View Full Version : Instictive Shooting
Does anyone have any recommendations for courses in the VA area that teach Instinctive Shooting or Point Shooting, whichever you want to call it.
I live in SWVA.
Does anyone have any recommendations for courses in the VA area that teach Instinctive Shooting or Point Shooting, whichever you want to call it.
I live in SWVA.
In truth there is no such thing... Instinctive Shooting or Point Shooting is rubbish... The sights on a firearm are not an simply an afterthought... As to the question of instruction in VA; One of the best instructors I know in the use of firearms is Larry Vickers and he often teaches courses at a range facility in South Hill VA... You may want to check his web sight for info...
http://www.vickerstactical.com/training/2008_Schedule.htm
Just my .02
B
Gutshot John
06-18-08, 20:22
There is no such thing as "instinctive" shooting. It's flat out dangerous.
Point shooting on the other hand is a definite technique that can be taught and learned.
Try D.R. Middlebrooks at www.tacticalshooting.com.
He's in Williamsburg/Jamestown area and he will dramatically improve your shooting. He did wonders with my wife. I'm going down in July for the third time.
His classes are small and affordable.
Maybe I'm using the wrong terms. When I was in the infantry, I got to watch Special Operation guys do their thing in the shoot houses a few times.
Too me it seemed as though they weren't really aiming so much as just bringing the gun up and shooting their targets on instinct. They could do this phenomanly fast and yet be crazy accurate. I just wondered if it was a certain style that they are taught? And if so what is it called if not instinctive or point shooting?
There's a difference between traditional "point shooting" and what many folks teach for high speed shooting which is more of a "soft focus" on the front sight.
There are some incredibly skilled point shooters out there, no doubt. But learning to use your sights and index the gun properly is the key to success for 99.9% of us.
Erick Gelhaus
06-18-08, 23:51
When I was in the infantry, I got to watch Special Operation guys do their thing in the shoot houses a few times.
... just out of curiosity, what is depicted in your avatar?
Examples of "insitictive shooting". When I was a boy I was quite the Robin Hood. I always shot a bow and arrow, recurve and compound, with out sights. I was damn good and won many bets this way. I out shot the guys with the latest and greats sights. Why? I shot all the time. Every day. All day. I INSTICTIVELY knew where to hold at estimated distances from repeated shooting. The same applied with my sling shots. You instinctively know where to hold and release.
This theory does not work (or should not be used) with firearms.
There is point shooting. This is usually a technique to be used at extremely close distances where aquiring a sight picture is not feasable. I would love to give an example of where a co-worker used an text book "point shot" to save his life and end the suspects life who shot at him....but I can't (Forums are not the place). But a little technique and alot of mental prepardness are in order for these to be successful in real life scenarios.
I know there is an instructor out there who teaches point shooting techniques and gives demonstrations of 25, 50 and 100 yard shots using a CZ75 or BHP with NO sights. I will see if I can remember who it was. I don't remember if it was practical, but it was interesting.
Things rarely work out the way they train you. ("Grab my gun...no, not like that, like this" :eek: ) But...the more you train, the more instinctive you become with your equipment and your abilities. Training and mental conditioning make it possible to instictively react with appropriate and decisive force when faced with a threat.
Just because there are no sights on the gun doesn't necessarily mean someone is point shooting. There are any number of ways to get a positive visual reference without focusing on your front sight.
Visual reference is a variable. The phrase see what you need to see has been around in firearms training for decades. If I'm belly to belly with someone that needs to be shot, obviously all I need to see is that he's in the general direction my gun is pointing. If I'm 100yd away, I need to see the front sight as crystal clear, still, and centered as humanly possible if I want to make a hit. Everything in between falls somewhere in between.
Understanding that you do not always need that perfect crisp sight picture to get an acceptable hit is one of the keys in moving from being an accurate shooter to a fast & accurate shooter.
I've hit targets in the dark using a Glock with day sights, but thats because I knew where the steel plates were and I held the pistol exactly as I would if I was watching the sights and proceeded with muscle memory.
But if I can see the sights, I will be on them. Hard.
... just out of curiosity, what is depicted in your avatar?
I'm pretty sure you know what that is. And in no way am I claiming to have ever been that.:) I just have that up there as way to say thanks to the ones who go unsung. Just a little shout out to the best of the best.
No, I was just a straight 11B. Started my life as a machinegunner, and ended my days as a Squad Leader. Never did anything remotely close to what those fellows do.
Just my way of saying thanks to those guys.
It just amazed me how good they could shoot and I was just curious if there was a name for they style they use. And if so, could a civilian learn it somewhere.
Jay Cunningham
06-19-08, 06:33
I would recommend Ken Hackathorn for "point shooting" training. Then again, I would recommend Ken in general.
I have seen more than a few very fast shooters that appear to be using some kind of "point shooting" technique. When asked, they've all told me that they are using their sights to one degree or another.
With that said, a monkey can hit the -0 of an IDPA ,or A-zone of an IPSC, target from 5 yards without using the sights. Keep upping the stress level and/or increasing the distance and watch how fast that degrades.
Jay Cunningham
06-19-08, 06:54
Here is a quote from me from the Low Light I AAR:
"Point shooting" is widely misunderstood. It is not a quick draw and shoot from the hip Wild West thing. It means focus on the threat, superimpose the pistol sights and press. This is a 10 meter and inside way to do things.
There's no such thing as instinctive shooting... :(
I think SouthNarc said it best:
"You can instinctively drown in a pool of water if you don't know how to swim." :eek:
Here are some video clips I did for Down Range TV. The shooting portion (about 15 minutes worth) was taken off of FIST-FIRE DVD-1 "What we do and why we do it" which is 1 hour and 20 minutes long.
Segment #1 is called, Surgical Point Shooting:
http://www.brightcove.tv/title.jsp?title=715980776&channel=429149807
There are also (3) more video clip segments there including "High Speed Point Shooting" and "Integrating Point Shooting with Sighted Fire". Just look below the screen and click on them to view. :cool:
Cheers,
D.R. Middlebrooks
www.TacticalShooting.com
Gutshot John
06-19-08, 09:06
As one can see, the term "instinctive" justifiably produces some amount of controversy. Point shooting however does not have to.
