Dave Spaulding was the 2010 Law Officer Trainer of the Year and author of Handgun Combatives
Here are his thoughts on Point Shooting vs. Sight Shooting.
I spent a few minutes reading another point shooting article last night. It was nothing new. It was based on officer KILLED summaries and the NYPD SOP 9 report that says the majority of officers are killed within five feet. As usual, the answer is to focus the majority of police firearms training on distances inside ten feet and to forget the use of sights. After all, Bruce Siddle’s research has proven that the SNS and it’s response to stress precludes the ability of the eye to close focus. I have read it all before. Cops shootings will always be close as that is where cop work is done. This is not new.
In a recent issue of HANDGUNS magazine, I have an article on combative pistol sights and it is my conclusion that sights can be used in armed conflict. Now, when you are engaged in “The Hole” (double arms length) you might not be able to bring the gun up to eye level, but then why would you try to draw a gun within the reach of your opponent? The only reason that I can think of is that you have no hand to hand skills or lack the desire to face smash or poke the eyes of your opponent. The truth is, there are situations in which the gun IS NOT the solution, even if deadly force is justified.
While close quarter shooting courses are taking the country by storm, I have never found this situation to be that big a problem or all that fascinating. Again, being a victim of my own experience, I decided a long timke ago that a certain distance between my adversary and I was required in order to deploy the firearm and I did what was necessay to make this distance happen. I was never convinced thet the speed rock would really work in a fight. No, I never shot anyone at close quarters, but I sure have fought more than my share at bad breath distance and drawn my gun. It was at this point that THEY decided to stop. I just helped them arrive at that decision…
The fact is, ALL training is artificial as there is not expectation of injury or death. I have had a number of people tell me that a well scripted force on force scenario can create the same “emotions” as a fight and I am sure that this is true, but in the back of the students mind, they KNOW that they will not be seriuosly injured or harmed. This does not mean that we stop doing this type of training…far from it! It just means that we cannot prepare for every potential situation that may arrise and that we may need to “improvise, adapt and overcome” as the situation at hand unfolds in front of us!
Training is a reference guide. In the case of firearms training, I view it as a pyramid with the base being the Fundamentals like grip, body position, holster skills, malfunctions, etc…those things that are needed to run the gun. The next level is the Combative aspects of shooting such as movement, alternate positions, close quartyer shooting and then finally Interactive Skills which is where the airsoft or simunitions comes into play. While some have called for going right to interactive training, I see that as trying to go straight to defensive driving without doing basic driver’s ed. first…you just can’t get there from here.
Where is all of this going? In reality it is the ranting of an aging man who has seen his share of adversity and is tiring of reading research by those who have never had a gun pointed at them, sat with someone who has just killed someone, seen someone killed with their own eyes or just plain hasn’t done anything beyond reading a few books and articles. The answer is not always in a laboratory. In the case of personal defense, it is in the mind of each and everyone of us. We must all develop a combative mindset which will allow us to adapt based on our training. For example, if you have never shot from the ground and suddenly find yourself there, don’t panic! Just apply the fundamentals of shooting from the refrence guide I mentioned above to the position you are in whether it is laying on your back or sitting on your butt. No one needs to train you in how to do this, you just need to sort it out and that comes from a the mind. So much of this “advanced high speed, low drag” stuff you can figure out on your own if you just put your mind to it.
Mindset is something that we all can train in everyday. Visualize potential scenarios that are relevant to YOUR world and always see your self winning! At the range, shoot close up, seated and laying down. You might have to place the target at ground level to keep from going over the back stop, but so what?
Somewhere out there in computer land are two posts that I wrote and then lost due to my lack of computer skills. I don’t have the heart to do this a third time, so I will be brief…
If you want to point shoot, great! It’s certainly up to you but I can’t help but ask; when your life is on the line, do you want to ASSURE your gun is on your opponent or just HOPE/THINK it is?
In addition, how well does your point shooting technique hold up when your opponent is moving erratically like a human would? The one thing that I can assure you will happen is that when the guns come out, people will scatter like rats when the lights are turned on! This is based on my personal experience, not on time playing airsoft while doing “research”.
