Pox on Point Shooting
by Robert Kolesar
Two of the most experienced gunfighters of the last century, Bill Allard and Charles Askins, were both champion bullseye shooters. Allard has been in more shootings than any other cop in the history of the NYPD. Askins, 1937 US pistol champion, was in two dozen shootings, probably more. Both attributed their success and survival to front sight focus under stress, derived from years of competitive shooting. Something to think about.
And while sight alignment probably isn’t necessary at 3-5 feet, excellent trigger control is. Good trigger control is vital at 5 feet or 50 yards. Point shooting doesn’t develop trigger control.
The LAPD, back in the 70’s, taught “point shooting”. Hit ratios were abysmal. It was learned, through much experimentation with both instructors and recruits, that a certain level of proficiency could be attained. The problem was maintaining that proficiency, which degraded rather rapidly. And any kind of accuracy was destroyed at longer distances, due to the emphasis on pointing and slapping the trigger.
Something I’ve learned from my time as a shooter, cop and Soldier is that marksmanship proficiency and tactics aren’t usually the same thing. A good marksman can learn tactics easily; it comes from applying basic rules of engagement, experience and common sense. Once a certain level of proficiency is gained, that marksmanship proficiency can be applied to tactical scenarios. A poor marksman exercising good tactics can still lose a gunfight.
My point, which has been made numerous times over the last hundred years or more, is to learn to shoot first…constant practice of the basic, boring drills of sight alignment and trigger control on a standard target, over and over again. Developing absolute muscle memory between the brain and trigger finger is the key. This is boring and monotonous, though. No speed rocks, drawing on sinister-looking color targets, no rapid-fire failure drills, no jumping left or right while doing a road-house spin.
A target won’t lie; it’ll tell you where you need improvement. Kind of like the wife of 20 years that knows you and tells you, whether you want to hear it or not. I was always happy to get a new recruit (when I was a training officer) who could shoot, and had the LAPD Distinguished Expert badge to prove it. I could teach him tactics; he already had the confidence regarding weapons handling and marksmanship.
BIO
Master Sergeant Robert Kolesar has been policeman and Soldier as well as a top-ranked competitive shooter. Enlisting in the 82nd ABN DIV at 17, Kolesar learned to shoot and went on to win with both rifle and pistol in Army and National-level competition.
Upon completing active duty, Kolesar transferred to the US Army Reserves and joined the Los Angeles Police Department. Within his 24 year career with LAPD, Bob has been a Street Patrolman, Narcotics Detective and Academy Instructor, receiving more than 140 commendations for outstanding police work, including the LAPD Police Medal for valor 1992. Bob was one of the original LAPD Instructors instrumental in establishing Department training when the LAPD transitioned from revolvers to semi-auto pistols in 1986. A member of the Department’s National Championship Shooting Team, Bob is also one of less than 30 LAPD Officers since the 1930’s to shoot a perfect score on the LAPD Bonus Shoot.
After volunteering for an Iraq combat tour, Kolesar remained on active duty, serving as an instructor while still competing with the USAR Shooting Team. He has earned the prestigious President’s Hundred 18 times, holds Distinguished Rifleman, Distinguished Pistol Shot and Distinguished Police Revolver ratings, is a member of the NRA 2650 and 1490 clubs, and is a High Master in both NRA Pistol and Police Revolver.
Firearm User Network 
Oct 23, 2013 @ 07:56:48
Oh noooo Not the fundamentals, sergeant.
LikeLike
Oct 23, 2013 @ 11:21:49
“My point, which has been made numerous times over the last hundred years or more, is to learn to shoot first…constant practice of the basic, boring drills of sight alignment and trigger control on a standard target, over and over again. Developing absolute muscle memory between the brain and trigger finger is the key.”
YES!
“Once a certain level of proficiency is gained, that marksmanship proficiency can be applied to tactical scenarios.”
YES, again. With rifle or handgun.
LikeLike
Oct 23, 2013 @ 12:51:45
>> Oh noooo Not the fundamentals, sergeant.
Yeah, rumor is…. they work.
LikeLike
Oct 23, 2013 @ 12:54:29
http://jamesclear.com/deliberate-practice
Not shooting related, but very relevant.
LikeLike
Oct 24, 2013 @ 10:02:11
Robert,
1. Where is the data on the LAPD teaching point shooting. What method did they teach? Was it hip shooting? What is their hit rate now compared to then and what is the difference in training time and other factors?
2. On tactics versus marksmanship. I totally disagree with you in the strongest possible way. Tactics beat marksmanship. Would you rather go into battle with great marksmanship and average tactics or go into battle with great tactics and average marksmanship. I am not sure how you would even begin to justify your statement that marksmanship is more important. I see good shooters with bad tactics get killed constantly in force on force situations. I have seen plenty of guys with good to great marksmanship get wounded and even killed because their tactics were bad. I’m sure poor marksmanship has cost far fewer their lives, and even in many of those cases it was probably primarily self control under duress that caused the failure.
3. I also totally disagree with you that marksmanship should be the first and most important thing trained. You need to train the mental processes first with minimal marksmanship, then build marksmanship as you have time. Reaction time is primarily a mental reaction to a threat, shooting well in combat is primarily an outcome from preparedness and control of duress.
