, 09:14 AM
During the Matthew Temkin point shooting wars on another board or two, I tried it. Took me about 500 rounds to constantly achieve first round hits on 10 inch steel plates at ten yards.

I didn't point shoot for about two weeks and completely dropped the skill set. It was that perishable for me. Thell Reed aside, shooting from count two of the draw stroke if the bad guy is on top of you makes much more sense.

Relevant point shooting video and comments:

http://booksbikesboomsticks.blogspot.com/2010/05/somehow-i-thought-youd-be-taller.html

HeadHunter
02-14-2012, 10:30 AM
I always see the point shooting and CAR proponents shooting at distances where literally any shooting technique will work. It's not exactly convincing evidence.
Gunfights inside phone booths are a rarity, I expect, although perhaps that has happened.

David Armstrong
02-14-2012, 10:38 AM
Well, as perhaps the only one here who has been actively trained in point shooting, has trained others in point shooting, and seen point shooting extensively used in combat, all I can say is that history seems to reflect a pretty good success rate with the technique. FWIW, I prefer the term "target focused" instead of "point shooting" as I think that more accurately reflects the actual dynamics. As with some of the other discussions here, I think the issue changes quite a bit as one's overall shooting skills change. But for a technique that will quickly teach a newbie to handle probably 90% of the situations they encounter it's pretty effective.

joshs
02-14-2012, 10:42 AM
I prefer the term "target focused" instead of "point shooting" as I think that more accurately reflects the actual dynamics.

David,
When you say "target focused" are you referring to having the gun in same position as sighted fire, but with your vision focused on the target?

David Armstrong
02-14-2012, 10:55 AM
David,
When you say "target focused" are you referring to having the gun in same position as sighted fire, but with your vision focused on the target
I'm referring to focusing on the target no matter what position the gun is in. I think that is what actually differentiates "point shooting" versus "sight-assisted shooting" and reduces a lot of the confusion about terminology. If you are shooting through your sights, if you are Fairbairn-Sykes half-hip, or any of the various methods as long as the focus is on the target and that is driving your shot, call it target focused. If you are focusing on the sights (or an alternative sighting method) call it sight focused. I've found that if one discusses it based on position of the gun that there is a lot of disagreement, some of which is really hard to address, about whether one is really using the sights only using them subconsciously or if one is actually aligning the gun through peripheral vision, and so on. Just seems to simplify life for me.

TGS
02-14-2012, 11:05 AM
Relevant point shooting video and comments:

http://booksbikesboomsticks.blogspot.com/2010/05/somehow-i-thought-youd-be-taller.html


The stupid, it hurts.

Yeah, that about sums up my thoughts.

vecdran
02-14-2012, 11:32 AM
Point shooting (at full extension, not retention position) takes zero training if you practice hard with your sights. Once you learn how to make fast, accurate hits, using your sights, from a holster, you can point shoot without any real thought. You just rely off your muscle memory and your index.

Anyone who "trains" to point shoot is just looking for an easy way out, regarding their handgun proficiency. Which means you still suck at shooting your pistol.

BaiHu
02-14-2012, 11:48 AM
I think he was rolling weaver :D
*ducks and runs for cover before admin sees*

David Armstrong
02-14-2012, 11:56 AM
Point shooting (at full extension, not retention position) takes zero training if you practice hard with your sights. Once you learn how to make fast, accurate hits, using your sights, from a holster, you can point shoot without any real thought. You just rely off your muscle memory and your index.

Anyone who "trains" to point shoot is just looking for an easy way out, regarding their handgun proficiency. Which means you still suck at shooting your pistol.
Sorry, can't agree with that. I've known way too many folks who shot quite well who also trained to point shoot. I don't think the two issues are mutually exclusive.

digiadaamore
02-14-2012, 11:59 AM
I just looked up CAR for a refresher on what it is. heres a video of an instructor demonstrating. watch the reload:D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SASDcZFCXzQ
note most of the discussion is about how awesome it is to look like the character from splinter cell:eek:

DocGKR
02-14-2012, 12:02 PM
Thus the advantage of a RDS on a pistol--it allows full target focus, but still gives a solid aiming point for precision accuracy.

Note--the majority of the shooters I have met and/or interviewed who achieved well placed hits using a handgun in an OIS incident or in OCONUS combat ALL used their sights to some degree, depending on distance to the target.

YVK
02-14-2012, 12:46 PM
Sorry, can't agree with that. I've known way too many folks who shot quite well who also trained to point shoot. I don't think the two issues are mutually exclusive.

I agree with this. There are very-very reputable trainers who don't advocate point shooting as a default for close encounters, yet teach specific point shooting techniques. Statements like "you don't need special training for point shooting" to me is an example of "you don't know what you don't know".

jetfire
02-14-2012, 02:13 PM
Other than retention shooting (from the hip, etc) what exactly is a "specific point shooting technique?" I've never taught or practiced point shooting, but I use it all the time in matches. If I'm hosing targets at 5 yards I don't really need to use the sights, so I just rely on a positive index. I'm target focused or point shooting or whatever.

5shot
02-14-2012, 02:15 PM
Thanks for your inputs.

Always looking for LINKS to stats and verifyable studies that support the use of one method or way, over another. If you have one or more, please provide it/them.

..........

To elaborate on WHY POINT SHOOTING, here's part of a recent article I put together that addresses shooting distances and survival.

..........

Shooting distance is a critical element to survival in Close Quarters shooting situations, so I was taken back recently, when I read some comments made on a Police site by two Police trainers that didn't jibe with FBI shooting stats and Police study findings.

Their comments presented misleading notions about Close Quarters Combat shooting. And if accepted as fact, IMHO, can set up Officers and civilians alike to be killed. They also can perpetuate the continued use of shooting qualification standards that are not data and science based.

Qualification standards prescribe shooting distances, and as such, dictate the training one needs to do, to qualify. And if not reality based, they can become prescriptions for failure in real life or death situations.

The FBI statistics on Law Enforcement Officers Feloniously Killed with firearms, set out the shooting distances that Officers and civilians should/must be trained in to give them the best chance of survival in real life or death situations.

Here are the FBI's 1988 - 1997 stats on Law Enforcement Officers Feloniously Killed with firearms with details on the distance between victim Officers and Offenders.

Total Officers killed --- 633

Contact to 5 feet ------- 337 -- % 53
6 feet to 10 feet -------- 132 -- % 21
11 feet to 20 feet -------- 73 -- % 12
21 feet to 50 feet -------- 53 --- % 8
over 50 feet ------------- 38 --- % 6

86% were killed within 21 feet.

..........

Here are the FBI's 1994 - 2003 stats on Law Enforcement Officers Feloniously Killed with firearms with details on the distance between victim officer and offenders.

Total Officers killed --- 568

Contact to 5 feet ------ 286 -- % 50
6 feet to 10 feet ------- 122 -- % 22
11 feet to 20 feet ------- 60 -- % 11
21 feet to 50 feet ------- 47 -- % 8
Over 50 feet ------------ 43 -- % 8

Distance not reported 10

83% were killed within 21 feet.

..........

The following data is from the 1970'S (old but still good), NYPD SOP 9 study of over 6000 Police combat cases that reviewed cases from 1854 tO 1979.

Total Officers killed --- 254

Contact to 3 feet -------- 86 -- % 34
3 feet to 6 feet --------- 119 -- % 47
6 feet to 15 feet --------- 24 -- % 9
15 feet to 25 feet -------- 12 __ % 5

90% were killed at within 15 feet.

The shooting distances where Officers survived, remained almost the same during the SOP years (1970-1979), and for a random sampling of cases going back as far as 1929. 4,000 cases were reviewed. The shooting distance in 75% of those cases was less than 20 feet.

Contact to 10 feet --- 51%
10 feet to 20 feet ---- 24%

In 70% of the cases reviewed, sight alignment was not used. Officers reported that they used instinctive or point shooting.

As the distance between the Officer and his opponent increased, some type of aiming was reported in 20% of the cases. This aiming or sighting ran from using the barrel as an aiming reference to picking up the front sight and utilizing fine sight alignment.

The remaining 10% could not remember whether they had aimed or pointed and fired the weapon instinctively.

Also, Officers with an occasional exception, fired with the strong hand. That was the case even when it appeared advantageous to use the weak hand.