Actually, I’m sorry that I brought it up. Its like the 9mm v. .45…few minds will be changed regardless of what is said. In my defense, I have taken several point shooting courses and practiced it on the range. I just like the warm and fuzzy feeling that comes from knowing that my gun is on target. Don’t tell me that it is “impossible” to see my sights in a fight. I KNOW this is not the case…I’ve seen them with my own eyes…and no, I didn’t just “think” I saw them…
The TV program 20/20 featured an entire two hour program looking at things that our society fears and how most all of them are not near the problem that we think. The constant theme throughout was that someone was making a HUGE profit off our fears whether they be breast implants, flying in airplanes or home security systems. As I watched, I could not help but think how much of the firearms training industry is just the same. When was the last time you saw a big name trainer do a 180 on a product because he is now being paid by the manufacturer to tout the product’s virtues? How about a big name competition shooter who has gone from one type of gun to another so is now pushing “slapping” the trigger because said gun has a long trigger stroke. Does anyone here think that an instructor might push point shooting (or sighted fire, for that matter) because it will sell tickets to their school? Nah…can’t be…
I have backed away from conducting training courses because I am not happy with how all of this is going. The fact is, there are only so many ways to shoot a gun and they have all been invented. With all of the wars, police gun fights and armed citizen confrontations that have occurred over the last century, we have a pretty good idea how to do this now. I do not make my living conducting firearms training and I am glad as it is a tough business. Watch for the instructor or school that has followed the same general path for many years and you have probably found a good one. This does not mean that they will not change or update their lesson plans as things do change, but if they are constantly coming up with the latest and greatest, it probably isn’t.
Point shooting? Yes, I think it has a place, though it is a limited one. As a matter of fact, the truth is that WE ALL POINT SHOOT! What I mean by this is that the front sight does not come into play until the gun makes it to the eye/target line. To get there, the gun must be directed by the upper torso, arms and hands. At this point, the front sight is used to re-confirm what the upper body needed to do. If this body action is not point shooting, I don’t know what is.
The felt aspects of shooting are grossly under-rated. The gun must be delivered to the target CONSISTENTLY regardless of body position which requires practice. By using this consistent body motion, accurate unsighted shots can be achieved, but why wouldn’t you want to KNOW for sure. For this, I like high visibility front sights like I talk about in the recent HANDGUNS article.
Check 360 often,
Dave Spaulding
Firearm User Network 
Oct 21, 2012 @ 01:34:21
Eminently sensible, from my meager perspective. Jeff Cooper’s concept of the presentation was that you achieved alignment with the hands at eyesight level (point-shooting to eyesight level) but did a flash-sight-picture verification before pulling the trigger. Essentially what Mr. Spaulding describes.
LikeLike
Oct 21, 2012 @ 12:22:31
>> concept of the presentation was that you achieved alignment with the hands at eyesight level (point-shooting to eyesight level) but did a flash-sight-picture verification before pulling the trigger.
If you even need the visual verification… “Seeing what you need to see” doesn’t necessarily require a hard front sight focus to hit, unless it does. The target will tell you if your attention and application of fundamentals was sufficiently good enough and the time tells how long it all took.
LikeLike
Oct 22, 2012 @ 09:21:52
For several years now I have been reading with great interest the debate over point shooting v. aimed shooting in combat/self-defense encounters. As a firearms instructor/trainer/competitive shooter with fifty plus year of experience I have taught and used both point and aimed shooting. As a former member of the All-Reserve Pistol Team precision, aimed shooting, was required in both slow fire and sustained fire stages; shooting Glock matches also required aimed shooting but with much faster acquisition of sight alignment, flash sight, and trigger control, slapping the trigger-don’t get caught up in the terms used as different people describe the same action using different terms.
I remember as a young boy watching my grandfather building our new house. Each day he brought his tool boxes to the job; one tool box held a number of different hand saws. When I asked why he had so many saws he explained that each saw was for a specific job then he showed me the difference between a rough cut saw and a trim saw.
Why tell you this? Well, every violent encounter is different and you must have a number of skills (saws) ready (in your tool box) for each encounter so that when required you automatically reach for the skill (saw) necessary for the job at hand.
