Semantics: What *is* Point Shooting?

[TiroFijo]

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.

...perhaps also at high speed?

I remember once on the range my buddy showed me his ISPC gun (STI std. div.) complete but without sights, and I tried it anyway, shooting very tight clusters at 10 m... but taking my time to get a perfect grip and the same stance, and looking over the top of the slide. This made it so much easier.

[Peally]

Considering the pathetic sights on some early model semi autos I think that still counts as aiming.

[octagon]

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.

Just as it is critical to define the term or phrase "Point shooting" it is as important to define how a person measures distance and/or what they consider contact distance, clinch,arms reach etc. I am not arguing for or against a contact shot only stating what i consider contact distance as it relates to point shooting or may relate to it.

I 100% agree that the size and difficulty of the shot based on size,movement,near innocent people risk and time available all will dictate the speed and accuracy balance just as I stated in my first post in the thread. We are on the same sheet there.

I don't however understand your post on using as much sights as we need to for a 1 foot shot. Are you saying you would use your sights? If so how?

I am not trying to be pedantic just trying to understand. The reasoning is that I have heard people say "I never or I always" use my sights or point shoot. This is where conflict arises and the discussion usually turns into a flame fest mess. To avoid that and hopefully to get the always or never people to be more open to yours and my idea of using the amount of sights one needs to or see what you need to see to get the hit we need to address very close range(under 6 feet) distances.

For me I don't see how any person can use their sights at 1 or 2 feet but maybe I am missing something like Center Axis Relock technique. I also don't see how anyone can rely on not using the sights at extended distances(beyond 35-40 yards) even though I watched D R Middlebrooks do it and I would assume some others may be able to do. The in between distances are much more likely and common and where the variances of how much extension,threat focus or sight focus comes into play/discussion.

Just trying to clarify not argue.

[orionz06]

Just as it is critical to define the term or phrase "Point shooting" it is as important to define how a person measures distance and/or what they consider contact distance, clinch,arms reach etc. I am not arguing for or against a contact shot only stating what i consider contact distance as it relates to point shooting or may relate to it.

I 100% agree that the size and difficulty of the shot based on size,movement,near innocent people risk and time available all will dictate the speed and accuracy balance just as I stated in my first post in the thread. We are on the same sheet there.

I don't however understand your post on using as much sights as we need to for a 1 foot shot. Are you saying you would use your sights? If so how?

I am not trying to be pedantic just trying to understand. The reasoning is that I have heard people say "I never or I always" use my sights or point shoot. This is where conflict arises and the discussion usually turns into a flame fest mess. To avoid that and hopefully to get the always or never people to be more open to yours and my idea of using the amount of sights one needs to or see what you need to see to get the hit we need to address very close range(under 6 feet) distances.

For me I don't see how any person can use their sights at 1 or 2 feet but maybe I am missing something like Center Axis Relock technique. I also don't see how anyone can rely on not using the sights at extended distances(beyond 35-40 yards) even though I watched D R Middlebrooks do it and I would assume some others may be able to do. The in between distances are much more likely and common and where the variances of how much extension,threat focus or sight focus comes into play/discussion.

Just trying to clarify not argue.

The 1 foot shot is a poor example and doesn't lend itself to working towards a consistent terminology base for what I assume will be continuing discussion on "point shooting."



That said, for an extremely close shot I would draw and probably fire on the presentation soon after the front sight is visible, in a vacuum for the sake of discussion.

I don't do a press out but all should be familiar with it here. This would be the same as firing as the gun begins the horizontal extension. As the shot becomes more demanding the further along the extension I would be before the shot is made. Again, all in a vacuum.


I also question those who say they never use their sights or never aim.

[Surf]

To me, it's shooting without a visual reference on the gun and instead, relying on a purely kinesthetic alignment of the weapon.

...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.

This is my understanding of the definition to point shooting. Key being, no visual reference of the weapon.

I was educated in the manner that there are 3 definitions on this topic.
1) Point shooting - as defined above.
2) Combat or visual reference shooting - This can include kinestheics but also includes some type of visual reference of the weapon to assist in the aiming without needing to reference the sights. IE slide or barrel reference.
3) Sighted or Aimed fire - Can include the above with a final reference of the sights. Can be a "flash front sight".

I think many people tend to include combat or visual reference shooting into "point shooting" and that is where most of the confusion comes from. Some might also place "flash front sight" into #2, but I don't. I don't tend to get bent out of shape over this topic, but I do agree it can lead to confusion when discussion ensues, especially on-line. Of course everything gets blown out of proportion on the internet.

[Talionis]

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

If that's the case, then I am almost exclusively a point shooter. Including things like 8" steel at 40 yards. Dramatically different than shooting without a visual reference to the gun or sight plane. Consider me a point shooting advocate now.

[Mr_White]

To me, point shooting includes no visual reference of the gun whatsoever (completely below line of sight.) All the aiming is done kinesthetically.

If the gun is fired from eye level, that is visually referenced shooting. It may be coarsely referenced, such as aligning the back of the gun, the slide, etc., with the target. Or it may be more finely referenced, such as aiming with the sights, even if the shooter is target-focused and the sights are blurry. Or it may be the most finely referenced shooting - aiming with the sights, front sight sharp and clear, target blurry. Even some shooting from the 3 allows a low level of visual reference (the slide can be seen, generally aligning with the target.)

There are a great many highly-skilled (accurate!) shooters in USPSA, including at the highest levels, who do a lot of shooting with the gun at eye level and use blurry sights to aim at a sharp and clear target. That is not point shooting. It's actually about the second-most finely referenced kind of aiming (right behind getting sharp and clear focus on the front sight.) Frankly for a lot of people in a lot of circumstances, this is the right answer because this is how they successfully manage their vision and the way their brain and eyes work together. For many people, it is essential to their practical shooting ability.

To shamelessly borrow a saying from Ben Stoeger: "Don't underestimate how accurate target-focused shooting can be, and don't underestimate how fast sight-focused shooting can be." (That's about shooting done from eye-level and is only talking about the difference between the front sight being blurry or sharp and clear.) Although I personally am at an extreme end of that spectrum, I think Ben is exactly right.

I'm not a fan of point shooting outside of the distance where helping to protect the gun by keeping it close becomes a necessity.

[UNK]

In My Experience,
Point shooting training starts with a spring action BB gun such as a Red Ryder. Sights are removed and it is the act of consciously aligning the BB gun with the target and shooting.
The target is a round disc manually thrown into the air by another person.
The advantage of the spring gun is that the BB moves at a rather slow velocity and the BB can be watched to the point of impact with the target. This gives you the means to self correct on your pointing technique. Also you break the shot the moment you are on target. There is no tracking.
Target size can be reduced until eventually you can hit very small targets such as a paint ball or aspirin which you have thrown into the air your self.

[octagon]

In My Experience,
Point shooting training starts with a spring action BB gun such as a Red Ryder. Sights are removed and it is the act of consciously aligning the BB gun with the target and shooting.
The target is a round disc manually thrown into the air by another person.
The advantage of the spring gun is that the BB moves at a rather slow velocity and the BB can be watched to the point of impact with the target. This gives you the means to self correct on your pointing technique. Also you break the shot the moment you are on target. There is no tracking.
Target size can be reduced until eventually you can hit very small targets such as a paint ball or aspirin which you have thrown into the air your self.

That sounds like the Army Quick Kill training. Do you mind expanding on when and where you were taught the method you described?

[drummer]

ALL shooting is point shooting. At least, if you intend to hit something.

The more developed "point shooting" systems tend to use what could more accurately be termed 'body positioning" or "body alignment" shooting. They bring the pistol to eye level for best accuracy but choose a deliberate target focus.

Not to derail too much, but I was doing some recollection recently about how some of the old timers espoused a whole hand, convulsive squeeze. It would seem that the whole handed trigger squeeze (press need not apply) would preclude the prevalence of El Snatcho sightings at the expense of trigger control.