4. Because two gun fighters said they focused on their sights proves nothing. Many gun fighters have said and taught the opposite. There is not one study that shows police officers, even when primarily trained in sighted fire, will the majority of the time use their sights on a pistol in close range spontaneous encounters. In fact, every study has shown the opposite.
LikeLike
Oct 24, 2013 @ 16:46:03
>> Tactics beat marksmanship.
Which tactics?
In a discussion with Jason Falla (Redback One) I pointed out that his Combat Fitness Assessment – Sprint course is just a modified, reduced version of Run Down matches shot in military shooting compeition at shorter distances. He scoffed that competitions don’t require ambidextrous shooting as needed in the real world to properly use cover, but his course does, thus making it more tactical.
When I pointed him to links showing AASAM and AFSAM match programs detailing courses of fire requiring ambidextrous shooting and testing the same thing, he ignorantly scoffed again and bleated out, much to the enjoyment of his sycophants, that I was just a competition shooter and therefore don’t know anything about tactics.
While attending a course hosted by Paul Howe at his CSAT school, Mr. Howe expressed his displeasure with competiton shooting. When I asked for an example, he replied that competition shooters have too much emphasis on ambidextrous shooting than is needed real world. The Howe/CSAT tactical approach to using cover is to always shoot strong shoulder, move aggressively from cover, own the area and “service” threats as needed.
Falla and Howe both teach tactics and shooting in tactical situations. They can’t agree on a simple tactical approach on how an individual is best able to shoot around and use cover. I can only imagine how much they diverge on team tactics.
A fellow instructor that teaches at a local law enforcement academy tells his students that, “The tactical approach that let me survive my first gun fight would have gotten me killed in the second.” His point is that tactics are basically applied common sense and that the “best” tactic in one situation might be a poor choice in another.
Fundamental skills, however, always apply. Marksmanship and good gun handling is an example.
LikeLike
Oct 24, 2013 @ 17:39:03
I’ll try to answer your opinions and misconceptions (that’s what they are) one-by-one. But my 1st point is, before this discussion gets started-what’s YOUR experience??? How many people (not a citizen concealed weapons class) have you trained, that have gotten into a gunfight? Enough for a good stat study on hits/misses, sight usage, mag changes, reloads, number of rounds fired, etc? How much have you competed? Enough to get an idea of how competition fits into reality? How many shootings have YOU been in (I’m guessing by your call sign that you MIGHT be prior military). How many street shootings have you analyzed personally? A dozen? Twenty? Fifty? How many police departments (US) have you communicated with; and how many firearms staffs have you discussed in detail their OIS (officer involved shootings) policy, percentages of hits, training, etc with their training officers? How many military units have you trained, before deployment, then gotten feedback after their return? What’s your combat experience? And lastly, can you read? Because this has been written about extensively by everyone from Bill Hickok (who advocated sight usage) to Jeff Cooper and others in the late 20th century. It’s a settled argument.
1. The LAPD (of which I was a member of, including their firearms and tactics staff) taught unsighted fire in the late 60’s and into the 70’s. I wasn’t there then, but I was privy to the data. Both instructors and recruits were used for a data base, over a period of more than a decade. The LAPD keeps very good records on most everything, including marksmanship and shootings. That time period would include several THOUSAND cops, and probably a couple of hundred or so shootings (we tend to shoot a lot of people). Sighted fire was also taught, but point shooting was emphasized and mandatory up to the 7 yard line. Hit ratios hovered around the 30-35% mark on suspects. The hit ratio NOW is somewhere around 70%. Sighted fire is now stressed from day one, including close-range engagements. The results are obvious. Yes, there are some anomalies where an officer fires LOTS of ammo and doesn’t hit anything, but that’s going to happen when you have 10,000 sworn officers. After point-shooting was discarded (late 70’s), hit ratios immediately spiked, because there was a renewed emphasis on sighted fire by people like LAPD firearms instructors John Hurst and John Pride.
In 1984 the Nov (84) recruit class was taught the Cooper “Modern Technique” by John Helms and Larry Mudgett, a couple of LA SWAT coppers who were both Cooper Gunsite instructors and veterans of several gunbattles in LA. Hit ratios continued to climb; this class was closely followed for 5 years after graduation. Hit ratios on suspects by this class hovered near 80%. Not bad for a big-city dept with REVOLVERS. Sighted fire was emphasized; tactics came later in the Academy, where the basics were applied to live-fire scenarios, under stress.
2. You’re reading selectively here, picking out what you want and ignoring the lesson. Tactics are VERY important (never said they weren’t), but a copper (or Soldier) who can’t shoot is a liability. Tactics can be learned later; it’s called the crawl-walk-run concept. All the units and departments I know of ascribe to this theory; once you can shoot, you learn how to fight. Simple concept. It’s the same in boxing; gotta learn how to throw a punch before you engage another fighter. You can bob and weave all you want, but if you can’t punch, you won’t win the fight. If you can’t exercise trigger control on a square range, how the hell can you do it in a rapid-fire man on man exercise (or in a shooting?). Confidence is built by performing basic exercises until muscle memory is achieved. The lesson is then applied to a tactical scenario. Some people learn it quicker than others; some never learn. What you’re “sure” of is irrelevant here; facts rule. Cops and Soldiers that can shoot win gunfights. Tactics are added to your skill-set and then compliment your marksmanship ability. That has been proven over and over again. That’s so obvious that it’s silly to argue about.
