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.
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.
I agree with TC.Originally Posted by STS
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.
Scott
Only Hits Count - The Faster the Hit the more it Counts!!!!!!; DELIVER THE SHOT!
Stephen Hillier - "An amateur practices until he can do it right, a professional practices until he can't do it wrong."
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.
@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.
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.
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.
Scott
Only Hits Count - The Faster the Hit the more it Counts!!!!!!; DELIVER THE SHOT!
Stephen Hillier - "An amateur practices until he can do it right, a professional practices until he can't do it wrong."
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.
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.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?
Last edited by David Armstrong; 04-19-2011 at 10:59 AM.
"PLAN FOR YOUR TRAINING TO BE A REFLECTION OF REAL LIFE INSTEAD OF HOPING THAT REAL LIFE WILL BE A REFLECTION OF YOUR TRAINING!"
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.
"We do not rise too the level of our expectations, rather we fall to the level of our training"
Archilochus, Greek Soldier
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.
Reply With Quote