Bullseye Champion and Border Patrol gunfight vet Charles Askins gave his take on point shooting in this 1955 article.
Thanks to John Tate for passing this along!
Phil Wong provides some important insight.
Actually, if you read to the end of the article for what Col. Askins considered “an acceptable balance of speed and precision” for fast, accurate point-shooting, there’s a fair number of shooters at IDPA Expert level or USPSA “B” class and higher, who can readily match or beat those times and groups while using their sights.
Truth. In his article, Askins says, “This shooting style bears little relation to the well-known and accepted firings, and for that reason has a rule book all its own. The time-space to get off a burst of three, four, or six shots is so short that neither stance, breathing, nor the other bugaboos of the targeteer have too much application.”
The thought process of shooting in Askin’s era was firmly entrenched in Conventional forms as practical/action disciplines had not yet been invented. This is the primary reason why knowledgable shooters prior to the 1960s sometimes recommended point shooting. It was an early attempt to handle shooting quickly at distances closer than 25 yards.
What can be done by point-shooting? Six shots can be kept on a playing card at 20 feet and all in the space of two to three seconds.
From the hip, in intervals of two-three seconds, the Army [E-type] silhouette can be plastered at distances up to 25 feet with all six shots and the group can be covered with your hand.
A further angle is to line six silhouettes in a row and, commencing on the left, run the row with a slug for each. Time, not more than three seconds and probably less.
As Mr. Wong correctly observes, these feats can readily be duplicated or exceeded by casual competitive shooters at a mid-level of skill (Level 3/4, “Expert”, B class, etc.) at any club hosting organized practical/action competitions. More telling, many point shooting advocates can NOT perform to this level. I’d call out people like John Veit to demonstrate shooting this well at the stated speeds.
Point Shooting
by Col. Charles Askins, USA
https://www.americanrifleman.org/articles/2014/8/7/throwback-thursday-point-shooting/
January 1955
I sometimes think we overdid the refinements we have added to the one-hand gun. For instance, the hardware lays ’em in faster when the sights are disregarded. If you are really bent on speed, a one-hand shooting iron has got to be pointed and not aimed. It is that kind of a tool. Sights on a handgun are just like gyro-stabilizers on a wheelbarrow—nice but not necessary. The handgun was designed for defense, and even though that salient fact is oft-times disregarded, it is still true.
For speed, no sights
Sights, when you are actually in a hurry with a six-gun, just complicate an otherwise simple item. Too, these appurtenances confuse the picture, tend to give rise to false hopes, and by inference promise a performance that inherently cannot be. A six-shooter for speed work needs neither a front post nor a notched rear. When you are really in a hurry, the sights add nothing: by the same token they do not get much in the way either. You simply do not see them.
The handgun can be made to hit by pointing. Not by pointing in the sense that you look through the sights but rather by directing the weapon just as you point your finger. Thus manhandled, the six-gun is effective. Of course, you do not hit at 50 yards but you do connect at practical distances. The art of shooting by pointing is so little explored that no one knows just what the ultimate possibilities may be.
What are the possibilities?
What can be done by simply extending the weapon, either at eye level or hip level, and then triggering off a half-dozen quick salvos? Among other things, the slugs can be fitted very neatly inside a head-size target at 20 feet and all in a limit of two or three seconds for the six-shot burst. Or if you like to vary the fun, you can pour three bullets into the head and three into the chest of a silhouette target and the time is extended only some tenths of a second.
The somewhat quaint notion persists that any kind of gun fire not tied to a careful alignment of the sights simply cannot be accurate. Hits are luck, and of a kind that won’t repeat itself. This reasoning stems from only a half-knowledge of the capabilities of the one-hand gun.
The revolver or automatic never really comes into its own until the piece is fired by pointing, at moderate to short ranges, and in a time-space that rolls the three-, four-, or six-shot burst into one sweet ripple of gun fire.The six-gun really comes into its own when the trigger is set afire in this manner. True, you cannot hit bullseyes, but why evaluate a good weapon in terms of what it does on a geometric figure?
What makes it so?
The successful control of the gun depends largely on sensing. The gunner slams it into alignment and, like the wingshot, fires the instant the muzzle comes to bear. There is no hesitation, no correction, and no time to pre-quarterback the burst. Target shooters take deliberate aim, but this isn’t for the point-shooter, he lines up his muzzle with the target during the first quarter-second and burns powder!
