Point Shooting????

[irishshooter]

thought this topic would be a thought provoking one with some great insight to be had. I think point shooting is a great tool to have and know how and when to use it although i have met many others that area adamently against it. i have taken Bob Tauberts REflexive shooting courses and found them to be quite eye opening and challenging, but provide for a useful set of skills for certain situations. i dont think point shooting should be the only way you train, but again believe its a useful tool. any thoughts?????

By the way Bob Tauberts credentials include but are not limited to serving 2 tours as a Marine in Vietnam and being a widely respected FBI Special Agent for over twenty-four years. While in the FBI he was heavily involved in Special Operations and was one of the founders and trainers of the FBI’s Elite Hostage Rescue Team (HRT). Bob served as the FBI SOG liaison for the USMC and US Navy special operations entities. Bob is responsible for the birth of the widely known SEAL Team 6. He has been involved in numerous gun fights and survived.

[virginiatactical]

Point shooting has its place. You can look at my staff page in my website to see what my training / combat background in. It is no were near as extensive as Mr. Tauberts, but I do have some experience.

At HRP we taught to point shoot from 7 yards and in order to hit an "open" threat. That means a threat that is not behind cover, or blocked by someone (like a 3rd Grader). We built a very strong foundation that was ingrained with out shooters since TD1 of our course working over 17 thousand rounds into a group of 12 shooters over the course of 4 days. The last day was sims day. On TD4 they are tested by performing a shot on a 10 inch chest plate from 7 yards. The shooter is shooting from concealed and is operating an M9 (military, but the FED LEO or SF guys had glocks). The shooter had to deliver a successfull hit on target in 1.75 seconds. The decocker is also down on the M9. Almost all our students did this quite successfully, but we did rarely have students who could not be able to do it. (this was just part of our qual)

I strongly believe in "point shooting" for threats that are 5 yards and in, and are also unobstructed. I have only fired my pistol once in an engagement, but I was 15 yards away from the guy so of course I used my sights. Even though at HRP we taught 7 yards and In, we did have a ton of misses. I myself always pick up my sights at 7 yards, but when I feel like I am closer then that on a threat or target I rely on my presentation and press out in order to ventilate my target. (again I have never engaged anyone with my handgun closer then 15 yards)

I do not think one should point shoot at a limited target (depends on the limit). Point shooting worked well at HRP, and it works well for me now. I also currently teach 2 classes a month to a DOD client. Most 3 yards and in shots we do on the range is relying on our presentation to deliver those accurate shots. My students have to deliver 2 shots in 2 seconds from 3 yards at an unobstructed target, from the holster. The "chest" area is the full value zone of the qual course we have to qualify our guys on. My students do well, and rarely have issues hitting at that speed using our point shooting method.

[LittleLebowski]

Post an AAR on the Tauberts class you took. It will add more than posting his biography.

[irishshooter]

Post an AAR on the Tauberts class you took. It will add more than posting his biography.

from my AAR from my gun club website from a few years ago

Reflexive Shooting I

It is a 2 day 16 hour course at Sig Academy in Epping NH. requires intermediate skills for entry however it was obvious that intermediate skills were probably too lenient of a requirement and some individuals were either only allowed dry fire during drills or removed from the class entirely because of safety infractions and not being able to perform some of the drills to the instructors satisfaction. I would strongly suggest being an upper end intermediate with a lot of confidence or atleast advanced level pistol operator to get the most out of this course.

The course is based on Bob Tauberts personal survival in gun fights and the FBI statistics regarding shooting distances, speed and what wins a gun fight. Combat accuracy not bullseye accuracy is taught, however accuracy in general is mandatory. The big kicker to the course is based on Bobs research, that in a gun fight a lot of shooters report never seeing or looking at their sights therefore during the entire course your sights are taped off with electrical tape and rendered useless. This is not a course for NRA bullseye shooters for you will get no benefit from it.