The value of placing heavy emphasis on weak hand shooting during training and qualification is subject to question.

IMHO, shooting training and qualification standards should reflect the reality of the above statistics.

Further, shooting beyond the 21 foot kill zone, requires learned behaviors which conflict with those needed to shoot effectively in the kill zone. And if ingrained, they may/will cause confusion and conflict as to what to do in a real life or death situation, and that may/will result in the death of both Officer and Civilian victims.

The recognized and continuing atrocious hit rate in CQB situations of less than 20%, attests to the need for administrators and trainers alike to wake up, and discuss, develop and implement shooting qualifications and skills that deal with the realities of CQB. The hit rate allso make a bad joke of statements like you have to use your sitghts to insure accuracy.

I have made tests with a varitey of handguns using Point Shooting, and my targets tell me that at CQ distances it is very effective.

I also have shot at hit pop cans tossed up into the air with an airsoft pistol and have hit strings of 9 in a row. There just is no time to use the sights when shooting at a small target like a pop can that has been tossed into the air and will fall and hit the ground very quickly. What is required is very fast and accurate point shooting.

Some encouraging news on this subject area has been provided by John Buol, who is an adjunct instructor for the AARLEA (Alamo Area Regional Law Enforcement Academy).

During the firearms portion of every class, students shoot a qualification that exceeds TCLEOSE (Texas Commission on Law Enforcement Officer Standards and Education), standards, and is a requirement for graduation.

A 50 round qualification has been used for the last several years for all classes.

88% of shots are fired at 21 feet or less, and 20% are fired at three feet from retention and incorporate movement. Everything at nine feet and less is shot one handed, and all shots within potential contact distance of the target are fired from retention.

Here is a link to John's site. http://firearmusernetwork.com

Here's a link to an article of Mike Rayburn's on the use of Point Shooting in on the street encounters. http://www.pointshooting.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=246

His web site is www.pointshooting.org

jetfire
02-14-2012, 02:17 PM
Thus the advantage of a RDS on a pistol--it allows full target focus, but still gives a solid aiming point for precision accuracy.

Another advantage related to that is for guys like me; I have an astigmatism in my left eye which makes it nearly impossible for me to focus on the front sight with both eyes open, using an RDS allows me to stay focused on the target and keep both eyes open. Having depth perception while shooting is actually pretty amazing.

YVK
02-14-2012, 02:31 PM
Other than retention shooting (from the hip, etc) what exactly is a "specific point shooting technique?" I've never taught or practiced point shooting, but I use it all the time in matches. If I'm hosing targets at 5 yards I don't really need to use the sights, so I just rely on a positive index. I'm target focused or point shooting or whatever.

Vickers taught a technique of an imaginary reference line. He credited it to Hackathorn. My recollection is that he kept a "controlled pair", if this term can be used in regards to unsighted fire, on 8x11 sheet of paper all the way to 10 yards, don't remember exactly. Forum member Ed L. was at that class too, maybe he can refresh my memory.

P.S. He also had a technique/tip on retention shooting, don't fully remember that one.

jetfire
02-14-2012, 02:44 PM
Lemme back up a bit; because I don't want to talk past each other.

When I say "point shooting" I am specifically referring to shooting the gun at or near full extension without making use of the sights. If the gun is in a position other than full extension I'd likely call that retention or something. Anyway, what I'm trying to understand is what a specific "point shooting" technique would be? When I "point shoot" it's because I've got a wide open IPSC target at 5 yards, I don't need to see the sights to get acceptable hits, so I just sort of stick the gun out there and whack it.

The disconnect is I'm not sure how you teach someone to do that or if that's even "point shooting."

Failure2Stop
02-14-2012, 02:49 PM
Thanks for your inputs.

Always looking for LINKS to stats and verifyable studies that support the use of one method or way, over another. If you have one or more, please provide it/them.


How about the fact that at least 2 combat veterans have weighed in on the opposite side of your position?
Actually, I think it's pretty clear that you haven't actually read the 4 pages of replies that your ambush post elicited, and are simply trying to push your own agenda.

It has been proven time and time again that people under stress default to training and conditioning, and those that "see what they need to see" to get their hits (if proficient), win their fights.

JHC
02-14-2012, 02:57 PM
Other than retention shooting (from the hip, etc) what exactly is a "specific point shooting technique?" I've never taught or practiced point shooting, but I use it all the time in matches. If I'm hosing targets at 5 yards I don't really need to use the sights, so I just rely on a positive index. I'm target focused or point shooting or whatever.

That is essentially all there was to it when Ken Hackathorn had us tape up our sights and shoot static and on the move back in December. My son and I just tore up the static and steel plates on the move this way. And all we do is drill drill drill in fast sighted shooting with iso method in our training. Obviously in this excercise, the gun it up out in front of your chin.

And like you said, in matches when your flying past really close targets not a tenth of a second is lost deciding to "point shoot", you just index and do it and scream on by. But your trigger press must be as good as ever of course. Snatching it won't do.

TGS
02-14-2012, 02:57 PM
In 70% of the cases reviewed, sight alignment was not used. Officers reported that they used instinctive or point shooting.


So 70% of the officers didn't use their sights.

Yet you're using the same data for your earlier "only 20% of officers hit their targets" statement, right?

Hmmm.....70% didn't use their sights, and they only got 20% hits. Seems like the correlation you weren't going for.


__________________________________________________ ___________________


I like Caleb's example of when he uses point shooting. If you need to use point shooting, it's because you're just hosing a target at near-contact distance....so I don't understand why I would need to practice it in the first place.

I guess that's me not knowing what I don't know, but none of my good friends from tactical teams, including Force Recon and MARSOC's 2nd MSOB, have ever talked about using point shooting......so I guess they don't know what they don't know, either....or maybe they're just using what works to do bad things to bad people.

I'd be willing to go to a seminar/study group/class for free on point shooting (I'll pay my range fee), but I've never seen anything convincing enough to make me spend money on it.

agent-smith
02-14-2012, 03:01 PM
Thanks for your inputs.
Always looking for LINKS to stats and verifyable studies that support the use of one method or way, over another. If you have one or more, please provide it/them.

Unless I have access to the actual data and testing methodology, I consider any posted "numbers" as nothing more than anecdotal.

On the topic of "anecdotal", I'll pass-along this link to Kyle Lamb's thoughts on point-shooting:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3nGbN7RxpI

(I don't have any affiliation whatsoever with Kyle Lamb but I think most here consider him a "Subject Matter Expert")

YVK
02-14-2012, 03:05 PM
Lemme back up a bit; because I don't want to talk past each other.

When I say "point shooting" I am specifically referring to shooting the gun at or near full extension without making use of the sights. If the gun is in a position other than full extension I'd likely call that retention or something. Anyway, what I'm trying to understand is what a specific "point shooting" technique would be? When I "point shoot" it's because I've got a wide open IPSC target at 5 yards, I don't need to see the sights to get acceptable hits, so I just sort of stick the gun out there and whack it.

The disconnect is I'm not sure how you teach someone to do that or if that's even "point shooting."

Yes, we're on the same page. The technique is a creation of imaginary reference line between lower face, sights/muzzle end of a pistol, and target. You're at full extension and you're not looking at sights and it is as fast as draw/present and fire, so it is point shooting. However, you're not just relying on your index and stick the gun out, you're trying to create a quick unsighted aiming alternative. I think LAV suggested to use his chin as facial reference point, and I've heard somebody else use nose. I actually use lips simply because it is easier to feel own lips rather than chin or nose. You may want to experiment with this and see what works better. You also may want to experiment and see if it is even worth anything against your own index technique.

To make sure the priorities are straight, LAV is a proponent of using sights whenever possible and he suggested that technique only within 5 yards, although he demonstrated it effectively at twice the distance. Another suggested use of this technique was low light shooting if your tritium is covered with dirt or mud and you can't see the front sight.

TGS, I hope I didn't come across rudely, I am simply reflecting on the fact that there are techniques that are known, taught and practiced by some dudes whose rep is a bit higher than most of us here.

Al T.
02-14-2012, 03:23 PM
In 70% of the cases reviewed, sight alignment was not used. Officers reported that they used instinctive or point shooting.

To me, that indicates a lack of training. Obviously using "instinctive or point" shooting is not working.

Local department had a trainer that convinced someone to let him teach "point missing". That's exactly what they proceeded to do in their next two close range shoot outs.