Point shooting when properly taught does not use the sights, but that does NOT mean that there is no aiming involved. Point shooting is NOT a replacement for your sights, it adds to them.
I was taught that sights are a function of time and distance (they are related). If you have both, then by all means use your sights. At CQB distance however one has far less time to deploy sights to eye level, front sight or otherwise. That's where point shooting comes in.
Point shooting becomes especially relevant inside 20 feet and in low-light. Within those parameters and properly executed it can be not only accurate and effective but also fast.
This being said, there is a trade-off, it requires rethinking of how the person shoots and the experienced shooter will have to unlearn some old habits. Based on my experience however one starts seeing results very quickly.
In my opinion, any system that depends on a bright line distinction based on range (whether it's 5yd, 7yd, 20yd, whatever) is problematic under any realistic conditions.
Under stress it's very difficult to distinguish between 7yd and 10yd.
Outside the square range, neither you nor your target(s) are likely to be stationary. Therefore, small changes in distance will be happening constantly.
A simple "A or B" approach ignores that there is a whole range of acceptable degrees of visual reference to make hits.
Gutshot John
06-19-08, 09:36
To be clear there is no "hard and fast" line of distinction. I don't think anything is gained by such lines either.
It is dependent on available time. Distance is a significant determinant in how much time you have to employ sights. Inside of 20' an assailant can close the gap faster than most people (skilled or otherwise) can draw, deploy the sights and take a shot. That's not a "line" it's just a point of reference.
The more skilled the shooter, the less time he will require to employ the sights. If one has the time, then by all means use the sights.
The individual will have to make that determination.
It is dependent on available time. Distance is a significant determinant in how much time you have to employ sights.
Actually, a little nitpick: Distance is a significant determinant in how much time you need to employ the sights, or make good hits in general. The amount of time you have is completely independent of your shooting skills. You won't know how much time you have until it's become "how much time you had."
Think about it in terms of one handed shooting. If Bad Guy Joe is shooting at you, his bullets aren't any slower or less accurate just because you're shooting weak hand only. So while you may need more time to get accurate hits, you don't necessarily have more time.
Gutshot John
06-19-08, 09:44
Actually, a little nitpick: Distance is a significant determinant in how much time you need to employ the sights, or make good hits in general. The amount of time you have is completely independent of your shooting skills. You won't know how much time you have until it's become "how much time you had."
Think about it in terms of one handed shooting. If Bad Guy Joe is shooting at you, his bullets aren't any slower or less accurate just because you're shooting weak hand only. So while you may need more time to get accurate hits, you don't necessarily have more time.
I completely agree.
In my opinion, any system that depends on a bright line distinction based on range (whether it's 5yd, 7yd, 20yd, whatever) is problematic under any realistic conditions.
Under stress it's very difficult to distinguish between 7yd and 10yd.
Outside the square range, neither you nor your target(s) are likely to be stationary. Therefore, small changes in distance will be happening constantly.
A simple "A or B" approach ignores that there is a whole range of acceptable degrees of visual reference to make hits.
I agree to a point, but I also think that your brain can make the decision for you.
Obviously if you have to shoot from retention you're not going to be using the sights. Also, I would think, obviously at contact distance (call it under 1 yard) and under stress you're most likely to ignore the sights.
At the SDI Mindset Handgun class we worked a lot on un-aimed fire and were given the opportunity to figure it out for ourselves where it worked and didn't work, moving in and out, laterally, etc. One of the things that Travis pointed to, and I think it's a valid issue, was the various videos available all over the internet of officer-involved shootings where, when the shit hit the fan, not a damn one of them appears to be even so much as indexing the gun let alone using the sights. I don't want to misquote him, but he conveyed the details of an incident that he was personally involved in which seemed to substantiate the idea that up close and under pressure, the sights go out the window.
I don't have a dog in the fight really. I find the whole debate rather amusing, but like being exposed to both sides so that I can formulate my own opinions. Toward that end I'd like to take one of DR's classes the next time he's in SE Florida, depending on who the class coordinator is.
John_Wayne777
06-19-08, 10:06
I agree to a point, but I also think that your brain can make the decision for you.
That is indeed how it works. There are no range markers in real life. With enough training you begin to balance what you need to do. You essentially figure out when you are "close enough" that speed of the shot is more important than a crystal clear sight picture and when you are far enough that you need to focus more on the sight and less on a quick shot.
I agree to a point, but I also think that your brain can make the decision for you.
Rob, would this be an admission that sometimes an internal organ other than your brain is making decisions for you? :cool:
At the SDI Mindset Handgun class we worked a lot on un-aimed fire and were given the opportunity to figure it out for ourselves where it worked and didn't work, moving in and out, laterally, etc.
What do you mean by unaimed fire? I think we need to define our terms so that we're not disagreeing based on semantics rather than concepts. To me, unaimed fire means pulling the trigger with no conscious control over where the bullet is going to go.
I don't want to misquote him, but he conveyed the details of an incident that he was personally involved in which seemed to substantiate the idea that up close and under pressure, the sights go out the window.
I wouldn't disagree with that at all. However, I'd argue that it's exactly why a well trained, habitual index (learned through sighted fire practice) is important. And again, just because you're not consciously aligning your front sight perfectly doesn't mean your shooting is devoid of visual aiming reference.
I'm reminded of a stage at the IDPA Nationals years ago at Mid-South. I was squadded with Rob Leatham and on one particularly close range low light stage, Rob came out of the shoot house commenting that "if you use your sights in there, you're going way too slow." Nonetheless, it was Rob's skill that allowed him to shoot the stage as fast and accurately as he did.
Gutshot John
06-19-08, 10:20
I seem to remember a crime study not to long ago involving police shootouts. Someone may have better information.
The gist of it was that nationwide gangbangers were scoring an inordinate amount of head shots relative to police. Essentially the head made a more "instinctive" target to point at especially silhouetted in low light and it was ANYTHING but safe. It is illustrative of the potential of point shooting.
I can't find the study online however so I can't be sure of my interpretation.
I don't have enough of a dog in this fight, or frankly care enough about the issue at hand, to get into issues of semantics and definitions of terms.
I often hit "submit" knowing that I'm going to regret it. This is one of those times.
Why on earth people can't just use what works for them and motor on is beyond me. It sounds to me like the OP knows what he wants.
