John Veit, a regular guest author here and point shooting advocate, tells why he believes point shooting is viable for many gun owners, as well as police and soldiers.
Instructors and others who shoot thousands of rounds a year, are not representative of the average shooter IMHO, and as such what they say one should do, may not be what the average shooter should do.
This is possibly the best synopsis I’ve read about this issue and is very telling. Working with soldiers, cops, hunters and others who aren’t really shooters they probably won’t go to the range unless forced (annual qual, pre-season sight-in). I know a rookie cop could develop a solid base of skill if they made the effort to perform a simple dry practice series every day they went on duty. It takes minimal time and a year of it would show real results. I put it out in each academy class I help teach, but I suspect many don’t bother.
When I talk about the “best technique” I refer to the best known possible approach. Competition is great for assessing this. However, this may not be the best approach for someone unwilling to do the work necessary to imbed that level of skill.
I liken it to using a keyboard or typewriter. Clearly, the fastest approach is touch typing but hunt-and-peck is more natural and quicker to learn for new person. For the person willing to put in the work, touch typing (and aimed shooting) is clearly the superior approach. Any doubts can be proven by measurement in a formal test. For those not willing or able to practice, hunt-and-peck (and point shooting) has value.
Firearm User Network 
Oct 05, 2012 @ 10:03:18
Your comments are completely and utterly incorrect. I’ve spent the past 20+ years teaching average gun owners, in beginner classes and the Texas CHL shooting test. Mr. Veit has trained no-one, has trained *with* no one, and has had no students survive actual gunfights nor win competitions, leaving him uniquely unqualified to comment on the subjects of shooting and training.
In any field, it is those who have studied it the hardest who have the best concept of how to distill the topic down to the essentials that beginners must learn to progress. The curriculum currently taught by most respected firearms schools reflects a significant level of thought as to what is the minimum number of techniques and minimum speed and accuracy goals that define competence with a handgun for defensive use.
I, and most every trainer in the country, teach students the essential concept that there is a spectrum of “gun alignment” methods, from rough (“point”) to precise (“bullseye”), and that what level of alignment changes as the target gets closer/farther or is larger/smaller.
Most untrained and informally trained shooters incorrectly believe that every shot, regardless of the target’s distance and size, requires the same sight picture quality and same trigger press quality. The default for most shooters is what Brian Enos would call “Type 3”, which is traditional aimed fire, executed at a mediocre level, suitable for humanoid targets in the 7-15 yard range.
Defensive Pistol, because of the shorter distances, is mostly Type 1 (true “point” shooting with no sight picture at all, useful for 0-3 yard shooting), and Type 2 (front sight only, useful for 3-7 yard shooting). Students that understand Type 3 can quickly be taught to get acceptable hits faster using Type 1 and Type 2 sight pictures, but must be taught those concepts in context, so they understand that Type 1 is unlikely to produce an acceptable, life-saving hit on a threat that is 10 yards away. Otherwise what you get are “point shooting” converts like Mr. Veit who get excited about being able to hose a 3 yard target without aiming and believe that they have discovered the Holy Grail that exempts them from ever having to use the sights again.
There is no false choice, for a particular size target at a given distance, of different ways to hit the target. The laws of physics govern where the bullet will go. For any target at any distance, for any gun with any known sight radius and trajectory, you can calculate EXACTLY how much error in sight alignment from “perfect” Type 5 can be tolerated and still get an acceptable hit. For the short sight radius of a pistol, the level of precision required increases quite quickly as target distance changes.
I teach a Texas CHL prep course that takes 4 hours and 100 rounds. During the course we teach those concepts to students, through words, pictures and range drills, getting them to the level where almost all of them are shooting 90% or better on the Texas CHL shooting test, which requires Type 1, 2 and 3 shooting at 3, 7 and 15 yards, giving them a foundation in fundamentals that can be used for basically any shot they might have to take in a real situation.
LikeLike
Oct 05, 2012 @ 22:27:40
>> Your comments are completely and utterly incorrect.
Could be. Wouldn’t be the first or last time I’ve been horrifically wrong. :)
>> I’ve spent the past 20+ years teaching average gun owners, in beginner classes and the Texas CHL shooting test.
I know. And a really good shooter as well. The bio for anyone not aware:
http://www.krtraining.com/newinst/karlbio.html
As a training methodology, I’m in line with what you put out vs. what Mr. Veit pushes. I know it’s better having experienced it personally as a competitor and it will work for any mostly normal person willing to learn and do a bit of work. Doubters are free to test against decades worth of empirical results garnered in competition and other places.
