Below is an article written as a long comment on a Point Shooting vs. Sight Shooting article published by PoliceOne in 2012. A newly published PoliceOne article by Dr. Bill Lewinski on the use of sights in a gunfight, had a link to the 2012 article, which is why I came to know about it. I am getting to old (almost 80) to continue my advocacy for Point Shooting. But the SS VS PS articles keep coming up like zombies.
– John Veit
A CASE FOR INVESTIGATING AND INCORPORATING POINT SHOOTING INTO POLICE OFFICER FIREARMS TRAINING PROGRAMS
by John Veit
It may come as a surprise to some, that even though Sight Shooting has been taught to the military and Police for over 100 years, there is no hard evidence (pics or videos), of it ever being used effectively in a CQB situation.
Also, and directly related to that, is the recognized PO hit rate of less than 20% in CQB situations, which asks the question: who continues to send and pay for attendees at shooting schools whose graduates hit their target less than 20% of the time in CQB situations?
This state of affairs is reminiscent of the tale about the emperor’s new clothes. And it would be humerous, except it is not a fairy tale. It is reality. And a consequence is the PO death and wounded rate, which has not changed much in over 20 years.
Another related stat per the FBI, is that if you are going to be shot or killed, there is an 80% chance that it will happen at less than 21 feet. That also is the distance at which most all gun fights occur.
Here are some more stats that deal with shooting distances and Officer survival. They are from the NYPD’s old but still good SOP 9 study
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%
10 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.
Now, if PO survivability is a firearms training goal, these stats bring into question the practicality of devoting range time to shooting at or beyond 20 feet, which is SOP for many trainers and academies.
Also and statistically speaking, CQB situations are rare occurrences. So again, if PO survivability is a firearms training goal, training PO’s to shoot at extended ranges to meet institutionalized qualification standards, wastes training resources. Those resources would be better spent on teaching Point Shooting, which is the default shooting method used in most all gunfights. And given the abysmal gunfight hit rate, there is a great need for such training.
It is said that extensive practice is needed to become proficient in Point Shooting. But that is not the case. Point Shooting can be learned and maintained with little if any instruction or practice. And that will become apparent to anyone who takes the time, and makes the modest effort needed to learn Point Shooting.
I am an advocate for AIMED Point Shooting or P&S, which is the simplest of shooting methods. Basically, you just grab your gun with the index finger placed along the side, point at a target, and pull the trigger with your middle finger.
With P&S, you get automatic and correct sight alignment, and automatic and correct sight placement, both of which are critical to accuracy.
Placing the index finger along the side of the pistol, brings the sights and the barrel in parallel with it. Then pointing the index finger at a target will result in correct sight placement due to our natural ability of being able to point fast and accurately at objects.
As to accuracy with Point Shooting, this is a link to a picture of one of my targets. 4 of the hits can be covered with a dollar bill. If anyone thinks that Point Shooting doesn’t work, they should put a dollar bill over their heart, and think about someone punching four 9mm holes in it.
There are other simple to learn, simple to use, and simple to maintain Point Shooting methods. Threat focus shooting is used by the CHP and it is based on the work of Applegate, Fairbairn and Sykes. Lou Chiodo, a former CHP Officer, developed the CHP program and continues to teach via his company gunfightersltd.com. Center Axis Relock is another method that was developed by Paul Castle, who is now deceased. And Robin Brown introduced the public to the simple and effective Pistol Quick Kill shooting method.
And, airsoft guns can be used to hone Point Shooting skills while moving, standing still, and in scenario training.
The Point Shooting methods mentioned are not dependant on the use of fine motor skills, which are needed to properly align the sights with sighted fire, and which scientists say can be lost to use when the heart rate increases beyond 125 BPM.
Per scientists, when someone believes that they are in a real life threat situation at CQ, our instinctive FOF response will kick in automatically. And one of its effects, is a dump of adrenaline into the blood stream, which will cause the heart rate to immediately jump up to 160 BPM or more. Also, tunnel vision and/or the loss of near vision focus can occur, which makes the use of the sights problematic.
Those effects answer the question of why ad hoc Point Shooting is defaulted to in CQ gunfights.
One noted instructor has stated that fighter pilots are able to use fine motor skills effectively in high stress hair-on-fire combat situations, which counters the BPM data above.
Well to my way of thinking, being able to repeat a much practiced skill in a multi-million-dollar fighter aircraft in a high stress situation, is not the same as trying to see the sights and using fine motor skills to align them, and also achieving a proper sight picture in bad light, while someone at FI card distance is shooting at you, or fast approaching with your murder on his/her mind.
When I used to run a lot, my pulse rate was down to under 40. And only when I was running hard for a mile or more, did it go up to 120 or 130. So, training can make a difference, but at what cost in time and money for your run of the mill PO or civilian.
Here is what Dr. Bill Lewinski of the Force Science institute said about sight use in his article in Force Science News # 276 that is titled: Can you really use your sights in a gunfight? Should you if you can?