To my way of thinking, the best-pointing of our miscellany of hand-cannon are the guns of High Standard. Almost as good is the Colt Woodsman; a real natural was the old Remington Model 51 automatic, now disappeared from the scene. The old Frontier Model revolver points sweetly from the hip, but just so-so when brought to eye level.
Autos are better
None of the revolvers points as well as the .22 automatics. Basic principle of point-shooting is that the gun is directed as you point your finger. The weapon does not want to be too lengthy for that reason. A barrel of four inches is very close to perfection; barrels of six inches are not nearly so good. The gun wants to have some weight about it, else it will bounce so painfully as to produce bloated groups and many over-the-fence misses.
Cut a common playing card and slip it over the front sight and along the barrel. This bit of pasteboard neatly writes finish to the conventional use of the sights. It is now a gun to be pointed and not aimed.Have a go at it
Try a clip of cartridges at a handy target. Select a mark at practicable range—say an ordinary gallon oil can at 20 feet. Do not shoot once. Trigger off two, three or four shots. Do not look at the gun; watch the target. Move the hardware into the line-of-sight without consciously looking at the gun. Do not permit your attention to wander from the oil can. If the first or second quickly triggered slugs do not plop home, whip the gun in that direction aimed at ‘ringing the bell.’ This movement, infinitesimal though it is, develops subconsciously and it is amazing how precisely it may be controlled. Do not count scores or any such tommyrot. There will always be shots outside the primary group if you do not finally become so skilled as to pour all your lead into one ragged hole. Bogey of the targetman is his misses. It isn’t the tens that loom up so large–it is the occasional wide six. In your new game of point-and-shoot, the hit is the thing!
It requires ammo
Hombres who are limited as to hull supply had better shy around point-shooting. It is a game that might well have been dreamed up by the cartridge makers themselves. It isn’t a pastime learned by snapping practice nor yet through the expenditure of a box of cartridges every second week. Powder has got to be burned, and by the keg!
The gunner has finally got to reach that point where he subconsciously points at the target—just like reaching your mouth with a succulent forkful, in the dark. You must finally point the gun as you do your finger. While it may sound as though nothing could be more simple, it requires a good many thousands of shots to get to that rewarding degree of proficiency.
The grip on the gun should be extremely hard. This grasp is maintained for only a few seconds. The arm should be rigid from shoulder to wrist. As to whether it is straightened or bent, the shooting interval is so brief it does not matter. The application of plenty of ‘English’ dampens recoil, holds the piece dead on, and is essential to successful gunning. Do not roll the weapon into a vertical position such as target marksmen do. That is an unnatural and uncomfortable position for the hand. Give the shooting iron a decided list it will handle more easily.
Stance is immaterial
Your shooting stance or body position is of no importance. It is better, possibly, to stand on both feet but really not too necessary. You will find, after practice, that you are firing while falling, wheeling, squatting, leaping, or essaying other gymnastics. It is contributory to better accuracy if you see the target with both eyes open, though not absolutely necessary, however. This shooting style bears little relation to the well-known and accepted firings, and for that reason has a rule book all its own. The time-space to get off a burst of three, four, or six shots is so short that neither stance, breathing, nor the other bugaboos of the targeteer have too much application.
What can be done by point-shooting? Six shots can be kept on a playing card at 20 feet and all in the space of two to three seconds. I repeatedly kill bullfrogs, snakes, and turtles along a nearby creek and take them, all at distances up to 20-25 feet with this new, dynamic-shooting style. A recent morning I jumped two rabbits—cottontails—at my feet, and killed both of them before they had gone ten long steps.
From the hip, in intervals of two-three seconds, the Army silhouette can be plastered at distances up to 25 feet with all six shots and the group can be covered with your hand.
A further angle is to line six silhouettes in a row and, commencing on the left, run the row with a slug for each. Time, not more than three seconds and probably less.
No one knows the ultimate possibilities of this fascinating shooting-by-pointing game. It is a golden road a-beckoning.
David B. Monier-Williams
Aug 14, 2014 @ 07:03:59
Charles has always written with such great style and flair. I guess his musings fall into the same category as Fairbairn, Sykes, Rex Applegate’s.
LikeLike
John M. Buol Jr.