Bumpy things on top of the slide work fine. :rolleyes:

TGS
02-14-2012, 03:26 PM
TGS, I hope I didn't come across rudely, I am simply reflecting on the fact that there are techniques that are known, taught and practiced by some dudes whose rep is a bit higher than most of us here.

Not the least bit, dude. :)

jetfire
02-14-2012, 03:33 PM
Yes, we're on the same page. The technique is a creation of imaginary reference line between lower face, sights/muzzle end of a pistol, and target. You're at full extension and you're not looking at sights and it is as fast as draw/present and fire, so it is point shooting. However, you're not just relying on your index and stick the gun out, you're trying to create a quick unsighted aiming alternative. I think LAV suggested to use his chin as facial reference point, and I've heard somebody else use nose. I actually use lips simply because it is easier to feel own lips rather than chin or nose. You may want to experiment with this and see what works better. You also may want to experiment and see if it is even worth anything against your own index technique.

To make sure the priorities are straight, LAV is a proponent of using sights whenever possible and he suggested that technique only within 5 yards, although he demonstrated it effectively at twice the distance. Another suggested use of this technique was low light shooting if your tritium is covered with dirt or mud and you can't see the front sight.

TGS, I hope I didn't come across rudely, I am simply reflecting on the fact that there are techniques that are known, taught and practiced by some dudes whose rep is a bit higher than most of us here.

That makes sense; when I'm "point shooting" in a match I basically just draw the gun the way I would if I was going to use the sights, but I never change my focal point from the target to the sights. I agree with LAV that it's best suited to use inside 5 yards or so.

JodyH
02-14-2012, 03:56 PM
When doing a test like the triple-nickle, with generous scoring zones at 5 yards I am not seeing the front and rear sights.
I do use the rear of the gun as a sighting reference, but it is not true aimed shooting nor is it point shooting.
Again we come down to see what you need to see to make the hits.
I also shoot a lot from the retention position inside 5 yards, relying on a body index acquired through repetitions of aimed fire practice.
I've never had training in point shooting, it is a by-product of years of aimed shooting.
I fail to see where point shooting specific training would improve things.

Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk

JHC
02-14-2012, 04:01 PM
However, you're not just relying on your index and stick the gun out, you're trying to create a quick unsighted aiming alternative. I think LAV suggested to use his chin as facial reference point, and I've heard somebody else use nose. I actually use lips simply because it is easier to feel own lips rather than chin or nose. You may want to experiment with this and see what works better. You also may want to experiment and see if it is even worth anything against your own index technique.

To make sure the priorities are straight, LAV is a proponent of using sights whenever possible and he suggested that technique only within 5 yards, although he demonstrated it effectively at twice the distance. Another suggested use of this technique was low light shooting if your tritium is covered with dirt or mud and you can't see the front sight.

.

That is definitely not what we got from Ken Hackathorn (Dec '11). No mention of aiming with the nose or chin. Gun was indexed out in front of your chin. Ken's emphasis was on a HARD hyper focus on the spot you want the bullet to hit. I didn't use any alternative body part. Just hard stare, index and clean press.

David Armstrong
02-14-2012, 04:07 PM
Lemme back up a bit; because I don't want to talk past each other.

When I say "point shooting" I am specifically referring to shooting the gun at or near full extension without making use of the sights.
Thus the reason I prefer the "target focus" term. Point shooting involves a lot more than shooting at full extension and so on to many. The disagreement on what the term means creates a fair amount of problems in having a reasoned discussion on the topic.

TCinVA
02-14-2012, 04:14 PM
Thanks for your inputs.
Always looking for LINKS to stats and verifyable studies that support the use of one method or way, over another. If you have one or more, please provide it/them.


Everything worth knowing hasn't been posted on some dude's blog, believe it or not. The people in this thread with the SME tag that have responded are speaking from a solid, real-world basis.

jetfire
02-14-2012, 04:44 PM
Hey, if it makes him happy I'll take all the SME quotes and put them on Gun Nuts.

David Armstrong
02-14-2012, 05:03 PM
Everything worth knowing hasn't been posted on some dude's blog, believe it or not. The people in this thread with the SME tag that have responded are speaking from a solid, real-world basis.
In all fairness there are lots of folks, in this thread and not, without the SME tag that have weighed in on the issue at various times from a solid, real-world basis. It's a contentious topic, and you have a pretty fair number of folks with impressive creds that come down on opposite sides of the issue. I do find it interesting the number of folks that condemn target focus shooting that have never had any formal training in it, but that then turn around and try to support their point by referring to folks that have devoted decades to learning to shoot sight assisted.:confused:

beltjones
02-14-2012, 05:09 PM
I'm with Caleb et al on under what circumstances I tend to point shoot.

I'll add the following:

The better I get at shooting at my sights, the farther away I can be from a target and confidently point shoot it.

And I'm not talking about tossing a can 5 feet in the air and hitting it with an airsoft gun. I'm talking about shooting any number of rounds of full power ammunition at splits well below .20 all hitting within inches of each other.

I'm sure point shooting under certain circumstances has merit, but the fact is I can shoot just as fast - and far more accurately - by using my sights. And when I choose not to use my sights, it's the index and muscle memory from sighted shooting practice that allows me to make hits.

The OP mentioned some studies he did. I would be very curious to see the lab data from his studies. Specifically, who were the testing subjects, what was the testing protocol, how was success or failure measured, and so on. If it was just him and a buddy shooting some targets and seeing which technique they preferred, I'd like to know his and his buddy's shooting resumes.

JodyH
02-14-2012, 05:13 PM
Occams Razor time:
At 7 yards I can get 2 A-zone hits in <1.7 seconds from concealed.
At 5 yards I can do a 5-6 second Triple-nickle (reload dependent) or a single 1.25 sec. head shot from concealed.
At 3 yards I can get a <1 sec. A/C hit from concealed (retention, #2 position shooting).
Please explain to me exactly what performance gains I can expect from taking a formal point shooting class.

Mr_White
02-14-2012, 05:40 PM
The way I categorize things discussed in this thread seems a little different than most.

I divide shooting into ‘visually-verified’ and ‘non-visually-verified.’

If a person can see any part of the gun, including in the lower peripheral vision, like at count #3 of the drawstroke, I consider it visually-verified, even if only very coarsely.

There are many different degrees of visual verification and some of them prove insufficient for some shooting problems.

The highest and finest degree of visual verification is sight-focused shooting.

It blurs after that, but next I would put target-focused shooting where the sights can still be seen and visually verified. High visibility sights help here. And red dot sights or lasers can bring the precision up to the level enjoyed in sight-focused shooting, even when target-focused.

Seeing the back of the gun or the hand superimposed over the target is a way of visual verification.

Even seeing the gun low in the vision and seeing the slide pointed at the target gives a degree of visual verification.

Shooting without any visual reference whatsoever of the gun-target alignment is what I would call non-visually-verified shooting.

It’s all a question of epistemology. How do you know what you think you know?

In non-visually-verified shooting, one can use physical, non-visual, reference points to know where the gun is pointed, though that degree of knowing may not be sufficient for some shooting problems. Southnarc’s #2 position is a great example of a technique that makes use of repeatable kinesthetic reference points to know where the gun is pointed. But that’s also an example of a technique that has a very specific and appropriate context, necessitated by a proximate threat.

Outside of a distance where physical contact with the adversary is likely, I would like to try to use the sights, because my ability to know where I am sending shots is at its best, and as mentioned by others, visually-verified sighted fire can be done extremely quickly.

For me non-visually-verified shooting is only something I want to do if necessary, that is, if I am facing a proximate threat issue.

The most reliable way to know where the gun is pointed is to see the sights, especially with the vision focused on the front sight. Some circumstances demand that you do otherwise, and in those cases it’s good to have other ways of knowing where the gun is pointed, even if they are less reliable than focusing on the sights.

And as others have mentioned, I thoroughly agree that when the sights aren’t seen for whatever reason, extensive sighted-fire practice will have created the byproduct of the index – the ability to go through the same physical motions as in sight-focused shooting, simply without the visual verification part. And that can be very accurate too, though maybe not enough for particularly difficult targets.