Gutshot John
06-19-08, 10:30
I think it's worth distinguishing "unaimed" and "unsighted".
For myself a firearm cannot be effectively employed if it's not "aimed" with the intent of hitting a specific target. I completely understand your point rob, it just needs to be clarified as point shooters are often stereotyped as "dangerous" and words like "unaimed" rightly or wrongly add to that impression. In reality point shooting if properly done is at least as safe as sighted fire.
Point shooting is "aimed," just not necessarily "sighted." A proper index therefore is essential to point shooting which is why it's best taught as contiguous part of a whole system/technique.
People ultimately have to use what works best for them. I don't see the value of learning a technique in which one has no confidence that he/she can properly execute.
Wow guys, thanks for all the good info. Although I didn't mean to start any arguments:)
I just wondered if the technique that SF, Delta, HRT etc. employ had a specific term.
Like I said, when I saw them shoot CQB, they were so fast at aquiring and engaging their targets, it didn't seem like they used their sights in the traditional style. It looked like they just pointed and shot.
Although I guess if I could shoot as often and as much as those units, I would be that good too.:eek:
Since the OP has mentioned "Delta" and uses a symbol of them as an avatar, he may be interested in what paul Howe has to say on the subject, go to his web site, combatshootingandtactics.com, and look for his articles, one called combat shooting, a few thoughts, you'll find his thoughts there.
While what is displayed in various video's of police shootings, is interesting, its only part of whats going on. How well trained are those officers? I also see alot of them not connecting not using their sights.
I've had the privledge to shoot with and train under active and retired members of one of the most proficient and active SWAT team's in the country. They will relay multiple stories where they have personally seen "point shooting" fail. They will go on to tell you, that everyone they ever shot, regardless of range, was done so using their sights. One while under fire, funny story.
Bob
Thanks R. Moran, that site looks like it has alot of great articles.
Robb Jensen
06-19-08, 13:31
I'm reminded of a stage at the IDPA Nationals years ago at Mid-South. I was squadded with Rob Leatham and on one particularly close range low light stage, Rob came out of the shoot house commenting that "if you use your sights in there, you're going way too slow." Nonetheless, it was Rob's skill that allowed him to shoot the stage as fast and accurately as he did.
TGO ain't like us mortals.......;)
http://www.xdtalk.com/gallery/data/509/Rob-Leatham-01-sm721.jpg
But I know he means, it's just like at Steel Challenge on 'Smoke and Hope' if you're using your sights to hit the four big pieces of steel then you're going way too slow.
shameless plug:
Speaking of steel Fredericksburg Rod/Gun club is hosting the S&W Steel Challenge (http://steelchallenge.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/va-regional-sw-steel-shoot-application.pdf) in August. And there's a bunch of guns as prizes.
Both Todd and Bob have made excellent points here that I feel need to be reinforced.
Todd said "see what you need to see" in order to make the hit. Just what you need to see is a direct result of your training/practice and experience with the gun.
Somebody like Rob Letham doesn't need to get a hard focus on the front sight to ensure hits at distances that most people will need to be well dialed onto the front sight in order to hit the target. Why? Because he has spent so much time with the gun in his hand. (And I'm pretty sure he's not human.)
I'm convinced that the key to this is proper practice which entails using the sights whenever you can to help build the ability to index the gun when you can't see the sights as well as you might like (whether due to physical or time constraints).
Bob mentioned that in car videos do not provide the entire story. They do not convey the level of skill of the officers involved. Most cops are seriously under trained with their firearms. All the vids show is the officers defaulting to their level of training.
Winning the fight will depend on you being able to direct well placed rounds onto the target. What you need to do to accomplish that will depend on your skill and training. Take the time you need to get an acceptable hit. Fast misses don't count. Learn what an acceptable sight picture (or index) is for the difficulty of the shot you need to make. There's no quick easy way to do this. Go out get some training and practice.
just wondered if the technique that SF, Delta, HRT etc. employ had a specific term.
Having dealt with current and/or past FIs for all of the groups you mentioned, they all place a premium on sighted fire practice.
Again, that doesn't necessarily mean they teach you to get a hard focus on your front sight every time under every condition no matter what. Just that learning marksmanship fundamentals is a key step toward achieving the skill level you're seeing.
Having said that, we had Scott Warren (FBI HRT PFI) at an IDPA match once years back when I was running the program at the NRA Range. We'd placed a somewhat hidden target at the end of a hallway and due to poor stage design on my part, it wasn't clear whether the target was supposed to be shot or not. Scott flew through the stage at a breakneck pace and then was ready to holster up when the RO asked, "Are you finished?" Scott looked around, pointed with his left hand at the questionable target, and asked if it was supposed to be a threat. The RO said yes and before he was done pronouncing the word, Scott had fired two rounds into the target from the hip ... scoring two perfect hits at a distance of around 7 yards.
But I know he means, it's just like at Steel Challenge on 'Smoke and Hope' if you're using your sights to hit the four big pieces of steel then you're going way too slow.
I also have seen average level shooters MISS one or more of the four rectangle steels on the Smoke and Hope because they go too fast and probably thought "You can't miss those huge steels from that close" :)
The RO said yes and before he was done pronouncing the word, Scott had fired two rounds into the target from the hip ... scoring two perfect hits at a distance of around 7 yards.
That's the stuff I'm talking about. How the hell do they do that?:eek:
CarlosDJackal
06-19-08, 15:24
I seem to remember a crime study not to long ago involving police shootouts. Someone may have better information.
The gist of it was that nationwide gangbangers were scoring an inordinate amount of head shots relative to police. Essentially the head made a more "instinctive" target to point at especially silhouetted in low light and it was ANYTHING but safe. It is illustrative of the potential of point shooting.
I can't find the study online however so I can't be sure of my interpretation.
If I am thinking about the same crime study, the analysis that came up with the theory that the gang-bangers were scoring more hits than Law Enforcement Officers who were trained to use their sights was doing so because they were "point shooting" turned ou t to be somewhat flawed because it did not take the individual situations and mindset of the participants into account.
