The following article is by John Veit.
Grab Gun, Point Finger, Pull Trigger
by John Veit
GRAB your gun firmly – with your index finger along the side – POINT your index finger at the target – and PULL the trigger with your middle finger.
That is P&S, or AIMED Point Shooting in a nutshell.
If you are going to be shot or killed, there is an 80% chance that it will happen at less than 20 feet. So it makes sense to know how to aim and shoot: simply, fast, and accurately at close quarters.
P&S fills the bill.
Sadly, traditional marksmanship or Sight Shooting, doesn’t.
Traditional marksmanship or Sight Shooting, is much more complicated and slower. To aim and shoot accurately using Sight Shooting, you must have a specific stance, have a specific grip (with the thumb not pressing on the gun and with the index finger being held aloof from the gun so it can be drawn back smoothly until the shot breaks), use controlled breathing, and use hand and eye coordination to correctly align the sights.
A well practiced shooter, should be able to cut short some of those steps, but a very simple method like P&S, will be faster.
And you can prove that to yourself by using P&S and Sight Shooting to shoot a simple close quarters drill at the same level of accuracy, and then compare the times taken. (Use a suitable airsoft gun or firearm.)
SIGHT SHOOTING IS A POOR TOOL FOR USE IN CLOSE QUARTERS COMBAT PER THE LITERATURE AND SCIENCE.
In a real life threat close quarters situation, You will have a crush grip on the gun. And that will negate the marksmanship requirement of having the thumb along side the gun but not pressing on it, while the index finger is held aloof from the gun so it can smoothly squeeze the trigger to the rear. As a result, your gun will be torqued down and around to the left, and your shots will fall low and left.
Also, your instinctive fight or flight response will engage automatically and uncontrollably. And your near vision, which is needed to focus on, and correctly align the sights for accurate shooting, will be lost to use.
OTHER METHODS
There are other alternative “Point Shooting” shooting methods that do not require meeting the rigid requirements of Sight Shooting.
For example, the Applegate/Fairbairn/Sykes method calls for grasping the gun in a strong grip with the arm locked and stiff. For shooting, the arm is raised using the shoulder as a fulcrum, and the gun is fired when it intersects with the target.
With Quick Kill, the gun muzzle is placed a few inches below the impact point, and then fired.
Both methods, though much easier and quicker to use than traditional Sight Shooting, are not as simple and quick to use as is P&S.
With P&S you get automatic and correct sight alignment, and a correct sight picture. Also, the use of a crush grip will have no ill affect on aiming. All it will do is improve the strength of the grip.
THE BOTTOM LINE
The bottom line is that traditional marksmanship (Sight Shooting), which most all Police and civilians have been trained to use, can not be, or is not used in most all close quarters life threat situations, where there is the greatest chance of being shot and/or killed.
Sounds bizarre, but it’s true.
And the proof of that, is the long established hit rate in close quarters encounters, of less than 20%. More than 4 out of every shots fired, miss the target and go somewhere else.
P&S WORKS
P&S is simple, fast, and accurate.
Some of the test pics show an index finger rest attached to the side of the gun. One is not needed to use P&S, but helps keep the index finger in position and away from the slide when the gun is jumping and bucking in your hand with rapid firing.
You are welcome to add one to your personal firearm/s and airsoft/paintball/etc… type guns if done at your own risk and expense, and if you accept full responsibility for any and all results.
Ditto for Police agencies that may wish to add the aiming aid to agency weapons. I hold the patent on the aiming aid, USP # 6023874 – 2/15/2000, so I can make this offer.
POINTING AND ACCURACY
Here is what the US Army says about our ability to point at things. It is found in the US Army’s Field Manual 3-23.35: Combat Training With Pistols M9 AND M11 (June2003).
“Everyone has the ability to point at an object.
“When a soldier points, he instinctively points at the feature on the object on which his eyes are focused. An impulse from the brain causes the arm and hand to stop when the finger reaches the proper position.
“When the eyes are shifted to a new object or feature, the finger, hand, and arm also shift to this point.
“It is this inherent trait that can be used by a soldier to rapidly and accurately engage targets.”
P&S IS VERY BASIC SHOOTING
Some trainers, say that Point Shooting is advanced shooting, and that it only should be taught after marksmanship training has been completed.
With due respect to those of that opinion, when we are considering the use of a pistol for close quarters self defense, that just doesn’t make practical sense.