Some of the COF during this course; multiple strings of each drill (keep in mind sights are taped off or removed the 2 days)

-Timed event. draw, fire 4 shots high chest on steel 5 yards. i believe par time was 3 seconds

-Shooting on the move. Shooting steel at distances less than 2 feet and moving back to a distance of 7 yards continously shooting. basic but fun. SHO/WHO/2 hand grip

-Shooting without sights to distances of 25 yards. you could barely see the steel plates from behind the gun at this point but if you can point at it you should be able to hit it. SHO/WHO/2 hand grip

-shooting from seated postion transitioning to standing behind concealment. basic but fun, simulates out to dinner/car jacking scenario. SHO and 2 hand grip

-shooting in total darkness. this was a ton of fun. the instructor flashes paper and steel targets with a flashlight just enough for you to see there was a target. draw, fire & reload in total darkness. timed event.

-second total darkness shoot. 6 threat targets and six hostage targets. instructor flashes either for split second and you need to determine shoot or no shoot and put 3 rounds on paper without hitting hostage/no shoot target. again shots are made in total darkness recalling where the target was, whether shoot or no shoot target and putting rounds on target. a ton of fun.

-the OK Coral shootout. two shooters separated by a wooden barrier stand side by side in front of steel plates. distance 5 yds from the target. a mirror is placed in front and in between shooters so you can see your "opponent" and he can see you. one person is the aggressor and the other reacts to their draw. agressor draws when ready. as soon as he moves to draw the reacting individual may draw. both shooting at own steel targets. outside of simunitions this added stress, concentration and the need to quickly draw and put rounds on target. Again, accuracy is mandatory and stressed. the most important shot is the one that hits its target and better be the first one. rapid shots that dont impact target in upper chest did not qualify. Fun drill. it really drove home the importance of needing to put rounds on target quickly but to maintain accuracy. fast misses dont help in a gun fight.

-moving target that only becomes visible to you after it passes by your small area of concealment. draw, fire as many rounds accurately as you can. fast mover with little time to shoot and a small target zone.

-steel shoot rapid paced walk single hand. walk quickly along all 8 steel targets. cannot stop moving. again need to be high chest shots. OK drill.

-shooting with gun completely hidden from underneath cardboard so you could not see the gun. varying heights. difficult at first. but drills home the point.

-last drill. Repeat of the OK Coral above with added bonus of hands being completely covered in vegetable oil. the purpose of this drill was so Bob T. could simulate to other agents what it was like to fire a gun in the heat of a battle with blood soaked hands. lots of fun.

I could've left some COF out by accident because it seems like we did much more. A very fun 2 days with a lot of competition integrated skills to keep the shooters pushing and to keep the pace up. If you can get to it i dont think you would be disappointed. ToddG might be able to talk more about it this since it is often taught at his old stomping grounds

[gringop]

Thanks for the ARR, it answered a lot of questions I was going to ask. Here are some of my thoughts.

"-Shooting on the move. Shooting steel at distances less than 2 feet..."

WTF? If the above statement is correct then I would never train with that instructor. Did you use frangible, airsoft or wax bullets?

Shooting with sights covered with tape is not point shooting in my definition. My definition of point shooting is not having any kind of visual reference of the gun to target, just using the body index. I realize that one of the drills you described did just this.

For the rest of the drills (excluding total darkness), it seems that you had some kind of visual reference for each drill. This is what I call a basic blocky flash sight picture.

I'm guessing that these differing definitions are why you get some folks being adamantly against it.

Some shooters can do amazing things without sights (Example: D. R. Middlebrooks) but for normal students or LEO trainees is it worthwhile to try to train to that level of expertise or is it better to train them to use there sights at anything beyond gun retention distances?

I think that point shooting from retention has it's place in certain situations but quickly get tired of shooters/instructors who insist that Applegate knew it all and that shooting from the hip is so much faster and that "combat effective hits" are good enough for any defensive situation.

My target zones are the cardiac triangle and the ocular window. If they aren't being hit, it's not combat effective.

Please understand that I'm not accusing you, Irishshooter, of being one of those people and it sounds like the class was very interesting and useful (except for 2 foot steel shooting).

Thanks for opening this interesting and possibly controversial thread.

Gringop

[SLG]

Interesting bio for Bob.