What was later determined is that the actual leading factor that may have contributed to this lop-sided score was the fact that the BGs were initiating the gunfights. This meant that in general, LEOs where being forced to react from positions of serious disadvantage. Basically, the "Awe shit!!" level (aka: Shock Threshold) for LEOs were much higher than the scumbags; most of whom had already decided they would rather kill someone or die than go back to jail. The ones that fared better where the ones who managed to reset the BG's OODA Loop by moving, managing to get behind cover, already had their hands on their weapons, etc.
You can have the best technique, skill, and equipment in the world; but if someone gets the drop on you you, it's very hard to regain the advantage. JM2CW.
CarlosDJackal
06-19-08, 15:25
...Having said that, we had Scott Warren (FBI HRT PFI) at an IDPA match once years back when I was running the program at the NRA Range. We'd placed a somewhat hidden target at the end of a hallway and due to poor stage design on my part, it wasn't clear whether the target was supposed to be shot or not. Scott flew through the stage at a breakneck pace and then was ready to holster up when the RO asked, "Are you finished?" Scott looked around, pointed with his left hand at the questionable target, and asked if it was supposed to be a threat. The RO said yes and before he was done pronouncing the word, Scott had fired two rounds into the target from the hip ... scoring two perfect hits at a distance of around 7 yards.
That doesn't count because Scott's not human - I don't care what anyone says!! :D
Robb Jensen
06-19-08, 15:35
I also have seen average level shooters MISS one or more of the four rectangle steels on the Smoke and Hope because they go too fast and probably thought "You can't miss those huge steels from that close" :)
Oh I'm not saying you can't miss, I'm saying if you 'know your own index' you'll be able hit those steel targets without sights..........many don't know their own index or even shoot enough to realize what they're capable of as shooters.
I shot a stage at the 2005 NC Sectional with my Bomar sight flopping around up and down. On the stage the Bomar rear sight broke I shot all Alphas, I point shot the targets and
'auto indexed' (if you will) the targets, it worked and I still make a decent time. I even had one more stage to shoot and did fairly well on that one too, made a few Charlie hits but it was acceptable.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v408/gotm4/fubaredBomar.jpg
Sidewinder6
06-19-08, 15:45
... just out of curiosity, what is depicted in your avatar?
..Maybe moving that to a Thank you in your sig line wont give some folks the wiggles. Hell, I think we all thank them in different ways.
LAV and Howe will likely give you different views of their experience and Ken H is a great opportunity that is in short supply.
Im not sure whether Travis is doing HG courses now that he is hooked up with Magpull. Regardless of which way you go, buy alot of ammo.
I see the terms "acceptable hits" "Perfect hits" etc being used. Perhaps what is acceptable or perfect should be defined?
Obviously it will vary from agency to agency, competitor to competitor, and shooter to shooter.
In the world I train to operate in, misses are unacceptable, and may do more damage then good, and I'm not just talkin about innocent bystanders. Material, equipment, piping, etc being breached, all could cause alot of harm.
Also, I expect my adversaries to be well armed, trained and dedicated, and armored, where only a shot thru the armpit opening in a vest, or between the plate and helmet will stop the adversary from completing his mission. Perphial hits may only serve to alert him to your position. Some of my co-workers believe a perphial hit, done fast, will give them time to take a better shot, I don't necessarily buy that, but most of them couldn't make the better shot, with all the time in the world.
Compounding that, if all you train to do is make the easy fast shot, you'll never have the skill to make the "high percentage shot".
In the class I took with LAV, he said something along the lines of....every shot should stand on its own, and everyshot should be made as if it was a 50mtr head shot.
Howe, has sated he does not reward poor marksmanship, and his personally designed target reflects that, you either hit the "A" zone, or you missed.
Just something to think about.
Bob
Gutshot John
06-19-08, 18:58
No one could seriously claim that a technique was "better" if it didn't produce at least a comparable degree of accuracy. This however ALWAYS depends on training and technique. One doesn't need to walk on water...one just needs to learn the technique. It really isn't that complicated.
It should be said, that people miss using sights all the time even under ideal conditions. People, even excellent shooters, miss during matches... never mind a gunfight. Saying that a "miss" is unacceptable avoids what's probably going to happen the question is whether point shooting means misses are more likely.
Properly executed, point shooting is perfectly capable of making accurate kill zone shots and is no more (and I believe less) likely to "miss" than using sights under stress.
Moving targets that shoot back may complicate this...but then is one more or less likely to use sights effectively when the targets shoot back?
Just something to think about.
I see the terms "acceptable hits" "Perfect hits" etc being used. Perhaps what is acceptable or perfect should be defined?
Obviously it will vary from agency to agency, competitor to competitor, and shooter to shooter.
This reminds me of one of George Harris's favorite lines: "How much oil is in a drop?"
What defines "acceptable" will vary based not only on the shooter but the shooting situation, the target, the cost of failure, the cost of a miss, etc.
As a general rule, I think 8" paper plates and 3x5 cards make outstanding realistic target zones. For my personal practice, I replace the plates with 5x8 cards.
Robb Jensen
06-19-08, 21:17
When I play USPSA/IPSC (yes I view it as a game) "Acceptable" for Limited (for me) is mostly As and some Cs. If you're shooting all As in Limited division you're most likely going way too slow. In USPSA how you are scored matters if you're shooting Major or Minor. I shoot Major in Limited. In Production it's Minor (all Production is Minor). So in Production C hits don't get as many points as a C hit does in Limited/Open/L-10/Single-Stack etc.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v408/gotm4/a1231c24.gif
I found something called the "Israeli Point Shooting Method", does anyone know anything about it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_shooting
Gutshot John
06-20-08, 07:56
Fairbairn, Sykes was indeed formational in point shooting, but the techniques are now obselete.
From your link I'd bet the Israelis modified that to some extent but the difference appears to be that they emphasize transitioning to sights. All in all I don't think there's that much in the way of point shooting with a pistol.
I'd be cautious of what wikipedia says about these topics. There is no vetting for the information contained therein.
Jay Cunningham
06-20-08, 08:12
Fairbairn, Sykes was indeed formational in point shooting, but the techniques are now obselete.
From your link I'd bet the Israelis modified that to some extent but the difference appears to be that they emphasize transitioning to sights. All in all I don't think there's that much in the way of point shooting with a pistol.
I'd be cautious of what wikipedia says about these topics. There is no vetting for the information contained therein.
