Point shooting success rates?

The lands were secure, with knights of daring-do keeping the peace. Sam Colt and John Browning provided a new Excalibur and magical, can’t-miss methods of its use were well known. Called “point shooting”, this fantastical martial art polished by the saints Applegate and Fairbairn, provided all defenders of good the power to wield Excalibur with heroic, never-missing levels of ability. Justice prevailed and all was well.

Then, Jeff Cooper, Jack Weaver and their evil minions rose from the depths of Big Bear and scourged the land with their blasphemous notion that organized contests could be used to measure skill and that <gasp!> point shooting didn’t work that well. Later, the hell fires belched the demons Rob Leatham and Brian Enos, furthering the disease now known as practical shooting competition.

Despite having an amazing record and incredible hit rate in fights for decades, firearms trainers, police commissioners and military leaders were forced to discard their combat-proven point shooting methods and grovel in servitude at the feet of competition shooters. This pestilence was invoked by a chant known as “Ip-Sick.”

Darkness swept the land and police, citizens and troops were slain by the billions, expiring under the weight of their competition-induced training scars.

OK, so now we have the point shooters take on this issue (or something like that :)

My question is… If point shooting is so great, and so amazingly effective, and was known and codifed for decades prior to two hand, eye-level shooting upstarts, why would it all be abandoned just because of a few competition shooters? Applegate, Fairbairn and others published books and conducted training decades prior to all that Big Bear Leatherslap nonsense. IPSC wasn’t officially formed until the 1970s, USPSA in the ’80s and IDPA in the ’90s. In all this time, USPSA and IDPA has only managed to attract a couple ten thousand card carrying members total. Contrast that to several million people currently serving in the US armed forces and in police departments, not to mention tens of millions of gun owners.

In the grand scheme of things, there is no real money involved. Most “pro” shooters are either industry rep employees or have some other job to pay bills. USPSA Production champion Ben Stoeger has stated that his winnings at the nationals didn’t even cover his expenses to attend that event. Most soldiers and cops are largely unaware of formal competition and don’t participate. Compare that with the number of personnel serving in the military, government agencies and in police departments, and their training budgets.

Various reports of hit rates are used to “prove” that training methods supplanting point shooting are ineffective. How much better was the hit/success rate before 1960 or so and what sort of studies are there to back it up? The only formal apples-to-apples comparison with a decade or more of data comparing a point shooting-trained force to the maligned NYPD demonstrates exclusive point shoot training as inferior. And if all this compelling data of point shooting effectiveness exists showing point shooting is better, why would it all be abandoned for something that is allegedly more expensive and less effective?

Advertisements