P&S an be learned with little or no training, and maintained with minimal practice.
Firearm User Network 
Jun 15, 2014 @ 12:07:25
I wish you had defined rapid fire in your pics (10 seconds, 5 shots?) I will take my glock 17 and ruger mk3 out to the range and give your advice a fair assessment. sounds good to me. proof will be in the pudding, as they say. thanks for an interesting and informative article.
LikeLike
Jun 16, 2014 @ 19:57:29
Thanks for the comment Hubert. Here’s a link to a video of me shooting one handed rapid fire. 5 shots in about 3 sec. http://www.pointshooting.com/shoot1.htm
Also, in the text above, the statement that near vision “will be lost to use” due to our fight or flight response, should be changed to “can be lost to use”.
LikeLike
Jun 18, 2014 @ 09:36:16
>> 5 shots in about 3 sec
Given the target and distances discussed here, this is not “rapid” fire. But for novices unwilling to train, it’s as good as we’ll get and is probably good enough.
LikeLike
Jun 19, 2014 @ 01:00:42
As to speed, my 5shots took just about 2 sec+ if you count from the first one to the last, and not the time taken to bring the gun up. However, that’s still extra slow I am sure for experienced shooters who practice rapid firing, which you seldom see or hear at the range.
Here’s a link to a very short video clip of a shooter using C.A.R. from the high position:
[video src="http://www.pointshooting.com/5shots.mp4" /]
Paul Castle (deceased), who developed the C.A.R. system, sent me his training manual and videos on the CAR, which I used to develop a brief intro on it. Paul approved of it as written, and it is on my site for anyone interested:
http://www.pointshooting.com/1acar.htm
According to Paul, the C.A.R. system learning curve is very short. There is immediate improvement in weapon retention, a great reduction in recoil, and Operators find that they can make multiple COM hits on targets while on the move and shooting very rapidly.
In a session for 30 FBI Violent Crimes task force Agents and Officers, 4 rounds of 00 from a shotgun were placed onto 2 targets set 10 feet apart in under 1 second.
In January 2002, in a basic class in King County, WA, every student put four rounds on center of target in under 1 sec. Many put five rounds on target in under one-second using standard Glock 40 pistols.
LikeLike
Jun 19, 2014 @ 08:58:53
If we use huge targets at very close distances, even minimally-trained shooters can spray hits on them somewhere at a reasonably quick pace.
Once again, at 9 feet a human silhouette is 600 MOA (10 degrees of angle) across the shoulders. Getting hits on a stationary barn door at arm-length distances under unstressed range conditions should be expected.
LikeLike
Jun 20, 2014 @ 09:43:04
In forcescience.org news letter # 258, mention is made of a new study by researchers in Belgium which found that force-on-force training points up how badly officers’ shooting accuracy is likely to suffer in an actual gunfight.
While stress increased in the FoF, shooting accuracy–an “essential performance characteristic”–suffered a “significant” and “ominous” decline upon the first encounter with a live opponent. On average, the volunteers’ accuracy dropped by 30% when shooting in the FoF mode.
Would like to know if “they” defaulted to untrained Point Shooting or if “they” were able to maintain use of sight reliant shooting to some degree.
LikeLike
Jun 20, 2014 @ 09:57:38
>> In forcescience.org news letter # 258, mention is made of a new study by researchers in Belgium which found that force-on-force training points up how badly officers’ shooting accuracy is likely to suffer in an actual gunfight.
Yes, adding stress and additional variables impedes performance. That is the whole point of developing skill above basic, novice levels.
Most police, military, CCW civilians and other gun owners rarely achieve skill levels above basic, novice levels and rarely train to improve.
>> While stress increased in the FoF, shooting accuracy–an “essential performance characteristic”–suffered a “significant” and “ominous” decline…
The same thing happens at shooting competitions, even when the course of fire is understood in advance against stationary targets. A person that only shoots on easy, routine courses with minimal to no skill standard (i.e., most police, military, and CCW qualification) will have their first stress shoot during an actual fight.
>> On average, the volunteers’ accuracy dropped by 30% when shooting in the FoF mode.
Having higher skills means that potential 30% drop takes you from “very good” to “sorta good.” Starting with novice, basic levels takes you from “poor and missing sometimes” to “really bad and missing a lot.”
>> Would like to know if “they” defaulted to untrained Point Shooting or if “they” were able to maintain use of sight reliant shooting to some degree.