It’s important to understand that using your sights in a gunfight is not always necessary or even desirable for effectively placing rounds. If you don’t get a sight picture at 20 ft. and beyond, your ability to shoot accurately is likely to be seriously impaired. That’s actually not very far, in real world settings–down a hallway or across some rooms.
Closer than that, at distances where most gunfights occur, trying to use your sights may take too long; by the time you’re sighted in, your target may have moved. At less than 20 ft., you’re probably best to fix your gaze on your target and quickly drive your gun up to align with that line of view, firing unsighted.
Obviously, to do this successfully requires a great deal of consistent practice, responding to force-on-force scenarios at various distances that develop realistically in terms of action, movement, and speed. This will help you learn to identify the telltale patterns of an evolving threat so you can get ahead of the reactionary curve.
Here’s what Peyton Quinn of stresshooting.com states about the scenario based, adrenal stress training they have been conducting for three decades:
“In that time we have had many competent marksman, IPSC competitors, police officers and others who were very familiar with firearms and ‘grew up’ with them take our course….in all these years and without exception, the people who have taken our course, tell us they ‘could not’ and ‘did not’ use the sights of the pistol in their scenario.’
Finally, until PO injury and death rates, which have stayed just about the same for 20+ years, go way down, efforts should be made to scientifically investigate various Point Shooting methods. And those that prove to be practical and effective should be incorporated into current training programs.
The dead and wounded PO’s deserve that as a minimum tribute to them for their sacrifice for us.
INFORMATIONAL NOTE
This article was written as an extended comment on a Point Shooting VS Sight Shooting article that was published by PoliceOne in 2012, but linked to a newly published PoliceOne article by Dr. Bill Lewinski on the use of sights in a gunfight.
Three police trainers were asked for, and provided inputs. Their inputs included standard Sight Shooting versus Point Shooting arguments with a bent towards sight and distance shooting. That of course, is logical given that PO’s are trained in Sighted fire which is needed to meet institutionalized qualification standards that include shooting at distances beyond real gunfight distances, rather than being trained to shoot effectively using Point Shooting at gunfight distances where there is the greatest chance of being shot and/or killed, and where studies have established that sighted fire is not or can not be used.
One trainer recommended Point Shooting for use in up close and personal situations at FI card distance Field Interview distance). He advocated sighted fire for shooting beyond that distance. He also questioned how Point Shooters could know where there shots would go without calling their shots. The second instructor said that “most trainers believe in a flash sight picture up close, and more precise sighted fire at 45 feet and beyond”. He also mentioned front sight focus and stress inoculation. The third trainer encouraged Point Shooting for deadly encounters inside 36-45 feet, and said that using a thumbs forward grip with proper indexing is much like pointing with the index finger and aiming the gun in a similar manner.
PoliceOne article: http://www.policeone.com/patrol-issues/articles/4925417-Point-shooting-versus-sighted-fire-Why-the-debate/
Force Science Newsletter web site and articles: http://www.forcescience.org/fs-news.html
Firearm User Network 
Apr 08, 2015 @ 09:42:44
Very good article: Most shooting incidents occur within a distance a little more than a arm’s length. It happens when police are questioning, searching, making an arrest, investigating or during the commission of another crime. Everything is ‘close in’ as the officer is confronting the Bad Guy. I think that humans have the abhorrence to getting real close–actually touching Bad Guys. The policeman’s job requires touching of dangerous and sometimes smelly criminals. I know this because I worked in some type of police capacity for 27 years–since the age of 19. When an officer faces a deadly confrontation he is within Contact to 10 feet and the confrontation is Fast and Violent and there’s no time to get into a textbook stance and take careful aim–like on the range. The officer might be happy just to clear his holster and engage. So, learn how to Point Shoot or, what I teach, the Israeli Instinctive Shooting Method plus some type of martial arts. Everything falls to the ground…throw in some Ground Fighting also. Now, don’t throw sighted-fire out the window. Train for those longer distanced engagements. In Florida, we have snakes so accuracy is paramount. The distance might not be much but a Bad Guy using cover may required sighted and accurate fire to defeat. Remember, in most fights, the outcome is determined within mere seconds.
LikeLike
Apr 08, 2015 @ 10:21:15
Both the article and this comment discuss the importance of shooting up close with the emphasis on speed. The irony is most point/instinctive/Israeli shooting advocates get hits at slow pace when held to the same speed standards found in practical competition and other shooters that actually conduct training.
Many people have the false impression point shooting is fast because they’ve never seen or experienced the ability to get good hits at speed. It was the reason the competitors at the first Leatherslap events held at Big Bear remained convinced for years point shooting was the path to victory. It was only after people started consistently winning using something else that there was a switch in technique.
Please spell out your specific time frames advocated, used, and measured in training. Every time I read a “sights are too slow” article or comment they never spell out any measured time frames.
If you aren’t measuring speed, if you don’t have hard numbers backing your standards of performance, then you are NOT training for speed.
Point shooting is a reasonable choice for non-shooters unwilling to train a better approach. For people willing to invest more than a few minutes into skill development, better options are available.