3. Don’t have a clue what you mean about “mental processes”. I’m thinking you MIGHT mean the desire to engage, fight and win. That comes from training someone to use their weapon with supreme confidence (you know, teach him how to shoot), looking for the advantage (comes with more training and yes, experience) before and during an engagement, and lastly, having a partner (or team) you can count on. That’s how I learned tactics on the LAPD and in the Airborne Infantry. Too easy.
4. Let’s see…”because two gunfighters said they focused on their sights means nothing”. I disagree, but maybe two isn’t enough. So here’s a few more. How about…Jim Cirillo (NYPD). Bill Allard’s partner on the SOW (stake out squad). Jim was a pretty good PPC shooter and saw his sights every time he shot someone. He told me that more than once. Carlos Hathcock (1965 long range champion, Camp Perry. USMC rifle team). John Wesley Hardin (42 kills, that we know of). John Hurst (LAPD champion pistol team and US Olympic team shooter, academy instructor and winner of more than one gunfight). Alvin York (you heard of him; he liked using his sights in the Argonne. Didn’t learn anything tactical, though, until he had a uniform on). And every LAPD SWAT copper since the late 60’s, because that is their mantra…exceptional marksmanship. They shoot LOTS of rounds, looking at those damn front sights.
As far as studies go, my department has shown that yes, sighted fire AND TRIGGER CONTROL works quite well. So has every other large dept that I’ve talked to. Just because you haven’t heard of “any studies” doesn’t mean they ain’t out there. Most departments are somewhat reluctant to release internal studies of their shootings.
What’s a “spontaneous encounter” anyway? Sounds like a vice caper in Hollywood.
Bob
LikeLike
Oct 24, 2013 @ 18:35:43
Worth looking up Sam Woodfill, Herbert McBride, Simo Häyhä and Horace Bivens as well. Seems their competition shooting experiences turned out to be useful.
Sam Woodfill (http://www.worldwar1.com/dbc/woodfill.htm)
Herbert McBride (http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/20655)
Simo Häyhä
Horace Bivens
http://mtstandard.com/news/state-and-regional/article_e3c02099-4d74-50ec-95f3-518bdcf2c240.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horace_Bivens
LikeLike
Oct 25, 2013 @ 08:01:38
LikeLike
Oct 26, 2013 @ 16:21:50
Comments on selected portions of the article:
———-
Both [Allard and Askins] attributed their success and survival to front sight focus under stress, derived from years of competitive shooting.
———-
In CQ kill or be killed situations, adrenaline is released into the blood stream. It causes the cilliary muscle in the eye, which controls the shape of the lens of the eye, to relax. And that results in the flattening of the lens, which enhances far vision for focusing on the threat. Near vision, which is necessary for focusing on the sights, will be lost to use. That is, the sights will be blurry.
Also Force Science studies have shown what Officers think they did in this or that scenario, may not be with what study videos show really happened.
As to competition shooting, According to FBI stats, if you are gong to be shot and or killed, there is an 80% chance that it will happen at less than 20 feet. So practically speaking, shooting a handgun at greater distances, doesn’t make much sense. And particularly since armed encounters are rare events. And one would be hard pressed to claim self defense in shooting beyond that distance.
———-
And while sight alignment probably isn’t necessary at 3-5 feet, excellent trigger control is. Good trigger control is vital at 5 feet or 50 yards. Point shooting doesn’t develop trigger control.
———-
Per the literature, in combat you will not be holding the gun in a marksmanship grip with the thumb not pressing against the gun, and with the index finger held aloof from the gun so it can squeeze the trigger smoothly to the rear until the shot breaks. You will have a crush grip on your gun. And with the gun held by the thumb, middle, ring and little fingers, your crush grip will torque the gun down and around to the left.
———-
The LAPD, back in the 70’s, taught “point shooting”. Hit ratios were abysmal. It was learned, through much experimentation with both instructors and recruits, that a certain level of proficiency could be attained. The problem was maintaining that proficiency, which degraded rather rapidly. And any kind of accuracy was destroyed at longer distances, due to the emphasis on pointing and slapping the trigger.
———-
Now, I don’t know who teaches slapping the trigger, and would like to see a page in a shooting manual that says to do that.
I did find based on a comment by John B in a different thread, the LAPD’s 2010 EOY report on shootings. It looks like they are doing similar reporting to that of the NYPD which also trains in sight shooting. The reports differ in that the LAPD includes animal shootings along with people shootings and misc shootings. The LAPD report also did not include the number of shots fired, which to me is indicative of the accuracy of the shooting method used.
For example if you shoot at a target 10 times and hit it twice, that’s a hit rate of only 20% which to me would say that the shooting method used sucks.
But, according to the NYPD and LAPD reports that shooting would be classified as a hit not a miss, and if that was the only incident, you would have a 100% success rate.
In 2011. the NYPD’s success rate was 78%. When Officers were being fired upon, the success rate was 66.6 %.
The hit rate was just 12%, which means that 9 out of 10 shots fired missed and went somewhere else.
The LAPD’s 2010 success rate was 65%. And the hit rate (using their pie chart of shots fired per incident), was about 13%, which means that 8 out over every 10 shots fired missed and went somewhere else.
I think it’s fair to say that based on the above, Sight Shooting, which has been taught for combat pistol use for 100+ years, is a failure, unless an accuracy rate with its use, of less than 20%, is considered to be just fine.
Lastly, using the poster’s number of 10K sworn officers, there were 40 shooting incidents in 2010, which makes them rare events.
They are even rarer in NY. In 2011, the NYPD had nearly 35K uniformed members who interacted in approximately 23 million instances in a city of 8.2 million. Of the 35K uniformed members, 62 Officers were involved in 36 instances of intentional firearms discharge during an adversarial conflict.
So training via competitions and range visits are fine, but most likely having no practical payoff in the vast majority of cases. Also, to train train train in a shooting method that fails in combat, doesn’t make a lot of sense to me.
LikeLike
Oct 28, 2013 @ 10:19:28
OK, Mr Veit…I’ll try to answer the points you made. Again, as I asked before with another poster, what are YOUR qualifications? How many people have YOU taught to shoot? More importantly, how many of them were cops who got into a gunfight? And how many of them did you interview AFTER the gunfight? How many doctors and shrinks, working in this field, have you personally interviewed? How many Soldiers have you trained, before a combat deployment? And how many AARs did you get back from that unit after they returned, either verifying or discounting your training? How much competitive shooting have you done, where you could personally analyze the relevance of sight alignment and trigger control, based on your own street experience (your combat time and personal street shootings)? How many experienced cops, who have been involved in several shootings, have you trained with and learned from? Are you a cop? Have you been a part of a large department’s marksmanship training, and seen how training and the results are analyzed?
I would hazard a guess that you have not done much of the above. Your opinion is just that, an opinion, not grounded in any facts, data or experience. Actually I think you’re a classic internet troll, looking to get a rise out of the readership. And that’s OK; I’ll play along. It keeps the website interesting. My reason for saying that is because this is a settled subject; no entity I know of uses unsighted fire to train people that go into harm’s way. It was tried and rejected, long ago. Cooper experimented with it during the early 60’s (Big Bear leather slap) and it fell by the wayside when a guy named Jack Weaver (from the LA County Sheriff’s Office) blew everyone away with two-handed shooting, using sighted fire at very close range.
Some unsighted fire shooting is fine as advanced training. Sight alignment isn’t needed at 3-5 feet; looking over the top of the sights (gun is still brought up to eye level) will work. But trigger control is still critical here, and that’s taught in basic marksmanship. Lots and lots of people have missed at spitting range, because of a lack of trigger control. Usually the shots go high, because the shooter looks over the gun/sights and yanked the trigger. At least, that’s what I’ve found, reviewing literally hundreds of police shootings (and interviewing many of those shooters). As far as “slapping” a trigger, what else would you call it? Point shooting doesn’t utilize proper trigger control; it’s more of a controlled jerk, instead of a speeded up trigger press. At least, that’s what Thell Reed, one of the best “trick shooters”, calls it.
Your hit-rate “analysis” is totally incorrect, as far as police shootings go. Hit rates are what hits the suspect. In all departments I know of, every round is accounted for. A hit is a hit, a miss is a miss, no matter if the suspect is hit or not. I looked at ALL the LAPD 9mm shootings during the years of 1987-89 (one of my duties during the time I was in the tactics and firearms unit). I interviewed ALL the shooters. If a cop shoots 6 times and hit the suspect 3 times, it’s a 50% hit rate. Status of the suspect is irrelevant. If you were a cop you’d know that. Your data is incorrect and misinformed; I’d like to know your “sources”. My percentages are facts. A 70% LAPD hit rate means 70% of the rounds hit the suspects. You MAY have gotten confused, though, by the number of rounds fired. For instance, over 3,000 rounds were fired at the North Hollywood shoot-out. That’s factored into the hit rate, and somewhat skews the ratio downwards. You’d know that if you were involved (I was). ALL rounds fired are added to the city hit rate, including (for instance) a dog shooting that goes sideways with 10 shots fired. That’s always factored into the hit rate, city-wide. As far as shootings being “rare events”; not so. This is where ignorance, coupled with improper reading of stats, comes up. While 10,000 cops and 40 shootings a year doesn’t seem like much, it doesn’t tell the whole story. That year (2010), 40 shootings was somewhat low. Also, there wasn’t 10,000 cops on the LAPD then. More like 8900. At any one time, there’s less than 1200 cops working city-wide; that includes supervisors, desk people, etc. Only about 700 cops at any one time are exposed to the violence of the city nightly. And patrol and narcotics cops are in shootings more than anyone else. The Chief and his staff “in the building” aren’t exposed to the nightly violence. It’s not “rare” to the patrol dogs and dope coppers in the South End.
Your statement regarding what the body experiences during a shooting (eye lenses “flattening”, and not being able to focus on the sights, only the target) has got to be the silliest thing I’ve read today, but hey, the day is still young. I guess (according to you) that all those cops and Soldiers I interviewed were too stupid to know better or were LYING when all said (the successful ones) they saw their sights in perfect clarity. Allard and Cirrlllo, who had well over 30 dead suspects between them, looked for their sights and saw them perfectly. Are you saying that snipers, who are under a great deal of stress, can’t focus on the cross-hairs? That their training to focus and press is wrong? That they only see the bad guy? Being able to focus on the front sight was true with DOZENS of seasoned cops I talked with, who also had multiple engagements under their belts. But I guess that, according to you, they were all so scared or pumped with adrenalin that they didn’t know what they were doing, multiple times. Same goes with your “death grip” comment. You grip the gun in a shooting the way you’re trained to grip the gun in training. Too easy. Where the hell did you come up with this stuff?
This will be my last response to all of this; like I said, it’s settled doctrine that WORKS. I rest my case; I’ll go with the master shooters who’ve been in literally dozens of shootings over your incorrect data and experience (or lack of it). Lastly, I’ll mention what I’ve personally discovered. In more than one shooting, I looked at my sights and saw them quite well. Alvin York, in combat, noted that he concentrated on perfect sight alignment when he shot almost 30 Germans (with rifle and pistol) in the Argonne. He didn’t want to think he was shooting humans, so he concentrated on his sights. I don’t think his eyeballs flattened too much, or that he tightened his grasp of the weapon into a “death grip” because of stress.
Hopefully, you’ve learned a little more about training “in a shooting method that doesn’t work in combat”. Maybe you’ll be enlightened now, and it’ll make a little more sense to you; but probably not. The internet wars can be entertaining sometimes.
Bob
LikeLike
Oct 29, 2013 @ 08:06:08
Bob,
If you are interested in my bio here’s a link: http://www.pointshooting.com/1amybio.htm
As to Mr. Cooper, I understand that he was a trainer, but spent no time in combat, and Mr. Weaver was a great competitor, but most now use isso. Here’s a link to an article I wrote on Competition Shooting V S Combat Shooting: http://www.pointshooting.com/1apsorss.htm
My main concern is that for the past 22 years, Police Officers have been shot and killed at the rate of one every seven days, and thousands are wounded each year. And the FBI, Agencies, trainers, and gun makers don’t seem to care. Most still train Police Officers to use Sight Shooting, even though it is not used in most all Close Quarters life threat situations where there is the greatest chance of Officers being shot and/or killed. Here’s a link to an article that provides more info: http://www.pointshooting.com/1aaction.htm
Sight Shooting has been taught for over 100 years for use in CQB situations, but there is no proof, as in pics and videos of its ever being used in them. That’s not an oponion, just fact.
If you have one, or some pics and videos, please trot-em-on-out.
I have a page on my web site that is set aside for their display, and it has been empty for years now. Here’s a link: http://www.pointshooting.com/1april.htm
As to Point Shooting being an advanced concept, You obviously don’t know that US Army trainees used to be taught to use Point Shooting (Rifle Quick Kill) to shoot at and hit small aerial targets, and before they were taught basic marksmanship. They they used rifles not pistols. Here’s a link to the US Army publication TT 23-71-1 on that: http://www.pointshooting.com/1aqkrif.htm
More on Point Shooting:
Here’s a link to Force Science News #66 of 2/23/07. In it, the Force Science Research Center, published the results of tests conducted as part of its on-going hit-probability study to determine which tactical options seem most likely to protect Officers and increase their ability to make fight-stopping hits in OIS, as well as imprinting other survival skills. This is the URL: http://www.forcescience.org/fsinews/2007/02/new-tests-show-deadly-accuracy-startling-speed-even-inexperienced-shooters-can-achieve-in-shooting-cops/
The tests focused on the shooting performance of attackers. And they produced findings with surprising and unnerving implications for LEOs and those who have a handgun for self defense.
Point Shooting, as it turns out, is not an advanced shooting method or advanced technique that is not to be tried until after one has mastered traditional marksmanship. In the study, it was found to be the default method of shooting, and even shooting 15 rounds was enough for participants to “learn” how to do it.
Here’s a link to a shorter version on my site: http://www.pointshooting.com/1apstest.htm
As to trigger control, here’s a link to an article on Point shooting as advocated by Fairbairn, Sykes, and Applegate: http://www.pointshooting.com/faschap.htm
Here’s what Applegate said about that: Visualize the first class target shot in the following combat situation: It is dark, he is in an alley, a poorly lighted street, or a room in a building. He can hardly see his gun at arm’s length, to say nothing of the sights. His muscles are tense, his nerves keyed up to a fighting pitch. Suddenly the enemy starts shooting at him from an unexpected quarter. Even if he could see the sights, would he take time to line them up and fire at the enemy’s gun flash? Does he take up the trigger slack and squeeze off the shot as he has been taught to do in target shooting? Will he make sure that his feet are properly positioned and that he is breathing correctly?
He certainly will not!
He will grip his gun convulsively, raise it, point or shove it in the general direction of the enemy, and pull (not squeeze) the trigger. That is the natural, instinctive thing to do. Most of the formalized styles he has been taught, for making good scores on paper targets, are dropped by the wayside and forgotten. In daylight he will do exactly the same thing, for it is still a matter of “getting there fastest with the mostest lead.” Of course, when there is time, when the enemy is moving away from him, when he is lying in ambush, or when the range is great, the sights should be used; but when being fired upon at close quarters, few men, unless they have the attributes of a superman, will take time to use their weapons as they are trained to do on the target range.
You state that:
“Your [my] hit-rate “analysis” is totally incorrect, as far as police shootings go. Hit rates are what hits the suspect. In all departments I know of, every round is accounted for. A hit is a hit, a miss is a miss, no matter if the suspect is hit or not.
“I looked at ALL the LAPD 9mm shootings during the years of 1987-89 (one of my duties during the time I was in the tactics and firearms unit). I interviewed ALL the shooters. If a cop shoots 6 times and hit the suspect 3 times, it’s a 50% hit rate.