I know a lot of this has been covered. This is just my take on this material. I really think this whole discussion very much boils down to the old ‘see what you need to see’ concept. There is a whole continuum of coarse to fine visual verification of the alignment of the gun. I am a huge proponent of extensive sighted fire practice and the resulting indexing ability, and the use of sight-focused, visually-verified fire as the backbone of our general ability to point the gun where we want.

For me, hard sharp clear visual focus on the front sight, and paying mental attention to what I see in that sight picture, is the difference between a sub-2 second Bill Drill with all good hits, and a sub-2 second Bill Drill with crap hits. The difference for me is not temporal, but attentional.

YVK
02-14-2012, 05:50 PM
That is definitely not what we got from Ken Hackathorn (Dec '11). No mention of aiming with the nose or chin.

Well, that's a beauty of taking classes from different instructors. LAV credits Hack with many thing he (LAV) teaches, and that chin-target line was one of those.
10 days old confirmation is here http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=98355

jkm
02-14-2012, 06:56 PM
Center Axis Relock....has anyone here done any of that training? Yes, I trained with Paul Castle.
Ever trained in Point shooting? Yes.
Ever shot the Weaver stance? Yes.
Iso? Yes.

It's good that a person can draw and engage a target using sights and make hits. But I’m sure, that there are times when gun fighting isn't quite that simple. So, what about the guy who has drawn his weapon, but hasn't yet determined that he is dealing with a threat that would justify deadly force? What if he's looking 'beyond' his gun at a potential threat, and then sees a gun being drawn and starting to move toward him? Will he start shooting, or will he re-adjust his eyes to get a nice clear sight picture? It's only my opinion, but I think some would do it one way and others might do it the other. I also believe that target fixation could happen, and some might not be able to re-adjust their focus to their sights. Maybe they'd be busy pulling the trigger or moving without giving another thought to the sights.
I've trained in it, but I don't practice it. And, I say point shooting (maybe this isn’t a very good example of PS), or some varation of it could be useful to certain people and/or at certain times.

Simon
02-14-2012, 07:21 PM
That is definitely not what we got from Ken Hackathorn (Dec '11). No mention of aiming with the nose or chin. Gun was indexed out in front of your chin. Ken's emphasis was on a HARD hyper focus on the spot you want the bullet to hit. I didn't use any alternative body part. Just hard stare, index and clean press.

I took a 2 day class on this type of shooting about 25 years ago (not Hackathorn, I don't remember the Instructors name). The problem that I have with a hard focus is when there are more than one target and I have to engage quickly, I can't change my focus quickly enough. In this situation I find that I bring the gun up to eye level, both eyes open, and look at the target. I find that I can make hits out to about 15 yds. I can make hits from waist level out to about 7 yds using the hard focus, but I don,t find it to be fast.

I do think that with a shot gun, wing shooting, that this is the very best approach.

Odin Bravo One
02-14-2012, 07:25 PM
Impressive statistical analysis............

Of those officers killed, what was the percentage that used Point Shooting vs. those who used their sights?



I would submit for consideration that the sighting technique, (much like Modern Whateverthefuckitscalledthisweek and Weaver technique argument) used by the unsuccessful participants is irrelevant when said participant lacks the proper mindset........

Training is 3rd on the list of factors that make for repeatable, predictable deadly force outcomes. Followed next by equipment (i.e., caliber, weapon type blah blah blah).

Shoot how you want to shoot, train how you want to train. We are all free to utilize whatever techniques, sighting systems, weapons, calibers we choose. But without the proper mindset, we may find ourselves in a world of hurt should someday the fairy tale HD/SD situation we trained for becomes the absolute worst shit storm we have never imagined possible, because there was no statistical data on it.

GJM
02-14-2012, 07:41 PM
1) What level of accuracy do point shooting advocates claim they get, at for example, 7 yards? Do they claim they are hitting an IPSC target, inside an 8 inch circle, or something like the upper CNS? If I want to stop an adversary right now, it seems like you need upper CNS level accuracy.

2) If you feel like you won't use your sights in a real deal fight, why not cheat and use an RDS, a laser or both?

3) I wish Headhunter would chime in on RSS results, but Bill Rogers discusses how point shooters make their hits on the IPSC sized steel at 7 yards, but can not reliably hit the head plate at the same distance, which is a lot bigger than a real head box.

TheRoland
02-14-2012, 08:06 PM
Oh man! It's 5shot! For those who haven't encountered him before, this gentlemen is basically an internet celebrity who seems to make the rounds of the shooting forums, posting his opinions on point shooting and linking to pointshooting.com. There's usually some level of hostility, and I'm glad he's finally made his way here. :)

JHC
02-14-2012, 08:48 PM
Well, that's a beauty of taking classes from different instructors. LAV credits Hack with many thing he (LAV) teaches, and that chin-target line was one of those.
10 days old confirmation is here http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=98355

I checked the link - thanks for it! We might not be far off. LAV referred to having the gun out in front of the chin as I mentioned but he didn't say anything about a specific effort to aim with the chin - maybe it just works out that way. I may have read too much into your description of visa versa. ;)

YVK
02-14-2012, 08:55 PM
1) What level of accuracy do point shooting advocates claim they get, at for example, 7 yards?.

I don't consider myself a point shooter. I am trying to figure out how much time and ammo I've spent on this, and I am coming to conclusion that I've shot not more that 3 boxes of ammo figuring out my personal facial reference point. That is three boxes of ammo since January 2008 when I learned this trick from Larry. I don't have my total pistol ammo expenditure since that time ready at hand, but I'd guess point shooting constitutes roughly 0.43% of practice volume, possibly less.
I was able to make it to the range today and since we had this discussion, I shot whole of 14 rounds (those are included in above 150 already). Distance is 7 yards, can't bring target closer at my range. Each shot was from high ready. Here is the target

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v466/Heartachedoc/photobucket-509-1329267609729.jpg

Hard to see, but all 14 are on paper, with vast majority within 8 inch ring. I am actually impressed; thought it was going to be worse.

Now, for the sake of discussion we're all having here, we can get academic and try to shoot the same course using index only. Or, more appropriately, we can use a timer and see how much time I'd lose, if any, trying to pick up sights (although, again, this is not intended for 7 yards). Or we can just move on to things more important.

Dr. No
02-14-2012, 08:59 PM
For me, in my job it will boil down to this.

I'm in my pressed class A uniform, sitting in a large chair with a microphone in front of me. I'm sweating, even though it's cool in the room. There are 12 people staring at me that have no clue what I went through, that I couldn't sleep for days, and for the last 6 months I have gone to sleep every night wondering if they are going to strip me of my job, my freedom, and my family.

The defense attorney will ask me "Officer, you stated in your report that you don't remember ever looking at your sights when you fired your duty weapon, is that correct?"

"Yes, that is what I wrote in my report".

"Officer, can you tell me where all of those bullets you fired went?"

"No sir"

"So you were indiscriminately firing bullets at my client. Did you ever think that there might be someone else behind him?"






Yeah, you can have your point shooting. I prefer to train, practice, and get better so that I can put rounds on target where I need to quickly and ACCURATELY. To do otherwise seems .... foolish.

GJM
02-14-2012, 09:33 PM
YVK, what is interesting is, from an extended confirmed ready at 7 yards, par time is .50 for a first shot, and at about .60 we can keep that first shot in, or within an inch of a two inch PF target circle. If I wanted to stop a determined adversary immediately, I would want more accuracy than I am sensing point shooting produces?

5shot
02-14-2012, 09:46 PM
How about the fact that at least 2 combat veterans have weighed in on the opposite side of your position?
Actually, I think it's pretty clear that you haven't actually read the 4 pages of replies that your ambush post elicited, and are simply trying to push your own agenda.

It has been proven time and time again that people under stress default to training and conditioning, and those that "see what they need to see" to get their hits (if proficient), win their fights.

Your note is noted.

Read all the responses with interest, and will continue on with those following yours after this response.

I don't doubt for a minute that some folks say they saw and used their sights.

The Force Science Institute has published info that states that what one thinks they did, such as using the sights, or not even pulling the trigger in some scenario, did not square with what the video of the situation involved clearly showed.

It's just that I have never seen pics, videos, or studies that support that the sights were used, unless their shooting at extended distances or they are not directly in the line of fire.

The sop 9 says that with distance officers used their sights.

The rub is that if you are going to be shot and/or killed there is an 80% chance that it will be at less than 20 feet.

So all I suggest is that if you have a gun for self defense use, then that's where you should perfect your shooting.

