The following guest article was written and submitted by John Veit
We welcome a variety of points of view on the subjects of shooting and marksmanship. Test them objectively on the range and let the results fall where they may.
Subject: Aiming Aid For Fast, Automatic, & Accurate Aiming
With all the flat sided mini’s coming out with their short back to front radius, the device could be a big help in insuring fast, mechanical, and correct sight alignment, and fast and accurate target engagement.
Of course, if there are sights on the gun, and if circumstances allow for their use, the sights can and should be used.
Also, if the light is bad, or the situation is a dynamic one, or if the sights are dark and the target is dressed in black and you are at close quarters, you still will have a viable SD option at your disposal.
A couple of magazines and three or four targets at 15 feet +/-, can prove that to be the case.
Consider the aiming aid as a Sight Shooting assistant/enhancement, not a device to thwart use of the sights.
Even the NRA, recognizes the need for shooting options in real-life violent encounters.
In Chapter 6 – of the NRA’s guide to the basics of personal protection in the home that was published in 2000, we find that “…real-life violent encounters occur at very close range, often in reduced-light conditions, and are over in a matter of seconds. One study of Police shootings in a major urban area showed that the majority of encounters took place after dark, at 3 yards or less, in less than 3 seconds, and involved the firing of an average of three shots.”
It goes on to say: “Often, either the assailant or the defender – or both – are moving rapidly during the encounter. Such conditions do not permit the careful alignment of the sights on a specific aiming point on the target.”
Firearm User Network 
KR
Feb 07, 2011 @ 09:59:18
The device shown in the video is a bad idea. What’s proven to actually work is the grip used by 99.999% of all IPSC and IDPA shooters – the one that puts both thumbs pointing naturally at the target, creating natural point of aim that allows for fast indexing. It works with all levels of sight picture quality, from “point shooting” to very precise shooting. Why promote a totally unproven gimmick when there are 50K (or more) IPSC and IDPA shooters, law enforcement agencies and private sector academies that all teach a technique that’s proven to work?
Tom Givens has had 56 students win real gunfights in the past 5 years, getting a hit ratio of over 90% in those fights. His students grip the gun normally and use their sights. When the “pointshooting.com” dude can produce statistics that equal or beat Tom’s data, or produce a shooter that uses his gadget that can outshoot even a mid-level IPSC or IDPA competitor in a speed match on a 5 yard target, I’ll pay attention.
LikeLike
John M. Buol Jr.
Feb 07, 2011 @ 10:57:13
The article in this post was written and submitted by John Veit. I forwarded your response directly to him and hope he’ll respond here.
>> … produce a shooter that uses his gadget that can outshoot even a mid-level IPSC or IDPA competitor in a speed match on a 5 yard target, I’ll pay attention.
Sounds like a very reasonable challenge to me. Certainly if this device and technique is truly superior than it should be capable of producing superior results. Besting a mid-level IPSC or IDPA competitor in any sort of close range speed shooting test should be a minimal expectation, one would think…
LikeLike
KR
Feb 07, 2011 @ 11:06:06
Check out this link
http://www.forcescience.org/fsinews/2007/02/new-tests-show-deadly-accuracy-startling-speed-even-inexperienced-shooters-can-achieve-in-shooting-cops/
Interesting data on what untrained people can do (speed and accuracy) using “point shooting” without any special adapter on the pistol. There’s certainly a training flaw in teaching defensive shooters nothing but slow fire target shooting – which is why the vast majority of private sector defensive shooting schools focus on a rapid concealment draw, fast hits at 3-5 yards, one handed shooting and gun manipulation. Often people that rail against the “status quo” are basing their rants on what they encountered in training 10-30 years ago, without bothering to learn what’s happening now.
LikeLike
John Veit
Feb 07, 2011 @ 16:26:56
I am getting slow to respond to criticism of late, either because I’m getting tired, or the comments are always the same, or the same questions have been asked and answered in the articles on my site, and via the info, papers, and stats that are there, and are readily available to those who really are interested in staying alive in a gunfight, and as such, should be looking into and reading as much as they can find on that subject and on their own.
One odd thing in the world of the gun, is that “the powers that be” expect that anyone with a new or different or innovative idea bring it to them on a silver platter and curtsy as they do that.
Even though AIMED Point Shooting or P&S as I call it has been around since at least 1835 and has been widely known if not by many in the US. The original manual on the 1911 and other manuals on the 1911 that were published up until the 1940’s mentioned it and cautioned against it’s use with the 1911 because of the design flaw in the slide stop of the 1911.
So for 70+ years our service folk DID NOT HAVE THE OPTION OF USING THIS EFFECTIVE METHOD OF CQ SHOOTING in CQ life threat situations, as the “Military” did not choose to make a small fix to the 1911.
IMHO, that probably resulted in the injury and death to thousands of our guys and gals, as the studies and science say that you will not use the sights or be able to use them in CQB situations; so they were left with ad hoc instinctive shooting which we know gives us the CQB hit are of < 20%.
Woo Hoo for givng the troops what's need to stay alive and win. NOT.
The main reason I am responding here is the Mr. Buol has been kind enough to post some of my past articles. Thanks John.
QUOTE: "The device shown in the video is a bad idea. What’s proven to actually work is the grip used by 99.999% of all IPSC and IDPA shooters – the one that puts both thumbs pointing naturally at the target, creating natural point of aim that allows for fast indexing. It works with all levels of sight picture quality, from “point shooting” to very precise shooting. Why promote a totally unproven gimmick when there are 50K (or more) IPSC and IDPA shooters, law enforcement agencies and private sector academies that all teach a technique that’s proven to work?"
