Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 53

Thread: Semantics: What *is* Point Shooting?

  1. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by octagon View Post
    That sounds like the Army Quick Kill training. Do you mind expanding on when and where you were taught the method you described?
    I cant tell you the exact year without looking for the paperwork but I'm going to estimate 2005 in Illinois by a guy named Huffer.
    I never heard it described as "Quick Kill".
    Last edited by UNK; 07-06-2017 at 06:19 PM.
    I'll wager you a PF dollar™ 😎
    The lunatics are running the asylum

  2. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by Peally View Post
    Considering the pathetic sights on some early model semi autos I think that still counts as aiming.
    For me, any use of the sights is sighted fire--even soft focus.

    I prefer the distinction of sighted versus unsighted fir.

  3. #33
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr_White View Post
    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.
    Logged in to like and quote this post. This is a much more detailed (better) version of what I was referencing in my own post.

  4. #34
    Quote Originally Posted by orionz06 View Post
    Would we or would we use as much of the sights as we needed to make that shot?
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr_White View Post
    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.
    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.

  5. #35
    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.

  6. #36
    Member orionz06's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Quote Originally Posted by YVK View Post
    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.
    Agree. I was purposely trying to skirt this as I'm not sure it helps the topic. Back to as much as you need to see of the sights, it can be zero. Might just be me though as I don't with to lump aimed fire in with unaimed fire.
    Think for yourself. Question authority.

  7. #37
    Site Supporter Rex G's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    SE Texas
    Quote Originally Posted by Jay Cunningham View Post
    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"




    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.

  8. #38
    Site Supporter Rex G's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    SE Texas
    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.

  9. #39
    Member aimtrue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Arizona
    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:
    Attached Images Attached Images   

  10. #40
    Site Supporter Norville's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    WI
    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.

User Tag List

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •