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?
Firearm User Network 
Nov 05, 2012 @ 19:30:07
So I am not sure: Are you for, or against, point shooting? Or are you indifferent? I have no pistol shooting experience at all, so I have no dog in this fight. I actually did not even really know what point shooting was until I looked it up while reading this article. Interesting stuff, to say the least.
LikeLike
Nov 06, 2012 @ 08:51:48
Great article and written with great wit.
Well IMHO, here’s some info that helps to explain why things are the way they are.
As they say, the results or the proof of the pudding is in the eating.
And the results of the modern technique in on-the-street-use is a miss rate of more than 80%. And to me, that does not equate to effectivness or accountability in the application of deadly force, in any way shape or form.
As I have been saying since before the turn of the century, the studies and stats on CQB situations, indicate that throwing rocks would probably be more effective than the use of the modern technique.
In January 2007, the NYPD paid the RAND Corporation to examine the firearm-training program of its force of about 37,000 Officers. The examination resulted in a 2008 report which details a variety of training issues, and gives recommendations for improvement.
One issue identified, is the clear disconnect between shooting effectiveness when in training and when on the job. And that issue, which can have life or death consequences, is not addressed specifically with a recommendation. [I found that to be a bit strange.]
The following focuses on the disconnect as detailed in the report.
Firearm incidents get major play in the press. However, what does not get publicity, is that those incidents are relatively rare. Per the RAND report, it is statistically unlikely that an Officer will discharge his or her weapon during his or her entire career on the Police force.
For example: during 2006, only 156 Officers out of the force of some 37,000, were involved in a firearm-discharge incident. And fewer than half of those incidents involved an Officer shooting at a human being. Most involved Officers shooting at dogs.
Also, according to the Department of Justice (DOJ): “of the 43.5 million persons who had contact with Police in 2005, an estimated 1.6% had force used or threatened against them, a rate that was nearly the same as in 2002 (1.5%).”
The rarity of incidents might be a reason for not doing much if anything about them administratively.
However, for the participants, they are deadly serious and personal. And if one goes badly, it can become a public relations nightmare for an Agency.
Per the report, firearms training has increased dramatically over the past 100 tears, as has the quality of weapons carried. But on average, there appears to have been very little improvement in the ability of Officers to hit their targets during the rare firearms incident.
The average hit rate for NYPD Officers involved in a gunfight between 1998 and 2006 was 18 percent. For every five shots, four bullets missed the intended target and went somewhere else. And that hit rate is consistent with the “normal” hit rate in armed encounters which hasn’t changed much for years and years.
The average hit rate for Officers who shot at subjects who did not return fire, was 30 percent. Officers hit their targets 37 percent of the time at distances of seven yards or less. And hit rates fell off sharply to 23 percent at longer ranges.
Also, Officers in gunfights fired 7.6 rounds on average, compared with an average of 3.5 rounds for Officers who fired against subjects who did not return fire. And most Officers have firearms with a capacity of well over 7 rounds, plus extra magazines.
FBI statistics show that life threat incidents happen at very close ranges. Between 1989 and 1998, of the 682 local, state, and federal law-enforcement Officers in the United States who died because of criminal action, nearly 75 percent (509) received fatal wounds while within 10 feet of their assailants.
Here’s a link to more on the Rand Corp. study: http://www.pointshooting.com/1arand.htm
Here’s some more info as to why the Applegate/Fairbairn reality based methods were discarded.
Mike Conti in his book The Officer’s Guide To Police Pistolcraft, offers good information on that and the development of Police training.
Basically, the FBI’s modification and rejection of the reality based system followed a change in personal, not a change in the requirements of the job. Bizarre but true.
That left a void which gave rise to the Modern Technique and competition-based target pistol shooting, which was soon equated with and called combat handgun shooting.
The MT became and served as the basis for the vast majority of U.S. Law Enforcement Agency training programs for well over thirty years.
During that time, the police hit rate when engaged in actual real-world close-quarters gunfights, was and has remained under 15%. That poor efficiency rate is compounded by the facts that more than 85% of close range encounters occur within 21 feet, and more than 53% of them take place within 5 feet.