I don't like the term, but "point shooting" is just one "point" on the shooting continuum, and you have to understand the continuum if you want to be a well rounded shooter. A hard front sight focus is at the other end, and most shooting falls somewhere in between.


"-last drill. Repeat of the OK Coral above with added bonus of hands being completely covered in vegetable oil. the purpose of this drill was so Bob T. could simulate to other agents what it was like to fire a gun in the heat of a battle with blood soaked hands. lots of fun."

Just saw this part. Too funny. Sort of.

[STS]

http://www.fightfocusedconcepts.com/home

This guy is local to me and is all about point shooting. A lot of people sing his praises, but the intro video has me a little concerned. I wonder if he is taking "point shooting" to the extreme? It almost seems as if some feel that you should never use your sights.

[TCinVA]

http://www.fightfocusedconcepts.com/home

This guy is local to me and is all about point shooting. A lot of people sing his praises, but the intro video has me a little concerned. I wonder if he is taking "point shooting" to the extreme? It almost seems as if some feel that you should never use your sights.

No offense is meant to the guy in the video...but I bet if we took some of our members around here and put them on the very same targets and measured their hits and in what time they mad their hits I bet you'd see that they would get more precise hits in the same time or better.

There is a time for completely unsighted fire, a time for minimally sighted fire, and a time for very precise sighted fire. The key, as SLG mentioned, is to understand which is appropriate at what times.

The circumstances of the threat you face dictate the shot you must make.

[virginiatactical]

No offense is meant to the guy in the video...but I bet if we took some of our members around here and put them on the very same targets and measured their hits and in what time they mad their hits I bet you'd see that they would get more precise hits in the same time or better.

There is a time for completely unsighted fire, a time for minimally sighted fire, and a time for very precise sighted fire. The key, as SLG mentioned, is to understand which is appropriate at what times.

The circumstances of the threat you face dictate the shot you must make.

Well written +1

[GJM]

Bill Rogers dealt with this last week both in his Sunday night lecture and on the range down in Ellijay, GA. It takes a human .24 on average to respond to a stimulus, aural or visual, and .25 to make an accurate shot from an extended, confirmed ready. For that reason, his eight yard target is exposed for .5 second.

You won't make a hit any faster point shooting, but your ability to make a head shot at that distance, or a body shot at, say 12 yards, goes out the window with point shooting.

[vecdran]

Almost all of my exposure to "point shooting" has been people at my range furiously trying to defend themselves from my "baseless accusations" that they were shooting up the range. :(

[rsa-otc]

http://www.fightfocusedconcepts.com/home

This guy is local to me and is all about point shooting. A lot of people sing his praises, but the intro video has me a little concerned. I wonder if he is taking "point shooting" to the extreme? It almost seems as if some feel that you should never use your sights.

I agree with TC.

Also I noticed that all the shooting took place in what seemed to be 5 yards and in. He may have stretched it to 7 yards on a couple of runs. As the shooter made distance from the target the gun moved from hip level up to eye level at his most extreme distance 5-7 yards. While I can't be positive, at distance the shooter may have been using some reference to the front sight.

I recently listened to 2 interviews of officers who in the course of their career survived multiple gun fights. I came away with the impression they felt there was importance in acquiring the front sight.

Bill Allard from the NY stake out squad - "front sight, press".

Bob Stasch of the Chicago PD - Doesn't believe in traditional sight pictures, he uses 3 points of reference; his eyes, the targets head and the front sight. After his first OIS (assailant soaked up a great amount of large caliber gun fire) he aims only for head shots.

Definitely been there done that kind of guys.

After 30 years of looking at both sides of the argument my take is; Contact distance gun tucked in close to the body, 3-5 yards gun comes up to shoulder level and maybe on the same plain as the eyes (if we're talking hostage situation sights acquired). 7 yards and beyond how perfect the sight picture is depends on the probability of the target. High probability less focused sights, low probability more sharply focused the sight gets.

Don't get me wrong there are some very skilled hip shooters in this world that can do some amazing things point shooting. Bill Jordan and Bob London come to mind. These guys spent looonnnggg hours perfecting their craft. For us mere mortals some form of aimed fire is required.

[ToddG]

To paraphrase what many others have said, it depends.

