Videos show you can repeatedly hit fast moving targets with a hangun. [Archive]

brownie0486

June 8th, 2006, 12:37 AM

Yes, because there's absolutely no need to be concerned about those rounds that miss your target when out on the street!

Justin, I think we all pretty much realize there is need for concern in rds that miss the target, on the street in a real gun battle, maybe more so or maybe less so, it would be situationally dependant, of course.

You have heard and seen the stats that show solely sighted fire trained people miss an extrordinary amount of the time haven't you? You have seen the fed stats on errants rounds and % of misses by LE right over the last several decades haven't you? All trained to use their sights and lots of misses in gun battles on the streets. Those misses go somewhere, and I can't imagine my threat focused misses would be any more prone to killing an innocent than ones missed by someone using their sights.

Now the question may be, does threat focused skills create more misses than sighted fire? Good question, lets take a look at that if we can here.

I shot over 500 rds in two days with HSO from this forum recenly in the Knoxville threat focused course he sponsored for me. I had NO misses all weekend throughout those rds fired. Hmm, I used Quick Kill throughout the course demonstrating the techniques they were introduced to. I shot from the hip, upside down and backwards, from behind my back without turning around during that course as well as got students to do the same thing in short periods of time.

Lets see, no misses on threat for over 500 rds. How much thought needs to go into this idea of missing with threat focused skills if in fact the above is true? Lets also keep in mind I fired at a much faster rate of fire than I could have if I had waited to verify my sights in any way. That means more hits in less time on threat.

Isn't that what we train and practice for, for the street in the real world? It is to me, and I think it is to most who take gun handling skills seriously. It takes training, not an inordinate amount of it either to get people to hit what they are "looking" at, which is the threat, not their sights.

I was also seen demonstrating 2 inch groups with 54 rds through 3 mags out of the G17 from 15 and as far as 21 feet. Think I'm going to miss a threat that presents itself to be 16 x 21 inches in the upper torso on the streetfrom those distances?

I doubt it very much to be quite frank with you. I shoot threat focused skills using two and one handed Quick Kill as well as most people will ever shoot using their sights on the streets. All without ever looking at the gun.

I also know two here who were there in Knoxville who can do the same damned thing on demand now. One is HSO and the other is JMusic. These are not idle claims, read HSO's review of the course we are talking about.

To make fun of threat focused skills because you do not understand how to use them properly and with great effect seems to me to be less than objective in your comments and assessment of those skills.

I assure you, take the sights off any gun you hand me and I'll whack groups as good or better than most on the forums. How can I make that claim? Because I have been at this game for a very long time, and I know what I can do with a gun.

More importantly, I know what I can get others to do with a handgun in very short order. Here's the gun I use quite often when training people in my AO, notice no sights on the gun? :)

Brownie

Justin

June 8th, 2006, 02:07 AM

Brownie, I will readily admit to the following:

The vast bulk of my shooting, roughly 240 rounds per week, is very precise aimed fire.

However, I am not deluded enough to believe that shooting bullseye style is how I would react in a lethal encounter.

A couple of weeks ago, I shot an IDPA match for the first time in several years, and it was the first action-type shooting I'd done since last August.

One of the stages was set up like the picture below.

At the sound of the buzzer, the competitor was to immediately begin moving backwards, draw his pistol, and engage the hostile targets.

I have a vague recollection of drawing my pistol, bringing it up far enough to see a front site, double tapping the right-most target, shuffling back and left while double-tapping the center target, and then continuing the move far enough to see the left-most target before popping my focus back to the front sight, back to the target, and again pulling the trigger twice.

I cleared the stage with a raw time of 4.69, with an adjustment to 5.69 for two penalties right outside of the A zone. Out of twenty shooters, this put me pretty squarely in the middle of the pack, with the fastest raw time being 2.62 and the slowest 9.52.

Certainly not phenomenal shooting, but I was able to score six total hits on three targets while moving laterally backwards, and with no prior practice.

So, yeah, when the situation warrants it, I guess I point shoot. But so what? It seemed like the thing to do at the time.

*shrugs*

I guess I just don't see what all of the fuss is about. If a target's close, become aware of the spatial relationship between you, the pistol, and the target, and pull the trigger. Big whoop. At such close distances and with such large targets I just can't really fathom missing.

brownie0486

June 8th, 2006, 02:18 AM

Please define close for us.

I can shoot groups of 1-2 inches with no sights on the gun at distances of 21 and even out to 30 feet that most would find unbelievable or difficult at best using their sights.