Aug 14, 2014 @ 18:19:46
>> IMHO, you don’t have to send thousands of rounds down range learning to point your gun as you do your finger…
Depends how consistent, precise, and quick you want to go. If one is happy with the ability to hit a 8-11 inch area at 10-15 feet with no time limit or any form of stress or pressure, then point shooting can be taught as easily as you say.
https://firearmusernetwork.com/aimed-point-and-shoot-training-methods/
Rob Pincus and other minimalist instructors primarily concerned with new and novice gun owners take the same approach. Nothing wrong with that, as most gun owners are at a novice skill level.
When standards of performance need to be increased, especially when we’re interested enough to start measuring them, things get more difficult.
We can continue point shooting, which will quickly up the round count as Askins describes. Airsoft, lasers, and other aids may lessen the round count but not the practice requirement. Or, if we’re willing to expend this type of effort, look for something that is ultimately more efficient.
Up through the late 1950s, even top marksmen like Askins believed the point shooting was the way to go for close shooting at speed. Cooper and most of his friends were convinced as well, believing it was the best approach to winning the Leatherslap events Cooper organized. That belief changed when people doing something different started to consistently win.
These enthusiastic shooters were faced with a dilemma: Continue to use the approach that everyone believes is best but is failing to win, or go with the approach the consistent winners are using.
For people unwilling to train, certainly those unwilling to enter contests, a minimalist approach may be best. They aren’t going to train anyway. Legions of cops and soldiers prove this in every hit rate study and attempts to correlate fight success to the lame, novice, elementary-level, low-skill tests passed off as qualification courses for law enforcement, military, and concealed carry civilians (if they’re even required to qualify at all.)
For those willing to put in the work, other options exist. High level competition shooters that have been in fights/combat/Dynamic Critical Incidents have been overwhelmingly successful.
There is no evidence that organized competitive shooting is harmful or causes bad habits. None. Despite this popular, often-repeated myth, there is nothing backing it up.
There is plenty of evidence that competition shooting is beneficial, even though this truth is not popular. Just like a barbell, it is only beneficial if you use it. Just like a barbell, organized shooting displays your weaknesses. That is probably the reason why its use isn’t as popular.
LikeLike
John Veit
Aug 14, 2014 @ 17:46:56
Being an advocate of aimed point shooting, I applaud Col. Atkins’ article.
Col Applegate also was a proponent of using a strong grip, as he said that is what one will do in a CQ life threat situation. Applegate also was a proponent of a locked wrist and stiff arm.
However; I have a few reservations about Atkins’ statements about point shooting.
Col Atkins says that: “Powder has got to be burned, and by the keg!…You must finally point the gun as you do your finger. While it may sound as though nothing could be more simple, it requires a good many thousands of shots to get to that rewarding degree of proficiency.”
IMHO, you don’t have to send thousands of rounds down range learning to point your gun as you do your finger, if you just put your finger along the side of your gun and point your finger naturally. Since the barrel will be in line and slaved to your finger, it will point where you point. Why make accurate point shooting harder than it need be.
You will have to get used to using you middle finger on the trigger, so you can aim/point each shot of a rapid fire string. And using common sense and a gun that will allow you to safely use this method of aiming and firing, is required. A box or two of bullets and your target will prove that this method of shooting works as stated. And little or no training is required to learn it or maintain it.
Also, you don’t need to have your wrist locked and your arm stiff, as you don’t do that when pointing your finger. But you can do it if you like. Adding some “English” or “gangsta” to the grip can help with recoil control.
If you want to be able to keep six shots…”on a playing card at 20 feet and in the space of two to three seconds”, you should get an airsoft pistol as they are a good, cheap, and effective tool for practicing.
LikeLike
johnveit
Aug 14, 2014 @ 19:45:59
I have no beef with competition shooting. The shooting prowess that I have seen in top comp. videos and demos, is great.
However, my interest is in defensive use of a firearm in real cq situations where the likely hood of one being shot and or killed is the greatest.
So the following comment got my attention:
“Up through the late 1950s, even top marksmen like Askins believed the point shooting was the way to go for close shooting at speed. Cooper and most of his friends were convinced as well, believing it was the best approach to winning the Leatherslap events Cooper organized. That belief changed when people doing something different started to consistently win.