Point shooting is neither inherently bad nor good. Folks who take it to extremes either by advocating it to the exclusion of aimed fire or by denying its utility completely are both in the wrong and, candidly, best avoided by folks who are serious about shooting.

The problem is that because "point shooting" has become such a hot button topic, it is often discussed without defining terms. Ask someone who says he never point shoots how to deal with a threat a contact distance and his answer, no matter how contrived, can probably be translated into "I point shoot." Ask a point shooting advocate why he brings the gun up to eye level for some shots and his answer, no matter how contrived, can probably be translated into "I'm seeing my sights."

Having said that, beyond H2H distance I don't see a great benefit in purposely practicing unsighted fire. I can point shoot pretty well. Hell, I can do it with my eyes closed. Why? Because I've got a lot of repetitions of bringing my gun up into a set position that has it aimed where I want to hit.

Put another way: beyond near-contact distance, every round I practice of sighted fire is building up both my aimed and indexed shooting skill. And especially as I practice sighted fire at faster speeds on high probability targets, I'm reaching a point where I don't have a particularly hard focus on the front sight but I am still aware of it. In my experience, this is precisely where I end up in force-on-force evolutions that fall within that 5-25' or so window.

One thing I am definitely not a fan of, however, is the multi-tiered approach based on set distance. The idea that I will use Plan-A to 2.3yd, then Plan-B to 6.8yd, then Plan-C out to 15yd, then Plan-D beyond it... come on, seriously? How many of us are really that good at judging distance to begin with? Now add stress of a fight and you're going to set up a mental trigger that is dependent on knowing which side of a bright line you're on? Now think about how dynamic a real fight is likely to be with both sides moving... the whole distance-dependent technique thing falls apart pretty quickly.

It really does all boil down to what Brian Enos and other competitive shooters figured out decades ago: see what you need to see. Sometimes a shot is going to require a perfect sight picture. Sometimes it's going to require your gun to be completely out of view. And there is a whole spectrum of circumstances in between.

[irishshooter]

@gringop the course is with all frangible ammo, otherwise i'd been out the door faster than anyone else ;). Again, i feel point shooting has its place and obviously there are a lot of different opinions regarding it and its usefulness. i also see that the definitions of point shooting are not as cohesive as one might think based on some of the replies. My AAR of the course was from 5 years or so ago and i tried to recap the course for those at my club considering taking it. it was fun and challenging and only a slice of the pie for another technique for me, but a really fast paced "new to you" set of drills without using a hrd front sight focus. yes the vegetable oil soaked hands was definitely a different drill but like many other wounded shooter scenarios it got you thinking and Bob Taubert really emphasized the need for this drill and pushed it alot at Quantico as i recall being told.

[irishshooter]

One thing I am definitely not a fan of, however, is the multi-tiered approach based on set distance. The idea that I will use Plan-A to 2.3yd, then Plan-B to 6.8yd, then Plan-C out to 15yd, then Plan-D beyond it... come on, seriously? How many of us are really that good at judging distance to begin with? Now add stress of a fight and you're going to set up a mental trigger that is dependent on knowing which side of a bright line you're on?

this. agree entirely Todd and this was basically my reason for the post about point shooting. Two recent opinions i have heard regarding point shooting: 1. that it is not only useless but dangerous for without seeing your front sight you cannot account for where your rounds will go. 2. point shooting is useful but only at certain distances; "i stay on my sights at anything 25 yards or more". my opinion again was along the lines of your Brian Enos quote and the training mantra of there is no "only way". i avoid those instructors entirely.

[rsa-otc]

One thing I am definitely not a fan of, however, is the multi-tiered approach based on set distance. The idea that I will use Plan-A to 2.3yd, then Plan-B to 6.8yd, then Plan-C out to 15yd, then Plan-D beyond it... come on, seriously? How many of us are really that good at judging distance to begin with? Now add stress of a fight and you're going to set up a mental trigger that is dependent on knowing which side of a bright line you're on? Now think about how dynamic a real fight is likely to be with both sides moving... the whole distance-dependent technique thing falls apart pretty quickly.


