Last edited by UNK; 07-06-2017 at 06:19 PM.
I'll wager you a PF dollar™ 😎
The lunatics are running the asylum
In my experience, people that are above beginner level would not use the sights on extremely close target. I am basing this on observations from the USPSA matches where at times stage designs place a shooter in a very close proximity to a target. I have a video from this weekend on my phone to exemplify that (it actually shows all different types of aiming) but I am a computer moron to post it here.
I am going to complicate things, bro, but I can't get away from an idea of adequacy of visual referencing according to skill. Just to make it easier to explain, an example:
-Stoeger hits with a target focus at 25 yards with, say, 95% accuracy
-I hit with a front sight focus at 25 yards with 95% accuracy
-I hit with a target focus at 25 yards with 20% accuracy
The first point suggests that target focus can be an adequate visual reference. The last two points suggest that target focus at 25 yards is an inadequate visual reference for me. So, if you look by the intent to use a visual reference, I am not point shooting when I try target focusing at 25 yards. If you look by the end point, then I am not sure I can call it a visual reference when the result is no better than with point shooting. I struggle with that.
Last edited by YVK; 07-06-2017 at 07:29 PM.
Semantics....
I think people who become skilled at using sighted fire are generally more capable of actually "aiming" a gun, even from unconventional positions. Even if it's with an extremely coarse or triangulated visual reference, or soft focus of the peripheral vision. They are still able to aim.
Conversely, a novice who has no understanding of sighted fire(how to aim) is simply "pointing" the gun no matter how they stand or hold.
So to me it's not very useful to say "this" is point shooting, or "that" is sighted fire, because there is a continuum of aiming that depends on the skill and ability of the individual shooter, as well as a bunch of other variables. It's different for everybody and every shot.
I feel like I begin to "point shoot" whenever I no longer have enough visual information to aim a particular shot, but I give it a little WAG and shoot anyway. It doesn't depend solely on mechanics of shooting position. Things like distance, target size, relative motion, speed(time), lighting conditions, hardware, level of concentration, what I ate for breakfast, and many more come into play.
That's my highly scientific analysis of point shooting.
I had an opportunity to be one of the first to post a reply, but had a difficult time being definitive.
I reckon that "hard front sight focus" is how I generally shot, until about age 47. Then, "soft front sight focus" became the norm. Soft front sight, soft rear sight. Sigh.
"Body index" does apply to the discussion. 20% of my qual rounds, from 1984 to 2016, have been "hip shooting," at two yards, with the wrist indexed against my side, or against the holster, depending upon how one's body is built, the ride height of the holster, and the location of one's belt line. I learned to perform decently with this silly technique, but cheated as often as I could, by extending the weapon forward, dropping my shoulder a bit, with no index of arm or wrist against body, until the tension* in the deltoid muscles, the triceps, and to a lesser degree in other nearby muscles, told me everything was just right, and I knew I could pour fast, accurate fire into the center of the silhouette target, especially if the weapon was a "natural pointer" for me, such as several S&W and Ruger 4" revolvers, and 5" all-steel 1911 pistols.
Thankfully, the hip-shooting portion of the qual is a thing of the past, effective this month. I do not yet know what, if any, contact-distance shooting method will replace hip-shooting, in training, but the qual, itself, will now start at three yards, and not include any shooting from a retention position.
I learned, from SouthNarc, to shoot from a High #2, an indexed positioned that does not present my weapon as a gift to a close-range attacker.
*This was as shown, and described, by the late, great Bill Jordan in _No Second Place Winner_, and actually quite dynamic and accurate, after it has " clicked" in one's mind, but not really a "retention" position.
Last edited by Rex G; 07-11-2017 at 11:23 AM.
My real-life shooting incident was sighted, mas o menos, but with my GP100 below the line-of-sight, more-or-less Mas Ayoob's Stresspoint Index, or what some IPSC folks termed "shooting out of the notch," with front sight where I wanted the bullet to go. The rear sight was visible, but I was looking over the top of the weapon. (I was book-familiar with Mas' Stressfire System, at the time.) Two-handed hold, arms more-or-less isosceles. Stance? Uh, well, it was a dynamic situation, so stance was irrelevant. (As I later heard SouthNarc wisely say, "A stance is a moment in time. A stance is a moment in time.") Distance was perceived to be two to three yards. Instant hole, in imaginary X-ring, streaming blood hose, so it worked OK.
I learned SouthNarc's High #2 about eleven years after my OIS. Looking back, I would not have used the High #2 at the distance at which I shot Mister Montoya; he was far enough for full extension. I could have successfully used the Bill Jordan point-shooting technique, and probably hit just as accurately, but both of my hands were already on the weapon, well before the shot.
There are a lot of varied and excellent comments in this thread. Here are my two cents:
Besides “instinctive” non-sight shooting, point shooting involves time and distance. I drill for both when at the range.
With a target no farther than three feet from my starting position, I point shoot double tapping my Shield 9 using an isosceles stance. I hold both hands extended forward with my weapon at mid-chest level while backing up. After ten feet or so, I move my weapon to eye level and shoot double taps focusing on the front sight. I stop at ten yards, change magazines and resume focus shooting emptying the magazine.
I did this drill last Monday. During the practice session I shot a total of 250 rounds of Fiocchi 124gr HP. My Shield suffered no failures.
Here are two of the targets used last Monday:
Great thread.
I am of the opinion that if the gun is at eye level, it is not point shooting. There is some visual reference. It may not be enough for a particular shot resulting in a miss, but there is some amount of aiming involved. The famous Enos line "see what you need to see" is often repeated and seldom understood. I read his book years ago and did not get it. Read it again last year after taking up USPSA shooting and understood some of it. Maybe I should read it again.
Stoeger's target focus suggestions really helped me with speed out to 12 yards or so, I need to work at it more for it to be effective beyond that.