Semantics: What *is* Point Shooting?

[orionz06]

...while simultaneously hard-focusing (both mentally & visually) on the target, AND with the pistol properly aligned in a consistent grip that puts the gun's barrel parallel to the forearm.

It's always a popular topic among those gun folks who like to espouse one thing in a given category (whether weapon platform, caliber, style or method of shooting) above all others, as though "there could be only one".

As a shooting method, it certainly can work for some folks, at relatively short distances, and historically there are many who have used it to good effect, but it certainly doesn't work well for everyone, under any and all circumstances of defensive shooting, and IMNSHO it's probably indefensible to use as a means of combat shooting if there are innocents downrange near the intended target.

Context matters a lot. There are circumstances where what he stated works well for nearly everyone. And getting back to what Jay is trying to do, we need a baseline before we can get any deeper and even getting to the baseline seems like it might turn into a clusterfuck.

[LJP]

I've tackled this subject with not much success on my blog, but fundamentally these days I view point shooting as shooting either with the gun held below the line of vision and relying on kinesthetic alignment, or with the gun visible in the line of sight without specific focus on the sights, relying on hand eye coordination to achieve hits. Pure target focused shooting, if you will.

What ultimately swayed my mind in terms of a training approach was a key takeaway from the book "Building Shooters." I'm paraphrasing here, but the gist of it was that if you train to not use your sights, and commit that to procedural (subconscious) memory, then that is exactly what you'll do in a gunfight. Conversely, if you always train to use your sights, that is what you'll do in a gunfight, even though you may not consciously remember seeing your sights. If I'm going to commit something to procedural memory and build neural pathways that I will default to under stress, I would prefer it to be sighted fire vs "point shooting."

Regarding the kinesthetic alignment I first mentioned, I also think that having a proper fighting stance with the hips squared to the threat is required to pull it off with any measure of success. Although I've trained with a group that favors explosive movement and one headed point shooting, I think that is a very perishable skill set that yields mediocre accuracy and really doesn't square well (no pun intended) with reality. Subsequent classes with Mike Pannone and KD4 have reinforced the validity of squaring to the threat and using two hands when shooting while moving. That rests upon a solid foundation from training with Tom Givens 20 years ago.

In summary, always strive to see your sights unless you are shooting from a retention position. Use body kinesthetics to aim from retention. You might indeed wind up "point shooting," but that shouldn't be the goal, merely the result.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[45dotACP]

I always kinda figured point shooting was shooting without being able to see the gun...no reference nor index or anything.

Many "point shooting" advocates don't think that is the case. In fact...many use an index to orient and fire their gun. Look at those clowns like Robin Brown or what have you and my major disagreement with them is the fact that they are unsafe.

On the other end of the spectrum, you have guys like DR Middlebrooks have put out videos shooting without sights at fairly long distances and fairly tight accuracy standards to show a point...that In the long run...sights and how well you use them don't matter nearly as much as trigger control. Paul Sharp probably knows more about this than I do though.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

[octagon]

In order to have a proper discussion about a thing, the people having the discussion need to be on the same page, so to speak.

Point Shooting has always been a contentious topic... but what is it, exactly? Ask 10 different people and you're likely to get 8 different opinions.

Some things to consider in the discussion:

• "aimed fire"
• "sighted fire"
• "body index"
• "target focus"
• "hard front sight focus"
• "soft front sight focus"
• "target focus"

WOW Thank you Jay. I have thought to start a thread almost exactly this to try and define point shooting before discussing any merits or pitfalls and you are 100% correct that a term and thus technique need to be defined before discussion or it is like the blind men describing an elephant.

My definition is almost exactly as LJP posted here

"I've tackled this subject with not much success on my blog, but fundamentally these days I view point shooting as shooting either with the gun held below the line of vision and relying on kinesthetic alignment, or with the gun visible in the line of sight without specific focus on the sights, relying on hand eye coordination to achieve hits. Pure target focused shooting, if you will. "

Further I have been a strong proponent of various methods over the years with varying certainty and waning distrust at different times. I took what may be the only Point Shooting Instructor course years ago when I was still in Law Enforcement instructed by Mike Rayburn. It was a well done course with fairly high round count and all students were able to achieve a level of reasonable proficiency during the course. Some details I recall that may help explain my definition are that we taped out sights and only had them untaped for a very small portion of the course when developing where to switch from point shooting to more tradition sighted fire using the sights. The targets were the small paper plates(5" or smaller) and we shot from contact to around 8 yards using the point shooting methods. I also took a similar course but not an instructor course called Winning A High Speed close range gunfight or something similar taught by Lou Chiodo I took Phase 1 and 2 from him.

I also took a course with Jim Cirillo where he worked with us in point shooting and his associated methods of silhouette shooting using the gun shape as a course sighting or alignment method. Jim's methods are an interesting hybrid or cross-over between point shooting and sights depending on a persons definition of each.

I started as a traditional sights only shooter but after seeing the rear sight almost falling off the gun in Simunitions training when preparing each student and equipment between scenarios and then asking and noting hits I started my journey to investigate point shooting. I bought and studied the books by Fairbairn/Sykes, Applegate. Same for Bill Jordan,Cassidy,Ed McGivern,Chuck Klein,Santiago and Mulroy,Stephen Wenger,Mike Conti and Roger Phillips later on. I bought pretty much every book and then VHS or later DVD I could find on the topic and studied then practiced the different techniques. I later came across D R Middlebrooks Fist Fire method and bought his DVD. Some techniques are the same or similar to others and some rely on body position or index. Others are independent and use more kinesthetic alignment or indexing. And some using visual alignment of the gun coarsely or more finely but with visual and mental focus on the threat/target. This confuses the issue as it seems even the different proponents can't agree what "it" is or how to do it.