I was not suggesting that this was a set PLAN. Self defense is to fluid and dynamic to have SET PLANS and I don't advocate a set plan other than at contact distance keeping the gun tucked in close for retention purposes.

The distances I outlined above are generally what I see the average person able to make effective hits using those techniques. Beyond contact distance I too only practice sighted fire.

What I tell my students is to use whatever technique that they feel will make effective hits at combat speed given the circumstances they are presented with.

[JHC]

Having said that, beyond H2H distance I don't see a great benefit in purposely practicing unsighted fire. I can point shoot pretty well. Hell, I can do it with my eyes closed. Why? Because I've got a lot of repetitions of bringing my gun up into a set position that has it aimed where I want to hit.

Put another way: beyond near-contact distance, every round I practice of sighted fire is building up both my aimed and indexed shooting skill.


Sunday, practicing the PT "Acceleration Drill", striving for 2 shots in one second on a paper plate, I saw that when I got on the trigger too hard too fast during the pressout, I essentially pointshot great hits - nicely grouped just above the paper plate - on the IPSC silo - just above the sternum. This indexed shooting skill made this possible.

I don't consider PS beyond H2H range either. Even though I've expended thou's of .22lr playing at bouncing soda cans from the hip. That's a game and a stunt. There's just no reason for it beyond H2H range IMO.

[David Armstrong]

Some shooters can do amazing things without sights (Example: D. R. Middlebrooks) but for normal students or LEO trainees is it worthwhile to try to train to that level of expertise or is it better to train them to use there sights at anything beyond gun retention distances?
Yes. That has been pretty well verified recently by the work of Bill Lewinski at the Force Science Research Center. Short version, what they found was that when under stress and/or surprised even well-trained shooters would lock onto the target and not use sights at the common gunfight ranges, and those who took the time to try to use the sights were slower than those who used kinesthetic techniques. Lot's more to it than that, of course, and Lewinski points out that the best way to develop those good kinesthetic techniques is through a regimen of sighted fire, but I think the results, along with other research, are enough to suggest we need to be training our people to operate with a target focus fast and close instead of always pushing sight focus. FWIW, that is the distinction I've been trying to get across for quite some time now, instead of "point shooting", which is way too vague. I think it better to discuss the issue in terms of focus, either you are focused on the target or you are focused on the sights.

[Occam's Razor]

I rarely post, usually just a casual observer, but thought I'd chime in on this one. I'm not a fan of the term "Point Shooting" nor do I teach what is traditionally called point shooting. However, I don't think anyone denies that instinctual shooting is a reality in a 'bad breath" confrontation. But for more advanced students, who have the repetitions and the kinesthetic balance to know how their bodies work in a stressful situation, I do start to teach what I've chosen to call Micro-focus. The individual instinctively moves toward their intended target and that split second before the shot breaks is "micro-focused" to that front sight. Many of us do it without even knowing it, similar to what ToddG described. As instructors we might sometimes lose our focus because we assume that others just "get it". I believe that what some may call point shooting at a distance is more often what I've described as that micro-second of micro-focus.

[jetfire]

I agree with Todd (what a surprise), but I wanted to talk further on the distance issue. I used to be one of those "you should never point shoot stuff" until I realized that at matches, I point shoot targets all the time. If I'm shooting a wide open USPSA target at 3 yards or closer, I'm not going to look at the sights. I don't need to. I've practiced enough using aimed fire that I know what my index is and I know where the gun needs to be to get good and more importantly fast hits. But if I suddenly have to hit a mini-popper at 25 yards, I'm going to use my sights for sure.

When I walk through a USPSA stage, I don't think "I'm going to point shoot this target and use my sights on that" because after practicing nothing but sighted fire I "know" where to stick the gun to get hits on close range targets. There are times, both in competition and real life where it will make perfect sense to point shoot stuff. There are also times where you're going to really, really want to use your sights. If all you ever practice is sighted fire, you'll have built up a good index so that if you need to point shoot something, you'll likely be able to with a reasonable chance of success.