“Status of the suspect is irrelevant. If you were a cop you’d know that. Your data is incorrect and misinformed; I’d like to know your “sources”.
“My percentages are facts. A 70% LAPD hit rate means 70% of the rounds hit the suspects. You MAY have gotten confused, though, by the number of rounds fired….”
I agree with you as to how hit rates are determined, but the NYPD and the LAPD do not use the same method in computing their combat success rates. If their cops hit a perp with one out of ten shots, it is a success, as in a 100% success.
You may want to update your thinking to the new PR wise method of presenting combat stats and results in a favorable manner for those reporting shooting results, even though the hit rate by Sight Shooting trained folks, has been less than 20 percent for years, and years, and years.
Per the NYPD’s 2011 EOY report pg 23, here’s they way they do it, and LAPD does the same:
“OBJECTIVE COMPLETION RATE
“Similarly, the Department does not calculate average hit percentages. Instead, the objective completion rate per incident is employed as it is both more accurate and more instructive.
Like combat itself, the objective completion rate per incident is pass/fail. When an officer properly and lawfully adjudges a threat severe enough to require the use of his or her firearm, and fires at a specific subject, the most relevant measure is whether he or she ultimately hits and stops the subject. This is the objective completion rate, and it is determined irrespective of the number of shots the officer fired at the subject.
“In these 36 incidents, officers hit at least one subject per incident 28 times, for an objective completion rate of 78 percent. When officers were being fired upon, however, they struck subjects two thirds of the time (six out of nine incidents).
“SHOOTING TECHNIQUE
“Utilizing a two-handed grip, standing, and lining up a target using the firearm’s sights is the preferred method of discharging a firearm, but it is not always practical during an adversarial conflict. Of officers reporting their shooting techniques, 71 percent gripped the firearm with two hands. Sixty percent of officers who reported their stance state that they were standing, while 31 percent were moving or struggling. Finally, thirty-four officers reported whether or not they had used their sights, with 44 percent reporting in the affirmative….”
………..
Note that the figure of 44 percent reporting in the affirmative, means that as many as 64 percent of the Officers didn’t use their sights, and I don’t suspect the Officers were lying.
Per the NYPD SOP 9 study of some 6,000 police combat cases, 70 percent of Officers reported that they used instinctive shooting or point shooting, and I don’t think that they were lying either.
Here’s a link to info on the study: http://www.pointshooting.com/1asop9.htm
Actually, the thought comes to mind that if Officers said they didn’t use the sights, they might have been brought up on charges or sanctioned for not following training instructions, or shooting policy, or whatever admin game/s was/were being played by the brass at that time. Who knows for sure.
Basically, Sight Shooting can not be, or fails to be used in CQB situations. That’s just the way it is. And defaulting to instinctive or point shooting, without training in how to do that, will not produce good results.
Point Shooting, and in particular P&S, is brain deaad simple and can be learned and maintained with little or no training. That trainers do not train in one form of it or another, leaves their charges with no effective shooting method to use in CQB situations. They are setting them up to be killed.
As to the flattening of the lens of the eye due to the result of adrenaline being released into the bloodstream in a real life threat situaton, here is a link to an article on that. It includes several links to related scientific articles on the subject matter: http://www.pointshooting.com/1nosight.htm
As to Cirillo and the sights, Sight Shooting advocates now and then refer to Jim Cirillo, who was a well known Police Officer and veteran of multiple gun fights, as a supporter of using Sight Shooting in CQB.
That of course was true, but that is not all that Mr. Cirillo had to say.
He said special circumstances, which won’t be available in most CQB situations, allowed for the use of Sight Shooting.
The following is a brief excerpt from the G&W for LE 4/03 article on Jim Cirillo by Rich Grassi. The article title is Jim Cirillo, Gunfighter – Close combat techniques from the stakeout squad!
The article was about Cirillo and a class he was teaching.
Grassi quoted Cirillo as stating: “When you use the sights, you’re target shooting.” That was a surprise to some in the class….
Cirillo then 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 touched on his alternative sighting technique, as well as “nose point” shooting.
“…The first of Jim’s non-conventional aiming techniques is accomplished by bringing the gun up in front of your face and looking past it at the target. What you see is the weapon’s silhouette. As long as (1) the target is (optically) wider than the gun and (2) the gun is aligned with the target, the hit will be made. It’s not a real target shooting technique, but it’s plenty accurate enough for a fight….”
“The geometric point, or “nose point,” is a course gun index relying on body positioning. The gun is centered on the body, below the cone of vision, directly under the nose. The nose–being placed between the eyes–is the one part of the body that is pointed at whatever the person is looking at. It’s a very fast index and while not always the best choice, it can be the only choice.”
Here’s a link to my article on this: http://www.pointshooting.com/1cirillo.htm
AS to being able to focus on the sights, if you think you are in a life threat situation, then our instinctive Fight or Flight or Freeze response will automatically kick in and its affects will occur. And it is in real CQ life threat situations where that is most likely to be the case.
Shooting at distance, or from ambush, or shooting first may not trigger the response.
Lastly, the NRA now supports the use of Point Shooting.
The NRA Guide To The Basics Of Personal Protection In The Home (2000), advocates the use of Point Shooting in close quarters life threat situations.