Good comment.
Failure2Stop
06-20-08, 08:39
There is no magic/secret to hitting fast, accurately.
It all begins with the fundamentals.
Aiming
Trigger Control
Stance/Grip
Once competance has been gained in these areas, you can begin to progress. If you can't put 10 of 15 rounds in the black of a standard 25 yard NRA pistol target, you have not achieved proficiency.
Bulls-eye shooting is boring and mostly irrelevant to gunfighting, but (as illustrated by Mr Vickers [from one of the orgs the OP is specifically referenceing]) it forces you to master trigger control and sights. That's right- the guys that are awesome on their secondary weapons master the sights. If they were using unsighted techniques, there would be no need for MRDs on ACOGS, no Aimpoints, no EoTechs, no laser-grips, no tritium sights, no BUISs, and no concern over offest-aim points.
As your skill progresses you will begin to understand the different types of sight focus, as brought up earlier. While it requires absolute frontsight focus/sight alignment for acceptable hits at 25 yards since the sight alignment must be absolute, the amount of sight deviation permitted to achieve the same hits at 5 yards is much greater. Thus, how we focus on the sights and target changes in proportion to range. As Todd G said, see what you need to see to get the hits you need.
The more practice you have shooting correctly, the more habitual the presentation will be. Soon you will find the sights acceptably aligned as soon as the gun levels out in front of you. This is the point at which "point" shooting becomes a skill that you can actually use in a gunfight. When you are fighting for your life, the only shots that have a decent probability of dropping the threat are A zone/-0.
"Point" shooting may have a place in circumstances where space/time is too compressed for a proper presentation, but that's about it. Sometimes the threat is so close you simply cannot afford to miss, and once again, you need to see what you need to see. I have seen point-shooting break down on numerous occasions, with several of those involving me pulling the trigger. Try point-shooting out on the plate rack from 7 yards. It isn't pretty.
There are very few things we as a species do instinctively, and shooting is definately not one of them. We can create habits and skills, but we cannot "create" an instinct. If there was any instinctive skill at shooting, there would be little need for people to train them in their instincts.
Those that truly possess point-shooting skills that translate to gunfights have gotten there through thousands of perfect repetitions with normal old boring sighted fire.
Not sexy, but true.
I found something called the "Israeli Point Shooting Method", does anyone know anything about it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_shooting
Yes, they see a virtue out of starting a gunfight without a round in the chamber so you must draw and chamber a gun before being able to fire. I don't care if they had the best system in the world, any system that advocates not carrying a round in the chamber gets an F.
Here's a link to a whole huge thread on pointshooting:
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=9458&highlight=pointshooting
Yes, they see a virtue out of starting a gunfight without a round in the chamber so you must draw and chamber a gun before being able to fire. I don't care if they had the best system in the world, any system that advocates not carrying a round in the chamber gets an F.
Here's a link to a whole huge thread on pointshooting:
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=9458&highlight=pointshooting
I think the deal with the "no round in the chamber" came from the Israelis using handguns with questionable safeties back in the day. From the things I've read, that hasn't been done in years. All IDF Forces carry a round in the chamber now from what I've read.
Failure2Stop
06-20-08, 09:21
All IDF Forces carry a round in the chamber now from what I've read.
Just remind me- what's the last conflict the IDF won? :rolleyes:
Going from CAG to IDF is a distinct drop in capability and credability.
Just sayin.
No, there seems to be a law in Israel that makes it illegal for citizens to carry a handgun with a round in the chamber. All their classes are taught with drawing the handgun and chambering a round. There have been numerous magazine articles on it.
Mention that carrying without a round in the chamber is a bad idea on some less tactically enlightened boards than this one, and you will sometimes get actual Israellis arguing that it is an advantage to carry without a round in the chamber.:rolleyes:
Jay Cunningham
06-20-08, 09:27
Let's please not derail this otherwise fine thread with the whole Israeli Cond 3 carry argument again.
Thank you.
:)
I am not trying to derail anything. But chamber empty carry is an integral part of their system. It would be like not mentioning that an AR maker was using bolts made by Olympic arms.
I am not trying to derail anything. But chamber empty carry is an integral part of their system. It would be like not mentioning that an AR maker was using bolts made by Olympic arms.
You said, "civilians carry with the chamber empty", I'm wondering if the IDF also does. I would imagine that the police and military don't do that. At least I hope not:eek:
Gutshot John
06-20-08, 10:00
There is no magic/secret to hitting fast, accurately.
It all begins with the fundamentals.
Aiming
Trigger Control
Stance/Grip
Agreed, but point shooting is aimed fire, it's just not sighted fire.
"Point" shooting may have a place in circumstances where space/time is too compressed for a proper presentation, but that's about it.
Untrue. You're talking about space/time compression as if it's the exception in a gunfight. It's pretty well established that most gunfights on the street take place within a distance of a 5-10 feet.
Using that logic "sighted" fire may have a place in circumstances where space/time is NOT compressed and allows a proper presentation, but that's about it.
I don't buy either logic. Both have their place, and if you have time to use your sights...use them.
Sometimes the threat is so close you simply cannot afford to miss, and once again, you need to see what you need to see.
If the threat is that close your bigger concern is getting the gun into your hand. If you manage to do that...you're probably not going to miss from contact distance. How does point shooting interfere with what you see?
I have seen point-shooting break down on numerous occasions, with several of those involving me pulling the trigger. Try point-shooting out on the plate rack from 7 yards. It isn't pretty.
I've shot plate racks from 7 yards point shooting. I'm no less accurate than with sights and a damn site faster.
There are very few things we as a species do instinctively, and shooting is definately not one of them. We can create habits and skills, but we cannot "create" an instinct. If there was any instinctive skill at shooting, there would be little need for people to train them in their instincts.
Agreed, which is why point shooting requires technique and practice, but it's fairly easy to grasp if properly explained.
Those that truly possess point-shooting skills that translate to gunfights have gotten there through thousands of perfect repetitions with normal old boring sighted fire.
Again false, you don't have to be Robbie Leatham to point shoot effectively, that's simply a myth. Moreover Robbie isn't really a point shooter.
ANYONE can be taught to point shoot effectively...in fact the less training/experience you have the easier it is to learn.
From all the good info I've gotten from you guys and doing some studying on the subject, Ive come to the conclusion that Point Shooting is a good choice inside 7yds. when time is of the essence.
Now I just have to find someone to teach me:D
You said, "civilians carry with the chamber empty", I'm wondering if the IDF also does. I would imagine that the police and military don't do that. At least I hope not:eek:
Every film of Israelli handgun usage I ahve seen shows them chambering a round as part of the draw stroke.
Some of their shooting is using the sights and some is pointshooting
The word instinct shooting is derived from the fact that pointing your finger is somewhat instinctual and that point shooting tries to channel this instinct into using the gun to point as you would a finger.
Pointshooting is somewhat of a red herring because different people have different definitions. Some associate it with shooting from the hip but that is only the case if the attacker is so close that if you brought the gun up you would risk having them grab or divert it.
Also, there are some real asshats who advocate pointshooting--not worth mentioning.
The reason that pointshooting proponents hold that sights are not used is because under the stress of a close range gunfight, many people can't focus on anything but the attacker. They sight Bruce Siddle and his studies in this regard.
Proper point shooting only advocates shooting from the hip or retention positions when the attacker is so close that he can either grab or divert the gun. Other than that bring the gun up to eye level. Even though you are not using the sights, you are getting a sort of "metal on meat" type allignment, where the gun itself is aligned with the close in threat.
So it is possible to present the gun and see a rough relation between the gun and the attacker, but not focus on the sights. This occurs with real life threats and not competition where you don't have to worry about anyone killing you.
We are talking of close ranges where the attacker is like 3-4 times the width of the back of the gun's slide where as soon as you bring the gun up the profile of the gun is surrounded by the attacker and you fire. At greater distances where the target is smaller and it does not seem to block out the background like a roadside billboard, people are more likely to be drawn to use aimed fire.
This isn't to say that people have not used the sights at close range, but that many people without extensive training and practice (and also those with less than perfect eyesight or easy to view sights) find themselves unable to focus on anything but the threat in these close-in shootings.
I took a pointshooting Instructor's class from Hocking College (which was originally set up by the late Col. Rex Applegate) and we were able to get good hits out to 20 feet, which was the max distance that we shot at for the course. There was no problem getting hits in the target's upper body, but not necesarily in the cardio plexus region of central nervous system where you really need it to go.
I would say that if you are teaching aimed fire it is important to emphasize the fact that under life and death stress at close range most humans have a tendency to focus on the threat and not the sights. But to insure getting good hits in the best places, you need to use the sights.
My own take is to try to use the sights if possible and to bring the gun up to eye level unless the attacker is close enough to grab or divert the gun.
If for reasons of closeness or stress or imediacy you cannot use the sights, the gun brought to eye level and pointed as you would a finger provides you a better chance of getting the rounds where you need them than if you fired from the hip.
From all the good info I've gotten from you guys and doing some studying on the subject, Ive come to the conclusion that Point Shooting is a good choice inside 7yds. when time is of the essence.
I would actually say that at 7 yards I would be trying to use the sights if possible. I see pointshooting as something more for inside 10 feet where I bring the gun to eye level and the attacker is providing a background to the gun as though he is a billboard. I see it as an act of desperation that may indeed happen.
As I see it, if I bring the gun up to eye level in a good shooting stance, even if I cannot see the sights due to stress or whatever, the gun is in the best position possible to give me a chance of getting hits.
I've been all over the map with training sighted vs unsighted, from pointshooting instruction to classes with Larry Vickers.
A lot of it is also situational. Are you a police officer or soldier with the gun out expecting an enemy, or are you a reacting to an 'Oh sh!%' situation up close where you are behind the curve.
My bottom line is to try to use the sights if possible, but know that it may not be.
Failure2Stop
06-20-08, 10:28
Snipped for brevity's sake.
Then we will just have to agree to disagree. This could go back and forth endlessly until we actually have a shoot-out.
To avoid a di*k measuring contest I will simply say that I have seen "point" shooting fail far more frequently than rapidly sighted fire, including force on force. I am not saying that there is no application of point shooting, but that it fits in a small envelope, just as hard front sight focus fits into a small envelope.
I did not mean to imply that you must be a GM USPSA shooter to be able to trust grip and trigger control to allow you to hit what you need to hit. I said that proper practice would ingrain the actions needed to reliably hit without sights.
I am beginning to understand why you do not see the value in a light (to bring up an old topic). Also be aware that while most civilian altercations occur at grabbing distance, others use the pistol as a back-up to their long-gun, and must be able to place accurate hits on a target at distances measured in yards, not inches. They are also expected to drop the threat, not just pump bullets into the wall/extremeties.
I'm deffinately not talking about shooting from the hip. The guys I watched had their guns at eye level, they just engaged multiple targets so fast that they must have been Point Shooting. But again, this was in a strictly CQB senario.
Gutshot John
06-20-08, 10:45
Then we will just have to agree to disagree. This could go back and forth endlessly until we actually have a shoot-out.
To avoid a di*k measuring contest I will simply say that I have seen "point" shooting fail far more frequently than rapidly sighted fire, including force on force.
There are no measurements necessary. There are lots (AND LOTS) of people that are better shots than me that use sights, and you're probably one. I'm saying that based on my experience, point-shooting made a profound difference and was not hard to learn effectively...just required a modicum of practice and dry-fire.
Before Fist-Fire I just went to the range and practiced/practiced and didn't see any noticeable improvement using traditional methods of FSP etc. no matter how many rounds I put downrange. It was really really frustrating given that I was taught in the military (shot expert with pistol but there was no doubt I sucked) I was never going to have the time/money to get proficient that way. I started looking for something else.
When I first started point-shooting on day-one of Fist-Fire I noticed a significant jump in accurate hits even out to distances of 20+ feet. The before/after difference was stark. Within a few days I was twice the shooter as when I went in.
The results on my wife were even more impressive as she had been scared of firearms before attending Fist-Fire with me on our vacation. Within two days of training she was effectively shooting mozambiques inside of 10 feet.
I think where most people see point-shooting fail is watching people who don't know how to point-shoot. Since that's most shooters...well you can see the logic.
Again I'm not knocking sighted fire, quite the contrary. I just want to make sure people realize that point shooting does not require superhuman shooting skill to be effective.