For more info on this interesting, informative and practical Officers Guide To Police Pistolcraft, see this book report on it: http://www.pointshooting.com/1aconti2.htm or visit: http://www.sabergroup.com
LikeLike
Nov 06, 2012 @ 10:21:55
>> Are you for, or against, point shooting?
I am for effective training and recognize there may be more than one way to get there. The point of this tounge-in-cheek write up is that proposed approaches have been tried before and might not have been as amazingly wonderful as proponents claim. More importantly, for every study or report “proving” that one approach is bad or ineffective, another study or report exists showing much higher effectiveness.
Hit rates repeated here are an example. Certain NYPD reports are used to show that sighted fire techniques have a very low success rates, yet other NYPD and LAPD reports show success rates superior to those enjoyed by a point shooting trained force. Other reports are used to show that the majority of engagements are almost always inside 20 feet yet LAPD reported in one study that more officer shootings took place beyond 15 yards than inside 7 yards.
Reports can be found to grind any sort of axe you fancy.
>> I actually did not even really know what point shooting was until I looked it up while reading this article. Interesting stuff, to say the least.
That is the real reason I post stuff and take articles from others. The world is rarely black and white and most often is multiple shades of gray. Take in a variety of view points, test what you learn and make up your own mind.
LikeLike
Nov 06, 2012 @ 11:28:49
>> Bullseye shooters are worried about scores and scoring rings…forget about it…
You are falsely assuming two hand, aimed shooting is “bullseye” shooting. Not true.
>> Take a serious class with AirSoft and theories about aimed firing will vanish…. While I’m on the subject: PRIDE….I have noticed that very few firearms shooters and instructors visit AirSoft and paintball fields. Yet, I see other people in serious training in these sports and learning what works and what does not work.
Except those trainers that DO incorporate Force on Force using Airsoft and Simunitions. Karl Rehn (http://www.krtraining.com/) is a USPSA shooter and trainer that has integrated Force on Force and Airsoft into his training (ask him for a copy of his published Force on Force training articles) and still views aimed shooting techniques as valuable. He isn’t the only one. The folks training with Gabe Suarez do as well.
https://firearmusernetwork.com/raw-marksmanship-for-combat/
https://firearmusernetwork.com/you-don’t-know-what-you-don’t-know/
As with the studies “proving” one approach is bad or good, other studies can be found showing the opposite. Depends which axe you care to grind.
LikeLike
Nov 06, 2012 @ 11:05:03
I am a simple person and this I will tell you: SISS instructs “AirSoft Force-On-Force Combatives” and it is an eye opener. The people who are vehemently against Point Shooting are probably bullseye shooters that have never been attacked by a thug or instructors that have never been attacked by a thug. Asking a student to get into a special stance and aligning tiny sights on an attacking criminal is insane. Besides not being physically able to do this, the attack takes place extremely CLOSE and FAST.
Attacks by Bad Guys are really ambushes. So close that you might not even get your pistol out in time. A step further, you might not even realize that you are being attacked. Trained police offers who qualify every year only have an 18 to 22% hit rate at best. The Bad Guys sometimes surpass this percent. I am an excellent shooter-both in Bullseye and Point Shooting but I will be very happy if only 33% of my bullets make contact.
Bullseye shooters are worried about scores and scoring rings…forget about it….other tactics, along with the act of shooting, are important too. Take a serious class with AirSoft and theories about aimed firing will vanish. Evasion: What happens if you are attacked by a knife wielding Bad Guy and you actually have enough time to try to run away? How are you going to shoot back? While being chased, there is no conventional 2-Dimensional square range training that will help you. There is way more to learn besides just shooting straight. I have not even touched on the effects of extreme STRESS on a person being a crime victim. A couple dozen painful AirSoft welts will make you a believer in short order.
While I’m on the subject: PRIDE….I have noticed that very few firearms shooters and instructors visit AirSoft and paintball fields. Yet, I see other people in serious training in these sports and learning what works and what does not work.
Ted A Sames II
LikeLike
Nov 06, 2012 @ 20:19:45
Oh my, here we go again….x100…
I think it boils down to two variables:
1) Method of shooting (point vs. sight)
2) Intensity of training, regularity of practice, and ingrained skill levels in each method.