From Sept 1854 to Dec 1979, 254 NYPD Officers died from wounds received in an armed encounter. The shooting distance in 90% of those cases was less than 15 feet.
The shooting distances where Officers survived, remained almost the same during the SOP years (1970-1979), and for a random sampling of cases going back as far as 1929. 4,000 cases were reviewed. The shooting distance in 75% of those cases was less than 20 feet.
According to the NYPD's review of over 6,000 Police combat cases, in 70% of the cases reviewed, sight alignment was not used. Officers reported that they used instinctive or point shooting. As the distance between the Officer and his opponent increased, some type of aiming was reported in 20% of the cases. This aiming or sighting ran from using the barrel as an aiming reference to picking up the front sight and utilizing fine sight alignment. The remaining 10% could not remember whether they had aimed or pointed and fired the weapon instinctively.
Officers, with an occasional exception, fired with the strong hand. That was the case even when it appeared advantageous to use the weak hand.
If you are going to be shot and/or killed, there is an 80% chance that it will happen at less than 20 feet. And you will shoot one handed per the studies and stats. Look at the Detroit shooting video, and you will be seeing reality.
Quote: "Tom Givens has had 56 students win real gunfights in the past 5 years, getting a hit ratio of over 90% in those fights. His students grip the gun normally and use their sights. When the “pointshooting.com” dude can produce statistics that equal or beat Tom’s data, or produce a shooter that uses his gadget that can outshoot even a mid-level IPSC or IDPA."
Back in 04, I responded to the general invite to attend the Warrior Talk Symposium at Tom Givens place in Memmphis. Per Gabe, the Warrior Talk Symposium is a get together for all of the members of this forum, so we can meet each other face to face, discuss issues of importance to us, learn from each other, and have a good time. ….“Our mission is the advancement of the art of personal defense through open minded, non-dogmatic discussions and exchange of ideas.”
I responded and was about to buy my plane ticket, but after an exchange of e-mails with Tom in which I disclosed I was a point shooter, I got this response:
"John,
Thanks for your kind offer to attend, but I will respectfully decline at this time. Good luck,
Tom Givens "
So much for open discussion and learning from one another. :)
If you visit the Givens site you will note that they shoot two handed, which according to the studies and stats, you won't.
Also, since gunfights are rare birds, having 56 in five years, means Memphis and its surroundings must be crime central. Guess I prefer to live elsewhere.
As to the 56 gunfights, who, what, when, where, distances, shots fired, hit rate and etc… please, or at least a summary of the stats such as is found in other studies.
At the recent 2010 ILEETA conference (International Law Enforcement Educators and Trainers), a use-of force panel discussed Point Shooting vs. Aimed Fire.
An article by David Griffith about the discussion, is in POLICE Magazine.
"The panel, which consisted of firearms trainers, law enforcement officers, a physician, an attorney, a physician, and a psychologist, discussed the issue in terms of training and officer-involved shootings. And it concluded that point shooting may be what happens in a gunfight but to point shoot well under stress officers need to aim when they train."
"Point shooting well under stress is all about muscle memory," said New Braintree, Mass., chief of police Bert DuVernay. "And the way you achieve that muscle memory is by learning to align your sights."
DuVernay said that training officers to point shoot without training them to aim was a "shortcut." "There is no instinctive ability to shoot. So we need to teach our people to use the sights under realistic conditions. That's the answer, not point shooting."
"Firearms trainer Vicki Farnham said point shooting allows shooters to put a lot of shots downrange very quickly but the results are less than spectacular. … You better be able to use both of your sights and to hit what you want to hit."
Sgt. Brian Stover of the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department said "I was trained the old-fashioned way. And I've only been in one shooting. I fired three rounds and hit him once. I can tell you that an accurate shot ends the problem."
John Farnham said "We trainers have to persuade our students to do what works best in most circumstances and that is use their sights."
There's a bit more on that in the article about it on my site http://www.pointshooting.com
Looks to me that Sight Shooting is still the wonder method.
FYI: As to Sight shooting, if you are at close quarters and in a life threat situation, you will not be able to use your sights as you will lose your close vision with the dump of adrenaline into your system that occurs in those situations. There is an article about that on my site as well and info from other sources as well. Try WIKI even.
As to fast shooting. I shoot as fast as I can point and pull the trigger. That is faster than I can sight shoot. Can I shoot faster than you or someone else, don't know and it really doesn't matter, as I can only shoot as fast as I can point and pull the trigger, which again is faster than I can sight shoot.
I don't agree with all of the following, but it makes sense if everyone must be trained to a reasonably high level.
"If that's the case, then handguns should be confiscated from certified owners, and certified owners should be required to be certified two or three times a year.
That will keep the trainers and gov employees busy big time, and get a lot of guns out of the hands of those who obviously shouldn't have them as they are more of a danger to themselves and the public at large than to the rare bad guy they may have to confront. To drive a car, you have to be licensed and pass a test. Why not the same with a gun since both are lethal?"
As to competition and street performance, there is no connection between the 2. The NYPD tried to establish one via their study, but couldn't.
Here's a link to a page on my site that is dedicated to pics and videos of Sight shooting being used effectively in CQB.
http://www.pointshooting.com/1april1.htm
I have been at this 4 ten years now, so you should be able to find all the info you need to on AIMED Point Shooting on my site.
Don't like it, don't use it, and hope that the other guy/gal won't either.
Thanks again John.
LikeLike
John Veit
Feb 07, 2011 @ 16:32:30
“If that’s the case, then handguns should be confiscated from certified owners
Should read: “If that’s the case, then handguns should be confiscated from un-certified owners
LikeLike