At close quarters you must be ready to use physical force skills to give you the time and distance to retention draw and use your skill to naturally point from the hip and shoot effectively then continue your attack, if necessary, as you back off shooting mid-way between the hip and full arm extension to bring your sights into view for more precise accuracy.
The more skills you bring to the fight the greater the probability you will survive the fight. You skills help build your mindset and your mind is your first line of self-defense.
Larry R. Smith
Foothills Firearms Training Center
Liberty, SC
LikeLike
Oct 22, 2012 @ 19:01:53
Here are a few comments in response.
– – You stated:
“If you want to point shoot, great! It’s certainly up to you but I can’t help but ask; when your life is on the line, do you want to ASSURE your gun is on your opponent or just HOPE/THINK it is?”
IMHO Point Shooting is easy, can be learned with little or no training, and is easily retained with limited practice. Your target will tell you if your gun is on the target/opponent when Point Shooting, just as it will tell you if your gun is on the target/opponent when Sight Shooting.
– – You also stated:
“In addition, how well does your point shooting technique hold up when your opponent is moving erratically like a human would? The one thing that I can assure you will happen is that when the guns come out, people will scatter like rats when the lights are turned on! This is based on my personal experience, not on time playing airsoft while doing “research”.”
IMHO, Point Shooting will hold up much better than Sight Shooting in dynamic situations given that most likely the lighting will be poor, and that the sights, if there is time to use them or if they can be focused on, will be difficult to align properly and also obtain a correct sight picture for each shot, and particularly so if you are also moving. Also IMHO, you should be moving unless you have suitable cover, as standing still in the kill zone is not a sound tactic.
Here’s a picture from the US Marine Corps Pistol Manual of 2003. It shows the gun sights in focus, which means the shooter is not in a life threat situation.
As you mentioned above, Bruce Siddle’s research has proven that the SNS and it’s response to stress precludes the ability of the eye to close focus, which is needed for Sight Shooting. Here are a few added references about that:
Fight Or Flight: Understanding The Adrenaline Dump And How It Affects The Body: http://www.scribd.com/doc/44343607/Technical-Description-The-Fight-or-Flight-Response
Fight or Flight – The Three Stages, by Warren Breckenridge: http://www.fighttimes.com/magazine/magazine.asp?article=1208
Sure Sight web site: http://www.suresight.com/research/
Also, Bill Lewinski of the Force Science Institute said in his 2002 Police Marksman article: Stress Reactions Related To Lethal Force Encounters that the “The eye undergoes three changes under high stress. The pupils dilate, the lens flattens and the eyes begin to move in a “saccadic” fashion….”
When the lens flattens you will lose your near vision focus.
The following is from the G&W for LE 4/03 article written by Rich Grassi and titled: “Jim Cirillo, Gunfighter – Close combat techniques from the stakeout squad!”
In a class he was teaching, Jim Cirillo was quoted as stating:
“When you use the sights, you’re target shooting.” That was a surprise to some in the class….
Cirillo went on to relate how in his first Stake-Out Unit shootout, he’d seen his sights “clear as a bell.” The imperfections on his front sight were plainly visible while the suspect blurred in his vision. He reduced them to the colors of their clothing to know when to shoot and when to hold up.
He explained that he had time (they’d come in the store earlier and cased the place), he had good lighting (unlike the usual confrontation), he had what he considered to be cover or concealment (a display of peanuts), and he had distance (more than a conversational range).
“If you got (those elements), you’d be a fool not to use the sights,” Jim said.
It’s when you don’t that you use alternative sighting techniques, like his weapon silhouette and geometric point techniques….
The article also touched on his alternative sighting technique, as well as “nose point” shooting.
The info below was developed from a ProArms podcast interview with Bob Stasch of the Chicago PD. Mr. Stasch has reviewed it, and approves of it as written.
Mr. Stasch has been with the Chicago PD since 1981, and has been in 14 gunfights.
When he began with the Chicago PD, qualifications were at 7, 15, and 25 yards, and mostly bullseye. A two handed Isosceles or Weaver stance was used. And there was no time pressure or combat shooting.