..........

As to fighting as you train, most all cops have been trained to sight shoot, and their hit rate is < 20%. That says to me that their trainers should be fired, as they obviously can't train in shooting, or there are some other real and physiological or mental considerations that enter into CQ combat arena situations which are yet to be recognized and acted upon by gun makers, the Police, and trainers.

Would be nice if a gun buyer could be provided with a basic pamphlet on how to shoot successfully in a CQ self defense situation. :)

..........

Here is an excerpt of an article I wrote about a Chicago PD veteran of 14 gunfights, which is based on a Proamrs podcast interview.

Mr. Stasch reviewed the material and approved of it as written:

He is not a big fan of aimed fire, nor is he a precision shooter.

His shooting is instinctive shooting [like Point Shooting].

What you do, is point your finger at the target with your finger along the slide of the pistol.

When the top of the gun is at eye level, and the eye, front sight or muzzle, and the target are in line, you will hit what you are aiming at.

He is a big fan of 6 inch paper plates. If he can hit them with regularity, he is certain that he can probably do that at combat distances.

He also likes express sights.

In his second shooting, he and his partner were confronted by three perps. They both shot at and hit the closest of the three in the head. The other two perps took off, and where captured later.

The maximum gunfight shooting distance was maybe 20 to 25 feet. Most were under 12 feet.

Only two gunfights occurred at distance [30 - 40 feet]. In those cases suppressive fire, not aimed fire was used.

He also has had to reload only 3 times. In those situations, suppressive fire was used.

In the 14 shootings, only two or three times was a two handed grip used.

He shoots about 300 rounds per month.

He says that gunfight experience gives you knowledge of what can happen, but they are never easy. When he shoots, he shoots to live.

It is not easy to fire a gun at another human being. But just like a soldier in combat, first of all, it's your duty, to do that - if those in charge did not want you to do it, they wouldn't have issued you a gun in the first place, or had you carry it.

He has shot 9 people. Five of them died.

...........


With all due respect, you comment is a classic.

Having been involved in the world of the gun sine the late 1990's, I've been on the receiving end of tons of them. Gun folks are smart, and clever, and present some great and lucid arguments presenting their position/s.

(I was in the Army way back in the 1950's and shot expert with an M1, and yes I used the sights. Also shot a grease gun from the hip and hit what I was shooting at. But that was then, this is now.)

http://www.pointshooting.com/grease1.jpg

http://www.pointshooting.com/grease2.jpg

All I'm looking for is some science based study or pics or videos showing Sight Shooting being used successfully in CQB situations. If you have some please present them. I have a page that is dedicated to posting/presenting them, and it's been empty for years and years.

YVK
02-14-2012, 09:54 PM
G: If you wanted an immediate stop, you'd need a brainstem shot; I'd use sights for such shot at any distance, 2 yards or 7.
However, if I needed to put 5 rounds COM within 5 yards, I know I have a technique that helps me do that pretty reliably even if I am not using sights. Whether there might be a good or excusable reason not to use sights in such scenario is a separate discussion where my expertise is exactly zero. I am speculating here that for every 10 or 20 cases with no reasons not to use sights there could be one case where it might be OK not to use them. Don't see a point of not learning relatively easy technique how to run the gun without sights and wha the accuracy and distance limits are, just in case.

5shot
02-14-2012, 10:03 PM
I'm with Caleb et al on under what circumstances I tend to point shoot.

The OP mentioned some studies he did. I would be very curious to see the lab data from his studies. Specifically, who were the testing subjects, what was the testing protocol, how was success or failure measured, and so on. If it was just him and a buddy shooting some targets and seeing which technique they preferred, I'd like to know his and his buddy's shooting resumes.

Here's a link to my YouTube video shooting aerials (pop cans):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SRcK4WJMl5c (http://www.dumpaday.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/the-funny-nope-10.jpg)

As to target shooting, I usually shoot as fast as I can point and shoot, which is quite quick, but I only can shoot as fast as I can shoot.

Would some others shoot faster, no doubt.

Suvorov
02-14-2012, 10:12 PM
What Caleb describes as "retention shooting" is what I'm talking about. Am I confusing the issue by considering this point shooting? I'm sorry if I seem daft, but when I read the top shooters, combat vets, and instructors all advising against unsighted shooting, I get confused. :eek:


My take is that you don't need to train to point shoot, though.

I disagree on this to a point. I know this guy who has to qualify at close range using unsighted fire. This guy also has to qualify at longer distances using sighted fire. The only time this guy's (who is by most standards, a decent pistol shot) rounds begin to wander close to the edge of the scoring ring is with the unsighted fire. This guy works inside a "phone booth" and if he ever needs to draw blood, it may likely happen inside this phone booth. Thus he has come to the conclusion that part of the time he spends on the range should be dedicated to making sure his unsighted shots will hit their mark. Having trained for his whole adult life to shoot using sights, he considers the unsighted fire to be the most difficult part of his qualification and definitely is not as confident with it as he is with sighted fire. What do you tell him?

TGS
02-14-2012, 10:23 PM
What do you tell him?

"Sorry bro, seek instruction. I just do what I think works. I can't help."

HeadHunter
02-14-2012, 10:48 PM
3) I wish Headhunter would chime in on RSS results, but Bill Rogers discusses how point shooters make their hits on the IPSC sized steel at 7 yards, but can not reliably hit the head plate at the same distance, which is a lot bigger than a real head box.

Bill was challenged at a presentation several years ago about point shooting by the former commander of one of the largest SWAT teams in GA. Bill's standard response to people like this is: "come up to the School and show me what you can produce with point shooting; just bring your ammo and buy your food, the tuition is free." To the man's credit, he took the challenge and came up a few months later and brought one of his cohorts. We watched that point shooting crap go out the window the afternoon of the first day. He could hit the #1 body plate and sometimes the #2 body plate but all the head plates were completely safe.

The funny thing is that the man knew how to use the sights and made Advanced for the course. He just didn't realize that the sights are as fast or faster than point shooting and produce way better results until he got slapped in the face with the stinky fish.

He and I are friends to this day. I have a great deal of respect for him.

We had a large group of FBI SWAT guys who had trained extensively in point shooting come through the course years ago. They struggled to make Basic. Their previous "training" really handicapped them. One didn't pull it off until Friday and he only made a 71. I don't recall that any of them made Intermediate.

As background, Bill Rogers trained extensively at point shooting until 1976, despite being told not to by Dan Combs, a very accomplished point shooter on the Oklahoma State Police. Dan said point shooting with just a parlor trick that was fun to do and show off with.

Bill had a mechanical target setup in his basement when he was in the Bureau and practiced almost every day. Sometime after Bill left the Bureau, Ken Hackathorn came to do some shooting with Bill. Ken cleaned Bill's clock in the first side by side test of point shooting v. sighted shooting Bill had ever done. The next day, Bill started re-training himself. Then he went back to the FTU at the Bureau and cleaned their best point shooter's clock the same way Hackathorn had done to him. I believe that story is in his book.

And the CAR guys; they can't even hit the #1 body plate. Their scores rarely break out of the teens.

The essential problem with point shooting as I see it isn't the target focus aspect. Its biggest weakness is that proper trigger manipulation isn't part of the system. With regard to manipulating the trigger with the recon finger, try doing that without milking the other fingers of the hand. I've never seen anyone able to demonstrate it to me.

I need a drink now.

beltjones
02-14-2012, 10:53 PM
Epic post is epic.

JodyH
02-14-2012, 11:04 PM
But steel plates don't shoot back!
Point shooting only works against real live opponents, not cardboard and steel.
(did I guess the response?)

GJM
02-14-2012, 11:06 PM
The essential problem with point shooting as I see it isn't the target focus aspect. Its biggest weakness is that proper trigger manipulation isn't part of the system. With regard to manipulating the trigger with the recon finger, try doing that without milking the other fingers of the hand. I've never seen anyone able to demonstrate it to me.


Off topic, but before I forget, shooting the LEM trigger at speed, is very difficult without milking the other fingers of the hand.

Back on topic, HH, thanks for elaborating on my recollection of what Bill said about point shooting.

SecondsCount
02-14-2012, 11:14 PM
Ahh, Mr. 5shot. Do you still take the position that 1911's are fatally flawed due to the slide stop pin position lining up with your pointer finger? You know, the finger that 99.9999% percent of shooters use to pull the trigger?