Results will be mostly dependent on #2, methinks. The cop studies are all irrelevant, as far as I’m concerned, because the vast majority of them are far too little-trained to be good enough in EITHER method for their performance to be held up as representing a really good example of same (otherwise, their hit % would be higher). And yes there are exceptions, I’ve competed against a few (sight shooters all).
A highly accomplished point shooter will do well out to a certain distance. Taking a head shot at 20 yards with point shooting? Show me a consistent 80% hit ratio over 20 attempts (literally, with me watching) and I’ll believe it.
A highly accomplished sight shooter will be just as fast at close range as a point shooter, since sight shooting PROPERLY done IS a form of point shooting done at eye level, to allow the sights to be seen if desired in a tiny fraction of a second. And they will be fast and accurate at distance via sight picture confirmation. Ted, good sight shooters do not consciously align tiny sights as you say, rather that alignment is achieved by trained reflex of the hands before you even see the sights. Just like point shooters try to do – only, done at eye level to allow visual confirmation of what the hands have ALREADY achieved. If they don’t have the .01 or .05 second they need “close and fast” to get a flash sight picture, they can just look past the gun and squeeze, and get good results the same way a point shooter would. And no special stance is necessary. Ted, I think will all due respect, you do not really understand the “Modern Technique” of sight usage as developed by Cooper.
But another point not addressed: What really is “highly accomplished”?
Competition standards address that (say, A or better in USPSA, Expert/Master in IDPA). What is it for a point shooter? What accuracy/time frame requirement? Yardstick, please.
You point shooters show us your performance in a USPSA or IDPA match. Really, I’m interested. Why aren’t you competing and winning? Start doing so, and you’ll have more than words in your favor.
LikeLike
Nov 07, 2012 @ 12:08:34
I recently participated in an AirSoft Force on Force point shooting training. I have also begun range shooting. I was the only novice (and female) in the class. Without a doubt I learned more in the Point shooting training.
1. The speed with which a normal situation can go bad
2. How the immediate adrenaline rush of ‘holy crap’ can cloud decision making when untrained in real life scenarios
3. I learned techniques with point shooting/force on force training that are more applicable to my life, my family and friends. And not to mention unarmed bystanders-
4. Also to look for signs/tells of when a ‘bad guy’ is perhaps up to no good – and to try to recognize when he’s not working alone.
I am going to continue range shooting- BUT I am going to do more point shooting training and am encouraging others to do so ASAP!
RQP
Rebecca Potthast
LikeLike
Nov 07, 2012 @ 15:22:15
Rebecca, try taking Defensive Handgun 1 at Thunder Ranch.
LikeLike
Nov 07, 2012 @ 18:12:34
@Rebecca Potthast and @Ted Sames
Some side notes on Force on Force training with Airsoft.
Click to access ForceOnForce.pdf
Click to access SWAT-Karl1.pdf
Mr. Rehn put this together in 2002 and published an article on it. In addition, Mr. Rehn ran Airsoft Force on Force Scenarios at Polite Society conferences from 2002-2010.
This makes him one of the first trainers to recognize, publish and promote this type of training. Not too bad for a USPSA competition shooter. Glad the tactical types finally caught up to him!
LikeLike
Nov 09, 2012 @ 16:45:14
Nice articles on airsoft.
For rebecca and others, here are links to pics of a cheap and easy to make airsoft target that is fun to shoot at: http://www.pointshooting.com/cans1.jpg and http://www.pointshooting.com/cans2.jpg
And here’s a link to pics and how to info on making a cheap and simple BB trap for use in a garage or other place. The instructions also show and tell you how to hang it from the ceiling, so it can swing from side to side for shooting at a fast moving target.
FYI, don’t plan on using Sight Shooting to shoot at and hit a fast moving target like that, it will be “the jokes on you” if you try.
And ditto +1 or +2, for shooting aerials using Sight Shooting. http://www.pointshooting.com/1aerials.htm
As to point shooting at 20 yards, don’t even try.
IMHO, PISTOL shooting beyond 20 feet is a waste of training energy, time, and money, as most all CQB situations occur at < 21 feet.
And if you are going to be shot and/or killed there is an 80% chance that it will happen at < 21 feet.