Good shooters readily switch to target focus/point-type shooting as they are able to see what they need to see to secure hits. NYPD reports their officers are able to use sight reliant shooting in actual fights (not FOF training) nearly half the time and, as police officers, are probably at a basic, novice skill level only.
LikeLike
Jun 20, 2014 @ 11:16:15
Here is link to a chart I made up that shows how far off the center of a target a bullet will strike at varying distances if the gun muzzle is not exactly on the center of the target when the gun is fired. http://www.pointshooting.com/1amuzzle.htm
The table shows why most gunfights take place at distances under thirty feet. Only the exceptionally good shooter would be able to shoot well enough to hit a chest sized target at a distance beyond 30 feet.
LikeLike
Jun 20, 2014 @ 11:36:40
>> Here is link to a chart I made up that shows how far off the center of a target a bullet will strike at varying distances if the gun muzzle is not exactly on the center of the target when the gun is fired.
Thank you for demonstrating what I’ve been saying. At close distance, sufficient-enough alignment can be obtained without using the sights provided the shooter doesn’t pull the muzzle away from the target as the shot is triggered.
Developing the the means to obtain sufficient alignment and fire shot(s) without disrupting alignment at speed is the challenge. Most gun owners never learn to do this particularly well, hence the problem.
>> Only the exceptionally good shooter would be able to shoot well enough to hit a chest sized target at a distance beyond 30 feet.
I suspect you have never seen any “exceptionally good” shooters before, or you wouldn’t think merely being capable of hitting a chest sized target at a distance beyond 30 feet is “exceptionally good.”
LikeLike
Jun 20, 2014 @ 13:29:51
Mr. Veit needs to hang around with high-end (grand master, master, A class) IPSC/USPSA competitors for a while. 8-inch steel plates at ten and fifteen yards at high speed are no problem, and at 20 just take a little more time. Paper target head shots (6″x6″) at 20 are quite do-able from standing. And then there’s kneeling or even prone for tougher shots. Perfect sight alignment, front sight focus, perfect trigger control, and mental/optical recognition and control of these things….fancy that.
On the other hand, he is correct at saying “exceptionally good”. From I’d guess USPSA “B” class and up, these shooters are in the top 5-8 % of all handgun shooters as a whole. Most gov’t employees are probably somewhere in the 25-50 percentile, with a few real enthusiasts ranked above that.
But a chest-sized target at 15 yards should be a no-brainer for a properly trained and practiced sight shooter of simply “competent” capability. In fact I’d designate “competence” as the ability to draw and shoot 5 rounds into the USPSA A-zone center-chest (6″ wide by 12″ tall) at 15 yards in about 3 or so seconds. Faster, better. And easily achieved with the right combination of technique and practice.
LikeLike
Jun 21, 2014 @ 01:18:02
Thanks for your inputs John and Pete.
I have seen a large number of videos of very good to exceptional shooters over the past 13+ years that I have been active in the area of CQ defensive use of firearms.
Based on your definitions of what competent shooters should be able to do, plus what I have experienced over the years in visits to ranges and watching shooters, and reading the literature on CQB studies and incidents, I am of the opinion that there are millions of folks who may have a gun, but whose chance of using it shoot and/or kill an opponent in an armed encounter, is slim to none. The only saving grace, is that armed encounters are rare events, and that the other party will most likely shoot as poorly as they will. So unless they are having a very unlucky day, they will survive.
The dilemma as I see it, is that “they” are married to traditional Sight Reliant Shooting, which is not or can not be used in most all armed encounters. Alternate and effective Point Shooting methods are available and can be learned with little or no practice. As such, they would serve them as well as, or better than Sight Reliant Shooting in a dire situation.
Even the NRA accepts the fact that Sight Reliant Shooting may not be able to be used in CQB situations.
This is from Chapter 6 of the 2000 – NRA Guide To The Basics Of Personal Protection: … in real-life, violent encounters occur at very close range, often in reduced-light conditions, and are over in a matter of seconds. One study of Police shootings in a major urban area showed that the majority of encounters took place after dark, at 3 yards or less, in less that 3 seconds, and involved the firing of an average of three shots. It goes on to say: Often, either the assailant or the defender – or both – are moving rapidly during the encounter. Such conditions do not permit the careful alignment of the sights on a specific aiming point on the target.
I think the best course of action for those interested in CQ self defensive use of firearms, is to first learn an alternate shooting method that is effective for CQ and build on that base. That that may amount to heresy, is OK with me.