He is a firm believer in carrying a back up. But he has had to draw one only a couple of times, and he has not used one in a shootout.
In his first shooting, he and his partner each hit a perp multiple times. His initial shot was at about 12 feet, and his last two were at about 6 feet. His last shot blew out the perp’s knee which finally brought him down. The perp later died from the multiple wounds. After that shooting, Bob and his partner trained to make head shots to better assure a quicker stop.
He practices shooting at combat distances [out to 20 – 25 feet], and tries to shoot exclusively with one hand to learn to control the weapon. In a gunfight, your off hand will be occupied doing something like pushing, opening a door, using the radio, etc..
He also said that standard range shooting positions are never acquired in combat. As to a combat crouch, he found himself almost sitting on his butt at times to get low, or behind something.
He is not a big fan of aimed fire, nor is he a precision shooter.
His shooting is instinctive shooting [like Point Shooting].
What you do, is point your finger at the target with your finger along the slide of the pistol.
When the top of the gun is at eye level, and the eye, front sight or muzzle, and the target are in line, you will hit what you are aiming at.
He has shot 9 people. Five of them died.
Here’s a link to additional info: http://pointshooting.com/1astasch.htm
……….
Hopefully you have taught Officers/students to both Point Shoot and Sight Shoot. Leaving the self teaching of instinctive shooting or Point Shooting, which is used in most all gunfights per the studies and literature, to Officers/students at the time of and in real life or death situations, IMHO borders on reckless endangerment on the part of their trainers and the brass and by association the FBI.
LikeLike
Oct 22, 2012 @ 22:31:46
“The target will tell you..” …if you did it right.
AFTER the shot. And if it’s a miss, it’s too late. Your sights tell you BEFORE the shot, and you can make sure it’s a hit.
LikeLike
Oct 23, 2012 @ 08:50:12
>> Your sights tell you BEFORE the shot, and you can make sure it’s a hit.
There’s a section in Beyond Fundamentals by Brian Enos with photos digitized from a video of him shooting the Steel Challenge stage Speed Option
After firing at the second plate there’s a longish transition to the third target on the left. First photo shows his pistol in recoil shooting the second plate with four visible hits from previous runs, second photo shows him beginning transitioning to the next target and the third photo shows the bullet hitting the plate he just shot at.
A trained shooter using sights can call shots faster than a speeding bullet. Literally. Considering a bullet is in the barrel during firing for 0.1 seconds or less, the ability to call shots consistently requires seeing the sight’s movement during that split second instant while in recoil. If you can’t see that movement you’ll never be able to call shots. The fact that all skilled shooters can call shots consistently (it’s a prerequisite to becoming a good shot) means that humans can readily use sights that quickly.
This proves the argument against sighted shooting as “too slow” is wrong.
LikeLike
Oct 23, 2012 @ 09:49:44
Here’s a link to the picture of the sights from the Marine pistol manual mentioned above. http://www.pointshooting.com/sightpic.jpg I apperently used the wrong syntax
As to using the sights to confirm where your shot will go, the NYPD SOP 9 study of thousands of police combat cases established that Sight Shooting is not used in most all CQB situations. And if conditions are such that prevent the sights from being seen, what are you to do to insure accurate shooting?
The US Army says for CQ night shooting to use an isso grip.
As to which is fastest, I can only shoot as fast as I can shoot. And I have found that I can Point Shoot quicker and with just about the same accuracy as I can Sight Shoot. Does that mean that some folks could, would, and will shoot faster than me. Yes.
Brian Enos is a marvel. He also said some years ago that his site and forums were about competition shooting.
The big question is does range performance carry over to street performance?
The answer is that that has not been established to date?
And since the hit rate in CQB situations is less than 20%, it is obvious that Sight Shooting is not used, or can not be used in CQB situations, or Sight Shooting CQB accuracy standards are a very bad joke,
IMHO, counting on using Sight Shooting in a real CQB situation, could very well get you killed. In the middle of a CQB, is not the time to learn Point Shooting when due to environmental conditions, time constraints, the dynamics of a situation, our BAR, etc., the sights are not or can not be used.