We train people to run laterally against multiple threats at 21 feet and keep 90-95% of their shots at a flat out run on torso both from the left and from the right using QK as the base knowledge to get this done. Not duckwalking, not skipping along but flat out running with the gun.

Your stage didn't give distances to threats just times. If the distances were close by my own standards, I understand why bother to fight to the sights when it is unnecessary.

It's those comments that state once you move much past contact distance that you'll not reliably hit the threat which is pure bull pucky once you have the "trained" skills to do so out to 21-30 feet. There has been so much negativity and resistance to that which has been proven time and again for years that it gets old pretty quick after awhile to listen to that type of talk anymore.

Moving backwards is not an option on the street if you want to stay alive in a gun fight. That stage forcing the shooter to do so you showed us is only setting the shooter up for disaster if repeated on the streets. In reality, those three BG's would have been throwing lead your way simultaneously. Moving rearward does nothing to change their acquisition of you.

So practice aimed fire the bulk of the time and then used some threat focused shooting when pressed for time [ which actually sounded more like front sight press than pointshooting based on your description ].

Don't you then feel that indicates you should practice some threat focused skills in lieu of all aimed precision fire in your practice so you become familiar with what needs to be done to solve street problems when also pressed for time? It would seem logical to me.

"If a target's close, become aware of the spatial relationship between you, the pistol, and the target, and pull the trigger. Big whoop. At such close distances and with such large targets I just can't really fathom missing."

I can't fathom missing out past 21 feet, is that close in your opinion?

Brownie

WeedWhacker

June 8th, 2006, 02:53 AM

So, yeah, when the situation warrants it, I guess I point shoot. But so what? It seemed like the thing to do at the time.

I don't currently practice point shooting (range would kick me out the door, and I've not got a proper setup out in the desert yet), either.
That said, if you do see that point shooting may have a place in certain, specific circumstances... why not spend time practicing? If time is a factor and you don't think its worth the time, then that's a good reason not to practice it... but if someone else has the time and inclination, why do anything other than encourage the behaviour?

More practice generally means more hits... and fewer misses.

bogie

June 8th, 2006, 10:24 AM

Bogie don't run. Laterally or otherwise. I figure if I need to, I'll likely be taking a few days off afterward to let my knees recover.

That said, pay attention to ergonomics.

I'm not going to carry a J-frame .38 or .357. Why? It doesn't point naturally. What works for me is the 1911A1. I _know_ I'll be on target, and if I want to get into fine tuning, it's less effort and less distance to maneuver the sight radius.

Ergonomics. If the gun doesn't fit, don't carry it.

owen

June 8th, 2006, 10:48 AM

bogie,

the problem is that okjoe seems insistent on the idea that learning to use the sights is a waste of time. All you need to do is buy his doodad.

What experience teaches is that you end up instincively using the sights to the degree they are needed.

Am I going to use modified isosoles at 2 yards? Nope.

However as the range increases, the sights become more and more important. Training with the sights, on the clock teaches you the degree to which those sights are needed. Brian Enos has a much better descciption of it in his book.

(watching the video, okjoe does indeed have the gun up between the target and his face...looks like he's looking over the sights to me, not point shooting)

Justin

June 8th, 2006, 01:25 PM

Please define close for us.

When all was said and done, the furthest shot on that particular stage was probably under 15 feet. There were ones that were further out, as well.

I can't fathom missing out past 21 feet, is that close in your opinion?

21 feet? That's all? :confused:

That stage forcing the shooter to do so you showed us is only setting the shooter up for disaster if repeated on the streets.

Something which I am unconcerned with in this instance. The discussion is in regards to point-shooting, and I've offered my experience (which is obviously not negative) with it. I've never been in a gunfight, and, truth be told, had very little defensive training. As a result, I'm not going to put on a patriotically-hued helmet and cape and start talking about how I'm Captain Tacticool.

Dr.Rob

June 8th, 2006, 02:12 PM

Point shooting sure does raise hackles faster than 9mm vs. 45 or what caliber for zombie bears...

It became pretty clear to me in my first few months of IDPA that 'indexing' your target is in fact the first step to point shooting.

Unlaod your weapon or use snap caps or a dummy gun (rules rules rules) post a handful of targets in your space. Study them. Shut your eyes and DRAW on those targets. When you open your eyes is your muzzle on target? If so, you are developing the muscle memory to put the sights on target without thinking... hence at close range you don't need the sights.