To knock alternate but effective methods as not good enough for competition or for use in distant shooting, misses the point that they are effective for use by most any shooter, in the most likely CQB situations, and can be a good building block for advancing to Sight Reliant Shooting competence and/or competition shooting if one wishes to do that, and has the time and resources to do it.
LikeLike
Jun 21, 2014 @ 11:39:20
>> Even the NRA accepts the fact that Sight Reliant Shooting may not be able to be used in CQB situations.
Certified NRA instructors are usually not skillful marksmen or coaches. They paid a fee, attended a weekend seminar for the topic area with some hands on practice, and passed a written test concerning current NRA doctrinal course material. Having a recognized standard is fine but should mark the beginning of instructor development. In this case, unless the individual does it on his own, it marks the end.
How many instructor candidates fail the course? If everyone that pays and attends passes, how stringent can it possibly be?
What are the skill minimums needed to claim instructor prowess?
So, given novice-level shooters with a one weekend seminar certificate on the resume, these instructors are now certified to teach complete novices. Given the limitations, point shooting makes sense.
>> To knock alternate but effective methods as not good enough for competition or for use in distant shooting
I’m not knocking your alternative, just pointing out it is demonstrably inferior… but only for those willing to put in the work.
I take the agoge or page/squire approach and believe in long term training. That is actual training – planned and measured activity specifically designed to drive progress over the long term. What most people call “training” is instruction, an introduction of ideas or concepts perhaps followed up with hands-on practice. Measured skill increases are required over time if one is actually training. With instruction, passing the same qualification at the same level is enough.
Given this definition, most humans never engage in training. Police, military, CCW, hunters, gun owners, etc. stop at instruction, usually at minimal, introductory levels, if they even do that much.
So, Mr. Veit, you’re correct about your approach. Most handgun owners concerned about self defense should be given an intro to P&S because it’s the best they can probably do. Most people should stick with Richard Simmons instead of barbell strength training for the same reasons. But, for those rare few wanting more and willing to do the work, the long path should be there when they’re ready to follow it.
LikeLike
Jun 21, 2014 @ 18:13:28
As usual a thoughtful and effective explanation of your approach and thinking on this subject.
LikeLike
Jun 21, 2014 @ 18:18:38
Holy monkey!! That point shooting technique works well. I set up a blank piece of paper, 81/2 x 11″ at 7 yards. I placed my index finger parallel to the slide and just below it, and my middle finger on the trigger. Using only one hand, as soon as I felt my index finger pointing at the target I pulled the trigger and fired again as soon as I recovered from recoil and felt I was again pointing at the paper. It was very rapid, 10 shots within 6 seconds and all of them hits, 6 of them within a 5″ diameter circle. Again, one handed. I tried it, it works if your desired result is all hits at 7 yards on an 8 x 11″ sized target. Thanks for the info.
LikeLike
Jun 22, 2014 @ 00:03:02
Mr. Veit,
“…traditional Sight Reliant Shooting, which is not or can not be used in most all armed encounters.”
I cannot understand why you continue to cling to this completely false notion.This type of fire has been used successfully in so many encounters since black powder muzzle loader days that there is no argument against it. Read the history, do the research. The only element required for success is a certain level of skill, without which it does not work well – like ANYTHING else. Once you reach the skill threshold it works great. There are many accounts of this working, if one bothers to look. From Wild Bill Hickok to Jim Cirillo to many of Col. Cooper’s students who “saw the elephant”.
“Such conditions do not permit the careful alignment of the sights on a specific aiming point on the target.”
With all due respect, by this statement you demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of how sighted fire works in the practical shooting realm. It is not the slow, deliberate aiming process of the target shooter (pistol or rifle).
Rather it is the training of the hands to instantly produce proper sight alignment (between front and rear sights) and proper sight picture (properly aligned sights placed on the target sufficiently well to get a good hit) as the handgun is presented. INSTANTLY.
One does not aaaaiiiimmmm like a bullseye shooter. One presents the gun and instantly sees a good sight picture and presses. This is Cooper’s flash sight picture – achieved WITH THE HANDS, and verified with the eye before firing. On targets within 5-6 yards the shot can be triggered resulting in a center-mass hit even before the handgun stops its forward motion
It is actually a form of point shooting, since the hands do the work (correctly and instantly) and the shooter simply looks to make sure it’s correct before pressing. The eye can recognize an image in as little as 1/100th of a second, and if your hands/arms are properly trained in the presentation, there is no time lost.