LikeLike
Oct 23, 2012 @ 10:06:04
>> As to which is fastest, I can only shoot as fast as I can shoot. And I have found that I can Point Shoot quicker and with just about the same accuracy as I can Sight Shoot.
This was my point in that bit on Typing and Shooting
Some people simply aren’t compelled to invest the minimal amount of time to learn skillful shooting, be it by lack of effective training policy or personal motivation, but their duties and/or lifestyle might necessitate handgun use. Under trained, non-dedicated personnel can include police, military and civilians. A point shooting approach might serve them if they aren’t going to learn anything better.
LikeLike
Oct 23, 2012 @ 20:06:20
Thanks John,
Best to deal with what is, than what should be.
Had a guy in basic that refused via fright or whatever, to crawl under overhead live machine gun fire in a night exercise. I can remember my reluctance to crawl over a log in my way that required that I get up and close to the tracers that were zipping just overhead.
I believe that I just laid on my back for a bit and watched them zip over head. Cool. Which is probably a memory developed over time, but I think it that was the case.
What you do is get as thin as you can be and go on.
The guy got transferred out or discharged.
Probably best for all involved.
If what should be taught is a higher bar, then detail it.
And flunk those who can’t meet it, as to do otherwise puts in jeopardy those who count on their brothers and sisters for back up, as well as their own security.
And if that bar is Sight Shooting, then we should flunk those who advocate for its use in CQB situations, as there is no documented proof that it has been used effectively in CQB situations after teaching it for such use in over 100 years.
If Police agencies and trainers can not define what is needed to survive, and present it, and train their charges in it, they should flunk themselves.
Nothing personal, just recognizing what is, is.
If someone has proof to the contrary, trot it on out.
LikeLike
Oct 23, 2012 @ 23:01:45
If the hands are trained properly, you will have good alignment, even if you can’t see the sights. And it does take a lot of work to do that – work using the sights to teach your hands where to put the pistol. Once you get there you can shoot very well at close range using “point” shooting. But for more difficult shots you really need to see your sights. I prefer to at least have the gun at eyesight height even if I am looking “through” the sights at very close range at high speed, because I can at least see if there is a gross error in where the gun is looking.
LikeLike
Oct 24, 2012 @ 07:24:14
>> And if that bar is Sight Shooting, then we should flunk those who advocate for its use in CQB situations, as there is no documented proof that it has been used effectively in CQB situations after teaching it for such use in over 100 years.
Are you seriously claiming in the last 100 years nobody has ever used their pistol sights in a fight?
>> If Police agencies and trainers can not define what is needed to survive, and present it, and train their charges in it, they should flunk themselves.
Seeing as point shooting approaches were widespread until the last couple decades of the 20th century, those trainers have already been flunked. Even Fairbairn and Sykes documented how poor their results were.
LikeLike
Oct 24, 2012 @ 10:44:06
In a real life threat situation at CQ, according to science, you will loose your ability to focus on near objects like the sights.
As far as I know there are no pics or videos of Sight Shooting ever being used effectively in a CQB situation.
There is the video and pics of Ruby shooting Oswald on the web using Point Shooting. google ruby shoots oswald.
Here’s a link to my page of pics and videos of SS being used effectively in CQB: http://www.pointshooting.com/1april1.htm Unfortunately it has been empty for the past 12 years.
On the page, there is a pic of a drug store guard shooting and killing a robber using an isso grip and who clearly is point shooting.
I have looked for and still am looking for info and RESULTS that prove that SS works when needed most in combat. And since Sight Shooting has been taught for over 100 years, there should be tons of pics of it being used in CQ gunfights. But the fact of the matter is that there are none.
It does appear that Sight Shooting is used in videos of SS troops executing prisoners and civilians in non CQB situations.
And it is widely used in competition by the best shooters in the land.
However and on the other hand, how does one explain or account for the miss rate over 80% in CQB situations. To me that smacks of a method (read SS) that fails in combat use, or failed training, or both.
And I do not blame the students as they were/are not in charge.
How come gun makers don’t include with their guns, instructions on one or more shooting methods that are proven to work in CQ self defense situations?