Anyway, back to the subject at hand-

Your video shows you shooting cans at distances that look to be less than five feet away. That is an easy shot for many on this forum, not necessarily because they would or would not be using their sights, but because they have mastered the fundamentals of the handgun.

Not exactly scientific data but I will relate a personal experience from about five years ago. I was building a 1911 and wanted to function check it before installing the sights. It happened that there was a pin shoot that night so I took my regular gun with sights, shot a couple sets with it, and then I shot the last two sets using the gun without sights. Shooting bowling pins at 25 feet I saw my times improve without sights. It just so happened that the lighting was perfect in the room and if I let the light reflect off the apex of the rounded 1911 slide, my aim was dead on. Even without sights I was still using something on the gun for reference but I always wondered if there was some level of point shooting skill involved.

Rumor has it that the round top of the 1911 slide was made that way to cover the human torso at 25 yards when the pistol is on target.

Those are my thoughts and I'm not so sure I am sold on the concept of point shooting at distances beyond ten feet.

Failure2Stop
02-14-2012, 11:28 PM
All I'm looking for is some science based study or pics or videos showing Sight Shooting being used successfully in CQB situations. If you have some please present them. I have a page that is dedicated to posting/presenting them, and it's been empty for years and years.

You already have it.
As pointed out eariler by TGS, your own statistics say that:
Most officers lack realistic training
70% of officers involved in shootings did not use their sights
20% hit rate

Failure2Stop
02-14-2012, 11:36 PM
Interestingly, in another thread, from someone that is "the authority" when it comes to extremely close quarters lethal encounters:


You don't have to thank me for anything dude. It was just the gig that suited me at one time. There was always the risk of getting wrapped up into gangster bullshit just being around those guys. If I had to sit around for a half hour and wait on $100 worth of crack to show up I always had to take into account:

1) How much battery life do I have on this body wire left?
2) Who's pissed at who right now and what am I in the line of fire of while I wait for this dope?
3) How much malt liquor can I drink with these guys and still be able to see my front sight?
4) How much of a beating do I let this crack whore take before I come out of role and intervene on this possible felony assault? Or can I stay in role and avert this dude's attention?
5) How do I deal with not smoking a rock in front of my fellow crack addicts?
6) How do I keep from retransferring a controlled substance to a crackhead that helped me score since I can't commit a felony and he wants half of my rock as a reward?

5shot
02-15-2012, 01:05 AM
Thanks for your comments.

As to shooting the pop cans tossed in the air:

Here's some added technical info. in response to questions received that is on my site as an intro to the video.

The garage ceiling is about 10 feet high.

The top of the backdrop sheet is about 9 feet high at the ends, and 8 feet high in the middle.

I was standing about 11+ feet from the back drop sheet.

To keep the BB's in the shooting bay, I tried not to shoot until a can was around 8 feet or less off the ground.

From 7 off the ground, to 4 feet off the ground, seemed to be best window for shooting, which of course gives you little or no time to sight and pull the trigger as the can is fast descending due to gravity.

Also I used a mirror that was positioned so that my tossing the cans into the air and shooting at them, and the pop cans coming down in the shooting bay, would be captured in the video. That required my tossing the cans in a restricted shooting lane with my weak hand, which complicated the tossing process.

..........

As to the beloved and ubiquitous 1911:

Yes the 1911 has a design flaw (the slide stop pin). The first and many subsequent military manuals on the 1911, made specific mention of it, and of the Point Shooting method that could not be employed in shooting the 1911 because of that design flaw. TS for those who carried it and were shot and/or killed because of it.

As a former peon, I salute them and all like them who did what the could with what they had.

Another flaw of the 1911, was its grip angle design which some say was just perfect. Applegate shows in one of his films that it is not a natural aimer as a revolver, and results in shooting low when the arm is extended unless the shooter remembers to adjust the bore upwards to accommodate for that design flaw.

..........

But enough for now. I'm older than I was ten or so years ago, duh, (76), and wish thank those who have made inputs + or -.

That the subject has been raised in this what appears to be a competition and sight shooting haven, is laudable on the part of the management and admins.

Point Shooting may not save your butt, and then again, it might.

Could be worth a Google and a look see?

Adios and stay safe.

ToddG
02-15-2012, 01:36 AM
Good aimed shooting can always degenerate into decent point shooting.
Good point shooting will never upgrade into decent aimed fire.

I don't want to sound crass, but since JodyH has already expressed everything I could possibly hope to say in the above two sentences, I'm not reading any further in this thread.

GOP
02-15-2012, 03:08 AM
This might make me sound like a douchebag, but I am not sure why OIS statistics are that important to this discussion. I go to the range often, and I'll invariably see several cops a week. I think that for the vast majority, hitting anything 20% of the time might be a miracle. Just like any group who doesn't train often (either lack of funds, lack of time, or lack of enthusiasm), the vast majority are pretty bad. If I was an individual who cared about training and what works under stress, I think the only comparable samples/studies start at the SWAT/SOF level. Comparing the average shooter here to the average cop's skill level is like comparing a Porsche to a Chevy Impala. One is a high end performance car, the other gets the job done.

Question to 5shot - if you put the average SFOD-D or SEAL Team 6 guy in the place of the cops in the OIS studies, do you think that the sighted fire and/or hit ratio would go up?

My position is that many of the cops in the OIS studies didn't use their sights because they simply resorted back to the level of training that they had mastered: nothing. They pulled the gun up and shot out of instinct/fear/adrenaline, not the way that was most effective or the way that their instructors had taught them. Just my opinion.

Al T.
02-15-2012, 09:55 AM
Our state LEO academy teaches firearms for about 40 hours out of a 12 week course. Most cops are not shooters.

TGS
02-15-2012, 10:21 AM
This might make me sound like a douchebag, but I am not sure why OIS statistics are that important to this discussion. I go to the range often, and I'll invariably see several cops a week. I think that for the vast majority, hitting anything 20% of the time might be a miracle. Just like any group who doesn't train often (either lack of funds, lack of time, or lack of enthusiasm), the vast majority are pretty bad. If I was an individual who cared about training and what works under stress, I think the only comparable samples/studies start at the SWAT/SOF level. Comparing the average shooter here to the average cop's skill level is like comparing a Porsche to a Chevy Impala. One is a high end performance car, the other gets the job done.

Question to 5shot - if you put the average SFOD-D or SEAL Team 6 guy in the place of the cops in the OIS studies, do you think that the sighted fire and/or hit ratio would go up?

My position is that many of the cops in the OIS studies didn't use their sights because they simply resorted back to the level of training that they had mastered: nothing. They pulled the gun up and shot out of instinct/fear/adrenaline, not the way that was most effective or the way that their instructors had taught them. Just my opinion.

The point is that when you try to use that data to support your argument, but it doesn't actually support your argument when put together, it's a fail.

beltjones
02-15-2012, 10:24 AM
Let me sum this thread up.

"If you suck at shooting and don't train, point shooting might be your answer!"

"But we don't suck and we train a lot."

"Oh, then carry on."

Mitchell, Esq.
02-15-2012, 11:25 AM
Yeah, you can have your point shooting. I prefer to train, practice, and get better so that I can put rounds on target where I need to quickly and ACCURATELY. To do otherwise seems .... grossly negligent and representing a willful disregard for the rights and safety of others.

Fixed it for you...

David Armstrong
02-15-2012, 02:30 PM
I'm sorry if I seem daft, but when I read the top shooters, combat vets, and instructors all advising against unsighted shooting, I get confused.
I see this repeatedly, and that is the problem. Not all of them do. Lots of combat vets discuss the value of target focus shooting, and have for decades. Lots of instructors train in some version of target focused shooting, and have for decades. And lots of top shots do advocate unsighted shooting given the proper circumstances.

David Armstrong
02-15-2012, 02:33 PM
As background, Bill Rogers trained extensively at point shooting until 1976, despite being told not to by Dan Combs, a very accomplished point shooter on the Oklahoma State Police. Dan said point shooting with just a parlor trick that was fun to do and show off with.
Strange that, as Dan was one of the guys that INSISTED that unsighted point shooting out to 7 yards be a part of the Oklahoma LE training and qualification course back in the day.