The training to do this takes time, which most people are unwilling to invest, hence the scarceness of this skill among all but the most dedicated practitioners. But one can shoot just as fast as point shooting, yet with sight picture verification. This is NOT bullseye shooting.
LikeLike
Jun 22, 2014 @ 08:55:29
@hubert townsend
>> That point shooting technique works well. …if your desired result is all hits at 7 yards on an 8 x 11″ sized target.
Sure, if managing hits somewhere on an 8×11 inch target at 7 yards (114-157 MOA) with 0.6 second shot-to-shot splits is the goal, I’m certain it works fine. Besides, Hubie, I’ll wager your marksmanship fundamentals are probably better than the typical gun owner so you aren’t hampered by flinching and other problems.
Here’s a test you’ll appreciate: Set up the old Match 221 EIC course with four Figure 11 targets at 15 yards. Shoot the entire 36 rounds for record using this point shooting technique, compare it to your previous competition scores, and report back on the results.
The fastest string is the last one (two shots on three targets in four seconds) yields about 0.6 seconds per shot, the same pace you tested at with point shooting.
LikeLike
Jun 22, 2014 @ 09:22:15
>> traditional Sight Reliant Shooting, which is not or can not be used in most all armed encounters
Back in my practical competition days, I used point shooting a bit. USPSA competitors call it target focus. On full, open IPSC/USPSA targets at close distances my “sight picture” was sometimes just the perforated “A” in the center of the target. If I saw that in sharp focus as I cranked shots on target I was confident good-enough hits would be there. Even a sloppy shot would likely still be a “C”.
As Colorado Pete points out, this alignment is obtained with the hands. The sights provide a visual confirmation the alignment is correct and this visual confirmation can be done at great speed. Shooting Bill Drills (six shots from the holster as fast as you can) my splits were 0.20-0.22 seconds per shot for reliable A-zone hits at 7 yards. At that speed I could still see the sights for each of the six fired shots and reliably call them. I could never point shoot that drill because a Bill Drill is a “fail” if any shot misses the A zone. Plus, using the sights gives visual feedback where the gun is in addition to kinesthetic feel of the gun in your hands. With training, this makes shooting faster and more accurate, while still allowing effective point shooting/target focus as needed.
Many gun owners don’t understand this because they’ve never experienced it. Go find a USPSA or IDPA club in your area and attend events until you’ve earned a Master classification, then report back.
The Army events I currently shoot are slower paced but require more precision. I could never get away with target focus there but can use it if/when it is useful. A trained marksman can pick up point shooting with ease. I never really trained point shooting, I just executed fundamentals and fired when I saw and felt what was needed to get a hit. On huge, close targets, seeing what you need to see doesn’t require looking at the sights.
LikeLike
Jun 22, 2014 @ 15:13:14
Sight Reliant Shooting has been around for 100+ years. And no doubt it is the basis for success in range competitions. However, I have never seen a picture or a film or video clip of it being used effectively in CQB. If you are aware of some, please provide a link, and I will add it to the page on my site that is set aside for them. The page has been empty for years and years now. Here’s a link FYI: http:..www.pointshooting.com/1april1.htm
The NYPD’s hit rate for the period 1990 – 2000 averaged 15%.
Here are some of the findings of the NYPD’s study of 6K+ combat encounters:
SHOOTING DISTANCES
From Sept 1854 to Dec 1979, 254 Officers died from wounds received in an armed encounter. The shooting distance in 90% of those cases was less than 15 feet.
Contact to 3 feet … 34%
3 feet to 6 feet …… 47%
6 feet to 15 feet ….. 9%
The shooting distances where Officers survived, remained almost the same during the SOP years (1970-1979), and for a random sampling of cases going back as far as 1929. 4,000 cases were reviewed. The shooting distance in 75% of those cases was less than 20 feet.
Contact to 10 feet … 51%
0 feet to 20 feet …. 24%
SIGHT ALIGNMENT
In 70% of the cases reviewed, sight alignment was not used. Officers reported that they used instinctive or point shooting.
As the distance between the Officer and his opponent increased, some type of aiming was reported in 20% of the cases. This aiming or sighting ran from using the barrel as an aiming reference to picking up the front sight and utilizing fine sight alignment.
The remaining 10% could not remember whether they had aimed or pointed and fired the weapon instinctively.