There is no training at shooting moving targets like shotgunning. Unfortunately few shotgun ranges allow you to blaze away with your pistol at clays. But shotgunners talk about mounting, swing and follow through as one fluid motion, no matter WHERE your target is.. left right, up, down, coming at you or away.

I've seen some pistoleros do some amazing things, running and gunning fast and accurate. The one thing they all had in common was a lot of practice. Just like good shotgunners.

Mix 'indexing' with practice at moving targets and yes, you too can do some amazing things. Sighted, hipshooting, or at long range.

I still wouldn't take the sights off my pistol though. After accuracy, you can work on speed. You cannot shoot fast enough to make up for a miss.

Justin

June 8th, 2006, 04:51 PM

I think Dr. Rob does a good job of saying what I'm getting at.

There is a place for pretty much any given technique, and I don't understand Brownie's animosity. Especially since I said nothing disparaging about his apparent abilities with a handgun.

It's those comments that state once you move much past contact distance that you'll not reliably hit the threat which is pure bull pucky once you have the "trained" skills to do so out to 21-30 feet.

I never said that. If you can hit a target at 30 feet without even seeing the gun, well, bully for you. I don't understand the need to get so defensive.

All I said in my original post was a criticism of OKjoe's technique. He sees a super-duper sure-fire technique, I see sub-par shooting.

Po-tay-to, Po-tah-to.

brownie0486

June 8th, 2006, 06:15 PM

Justin,

The 21 foot comment was without the use of sights, at thta range I'll not miss as fast as I can pull the trigger. I've kept 22 shots from that sightless 45 on a torso at 60 feet as well [ just to see how far I could extend the Quick Kill shooting ]. I can go further out and some of the aar's on my own site show the student being able to take head size rocks and bust em without the use of sights over 90% of the time.

If the furtherst shot on that stage was under 15 feet, getting a flashsight picture or even looking at the gun is totally unnecessary when you have been shown how to make the hits without looking at the gun..

Something which I am unconcerned with in this instance. The discussion is in regards to point-shooting, and I've offered my experience (which is obviously not negative) with it.

If that is true, I misunderstood your original comment in this thread about the "misses" where pointshooting was concerned, and if you reread my response to that comment, you'll see why I addressed that in that manner. If that was not your intend, I apologize. I was not the only one who took that comment that way however, so perhaps your statement was not as consice as it could have been to convey exactly what you meant by it.

I'm certainly not demonstrating animosity toward anyone here. Simply explaining that those people properly trained to not have to rely on the weapons sights can make called shots into COmM all day long from distances others would think impossible.

I never said that. If you can hit a target at 30 feet without even seeing the gun, well, bully for you. I don't understand the need to get so defensive.

The above seems to need clarification as well. Point shooting is not about whether you can see the gun or not [ which suggests you and perhaps others think pointshooting is all from the hip ]. Threat focused skills [ what others call pointshooting ] is being able to use a gun without looking at it, the focus is on the threat. Not focusing on the threat, back to verify any form of sights in alignment or front sight press work, then back to the threat. It is pure threat focused shooting, never taking you eyes off the threat, and ignoring the gun using any direct visual imput.

Peoples perceptions of exactly what pointshooting is is part of the problem Justin, your perception that I stated I could use QK to 30 feet meant the gun was out of visual range is one of the reasons for half the discussions going downhill like they do on the forums. Pointshooting is not described as just shooting without seeing the gun, it is about where your direct focus is directed when you pull the trigger.

Brownie

444

June 8th, 2006, 06:29 PM

Skip it

okjoe

June 8th, 2006, 06:58 PM

A few notes of clarification, not discussion/argument.

A 9 inch pie pan "gong" hangs in the BB trap behind the newsprint. If you have your volume on and run the videos, you will hear 4 out of 4 hits or 5 out of 5 hits..... And since people are roughly 14-16 x 14-16 or so inches across and up and down, I doubt that a real person would not be hit.

As to precision shooting and small groups, I had not tried to move and shoot a fast moving target before, so I did not expect small groups.

As to regular shooting, one party mentioned here that he shoots 200+ rounds per week.

I shoot 3 or 4 hundred rounds per YEAR.

If I shot more or practiced much, I probably would be accused of being a trick shot artist of some type. A trick shot artist, I am not.

I also do not say "only Point Shoot" or "never use the sights". I use sights with a rifle, and have used rifle quick kill where you do not use the sights.