LikeLike
Apr 08, 2015 @ 13:22:30
>> shooting a piece of white 8 x 11 inch paper target at 7 yards, i put all ten shots into it
I’m certain you can. An ability to hit a target 157 minutes of angle tall and 115 MOA wide does not require much precision.
>> pulling the trigger as fast as my pistol recovered from recoil and my finger was back onto the paper. I didn’t have a timer unfortunately, but did shoot very rapidly.
Was this “very rapid” measurably faster or slower than another approach?
Set up the last string of the old Match 221 EIC course (three Figure 11 pistol targets, two shots on each in four seconds). Shoot and score it with this point shooting approach and then shoot it again in the manner that every winner used for decades (two handed aimed fire) and compare the scores.
If you can consistently score higher with the point shooting approach, why weren’t you using this before? Service Conditions events (or any other practical shooting format) do NOT require a two-hands aimed approach, that has merely been demonstrated to be the best approach for many decades by everyone that has ever performed well.
LikeLike
Apr 08, 2015 @ 12:46:36
I tried out the point shooting method with the index finger along the slide and pulling the trigger with my middle finger. shooting a piece of white 8 x 11 inch paper target at 7 yards, i put all ten shots into it, pulling the trigger as fast as my pistol recovered from recoil and my finger was back onto the paper. I didn’t have a timer unfortunately, but did shoot very rapidly. next time I will get a timer to get hard data. this experiment made me a believer in point shooting. our index finger aims true.
LikeLike
Apr 08, 2015 @ 12:54:37
Here we go again…..;-)
LikeLike
Apr 08, 2015 @ 13:13:00
>> Here we go again…..;-)
Yep. There’s no problem having a difference in opinion, I’d just like to see actual numbers on this for a change.
LikeLike
Apr 09, 2015 @ 09:55:58
I have a question about “the manner that every winner used” in that per the SOP 9 study of over 6000 police combat cases, Officers, with an occasional exception, fired with the strong hand.
Now, if the “winners” were shooting strong hand only, then bravo, and the manner they used should carry over to CQB situations, as the study established that strong hand shooting was used with on occasional exception.
But, if the manner used was/is different than strong hand only, then we have a disconnect that needs resolutiont.
LikeLike
Apr 09, 2015 @ 15:58:14
NYPD Annual Firearms Discharge Report 2011
Page 24 (PDF 42)
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.
Nearly three out of four NYPD officers involved in shootings used a two hand grip/stance and almost half used their sights.
I guess 77% is “an occasional exception”….
LikeLike
Apr 09, 2015 @ 15:58:44
LikeLike
Apr 09, 2015 @ 16:02:23
Regarding strong hand shooting in competition, 100% of the shooting is strong hand only in conventional competition. Ask Bill Allard if it worked for him.
Some practical courses can require a third to a half of the shots with one hand.
If that’s not enough, design your own course and get people to use it!
LikeLike
Apr 09, 2015 @ 19:55:03
The following is from my article on NYPD shooting and how the NYPD gauges officers success. http://www.pointshooting.com/2011nypd.htm In firearm discharge incidents (combat shooting), success is definned by the simple measure of whether he or she ultimately hits and stops the subject, and regardless of the number of shots fired at the subject, or whether or not the sights were used.
NYPD SUCCESS RATE
In 2011, there were 36 incidents of intentional police discharge during adversarial conflict with a subject. Officers hit at least one subject per incident 28 times, for a success rate of 78%. [Makes for better PR copy than does reporting on the hit reate.]
When officers were being fired upon, the success rate dropped to 66.6% (six out of nine of those incidents).
THE HIT RATE
The hit rate, which has been the measure of combat shooting effectiveness for years and years, has been replaced by the new gauge. The recognized rate over the years has been around 20%, and that’s still the case.
In 2011, officers fired 311 shots in the 36 incidents, for a hit rate of 12% (36/311). It means that 9 out of every ten shots fired, missed and went somewhere else.
In two of the 2011 incidents, a high volume of shots were fired. Eliminating those high volume cases, results in a hit rate of 19% (36/193). That’s better than 12%, but it also means that 8 out of ten shots fired, missed and went somewhere else.
In 2011, 1 bystander was killed.
The hit rate validates the reality that Sight Shooting can not be used or, is not used in most CQB situations. That fact is supported by the officers themselves. Thirty-four officers reported whether or not they had used their sights, with 44% reporting in the affirmative.
Per the NYPD: “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.”
Realistically, meeting that bar in Close Quarters Combat situations, is a bridge to far.
The use of the new gauge for measuring combat shooting success, also supports the thought that advocacy for and teaching the use of the sights for aiming in real life threat close quarters defensive situations, has been and continues to be a game played on those who bought a gun for self defense with the thought in mind that they would be able to use it effectively in their defense.
And the same is true in regard to teaching shooting at beyond close quarters distance, and the inclusion of combat reloading in drills and training courses.
Per the report: “No officer reloaded in any incident” and “the majority of adversarial conflict discharges occur when the officer is closer than fifteen feet to the subject.”
LikeLike