>> If Police agencies and trainers can not define what is needed to survive, and present it, and train their charges in it, they should flunk themselves.
I agree.
LikeLike
Oct 24, 2012 @ 11:15:01
>> As far as I know there are no pics or videos of Sight Shooting ever being used effectively in a CQB situation.
NYPD reports their officers use sights in nearly half of their fights. For the past three decades NYPD has enjoyed a much better success rate than officers trained in point shooting methods by Fairbairn and Sykes. Too bad they aren’t followed around by a camera crew to provide pictures, but that is the results NYPD reports. You like to quote NYPD reports. Perhaps you should actually read them.
>> There is the video and pics of Ruby shooting Oswald on the web using Point Shooting.
Oswald was unarmed and shackled to a police officer who didn’t have gun in hand when Ruby waltzed up and shot Oswald. Executing a restrained, unarmed man under police custody from one step away is your example of why point shooting works? Nice!
>> It does appear that Sight Shooting is used in videos of SS troops executing prisoners and civilians in non CQB situations.
Schutz-Staffel troops and Sight Shooting share the same acronym! Obviously, this must be a Nazi plot. Wow, you blew the lid right off this conspiracy!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law
Godwin’s Rule of Nazi Analogies: “As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1.”
>> And it is widely used in competition by the best shooters in the land.
Who must be Nazi sympathizers!
>> However and on the other hand, how does one explain or account for the miss rate over 80% in CQB situations. To me that smacks of a method (read SS) that fails in combat use, or failed training, or both.
Based on data you sent me, Fairbairn and Sykes reported much worse results.
>> >> If Police agencies and trainers can not define what is needed to survive, and present it, and train their charges in it, they should flunk themselves.
>> I agree.
You’re requoting and agreeing with yourself….
LikeLike
Oct 24, 2012 @ 16:21:45
Per the Fairbairn and Sykes stats from the 1920-30’s, during a 12 year period, 260 criminals were killed and 42 Police were killed, which gives a ratio of 6 to 1. In those years, 103 criminals were wounded and 100 Police were wounded 100, which gives a ratio of 1 to 1.
In 1971, in New York, 93 subjects were shot and killed and 12 Officers were killed, which gives a ratio of 7 to 1. 221 subjects were shot and injured, and 47 Offers were shot and injured, which gives a ratio of 5 to 1. Both NY ratios are better than those of Shanghai in the 1920’s.
In 2011, 9 subjects were shot and killed, and 1 NYPD officer was shot and killed, which gives a ratio of 9 to 1. 19 subjects were shot and wounded, and 3 officers were shot and injured, which gives a ratio of 6 to 1. Those ratios are much better.
……….
Here are a few snippets from the NYPD’s 2011 annual firearms discharge report.
In the portion on animal attacks:
Of officers who reported their shooting techniques, only 32 percent report gripping the firearm with two hands, which is radically divergent from the 71 percent of officers involved in adversarial conflict who used a two-handed grip.
This likely stems from the fact that animal attacks are often abrupt, close-quartered affairs, in which the animal rushes towards the officer and the officer seeks to ward off the animal even as he or she draws and fires. In all but one incident, the animal was within five yards of the officer.
Only three officers (7 percent of those reporting) used their sights when discharging their firearm during these confrontations, which is dramatically different from the 44 percent of reporting officers who used sights during adversarial conflict. This, too, likely derives from the immediacy and proximity of most animal attacks.
Here is one other snippet: NYPD firearms training also emphasizes weapons control. With regard to shooting technique, the mechanics of pistol shooting in a controlled environment include proper grip, sight alignment, sight picture, trigger control, and breath control. All of these require a degree of concentration and fine motor skills. Unfortunately, in a combat situation, concentration and fine motor skills are sometimes among the first casualties. Training can mitigate this, but officers must be taught to rely on mechanical actions that employ gross motor skills and have as few components as possible.
……….
Per a 2011 New York Post article, during the past 10 years, city cops fired 4,702 bullets, accidentally pulled the trigger 323 times, and missed 78 percent of their intended targets.
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/oh_shoot_cops_fire_off_target_ZqMbx38FZnt4GWaaGWJBfN
……….