It states as fact, the common findings of studies of Police Close Quarters combat. And it recognizes that our Fight or Flight response, with its involuntary physiological changes, kicks in automatically in life threat situations.
Here’s a link to an article on that: http://www.pointshooting.com/1anra.htm
LikeLike
Oct 29, 2013 @ 19:09:15
OK, I wasn’t going to reply anymore, as I stated a case that’s already been made and settled, but I MUST correct your misconceptions and outright inaccuracies.
1. I read your Bio. You have no credibility. Sorry, but that’s how I see it. You have not trained literally thousands of Soldiers going off to war, or hundreds of street cops in a big city who daily confront armed suspects. I did it for a living and saw what worked, and what didn’t. I was exposed to AARs on our combat training and marksmanship, listened and learned from coppers and Soldiers who had “been there and done that”. You have a few anecdotal comments from a WWII vet that showed you how to to shoot a grease gun back in the ’50’s.
2. Unlike you, who never saw combat, I did. I also got into more than one gunbattle in LA as a street cop, and relied on my training as a marksman to survive and win. It worked; I’m still here, while you’re telling stories. I didn’t experience the “flat-lens” syndrome you describe; I saw my sights and killed my opponents, with both rifle and pistol. My sight focus was instinctive, because of my practice regimen. My grip was what I used in daily practice. No “death grip”. That happens with lack of training, when panic sets in. My shootings could all be considered “close quarters”. Never had an issue seeing the crosshairs in Iraq, either.
3. I knew Cirrillo well; we were friends, corresponded and visited with each other. He told me my marksmanship training was the best defense for a gunfight; he (AGAIN) told me he ALWAYS looked for his sights in a confrontation. Towards the end of his life, he was working on alternative shooting solutions. When we asked him why, he said most cops don’t like to shoot, and won’t practice. Sight focus and lots of practice is the best solution, but cops want something easy. If you were a LEO, you’d understand that. He was looking for a “shortcut” that would fit well into a lack of interest and limited budgets. Everyone is looking for something “better”.and “faster”. Because some cops can’t shoot doesn’t mean the training vehicle is wrong. If you apply yourself, sights and trigger control WORK. Cops also don’t like to work out or train in unarmed defense; the training works, but you gotta do it. Many cops are beaten up, stabbed and assaulted that wouldn’t have been if they trained. Same thing. Fighting and winning ain’t easy. Some cops want the easy way. Fairbairn and Rex Applegate were working with the same mindset…and training the Afghans (or Chinese) ain’t the same as training an educated western male.
I also met and visited with Cooper, at length, more than once. We talked about his Marine time (LTC, ret) as well as the modern pistol technique. Despite what you heard, Cooper was a decorated WWII Marine officer, with more than one “kill” against the Japanese in the Pacific. Read his bio. He also saw some killing at close quarters in Korea. Jack Weaver was also a veteran of more than one gunfight in LA County. Need to do your research.
4. COL Charles Askins, veteran of something like 27 or 28 engagements, told me that he felt more stress at Camp Perry during the Nationals than in any gunfight. After having competed at that level more than once, for the “big prize”, I agree. He also noted that hitting and killing someone was way easier than hitting the 10 ring consistently. Your lack of any competitive experience doesn’t give you any insight into this. There’s more to shooting than popping caps at 10 feet on silhouettes.
5. I was a part of the Army “quick kill” program. I was taught the technique in basic (1972). It was nothing more than Daisy pimping off a program to sell BB guns to the Army (again, another try at doing it faster and cheaper; didn’t work too well). Actually, it was a joke, and made the trainees want to look at the target and yank the trigger. The Army is now going back to KD ranges, bullseye targets and precise marksmanship training. Battlefield feedback is that, again, it works, though it’s expensive and time consuming. Oh, well…another re-invention of the wheel.
6. Don’t know WHERE you got the 20% hit rate on suspects, but I’ll just say it’s BS. The LAPD tracks ALL it’s shootings, including hits and misses. So does the NYPD. Can’t speak for NY (hard to train 38,000 coppers adequately; I will agree on that) but LA has NEVER had a hit rate that low. I told you in detail what our rate was (now about 70%), but I won’t go into it again. I’ll just say that I was there, you weren’t. ‘Nuff said on that.
7. I mentioned that at 3-5 feet, or there-abouts, sights aren’t needed. Same thing Cirrillo told me, and you mentioned as something “new”. Read my previous posts, about trigger control and looking over the gun, held at eye-level. Nothing new there, except that it IS an advanced concept; gotta learn trigger control FIRST, before you understand speed shooting properly, at close range. Crawl, walk, run. Basic stuff. If you’d shot competitively (and then been in a shooting or two), you’d understand that target shooting and combat shooting AREN’T the same, but the basics that work with both are. It’s called experience.
8. I may have come across as somewhat rude in this response, and it was intentional.I don’t like being smeared as someone who “doesn’t seem to care” about the people I trained, or what I taught them. The instructors I worked with on the LAPD and in the US Army were some of the best marksmen and deadliest, confident killers I’ve met, who were teaching because they wanted to save coppers’ and Soldiers’ lives. I gave you the proof on sighted fire working…read my previous posts. It’s there, if you can read. I don’t like being lectured by someone who can only quote from a book. Looks like you’re only trying to pimp off your website and opinions, masquerading them as some kind of fact. Fun hobby, but you’re ‘way out of your element. I might try that hip-shooting stuff with a grease gun someday, though…
V/R
Bob
LikeLike
Oct 29, 2013 @ 19:18:03
>> I may have come across as somewhat rude in this response, and it was intentional.