So it would be best to train for reality.
Also, even for police, QB situations are rare bird situations according to the studies and stats.
What makes you think your line of work or situation would be more dangerous.
LikeLike
Nov 10, 2012 @ 20:41:20
John V., what is “more dangerous” is limiting your capability by limiting your training. Are you actually saying that all pistol training should be point-shooting only and only to a limit of 20 feet?????? Do you really think the world will always accommodate itself to your view of it? Have you never heard of Mr. Murphy?
What do you do when faced with an Aurora-type shooter with a long gun at 15 yards? Die? A properly skilled shooter will be fast and accurate at 15, and quick and accurate at 20.
Training to comfortable assumptions like that can get you very dead.
LikeLike
Nov 15, 2012 @ 16:38:16
Taking a pistol to a rifle fight is not a good idea IMHO. Run. Run, Run!!!
Also self defense shootings are CQ situations. So, unless you are a cop or a soldier, claiming self defense beyond 7 yards could land you in jail.
Here’s a link to an article by Larry Seecamp on why his guns come without sights: http://pointshooting.com/1acamp.htm
And, here’s some data from the NYPD’s 2011 Annual Firearms Discharge Report that points up the rarity of gunfights.
Per the executive summary of the report, there were 92 firearms discharge incidents involving members of the New York City Police Department. Only 36 of the incidents were shootings involving adversarial conflict with a subject.
That’s all there were in a city of 8.2 million people, and where there are nearly 35,000 uniformed members who interacted with citizens in approximately 23 million instances in 2011. It’s also shows an impressive record of firearms control.
So your chance of being in a real gunfight is probably right up there with the chance of your being hit by a lightning strike unless you are a bodyguard in Iraq/Afganistan/Syria.
Also about 1/2 or more of the shootings in NY and LA occur from about 6 pm to 6 am when seeing the sights if there would be time to use them and you would be able to focus on them, would be problematic.
For more info and the stats, skip two threads up to the one on the LAPD stats. I’sm going to add another response shortly, which focuses on the NY and LA shooting stats.
LikeLike
Nov 16, 2012 @ 19:36:21
John V.,
>>”Taking a pistol to a rifle fight is not a good idea IMHO. Run. Run, Run!!!
Also self defense shootings are CQ situations. So, unless you are a cop or a soldier, claiming self defense beyond 7 yards could land you in jail.”
Really.
I am not aware of anyone KNOWINGLY “taking a pistol to a rifle fight…” Could you please provide examples?
On the other hand a few folks CARRYING handguns as daily habit have found themselves involved with a long-gun-carrying criminal shooter. Both long guns and handguns have ranges far in excess of 7 yards.
Your advice to “Run” is good, unless they risk being shot in the back while running. “Cover!” is better, followed by “evade behind more cover”.
Firearm self-defense does not have a legally-limited radius of seven yards unless ALL PROJECTILES, whether fired from handguns, rifles, shotguns, bows, and atlatls, or hand-thrown, fall to the ground after 7 yards. Understand Mr. V? The situation dictates the danger, and each is evaluated on its own merits when the investigation is done. Using a rifle to shoot a knife-armed guy from 200 yards is not advisable. A gang-banger shooting at you from a car 20 yards away with any kind of firearm is a legitimate target, even if you can run or find cover, or both.
Give me your advice on the following scenario Mr. V:
If an active long-gun-armed criminal shooter, whom you have just seen shoot two unarmed citizens, then points his AK at you from a distance beyond 7 yards but well within your easy hitting range (say, 10-15 yds), and you have your daily carry handgun, and no hard cover is within say three steps distance, what would you do?
1)Stand there (or collapse into fetal position) and be shot due to fear of criminal prosecution for murder/manslaughter?
2)Turn and run for the nearest cover while praying to not be shot?
3)Do your best to stroke and deck the shooter, knowing you have nothing to lose due to 1) & 2) above?
4)Try to charge him and tackle him?
5)Hit your knees and beg for mercy?
6)Engage him in discussion to take his mind off the current topic?
7)Something else I haven’t thought of?
Enlighten me, please. Seriously. Some of the things you are saying are dangerous to yourself and anyone reading them.
LikeLike