Lastly, for the past 20+ years and continuing today, a Police Officer has been shot and killed about every 7 days, and thousands are shot and wounded each year.
It is high time to recognized that Sight Shooting which is being taught for use in CQB situations, is a failure in terms of its effectiveness in CQB situations, and to scientifically determine which shooting method/s would be more effective, and implement it/them in select jurisdictions and track the results.
I understand that the California Highway Patrol trains Officers in “target focus shooting” for use in CQB. If that is the case, data on the results for use in making comparisons may already be available.
LikeLike
Oct 24, 2012 @ 18:22:20
When NFL Quarterbacks start putting sights on their Helmet, I’ll stop practicing Point Shooting. These guys start throwing a football when they are very young, and do it often (practice). Their eyes select the running target, and their Brain computes, in Nano Seconds, what every part of their body needs to do to hit the target. When asked about his shooting, Billy the Kid said,,” I just point my finger at the target. Like the Quarterbacks, we learned to do this as kids.
Nuff said.
LikeLike
Oct 24, 2012 @ 23:54:48
Mr. Veit,
We have gone round and round on this already.
If you are poorly trained such that in an actual fight you do not perform your training, that is not the fault of the technique you are trained in, rather in how and how long you were trained and how much you keep training. If this is the case the training needs to be intensified greatly.
If officers trained in sight usage did not use their sights in real CQB shootings, then they were performing some form of unsighted point shooting instead, right? And that is what produced the dismal results you quote – NOT by using sights and missing, but by NOT using sights….and missing. Sounds like a knock against point shooting to me.
Since when is proof of successful sighted fire in CQB shooting defined ONLY as being caught on video?????????? There are plenty of WRITTEN reports of such as mentioned above. John Veit, please wean yourself off of the addiction to movies-as-the-only-reality. Read some after action reports of incidents that were NOT caught on video. Your statement that since you personally have never seen a video of sighted fire working for real means that it’s never been done is grossly illogical. I have never seen a video of the back side of the moon, but I don’t claim there isn’t one.
LikeLike
Oct 25, 2012 @ 15:28:45
>> When NFL Quarterbacks start putting sights on their Helmet, I’ll stop practicing Point Shooting.
Fair enough. Use whatever you like!
Personally, I like to get my advice about speed/practical pistol shooting from practical pistol shooting champions and position rifle shooting advice from High Power and Smallbore High Masters. Further, I prefer strength training advice from Powerlifting competitors and running from Cross country and Track athletes. I know, I’m weird…
If gridiron football quarterbacks are your inspiration for pistol shooting, more power to you.
LikeLike
Oct 25, 2012 @ 16:02:12
>> California Highway Patrol trains Officers in “target focus shooting”
And target focus has been widely understood and used in practical pistol competition. Brian Enos describes it well in his book Beyond Fundamentals.
On big, open, close IPSC targets a hard front sight focus, or even a flash sight picture, might not be necessary. The idea is to learn to see what you need to see to secure hits.
One of my favorite dry gun handling drills is a series of eyes-off presentations, bringing the firearm (rifle or pistol) up from ready to aimed in with eyes closed. If the presentation, hold and position/stance is consistent the gun comes up to good alignment, as verified by the sights when reopening the eyes.
Good sight shooting fundamentals when understood and trained build an effective platform, even if the sights aren’t used. The same can’t be said for a point shooting only approach.
Much of this argument would be avoided if gun owners experienced good shooting. Go find a range hosting organized practical pistol competition and keep attending until you start winning matches or at least earn a decent skill classification.
>> If officers trained in sight usage did not use their sights in real CQB shootings, then they were performing some form of unsighted point shooting instead, right? And that is what produced the dismal results you quote…
+1
LikeLike
Oct 26, 2012 @ 12:22:12
>> If you are poorly trained such that in an actual fight you do not perform your training, that is not the fault of the technique you are trained in, rather in how and how long you were trained and how much you keep training. If this is the case the training needs to be intensified greatly.
>> If officers trained in sight usage did not use their sights in real CQB shootings, then they were performing some form of unsighted point shooting instead, right? And that is what produced the dismal results you quote – NOT by using sights and missing, but by NOT using sights….and missing. Sounds like a knock against point shooting to me.