Don’t worry…. MSG Kolesar does that to me sometimes during range sessions. Then we make up and go to El Taco Tote.
It’s all good. :)
LikeLike
Oct 29, 2013 @ 19:49:06
LikeLike
Oct 30, 2013 @ 10:58:13
Thanks for your comments Bob,
I don’t tell stories, but rely on gun experts and studies to provide evidence of what is, and what one could or should use.
For example, P&S which I like, has been around since at least 1835. It works and my site presents articles, scientific data, pics and videos that support its use, or other Point Shooting methods. Here’s a link to a page that shows Point Shooting being used effectively in combat: http://www.pointshooting.com/1arobber.htm
On the other hand. the US Army and trainers have taught Sight Shooting for 100+ years, which the studies and stats say can not be used, or is not used in the vast majority of CQB situations where there is the greatest chance of being shot and/or killed. And there are no pics or videos of it ever being used effectively in CQB.
You say that: “If you were a LEO, you’d understand that. He {Cirillo} was looking for a “shortcut” that would fit well into a lack of interest and limited budgets. Everyone is looking for something “better”.and “faster”. Because some cops can’t shoot doesn’t mean the training vehicle is wrong. If you apply yourself, sights and trigger control WORK. Cops also don’t like to work out or train in unarmed defense; the training works, but you gotta do it. Many cops are beaten up, stabbed and assaulted that wouldn’t have been if they trained. Same thing. Fighting and winning ain’t easy. Some cops want the easy way.”
Denigrating cops does not relieve trainers, gun makers, and gun experts of the responsibility for coming up with something that is practical in terms of training time and costs, and that works in CQB situations.
And if not for fellow cops, for the millions of US gun owners who have or bought a gun for self defense use with the thought in mind that they would be able to use it effectively in self defense in a real life or death situation.
As to Cirillo, re-read my post about him.
Glad you recognized that the US Army taught Rifle QK. May have been a “pimp” program as you call it, and you state that it didn’t work to well. However, the fact of the matter, was that raw recruits were able to shoot small aerial targets consistently, with minimal training, and before they had marksmanship training which teaches one Sight Shooting.
I qualified as an expert with an M-1 so I know that Sight Shooting does work. The rub comes with its attempted use with a pistol in CQ real life threat situations where the chance of being shot and/or killed is the greatest. In those situations, the studies have established that it can’t be used or is not used. Basically, it is a proven failure.
LikeLike
Oct 31, 2013 @ 22:55:58
Here’s a link to an article showing pics of 6 different shootings in which Point Shooting was used effectively: http://www.pointshooting.com/1adetro.htm
LikeLike
Nov 01, 2013 @ 20:08:21
Hi John,
The URL I posted for the page on my site that presents pics and videos of Sight Shooting being used effectively in CQB, was not correct: It is http://www.pointshooting.com/1april1.htm
Sorry for that.
I also updated ther article on my site that was titled: How You Will Shoot In a CQB situation… to Proof That Point Shooting Works In Combat. The URL is: http://www.pointshooting.com/1apswins.htm
The article contains pictures of several combat shootings where Point Shooting wins the day and Officers were not shot.
LikeLike
Dec 01, 2014 @ 07:09:45
Dec 03, 2014 @ 01:03:04
Both Sighted Fire and Point Shooting advocates are correct.
Due to the effects of an Adrenaline Rush, Point Shooting at CQB distances (Approximately 7 yards and under) with Target Focus is what you’ll instinctively do unless you’re Stress Inocculated by hours of Competitive Shooting.
What typical CCW holder does that?
What Police Officer does that?
The answer is “Not Many”.
Sight shooting beyond 7 yards is the recommended method even though practiced Point Shooters can preform well beyond 7 yards.
If the “Sighted Fire Only Crowd” will do a little research on the Body Alarm Reaction and specifically on the Pupil Dilation, Trigger Crush, Convulsive Grip and the effects of Heart Rate and Distance on the Shooter, they’ll see the benefits of Point Shooting.
If the “Point Shooting Only Crowd” will concede that Aimed Fire at longer distance is appropriate, we can stop the fighting.
In the famous words of the late Rodney King, “Can’t we all just get along”?
Since Bios are popular in this thread..yes, I’m a Firearms Trainer and I teach Sighted Fire and Point Shooting.
LikeLike
Dec 03, 2014 @ 10:14:44
At 9 feet a human is 600 MOA (10 degrees of angle) across the shoulders. Getting hits on such a large target requires minimal alignment and target focus/point shooting works great IF the shooter can trigger shot(s) without flinching or jerking the muzzle away from the target due to stress and/or time pressure. Hence the need to develop a reasonable degree of trigger control to prevent this.
Stress and time pressure may require trading accuracy to gain speed. A shooter with no margin of developed accuracy has nothing to trade.
Yes, many people are Firearms Trainers these days. Novices understand the fundamentals and can regurgitate them to other novices. Masters apply the fundamentals. Master trainers can get their students to apply them as well. High level shooting success such as making the NRA 2650 Club is an example of applying the fundamentals.
LikeLike
Apr 15, 2015 @ 07:09:31