The problem is the willing to learn and do a bit of work part. It doesn’t take much, not even as much as Mr. Veit suggests. As mentioned, my advice to LEO academy classes is to work a simple dry exercise (5-10 solid slow “shots” and 5-10 presentations) when going on and coming off shift. Two of these dry sessions most duty days will rack up thousands of reps by the end of the rookie year, which will see big improvement on that first annual qual after graduating academy.
Some benefit from their lessons and shoot reasonably well. A few even take my advice and see even better progress (not because I said it, obviously, but because they’re simply willing to do a bit of work.) A few won’t practice with that pistol again until their department makes them.
>> I teach a Texas CHL prep course that takes 4 hours and 100 rounds.
Compared to some military classes I’ve had to teach, this is a luxury. Worse, in some cases, there were a few students that simply didn’t want to be there. They certainly won’t dry fire, even if their commanders granted them enough access to do so. The only time they handle firearms is when forced to during required qualification.
Working with anyone motivated enough to pay to take a class from a good instructor like you alleviates these issues. Ken Hackthorn has remarked to his classes (paraphrased) “The fact you’re here puts you in the top 1%” Competitive shooters at any level are certainly in the same place.
How to teach those folks that truly don’t like guns, aren’t interested in learning but their job/duty has them carrying anyway?
LikeLike
Oct 13, 2012 @ 06:22:51
With all due respect to Mr. Rehm and his credentials which are impressive, when you are dealing with innovation and advancement, credentials attesting to old or outmoded behaviors may not be of that much value.
Science and scientific facts should drive advancement, not failed practices such as teaching Sight Shooting for use in CQB situations when the science and data say it is not or can not be used in them.
If anyone has proof to the contrary, I have yet to know about it or seen it.
As an aside, here are some photos of me from long long ago and in a country far far away.
Our deuce and a half communications van, had a ring mounted fifty on it which I had the fun of shooting, when we went to the range.
In my days of basic training we shot carbines, 30 cal machine guns, and I even hit what I shot at with a 3.5 bazooka. Plus we got to throw a live hand grenade. Saw it hit and bounce before I ducked.
I also helped load training hand grenades and M1 rifle clips for an exercise in which a row of buildings where approached, and cleared with hand grenades and rifle fire.
Since I helped load the grenade charges and the ammo clips used, I ended up with ten or twelve plus clips, and by the time I finished my clearing of buildings, my M1 was literally smoking. :-) I qualified as expert.
That was then, this is now.
Here’s a link to my bio which includes a listing of most of the 60+ articles on PS and shooting that I have had published in Police and other magazines and on the web.
http://pointshooting.com/1amybio.htm
As to point shooting working, here is a link to me shooting at and hitting a string of aerial targets with an airsoft pistol.
(Shooting aerials requires split second precision Point Shooting and trying to use the sights would be a joke.)
Here’s one showing walking and shooting. Note the target hits.
Here’s one to my gun test results.
http://pointshooting.com/getoffx.htm
Those like “….Mr. Veit who get excited about being able to hose a 3 yard target without aiming and believe that they have discovered the Holy Grail that exempts them from ever having to use the sights again.”
P&S which I advocate is not a bar to Sight Shooting, it can enhance it by making target acquisition automatic, instinctive, and accurate. It also works when Sight shooting can not be used due to conditions like poor lighting or the dynamics of CQB situations, or the activation of our FOF response makes the use of Sight Shooting moot. Here’s a link to a brief on it. http://www.pointshooting.com/1abrief.htm
P&S can provide a practical and effective backup shooting method when Sight Shooting is not or can not be used which is the case in most all CQB situations. Those who have not been provided Point Shooting training will be left to train themselves in survival shooting and at the worst of possible times, when their life is on the line. And they like most all others like them will per the stats and studies, revert to untrained instinct point shooting with its recognized hit rate of less than 20%.
LEAVING THE SELF TEACHING OF INSTINCTIVE SHOOTING OR POINT SHOOTING TO OFFICERS AND CIVILIANS IN REAL LIFE OR DEATH SITUATIONS, BORDERS ON RECKLESS ENDANGERMENT ON THE PART OF THEIR TRAINERS, THE BRASS, AND BY ASSOCIATION INCLUDES THE FBI AND GUN MAKERS.
As to the Texas CHL, for the military and Police, one might consider 15 yard shooting a rare but still a possible need.
But I think that in most jurisdictions, if you are shooting in self defense at 45 feet, you are actively shooting to kill and not in self defense, as most if not all CQB situations occur within 21 feet. It of course makes the use of the Sight Shooting a must, which is good for trainers.
LikeLike
Mar 16, 2013 @ 22:45:12
Heya i am for the first time here. I found this board
and I find It truly useful & it helped me out a lot. I hope to give
something back and help others like you helped me.
LikeLike
Jun 17, 2014 @ 07:41:35