I'm deffinately not talking about shooting from the hip. The guys I watched had their guns at eye level, they just engaged multiple targets so fast that they must have been Point Shooting. But again, this was in a strictly CQB senario.
Have you ever taken any type of formal handgun training? I ask the question not trying to discredit, but you will realize that you make tremendous progress in speed and accuracy if you are properly trained, and continue to practice and refine these skills. The members of elite military units, shoot more rounds in one year than many will shoot in a lifetime. They have the highest levels of training and proficiency in the world. They are going to be very fast, lethal, and accurate.
You also mention that you have made the decision "after studying" that point shooting is most effective inside 7 yards. This should be a decision that is made after spending several hours in training and at the range evaluating and assessing what works best for you in a given scenario. I would not evaluate a method based on what you read on the internet. Even on this fine board.
Have you ever taken any type of formal handgun training? I ask the question not trying to discredit, but you will realize that you make tremendous progress in speed and accuracy if you are properly trained, and continue to practice and refine these skills. The members of elite military units, shoot more rounds in one year than many will shoot in a lifetime. They have the highest levels of training and proficiency in the world. They are going to be very fast, lethal, and accurate.
You also mention that you have made the decision "after studying" that point shooting is most effective inside 7 yards. This should be a decision that is made after spending several hours in training and at the range evaluating and assessing what works best for you in a given scenario. I would not evaluate a method based on what you read on the internet. Even on this fine board.
I know that I'll never reach the level of those guys, I just thought if one could learn the same style and have 10% of their skill, it would go along way to being a very good shooter.:)
The only formal handgun training I've had was in the Army. All machinegunners carried an M9 as a sidearm. The training wasn't very indepth. Just enough to get us to qualify.
I've tried to teach myself the best I could. But I know I really need some expert training in the use of a handgun. With the AR15/M16 I'm pretty comfortable. But with a handgun, I'm sorta lost.
Thats why I started this thread, to get some idea of where I could go to get some quality training in the use of a handgun. Training that will translate to real world shooting, not just range shooting.
Gutshot John
06-20-08, 12:45
I know that I'll never reach the level of those guys, I just thought if one could learn the same style and have 10% of their skill, it would go along way to being a very good shooter.:)
The only formal handgun training I've had was in the Army. All machinegunners carried an M9 as a sidearm. The training wasn't very indepth. Just enough to get us to qualify.
I've tried to teach myself the best I could. But I know I really need some expert training in the use of a handgun. With the AR15/M16 I'm pretty comfortable. But with a handgun, I'm sorta lost.
Thats why I started this thread, to get some idea of where I could go to get some quality training in the use of a handgun. Training that will translate to real world shooting, not just range shooting.
You are an excellent candidate for FIST-FIRE in that you have relatively few engrained techniques to overcome/change. For people who've spent a lot of time/effort over the years will find it harder. I know I did.
It's probably a bad analogy but I think it's kind of like learning to walk all over again, but when you do you find you can run a lot faster.
That being said, from here on out formal training/practice is a must. Point shooting provides NO shortcuts.
No one could seriously claim that a technique was "better" if it didn't produce at least a comparable degree of accuracy. This however ALWAYS depends on training and technique. One doesn't need to walk on water...one just needs to learn the technique. It really isn't that complicated.
It should be said, that people miss using sights all the time even under ideal conditions. People, even excellent shooters, miss during matches... never mind a gunfight. Saying that a "miss" is unacceptable avoids what's probably going to happen the question is whether point shooting means misses are more likely.
Properly executed, point shooting is perfectly capable of making accurate kill zone shots and is no more (and I believe less) likely to "miss" than using sights under stress.
Moving targets that shoot back may complicate this...but then is one more or less likely to use sights effectively when the targets shoot back?
Just something to think about.
Yes, misses happen, doesn't make it right, or acceptable. I miss plenty, and I continually scrutinize why, and try to improve.
My take on things may be a bit different...
I believe CQB shooting is about precision shooting, not speed shooting. Because, at close range, a peripheral hit, while still a hit, may not stop the adversary immediately. A well aimed accurate shot to the CNS is much more likely to do that.
At longer ranges, the adversary, being human, may just say "the hell with this, medic!", if not I have a lot of room to shoot him again, and again, and again. I'm talking rifle and pistol shooting here.
Moving targets obviously complicate things, but I look at it this way, most point shooting relies on grip and stance being aligned with the target, that's not going to happen when we are both moving, using the sights will remove a variable.
At 7 yards, I'm not looking for a hit on a 6" plate, unless that's what I'm training for, I'm looking for 1-2" groups.
This idea of most people can't shoot that good anyway, can't use there sights, etc seems to me, to be a bit defeatist, just throw your arms in the air and say oh well its the best we can do.
LAV has said your shooting ability will decline by up to 70% in a fight. To me, that means train to shoot as accurately as I can now, so that 30% that's left, will hopefully be good enough, or perhaps it'll be more then that.
Also, could it be, that not focusing on your sights, removed some "stress" from your brain, and made you able to manipulate the trigger properly? IE: Not worrying about perfect sight alignment allowed you to no jerk the trigger?
We all know propper trigger manipulation is the most important aspect of accurate shooting, followed closely by sight alignment/picture.
Other then that +1 to FTS
Bob
Gutshot John
06-20-08, 13:49
Yes, misses happen, doesn't make it right, or acceptable. I miss plenty, and I continually scrutinize why, and try to improve.
My take on things may be a bit different...
I believe CQB shooting is about precision shooting, not speed shooting. Because, at close range, a peripheral hit, while still a hit, may not stop the adversary immediately. A well aimed accurate shot to the CNS is much more likely to do that.
At longer ranges, the adversary, being human, may just say "the hell with this, medic!", if not I have a lot of room to shoot him again, and again, and again. I'm talking rifle and pistol shooting here.
Moving targets obviously complicate things, but I look at it this way, most point shooting relies on grip and stance being aligned with the target, that's not going to happen when we are both moving, using the sights will remove a variable.
At 7 yards, I'm not looking for a hit on a 6" plate, unless that's what I'm training for, I'm looking for 1-2" groups.
This idea of most people can't shoot that good anyway, can't use there sights, etc seems to me, to be a bit defeatist, just throw your arms in the air and say oh well its the best we can do.