I stopped worrying about what it is, when to do it, or how and if it works in what circumstances as a line in the sand and evolved into the mentality of "See what you need to see to get the hits" (Sorry I don't know who said that first to quote but someone known in the gun world) That and the fact that there will always be a need for point shooting (At least at contact or near contact distance) and sighted fire (At distances around 7-10 yards and farther and/or for more precise shots i.e. hostage,close proximity to no shoot targets or limited target area exposed by a threat)

[Ed L]

My definition is shooting without the use of the sights.

This means everything from shooting from retention to bringing the gun to eye level and viewing the gun and target as you are firing.

Retention shooting is a special case because it is designed to be used for situations where the threat is so close that if you brought the gun to full extension the attacker could grab or divert the muzzle.

Why not use the sights in other cases?

Possible Reasons:

• Some guns may have small to non-existent sights
• It may be dark and the gun may not be equipped with night sights
• Some people may have different vision and take a while to focus on the sights or not be trained enough to see the sights under stress.
• Some people may not be able to focus on anything but the threat in a close-in life and death situation
• Some people may not be trained to use the sights

or any combination of the above.

I have taken classes with both Larry Vickers and Ken Hackathorn where they had us tape the sights of our handguns to engage close-in targets (inside of 21 feet).

Vickers explains that it is for "close range rapidly approaching targets when tunnel vision takes over and instinct are paramount. A shooter must have the fundamentals of pointshooting firmly locked into his game."

You can certainly get hits on a silhouette using this method at closer ranges, but those hits might not correspond to the vitals.

[YVK]

My definition is shooting without the use of the sights.

I'll bite. I always considered point shooting to be shooting without visual reference.

I am somewhere in between. The problem that I have with visual reference definition is that as long as my gun is out and extended, I have some visual reference to a target of any size. The question really is whether it is an adequate visual reference for a given target, and the adequacy of it is now a subject of a skill set confirmed by historical performance. To that end, Ed's definition, as long as it includes target focused shooting, uncomplicates things but leaves out a question whether something like a one foot distance shot on a 8 inch target, when none of us would use sights, or so I would hope, is still a point shooting.

[orionz06]

To that end, Ed's definition, as long as it includes target focused shooting, uncomplicates things but leaves out a question whether something like a one foot distance shot on a 8 inch target, when none of us would use sights, or so I would hope, is still a point shooting.

Would we or would we use as much of the sights as we needed to make that shot?

[Chance]

I think of point shooting as anything other than having a hard focus on your front sight.

It's a little tricky because of how quickly your subconscious works (i.e., people don't remember seeing their sights, even though shots they made would have required using their sights), but ultimately, no hard front sight focus = point shooting in my book.

[octagon]

Would we or would we use as much of the sights as we needed to make that shot?

I am confused. If a person is one foot away from an attacker how are the sights used? In the same light when a person is within arms reach of an attacker how are the sights used. To clarify when I say a person is 1 foot a foot and a half etc distance from an attacker or target I mean the persons torso or chest is that distance from the attacker or target or they are standing on a line X distance away from the face of the target or the attacker's torso.

So for 0-approximately 29 inches I can make a contact shot on the torso of an attacker. (This varies with arm length and gun length I used my arm and 4" barrel Glock 19) I can reach without leaning forward 27" so if a person with the same reach is within 56" from me and I extend my gun fully they will be within a distance to deflect it without either of us leaning forward or moving forward. To keep things less specific since no one knows their attacker's reach beforehand I assume I will be leaning forward and the attacker will also and the attacker may be taller so 6 feet from my torso to the attackers torso is what i consider contact or deflecting distance where I should not extend my gun fully to engage. If either of us is moving to close the gap that changes just as as we were moving apart or laterally.

[orionz06]

I am confused. If a person is one foot away from an attacker how are the sights used? In the same light when a person is within arms reach of an attacker how are the sights used. To clarify when I say a person is 1 foot a foot and a half etc distance from an attacker or target I mean the persons torso or chest is that distance from the attacker or target or they are standing on a line X distance away from the face of the target or the attacker's torso.

So for 0-approximately 29 inches I can make a contact shot on the torso of an attacker. (This varies with arm length and gun length I used my arm and 4" barrel Glock 19) I can reach without leaning forward 27" so if a person with the same reach is within 56" from me and I extend my gun fully they will be within a distance to deflect it without either of us leaning forward or moving forward. To keep things less specific since no one knows their attacker's reach beforehand I assume I will be leaning forward and the attacker will also and the attacker may be taller so 6 feet from my torso to the attackers torso is what i consider contact or deflecting distance where I should not extend my gun fully to engage. If either of us is moving to close the gap that changes just as as we were moving apart or laterally.

I was intentionally avoiding this aspect. I'd expect most posters here wouldn't make a "contact shot" as some teach. The intent was more to so convey the idea that we balance the amount of sights we need to see and time taken to make the shot with the distance and complexity of the shot.

A draw to 25 yards on a 6" steel plate is different than one to 10 yards and a B/C torso plate. A draw to a Dot Torture target is different than one to an IDPA target, etc.