David Armstrong
02-15-2012, 02:39 PM
Comparing the average shooter here to the average cop's skill level is like comparing a Porsche to a Chevy Impala. One is a high end performance car, the other gets the job done.
And given the average cop's skill level and training is far above that of most gunowners, we are back to the dichotomy I keep pointing out. Looking at what is done by the best in the field is not necessarily relevant to what is done by most folks. That is where things often start falling apart, IMO.

YVK
02-15-2012, 02:41 PM
I see this repeatedly, and that is the problem. Not all of them do. Lots of combat vets discuss the value of target focus shooting, and have for decades. Lots of instructors train in some version of target focused shooting, and have for decades. And lots of top shots do advocate unsighted shooting given the proper circumstances.

Is target focused shooting the same as point shooting? I thought they were different things, and whatever little instruction I received in this area, the techniques and rationalization for each were different.

David Armstrong
02-15-2012, 02:47 PM
Is target focused shooting the same as point shooting? I thought they were different things, and whatever little instruction I received in this area, the techniques and rationalization for each were different.
As I said earlier, I prefer the term target focus as there is so much confusion about what does and does not count as point shooting. Most of what I consder target focus shooting would fit into someones definition of point shooting.

Suvorov
02-15-2012, 02:55 PM
Is target focused shooting the same as point shooting? I thought they were different things, and whatever little instruction I received in this area, the techniques and rationalization for each were different.

I think "Definitions" is the part that I am having the biggest problem with here and where my confusion on the matter lay.

Now can I assume that with exception of the OP (who I believe is advocating the use of unsighted fire over sighted fire for all/most handgun combat ranges), every one here -

1) Believes that sighted fire is superior to unsighted fire in both accuracy and speed of hits?

2) Acknowledges that there are tactical and physical situation in which unsighted fire is necessary?

If I am correct with the assumptions, then -

a) At what range will unsighted fire be superior to sighted fire? Less than 1 yard? Less than 1/2 yard? Contact distances only?

b) Is there a point of training this or will it become automatic/instinctive as a result of muscle memory gained from sighted fire practice?

David Armstrong
02-15-2012, 03:05 PM
From my perspective and experience:

1) Believes that sighted fire is superior to unsighted fire in both accuracy and speed of hits?
Yes for accuracy, not necessarily speed. Again, much of tha tmay be a result of training levels.

2) Acknowledges that there are tactical and physical situation in which unsighted fire is necessary?
Yes, and beyond that to include might not be necessary but is preferred.

a) At what range will unsighted fire be superior to sighted fire? Less than 1 yard? Less than 1/2 yard? Contact distances only?
I think sighted fire will always be preferable to unsighted fire when it can be used.

b) Is there a point of training this or will it become automatic/instinctive as a result of muscle memory gained from sighted fire practice?
Some level of target focus/unsighted/point shooting proficiency will come from sighted fire practice, but much of it will only come from adequate and appropriate training.

JodyH
02-15-2012, 04:11 PM
And given the average cop's skill level and training is far above that of most gunowners, we are back to the dichotomy I keep pointing out. Looking at what is done by the best in the field is not necessarily relevant to what is done by most folks. That is where things often start falling apart, IMO.
Then take this crap to one of the dozens of lowest common denominator forums.
This forum is beyond catering to or humoring the LCD.

Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk

JodyH
02-15-2012, 04:15 PM
Some level of target focus/unsighted/point shooting proficiency will come from sighted fire practice, but much of it will only come from adequate and appropriate training.
Prove it.
If someone is already capable of a <1 sec draw to no sights hit inside 5 yards, exactly what improvements are you going to offer up?
Quantify and prove it up.

Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk

Shellback
02-15-2012, 04:17 PM
Oh man! It's 5shot! For those who haven't encountered him before, this gentlemen is basically an internet celebrity who seems to make the rounds of the shooting forums, posting his opinions on point shooting and linking to pointshooting.com. There's usually some level of hostility, and I'm glad he's finally made his way here. :)

Trying to attract people to his website by spamming forums isn't the most credible thing to do. Besides, we already have a well respected forum member here from Washington who has a direct affiliation with the term 5 Shot, http://www.5shotleather.com, don't confuse the two. ;)

David Armstrong
02-15-2012, 04:46 PM
Then take this crap to one of the dozens of lowest common denominator forums.
This forum is beyond catering to or humoring the LCD.

Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk
Gee, sorry, but I didn't realize you were the GOD OF FORUM GODS. Sorry, I got invited here by Todd and if Todd wants me to "take this crap" anywhere I'm sure he will let me know. IMO an elitist attitude like that does far more to hurt the study of this business than help it. As I've said before, if the only defense is "some of the very best cream of the crop top level folks can do this" it really isn't much of a defense. It sort of ranks up there with the old "if they would only train more" copout I used to hear from LE trainers.

David Armstrong
02-15-2012, 04:49 PM
Prove it.
If someone is already capable of a <1 sec draw to no sights hit inside 5 yards, exactly what improvements are you going to offer up?
Quantify and prove it up.

Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk
Probably nothing. However, since most folks aren't capable of doing that, again, it really doesn't do much for the discussion of the role or use of something by most folks.

joshs
02-15-2012, 04:51 PM
Please get this thread back on topic and keep the discussion both polite and professional as required by the Code of Conduct (http://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?37-READ-pistol-forum-com-Code-of-Conduct).

Sparks2112
02-15-2012, 05:12 PM
I'm going to offer the opinion that if you took a brand new shooter and gave them either instruction in point shooting or more "accepted" techniques they would be a better shooter with the "accepted" training. All the people I've known who were good at point shooting were good shooters in general. I've yet to meet someone who could point shoot well but fell apart when employing aimed fire disciplines. This constitutes "a clue" in my books.

Zhurdan
02-15-2012, 05:28 PM
I'm going to offer the opinion that if you took a brand new shooter and gave them either instruction in point shooting or more "accepted" techniques they would be a better shooter with the "accepted" training. All the people I've known who were good at point shooting were good shooters in general. I've yet to meet someone who could point shoot well but fell apart when employing aimed fire disciplines. This constitutes "a clue" in my books.

I'd have to agree. I was brought up, for the most part, on "aimed fire" and every trainer save one taught it that way. The trainer that I did see teach a point shooting technique couldn't even hit the target. It seemed as if he was teaching something he didn't fully understand and could not replicate.

Now, that being said, if you put a Colt Peacemaker in my hand (or a reasonable facsimile), I can draw and hit a pop can ~8 of 10 times at 6-7 yards from the hip. Why? Because for many years, it was all about cowboy guns and ridin' horses with my dad when I was younger. I can still do it to this day, but that's only because I "like" to do it when I go out shooting my other guns. Can't even come close to those numbers with a modern Semiauto pistol trying to attempt the same thing.

Personally, I don't think point shooting has a place in my training regimen when it comes to semiautos. If it's a contact shot, there's no need to aim... if it's not a contact shot... either move to where it is or move to where you can use the sights. (yes, I know there are times when this may not be possible, but for the most part the time to draw your gun isn't necessarily when they have their hands on you)


*side note- quick drawing with a single action pistol can be very dangerous, as I'm sure we all know. I practiced for many moons with a dry gun before even attempting it with live ammo. I do not recommend it unless the appropriate amount of time has been put into preparing for it. Kinda like any other gun related thing, but worth noting.*

Mr_White
02-15-2012, 06:30 PM
Warning: long post (you didn’t expect that from me, did you???:)) and it’s not on the topic of what methods to teach brand new shooters, but rather, what can be accomplished in training conditions by people who train and practice a lot, like the forum members here on pistol-forum.com.

Some of the confusion over definitions is why I made my earlier post on how I personally categorize these different ways of getting the gun aimed at the target, and ‘knowing’ that I am doing so.

I’ll share a training experience that I think is illustrative of both the necessity (within this training situation only, I make no assertion about the right time to do this for real) and efficacy of target-focused, coarsely visually verified fire, supported by a fairly well developed index.

We have an exercise out here that we use frequently. We call it ‘dynamic pin races.’ It’s a head to head person vs. person drill/bout. We set it up as follows:

Start position is two shooters, shoulder to shoulder at the center of the range, facing downrange. The shooter on the left has a Bianchi Barricade about five yards to his left. The shooter on the right has a Bianchi Barricade about five yards to his right. Each shooter has a bowling pin hung from a target rail some distance downrange. We use varying distances (6 to 15 yards), but most commonly make the distance 7 yards.