The miss rate of 78% by those trained in Sight Shooting clearly establishes that Sight Shooting is not or can be used, and that Officers are using instinctive-and-unlearned-Point-Shooting.
I don’t propose that we go back to blaming Officers for being shot and or killed, as was the case not so many years ago. I also don’t think that Officers have a death wish and abandon their training by choice.
I find it a bit bizarre that when combat stats like the miss rate of 78% is mentioned, the conversation most always turns to competition participation as the key to combat success, and slams “instinctive” Point Shooting. And statements similar to the following are often heard: “If you were an established competitor, you would know what to do and do it when your life is on the line.”
However; its a fact that a link between competition and combat has not been scientifically established. Wishful thinking is not reality. What is reality is the combat miss rate of 80% and the atrocious Police casualty rates.
Perhaps what should be done, is when the miss rate of 78% or more is mentioned, it should be followed by two questions:
1. Do you agree that the miss rate is close to that number? – and –
2. What should be done to reverse it to a miss rate of 20% or less?
Keep in mind that your prescription should be able to be applied successfully and across the board to both civilians and police in CQB situations. In other words, is it practical and doable?
What we also know is that the rise of the “modern technique” and competition shooting, both of which have been championed for 20+ years now, have not proven to be models for combat shooting improvement. The brass, trainers, and others continue to keep their heads in the sand as a precaution against dealing with reality.
……….
There is learned-and-aimed-Point-Shooting and unlearned-instinctive-and-unaimed-Point-Shooting.
And if you don’t Point Shoot you won’t know that.
It is very easy to miss a target by just pointing your gun in its direction, and pulling the trigger rapidly.
And it’s also simple and easy to learn “aimed” Point Shooting as taught by Applegate, and also AIMED Point Shooting or P&S, and to maintain them with minimal practice.
http://www.pointshooting.com/faschap.htm
http://www.pointshooting.com/1abriefx.htm
……….
Finally, thanks to John and others for putting up with me.
When threads continue to come up that support shooting that is not proven to work in combat, I think that comment is in order.
But even I get tired of making endless circles in the sand, so for now I’ll say see you and stay safe.
LikeLike
Oct 26, 2012 @ 16:55:26
>> Finally, thanks to John and others for putting up with me.
No worries! We can disagree and you’re still welcome here.
>> Do you agree that the miss rate is close to that number?
There are studies and stats that can corroborate that number. There are also equally-valid studies and stats that paint another picture.
People have used both point shooting and sight shooting methods in actual fights and won. And lost.
>> What should be done to reverse it to a miss rate of 20% or less?
Raw shooting technique alone isn’t the ultimate fix. Nearly an solid, practiced technique capable of hitting suitable sized targets at appropriate distances and time frames used by a fit, trained and aware person (cop, troop or civilian) with proper mind set can win.
As for shooting training, one of the biggest issues is a lack of solid fundamentals and the means to measure it. Range results don’t correlate to real world results because most range results are limited to public sector qualifications, which are a poor measure of skill. Like using a second grade arithmetic test to evaluate trigonometry knowledge, even a 100% score doesn’t tell you much. Even if training budgets expanded range time and ammo, without the know-how to train and test better skills the results still lag.
Regardless, the grim reality is a person can be well-trained and perform well and still be killed while someone else may be less trained and do everything wrong, yet survive.
>> The brass, trainers, and others continue to keep their heads in the sand as a precaution against dealing with reality.
You assume folks like me don’t experiment and try new ideas? You don’t think I’ve testing things seen in video demos by proponents claiming my current approach is “wrong?” I’ll happily discard the way I do things for a better approach that lets me shoot faster and/or more accurately… just as soon as I find a better approach.
LikeLike
Jul 23, 2013 @ 12:21:10
This is really attention-grabbing, You are an excessively professional
blogger. I have joined your rss feed and stay up for in search
of more of your magnificent post. Additionally, I have shared
your website in my social networks
LikeLike
Jul 23, 2013 @ 13:43:08
Thanks!
LikeLike