LAV has said your shooting ability will decline by up to 70% in a fight. To me, that means train to shoot as accurately as I can now, so that 30% that's left, will hopefully be good enough, or perhaps it'll be more then that.
Also, could it be, that not focusing on your sights, removed some "stress" from your brain, and made you able to manipulate the trigger properly? IE: Not worrying about perfect sight alignment allowed you to no jerk the trigger?
We all know propper trigger manipulation is the most important aspect of accurate shooting, followed closely by sight alignment/picture.
Other then that +1 to FTS
Bob
You misunderstand I'm not talking about exchanging accuracy for speed. I would never make that argument.
I'm saying that if properly taught/practiced, point shooting is at least as accurate in addition to being faster. For myself, I'm much more accurate and much faster than I was practicing the traditional methods I learned in the military.
Of course you always try to improve accuracy. That's what practice is all about. I don't practice to miss.
Before Fist-Fire I just went to the range and practiced/practiced and didn't see any noticeable improvement using traditional methods of FSP etc. no matter how many rounds I put downrange.
GSJ -- What I'm reading is that before formal training (not counting the .mil stuff for obvious reasons), you couldn't get better on your own. After you had formal training, you got better.
That's how it's supposed to work, obviously, but that doesn't mean that you should assume everything you were taught played a role in your improvement. I've been taught (multiple times in multiple classes from multiple instructors) how to shoot from a Weaver stance. And while I hope I got something out of each of those classes, shooting Weaver wasn't one of them.
Having said that, I'm the first to admit that if I was given an hour to teach someone to use a handgun well enough to defend himself (hopefully), I probably wouldn't mention the sights. For someone with little or no training and little or no practice time, "point shooting" is all you'll get out of them anyway. That is why, btw, F&S taught point shooting. They had very limited time in which to teach someone to defend himself with a handgun, with no hope of practice or improved training in the foreseeable future.
It's also worth pointing out that CHP (via Lou Chiodo) has proven that there are benefits to training what we're calling "point shooting" early on and then advancing to sighted fire. My guess is that it's sort of the opposite of using dry-fire, but with the same effect:
New shooters have a hard time focusing on the sight and pulling the trigger properly when the gun in their hand keeps exploding, sending a pressure wave and noise and flash of light at their face.
In dry-fire, we eliminate the noise and blast so the student can learn sight alignment and trigger pull properly, then advance to doing it with the big explosion occurring 18 inches from his face.
In point shooting, we eliminate the sights and the requirement (either instructor- or shooter-induced) to deliver pinpoint precision from day one.
But in my experience, fwiw, the people who make a focused effort in improving their sighted fire are the ones who improve the fastest and the farthest. "Point shooting" plateaus quickly and doesn't really enhance your sighted fire ability. But sighted fire is something no one has perfected yet and the more you practice putting the front sight where you want the bullet to land, the more effective you'll be even if you aren't focusing hard on the front sight.
Gutshot John
06-20-08, 19:48
Todd I would never presume to question your experience, methods or your techniques as an instructor. I think to a great extent you are correct. Formal training makes the difference.
To be clear, I believe formal training is ALWAYS necessary and it was DR that convinced me of this. Second my description of my experience has more to do with FIST-FIRE specifically, than point shooting in general. I'm not advocating point-shooting as an end-all-be-all, in fact I'd agree that one must learn to use sights and FWIW DR does too...in fact he's got some of the coolest sight designs I've ever seen.
Let me also say that I realize that there are lots of people here who shoot better than I do. But there were only two things I was trying to say: First point shooting doesn't have to be some super ninja type skill; you don't have to have thousands of rounds of practice before you can even START to think about learning it. IMO Fist-Fire is easier to learn the less you know. Second that point shooting is often taught improperly which is where it understandably elicits skepticism. It behooves me to point out that it can be safe and illustrate that point shooting does NOT equal less accuracy if done properly. Like hunters, bad point shooters make good point shooters look bad. In my experience Fist-Fire formalizes a technique where point shooting can be replicated/taught to virtually anyone. In the process it also improves, grip, index and trigger. At closer ranges I think it makes it much easier to be fast and accurate but others may disagree. If I was taking a longer shot, or had to put a shot past a hostage's head, you bet your ass I'd use the sights.
Do let me correct one impression. I've indeed been to other instructors besides DR, and some who taught front-sight press (or other generic shooting techiniques). In the case of the latter it was essentially the same stuff I was taught in the military, as they were mostly military instructors. :rolleyes: This is not to say they were bad instructors, in fact some have national reputations, but even now I don't see the same level of improvement with them as I do with Fist-Fire. I try to learn "their" way rather than the Fist-Fire way and honestly it's like walking backwards for me...it just feels weird and I'm less accurate.
I had been taught dry-fire in the military, but it wasn't until I had a training routine that it made any difference. Nothing that did anything but incrementally improve with practice. I spent my money on a couple of classes and came out frustrated. I understand and agree with what you say about Weaver. I was never going to spend enough time on the range to be as good as I needed to be, so I pretty much gave up for a while figuring 'I can put sights on a target, I can pull the trigger and I can make it go where I want.' and that's good enough. I wasn't, but I didn't know what I didn't know and at long range slow-fire I was just fine, it was close range that I had the most problems.
When I went to DR, my whole perspective shifted. I've found that with Fist-Fire and refinement of the technique that I saw noticeable improvements in that first day that I never saw in the previous 10 years, but I still had to unlearn some things...I still do. I imagine it would be difficult for more experienced shooters who would likewise feel like they were walking backwards. So the point I guess is, if one is going to go down the point-shoot road, be aware of where you are. If you're comfortable and confident, then you probably will be frustrated. If you're already frustrated, then I think it has a lot to offer. However if a shooter is not going to learn to do it properly...than the shooter is better off using sights.
Am I more confident because I train? or train because I'm more confident? or because I think I am? I don't know...I don't care. The point is I put far more rounds on target, far faster than I've ever been able to do before. Is it point-shooting per se? Only up to a point, the fundamentals grip, stance, index and trigger still apply but I won't dispute that I'm training more. It's just more fun. I train more because I'm less frustrated and so I get better.
Chicken? Egg? Dunno...don't care. :D
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.