Force Science Institute supposition about point shooting needs validation
May 21, 2015
Guest Article John Veit, point shooting 2 Comments
Firearm User Network
Managed Marksmanship
Managed Marksmanship
May 21, 2015
Guest Article John Veit, point shooting 2 Comments
Firearm User Network 
John M. Buol Jr.
May 21, 2015 @ 13:12:35
Some choice bits from the quoted article:
There are changes to the eye under stress that can make sighting more difficult, but with the right training these can be overcome. Our research with equipment that tracks eye movement shows that sighted fire can be accomplished even under intense stress.
…
The key is a combination of two critical elements: 1) your innate ability to acquire and implement the technical skills of effective weapon management, and 2) the type and quality of instruction that constitute the “right” training for gunfight mastery.
In the US, many departments train their officers only to the level of minimum state standards, which are inadequate for achieving high-level proficiency. The bulk of their training often is presented in concentrated blocks, after which learned psychomotor skills rapidly deteriorate, rather than through continual reinforcement at intervals, which tends to build and maintain skills over time. And, deplorably, many officers are never exposed to firearms training of any kind that allows them to practice perception, decision-making, and responses at the speed of an actual gunfight.
All this leaves them dangerously deficient in many aspects of quality performance in a crisis, sight-acquisition among them.
To achieve that level of skill, be prepared to go, on your own, beyond the training offered by your agency. It is the rare department indeed that has the budget and the time to take officers as far as their native ability allows and elevate them to truly elite status.
Even at no cost, you can still strengthen your fundamental skills, including sight acquisition, through dry-fire drills. With modern weapons, you can dry fire literally thousands of times without damage to your equipment.
…
The challenges, Lewinski emphasized, are sobering indeed. For example, he said, it would take an officer who receives a typical amount of academy and in-service training in psychomotor skills, including firearms, more than 30 years to amass the amount of training and experience the average teenage athlete receives in a given sport during his or her high school career.
The alarming performance consequences of this deficiency have been revealed in a variety of Force Science research experiments, Lewinski said. … “Many of them “drew awkwardly and had difficulty putting the gun on target.”
Unfortunately, decision-making and firearms skills are too often “taught at the speed of qualification, not at the speed of a gunfight, and we develop and use psychomotor skills at the speed we practice them,” Lewinski said.
“We need to train officers to the point that none of their cognitive resources need to be placed on the mechanics of operating their weapon. For effective performance, all of an officer’s focus needs to be on decision-making,” with mechanical operations occurring automatically and subconsciously.
“Discovering how much training is necessary to reach this level” is one of Force Science’s primary missions, he said. Another is training the public about the realities of force confrontations.
LikeLike
John M. Buol Jr.
May 25, 2015 @ 12:52:13
>> I e-mailed the Force Science News Editor and mentioned that I am very interested in reviewing and posting available data and findings that validate the supposition that effective “Point Shooting” requires a great deal of consistent practice.”
Effective shooting requires a great deal of consistent practice. FIFY. How you hold the gun or look at the sights is less important than having the motivation and means to measure skill.
“Effective” means an ability that meets or exceeds the precision and speed requirements likely needed. That would be an ability to deliver center vital hits – and not merely hit an oversized targets anywhere – at 0.5 seconds per shot, not counting gun handling (presentation, reload, etc.) Interestingly, this is the pace and precision needed to shoot an El Presidente at par.
People of low skill dislike fixed, stringent courses such as this (mostly because of the bad news the results tell them) but this is a minimal level of skill needed.
There are studies to back this up:
“A great deal of consistent practice” can be accomplished in 5-10 minutes of dry practice done 2-3 times per week for a year or two. This doesn’t require Herculean effort, just enough discipline to put a little work in every couple days for an extended period.
Most humans won’t set themselves to such a simple task unless prodded. This is why competitive shooters are often superior performers. The interest and willingness to attend formal events is exactly the correct mindset needed of someone to do the needed work. A person that cowers from such events usually lacks the mindset and long-term discipline needed.
>> I also mentioned that I would be very interested in reviewing and posting any scientific data comparing the effectiveness of shooting by basically trained “Point Shooters” versus basically trained “Sight Shooters” in CQB scenarios at distances of 21 feet or less.
Though not organized into a single, comprehensive study, decades of organized shooting experience has largely answered this already. New shooters perform equally poorly regardless of technique because they don’t consistently apply any particular technique due to inexperience. Even if (and this is a big if) new shooters took to point shooting more quickly by a measurable difference, the margin wouldn’t be much and would soon be eclipsed as training occurred. If this were not true, there would be practical shooters using it as a viable option. This assume training (systematic, measured skill improvement) occurs, which it doesn’t for most gun owners, law enforcement, and military.
LikeLike