These enthusiastic shooters were faced with a dilemma: Continue to use the approach that everyone believes is best but is failing to win, or go with the approach the consistent winners are using.”
Pray tell, what is this “Holy Grail” ?? (some friendly sarcasm intended)
If its the Weaver, Isso, + Flash Sight Shooting, we may have come to an impasse, as they are excellent if not the best vehicles for fast and accurate competition shooting. Unfortunately, they are via: scientific investigations and camera/video recordings of actual CQ combat situations, unproven methods for successful use in CQ life threat defensive situations.
Defaulted to, one handed spray and pray shooting as shown in videos and films is not a successful method either, but it trumps the “Sight Shooting” methods which are not or can not be utilized.
Since “point the gun and shoot – shooting” is used, it would seem that learning how to better do that, would be a prudent course to follow if one is interested in self defense.
LikeLike
John M. Buol Jr.
Aug 15, 2014 @ 07:51:37
>> we may have come to an impasse
There is no impasse, except for misunderstanding. A better grasp of this can be made by actually participating in organized shooting and demonstrating developed skill instead of copy-and-paste things found on the Internet.
Go find a range hosting events affiliated with a nationally-recognized organization and continue attending until you earn a higher classification, say Expert/A-class or higher. One should at least earn a GED or higher before criticizing formal education. In shooting, someone offering advice about how best to train the skill should demonstrate competency with the skill.
The problem is, nobody does. Drill Sergeants/Instructors have no formal skill test requirement. Most firearm instructors military, police, or civilian do not either.
>> …they are excellent if not the best vehicles for fast and accurate shooting.
FIFY. Results first need to be made in training before they can be expected to work elsewhere. Fundamentals are needed to compete successfully and those fundamentals are the same in all environment. This ignorant notion that fundamental skills for successful competition shooting are different from fundamental skills for shooting elsewhere is part of the problem. This lie was started by people of low skill interested in claiming to be instructors. Competition proved their skills were low, so the solution was to criticize the empirical evidence instead of the more difficult task of working to improve skill.
>> Unfortunately, they are via scientific investigations and camera/video recordings of actual CQ combat situations, unproven methods for successful use in CQ life threat defensive situations.
Wrong. It’s only unsuccessful for people that never learned. This is like an obese diabetic claiming diet and exercise failed to get him in better shape. He learned about diet and exercise because somebody explained its importance, however, one has to continue with consistent, on-going effort to see a result. Having novice-level practitioners teach a technique poorly and then failing to hold people to a high-enough standard to demonstrate that consistent, on-going effort was made doesn’t mean the technique is flawed.
Most police, military, and civilian gun owners are at novice levels in their use of firearms and there is nothing forcing improvement. Qualifications are designed to be passed at academy, recruit, and basic training by people that have never held a firearm before. That low standard is never raised. For many, no standard exists at all. So when these low-level, mostly untrained novices get into a scrap with cameras rolling, the poor results are no surprise.
People with demonstrated high level skill typically have superior results.
>> Since “point the gun and shoot – shooting” is used, it would seem that learning how to better do that, would be a prudent course to follow if one is interested in self defense.
For people unwilling to learn anything better, I think you’re right.
https://firearmusernetwork.com/typing-and-shooting/
LikeLike
John Veit
Aug 16, 2014 @ 10:06:10
Thanks John for your insight and explanation.
LikeLike
John M. Buol Jr.
Aug 16, 2014 @ 11:13:35
No problem!
People can have a difference of opinion and still get along. One thing I’ve learned from you is that a training approach for novices that aren’t interested in shooting but are required to learn something shouldn’t necessarily be the same thing as someone willing to compete and put in the effort required to improve. Hence the Typing and Shooting article.
This is like programming for strength and conditioning work. The approach taken by a new but motivated novice should probably be different than that taken by a seasoned trainee with years of productive work and progress already made. The non-athlete that isn’t really interested in fitness but needs to do something might be better off with something else.
LikeLike
Phil Wong
Sep 13, 2014 @ 17:38:38
Actually, if you read to the end of the article for what Col. Askins considered “an acceptable balance of speed and precision” for fast, accurate point-shooting, there’s a fair number of shooters at IDPA Expert level or USPSA “B” class and higher, who can readily match or beat those times and groups while using their sights.
LikeLiked by 1 person