[mc1911]

"When I walk through a USPSA stage, I don't think "I'm going to point shoot this target and use my sights on that" because after practicing nothing but sighted fire I "know" where to stick the gun to get hits on close range targets. There are times, both in competition and real life where it will make perfect sense to point shoot stuff."

This.

What I've experienced in Caleb's scenario is that it wasn't until after the stage that I realized I hadn't used my sights on some targets. But the hits were there. If you practice enough, you get your subconscious to the point where it makes the decision for you based on what it knows you can do. It isn't because you practiced point shooting but rather because you practiced, period.

[TCinVA]

I believe a wise man coined the phrase "subconscious competence" as a descriptor of that phenomenon...ingraining something through deliberate practice that becomes literally something you do without any conscious thought.

[DrFlsGood]

With enough practice what we may attribute to point shooting is actually muscle memory. We retain and remember fine motor skills and the more we practice, the more our muscle memory and reflexes begin to function and "point" to target.

I've found in some run & gun stages, I will run the stage and start in low ready while not using my front sights for paper targets and still get consistent hits while indexing with my thumbs in a proper grip. (Maybe more luck than skill) but what the hell, I still fun putting lead downrange and get good hits!;)

[ford.304]

The concealed carry course I went to recommended point shooting, but I thought the way they did it made a fair amount of sense. They were still teaching a correct press-out, but were emphasizing a quick first shot without finding the sights.

For people who are possibly new to firearms and are not going to shoot a couple thousand rounds a year, that seems like a decent compromise to get someone as ready as they're going to be for most self-defense scenarios. You're still building the basic muscle memory of a correct stance and press-out, but you're simplifying what the students have to be thinking about drastically so you can get something on the target. For a "barrel goes toward bad guy" level of competency, it seems like a good first step. It seemed to work well enough - at that level of skill, most of the students' groups weren't significantly worse point-shooting than the bullseye style aiming we did beforehand, but they were much faster and they seemed to feel more comfortable with it.

Not sure it's quite as much of an advantage for people who are taking the time to go to multiple advanced courses and work on their press-out until they can hit an index card in under 2 seconds from concealment.

[JV_]

until they can hit an index card in under 2 seconds from concealment.Distance makes a big difference here.

[Kyle Reese]

I'm not sure I'd use the term "point shooting" with total novices, either.

[ford.304]

I don't think they used it, either, I just recognized it as such.

We did the training following an hour of traditional bullseye shooting.

[Mitchell, Esq.]

Point shooting seems to me to be an advanced skillset that works best when used in conjunction with the shooter's own base of skill as a shortcut around using the sights.

It's not a stand alone skill - it's an application of an already developed skillset.

That's where I thing the problem is - people trying to use it when they don't already have the skills to really employ it.

Also, most shooters aren't english majors, so the verbal skills they use to describe what they are doing aren't always spot on, nor are they people with an education background, so conveying the information to people who learn differently isn't always done effectively.

It ends up in simplistic terms and "You just don't understand..."

No shit. Because you may be a great shooter...but you are fucking terrible at the english language or conveying information in a verbal or written format!

[41magfan]

Distilled to the simplest of terms, shooting is a hand/eye coordination skill and some folks are blessed with a lot more natural ability than others. While some forms of training can certainly enhance your natural ability to "point" a handgun, it is no substitute and the Ted Williams of the world will always make up a small percentage of the populous.

The three variables - (a) size of the target, (b) distance to the target, and (c) the real or imagined perception of time to execute - will always determine how much "pointing" you can get away with versus "aiming". The goal of ALL shooting is hitting. Sometimes that can be accomplished by pointing, and sometimes it requires aiming. An accomplished shooter learns what measure of each is required for a particular shot.

[DonovanM]

If all you ever practice is sighted fire, you'll have built up a good index so that if you need to point shoot something, you'll likely be able to with a reasonable chance of success.

This sums up my thoughts on the matter perfectly.

Specifically practicing point shooting is foolish, IMO.

[ford.304]

One useful guideline I have heard is to point shoot any time the target is as large or larger in your vision than your fist. Of course, this is all assuming that there is a speed/accuracy tradeoff in point shooting versus finding the sights. Which is definitely true initially - I'm curious how much that changes with increased training.