QUICK DRAW
65% of the Officers who had knowledge of impending danger, had their revolvers drawn and ready.
STRONG HAND OR WEAK HAND
Officers, with an occasional exception, fired with the strong hand. That was the case even when it appeared advantageous to use the weak hand. The value of placing heavy emphasis on weak hand shooting during training and qualification is subject to question.
HIT POTENTIAL IN GUN FIGHTS
The Police Officer’s potential for hitting his adversary during armed confrontation has increased over the years and stands at slightly over 25% of the rounds fired. An assailant’s skill was 11% in 1979.
In 1990 the overall Police hit potential was 19%. Where distances could be determined, the hit percentages at distances under 15 yards were:
Less than 3 yards ….. 38%
3 yards to 7 yards .. 11.5%
7 yards to 15 yards .. 9.4%
In 1992 the overall Police hit potential was 17%. Where distances could be determined, the hit percentages at distances under 15 yards were:
Less than 3 yards ….. 28%
3 yards to 7 yards …. 11%
7 yards to 15 yards . 4.2%
THE DISCONNECT BETWEEN RANGE MARKSMANSHIP & COMBAT HITSMANSHIP
It has been assumed that if a man can hit a target at 50 yards he can certainly do the same at three feet. That assumption is not borne out by the reports.
An attempt was made to relate an Officer’s ability to strike a target in a combat situation to his range qualification scores. After making over 200 such comparisons, no firm conclusion was reach.
RAPID RELOADING
The average number of shots fired by individual Officers in an armed confrontation was between two and three rounds. The two to three rounds per incident remained constant over the years covered by the report. It also substantiates an earlier study by the L.A.P.D. (1967) which found that 2.6 rounds per encounter were discharged.
The necessity for rapid reloading to prevent death or serious injury was not a factor in any of the cases examined.
In close range encounters, under 15 feet, it was never reported as necessary to continue the action.
According to Applegate, you will not have a marksmanship grip in combat. It will be a crush grip and unless one is practiced in crush grip shooting, their grip will torque the gun down and around to the left and the fall of the shot will be low and left, which I understand is where most misses go.
Also, as I understand it and with all due respect, the good Col. was a trainer who never served in the trenches.
As to Jim Cirillo, in web threads, Sight Reliant Shooting advocates now and then refer to him, who was a well known Police Officer and veteran of multiple gun fights, as a supporter of using Sight Reliant 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 Reliant 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.
I could go on and on about this, as I have been called to task over the years about my thoughts on Point Shooting, and have researched and written up articles that cover most all of the objections received. You may find a perusal of the info, articles, stats, and etc. on my site to be interesting. the URL is http://www.pointshooting.com
OK now, the point of all of this 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 Reliant Shooting, even though it is not used or can not be used in most all Close Quarters life threat situations where there is the greatest chance of Officers being shot and/or killed.
The studies and stat results also make it plain that almost all shooters don’t practice enough to be as good as pistoleros and top competitors.
So the dilemma is what to do about it?
Complaining about the situation, or denigrating run of the mill shooters in and out of uniform for this or that, or a lack of commitment, sincerity of purpose, etc. also doesn’t add a positive.
Until, someone comes up with a silver bullet that is applicable to and adoptable by most all shooters, and fits in with their day to day life’s routine, I say just grab your gun, point your finger, and pull the trigger.
LikeLike
Jun 22, 2014 @ 15:31:18
Good. Do what you want. You’ve clearly already made up your mind.
Seeing as you mention Jim Cirillo, you could look up his more successful, but less promoted partner Bill Allard’s record. The man managed a 100% hit rate in about twenty different shoot outs.
What did Allard do different than the other NYPD coppers? He was a high level competition shooter and maintains that his success there led to success on the street.
If you’re willing to continue research also look up Walter Walsh, Horace Bivens, Sam Woodfill, Herbert McBride, Simo Häyhä, Charles Askins, Harry Reeves, Philip Sheridan, “Iron Mike” Eddson, George Van Orden, and Frank Kruk for starters. Seems their competition shooting experiences turned out to be useful.
Lesser skilled shooters have lesser results because they lack the skill men like these were willing to develop. For those unwilling to do the work and train appropriately, we may need to look to compromises. Point shooting may be a useful compromise for defensive handgun shooting. It can be made to work and may be effective enough, especially for those unwilling to invest the effort into something else.
LikeLike