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?Originally Posted by 5shot
You can get much more of what you want with a kind word and a gun, than with a kind word alone.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
"Are you ready? Okay. Let's roll."- Last words of Todd Beamer
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.
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%.
[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...
There is an entire thread dedicated to that worthless discussion..............
You can get much more of what you want with a kind word and a gun, than with a kind word alone.