The rules are pretty simple. At the start signal, both shooters break for cover and draw their pistols as they do so. They can shoot at their pin on the move on the way to cover (walking or running, but no slow motion IDPA walk), and/or shoot at the pin without moving once they have reached cover. The shooters are specifically not allowed to stand still in the open and shoot. First shooter to hit his pin wins.

A quick side note: I thought of this exercise a couple of years ago, and quite frankly, it was based in my then-mindset that shooting on the move or behind cover was unquestionably tactically superior to standing in the open and shooting. I am no longer completely convinced of that, but we still use the exercise and I still think it has a lot of value.

Normally when we do this drill we all use the highest and finest degree of visual verification that we can in trying to hit the pin – our sights or lasers or red dots – including when shooting on the walk or run. And that is in my opinion the overall best way. A very high percentage of these bouts are won with a first round hit on the walk or run on the way to cover.

This exercise does require that a person apply their own personal skills to the best of their ability. For some, hitting the pin on the walk or run is quite doable, often on the first shot. Others estimate that they are best served by sprinting to cover and just shooting statically from there. As the distance increases, we see more people just running to cover and shooting from there. Both ways can win, but nothing beats a very fast first shot that hits (which is largely the point of the exercise – get the first good hit in this ‘fight’, such as it is.) It is entirely possible to miss. The background behind the target must absolutely be taken into account. When we do this exercise, the background is clear of innocents and misses are not costly other than the time and ammunition wasted. Now that I am writing this, I think we need to add some bystanders downrange for further variation next time.

We’ve also done this drill in severely reduced light, just enough to be able to barely see the white bowling pins without adding artificial white light. Since some people repeatedly win this drill against others, we played with a handicapping system last time. If you won your bout, on the next one, you were ‘handicapped.’ To handicap one of the shooters in the low light dynamic pin races, we spray paint that person’s pin black, which makes it incredibly difficult to get a visual fix on (black pin against a mottled black and gray bullet trap, in light levels so low that a white pin can only just barely be seen.)

The shooter might have to get out their flashlight in addition to drawing the gun while moving toward cover in order to see the black pin at all so they can shoot it. We also made the black pin a greater distance from the handicapped shooter than the white pin from the other shooter (9 yards vs 7 yards), and instead of the shooters being shoulder to shoulder at the center of the range, we made them shoulder to shoulder further away from the handicapped shooter’s cover, making that shooter have a greater distance to move before they got to shoot standing still. And we put the black pin on the left side of the range. If two right handers are doing this drill, the one moving to the right can walk or run naturally and shoot two handed. The one moving to the left must shoot SHO if walking or running naturally. All those factors together comprised a pretty significant handicap in my opinion.

When we did this a couple of months ago, I wanted to experiment with my G34 with the plain black Defoor sights, in an effort to further explore their characteristics in low light. I think I was the only person without night sights or a laser.

On my first bout, I started on the black pin side, I was not able to see the black pin at all (too dark, similarly colored background behind the target) and I had to get out my flashlight to even find the target, which I did, and won the bout with a first round hit while walking briskly to cover. Once the flashlight was on, I was able to use sight focused visually verified shooting since the flashlight illuminated the sights.

By the time of my second bout, myself and others had shot the black pin, and it was becoming barely visible, because the bullet strikes on the pin left tiny white spots. Since I could now visually fix on the small white bullet strikes on the target (only barely, and much less visible than the white pin, which relatively speaking stuck out like a sore thumb) I skipped using the flashlight and just got straight to the shooting.

I noticed that if I made any attempt to shift visual focus to the gun or sights (which I could not see anyway) I lost my visual fix on the pin. The great difficulty of maintaining visual fix on the target, because of the reduced light and the bullet trap behind the target that was basically the same color as the target itself, required that I be target focused.

I was able to see the white skin of my hand just underneath the target, and that was the only visual verification of gun alignment I could get in this circumstance, and that is pretty coarse visual verification (pin is not very large, is about analogous to a reduced size body A zone, or a whole head, and it was 9 yards away from me.)

I went 4 for 4 using the above method against our best shooters that night. I think three of the four were first round hits walking briskly to cover. I think I used the flashlight on the first bout only, when the pin was freshly black and I couldn’t find it at all without the flashlight (which also let me see my sights on that run only.) Visual verification was barely possible – I saw the white skin of my hand underneath the target which I could barely see. Sighted fire was impossible under those specific conditions. Night sights might have helped a little, but when I have done similar shooting with night sights (basically solo runs of the same exercise with no opponent) I found I still had to be target focused to maintain my ability to locate the target so I could shoot at it. I believe I have built up an index not just when standing still, but when shooting on the walk or run laterally, because I have practiced doing so pretty extensively in normal lighting conditions using the sights and being sight focused.

I have zero doubt that a laser or red dot sight is by far the best reference for fine visually-verified shooting in these conditions. Our shooter who uses a laser got a lot of mileage out of it that night.

These difficult training conditions, which may or may not correspond to anything real, were a context in which index + coarse visual verification while target focusing, were both necessary and efficacious, repeatedly, against very skilled opposition.

I believe that my ability to do the above would be drastically reduced without extensive sighted fire training and practice. I think this is an example of the efficacy retained by finely visually verified sight focused shooting when the circumstances do not allow the actual sights to be seen.

5shot
02-15-2012, 09:17 PM
This might make me sound like a douchebag, but I am not sure why OIS statistics are that important to this discussion. I go to the range often, and I'll invariably see several cops a week. I think that for the vast majority, hitting anything 20% of the time might be a miracle. Just like any group who doesn't train often (either lack of funds, lack of time, or lack of enthusiasm), the vast majority are pretty bad. If I was an individual who cared about training and what works under stress, I think the only comparable samples/studies start at the SWAT/SOF level. Comparing the average shooter here to the average cop's skill level is like comparing a Porsche to a Chevy Impala. One is a high end performance car, the other gets the job done.

Question to 5shot - if you put the average SFOD-D or SEAL Team 6 guy in the place of the cops in the OIS studies, do you think that the sighted fire and/or hit ratio would go up?

My position is that many of the cops in the OIS studies didn't use their sights because they simply resorted back to the level of training that they had mastered: nothing. They pulled the gun up and shot out of instinct/fear/adrenaline, not the way that was most effective or the way that their instructors had taught them. Just my opinion.

ME:

I have not doubt that it would.

I also believe in the second amendment as you apparently don't and have just set that out in writing.

I don't want the GOVERNMENT to step in and confiscate guns which are lethal and deadly, unless the owner has been licensed and certified to shoot as good as your average SEAL, which includes those of cops, who according to you can't shoot worth much if anything, due to their lack of training.

That is a logical conclusion to your thinking, as to not do that would subject the public at large to risk of death via incompetent, untrained shooters walking around with recognized lethal objects used in warfare.

My thinking is that the FBI, DOJ,THE BRASS, GUN MAKERS, AND TRAINERS just don't know what they are doing, or can't train, or both.

Or perhaps, their training results, in terms of Officers being shot and/or killed, DON'T MATTER.

AFAIK, those stats have been about the same for ten years, and even with the proliferation of vests.

I also expect disparaging comments to continue, which is normal and a bit shameful IMHO, and to which I may or may not respond 2.

Jay Cunningham
02-15-2012, 09:26 PM
ME:

I have not doubt that it would.

I also believe in the second amendment as you apparently don't and have just set that out in writing.

I don't want the GOVERNMENT to step in and confiscate guns which are lethal and deadly, unless the owner has been licensed and certified to shoot as good as your average SEAL, which includes those of cops, who according to you can't shoot worth much if anything, due to their lack of training.

That is a logical conclusion to your thinking, as to not do that would subject the public at large to risk of death via incompetent, untrained shooters walking around with recognized lethal objects used in warfare.

My thinking is that the FBI, DOJ,THE BRASS, GUN MAKERS, AND TRAINERS just don't know what they are doing, or can't train, or both.

Or perhaps, their training results, in terms of Officers being shot and/or killed, DON'T MATTER.

AFAIK, those stats have been about the same for ten years, and even with the proliferation of vests.

I also expect disparaging comments to continue, which is normal and a bit shameful IMHO, and to which I may or may not respond 2.

Enough of the baiting/instigating 5shot - check your PMs.

This thread has more than run its course.