IMHO, the explanation by the manufacturer of Seecamp pistols, as to why Seecamp pistols come with out sights, addresses this issue appropriately and from a realistic and "legal" perspective. You should check it out.

http://seecamp.com/faq.htm

Home self defenders, do not have the same "liberties" and responsibilities that fall to Police and the Military.

Thank you all for your inputs.

Justin

June 8th, 2006, 07:26 PM

If that is true, I misunderstood your original comment in this thread about the "misses" where pointshooting was concerned, and if you reread my response to that comment, you'll see why I addressed that in that manner.

My comment was directed at joe. Not point-shooting in general. Apologies for the misunderstanding. Again, all honesty, I cannot make criticism of the technique due to lack of personal experience.

If the furtherst shot on that stage was under 15 feet, getting a flashsight picture or even looking at the gun is totally unnecessary when you have been shown how to make the hits without looking at the gun..

Possibly. I didn't think when shooting the stage, It just happened that way.

I'm certainly not demonstrating animosity toward anyone here. Simply explaining that those people properly trained to not have to rely on the weapons sights can make called shots into COM all day long from distances others would think impossible.
I've certainly seen plenty of people do things that are "impossible" with rifles, pistols, and shotguns. It's all a matter of refining something to the point of effective repeatability.

bogie

June 9th, 2006, 12:38 AM

The best thing you can do to improve your overall accuracy with your pistol, besides making sure the dang thing fits (I'm serious about that one...), is to spend a coupla hundred bucks, and maybe more for some gunsmith time if you break something..., and put a LOT of rounds downrange.

Guys - I probably have under 5,000 rounds downrange with a .45... They've just always felt "right" to me...

brownie0486

June 9th, 2006, 01:22 AM

Sort of like----If you don't shoot, you can't shoot. :)

In the last three weeks alone, I've probably got in excess of 2500 rds downrange with the 9mm. Over the last 35 years in excess of a few hundred thousand rds downrange. Thats not as much I'd like to have, but since 81 [ 25 years ago ], 95% of those rds have been downrange using the threat focused skills of Quick Kill.

Took me minutes to learn it in 81, and over time it has only gotten faster to use, not anymore accurate than the day I was shown how to use it. The reason for that is "The mind is the limiting factor". Once you get past having to mentally verify any sight picture of any kind, you can really shoot as fast as you can pull the trigger with QK, your mind learns to not wait for any direct visual verification which slows your potential speed down.

Brownie

thales

June 10th, 2006, 12:54 AM

*

Gentlemen, gentlemen.....

Just ask yourselves, "How many champ shotgun shooters (whether sporting clays, trap, or skeet) use precisely adjusted sights, carefully dope the wind, adjust the elevation, wait until the sights are aligned juuust right and then carefully (don't want to throw off the alignment, y'know) slowly, carefully squeeeze that trigger"?

And how many varmint hunters expect to have any realistic chance of hitting a prairie dog at 400 yards through instinctive point shooting without going through the foregoing ritual?

My humble opinion tells me that a handgun shooter who wants to shoot the eye out of a squirrel at 50 yards better use a scope and a rest and take his time.

It also tells me that a handgun shooter who has a 300 lb badass wielding a tire iron trying to whack his head off better know something about quick draw and point shooting.

But then that's my humble opinion acting up on me again.

*

Mannlicher

June 10th, 2006, 03:41 PM

I just wish I were as tactical and skilled as others here. We have some BAD dudes posting. ;)

SkyGuy

June 10th, 2006, 04:05 PM

Point shooting, aka instinctive shooting, is a simple skill. You just look at the 'threat', point at the threat and shoot.
The closer the threat, the easier it is to hit. :)

With basic handgun skills and some quality instruction nearly anyone should be able to draw and hit somewhere on a stationary, life size target at 20ft or less....in about a second.....for four hundred bucks.

But, lotsa 'practice' is what makes perfect. :)
.

brownie0486

June 10th, 2006, 09:42 PM

Skyguy,

I understand you yourself train people in firearms skills. You mentioned you did on another forum yourself, so I have it on good authority this is correct.

Please provide your contact information here publicly, and when I may be able to come to your location for this training. Your insight in this subject warrants my request, always willing to be trained by the best.

Please provide the cost of this training, the location, when your next class is being held, the name of the school you run for all of us here. I'm sure there are others who would very much like to get the training you provide to the public.

Brownie

Sam

June 11th, 2006, 01:11 AM

Come on down and I'll give you a chance to hit fast moving targets with a handgun.
I got jackrabbits aplenty for you to practice on. I can get 6-8 out of 50 shots.:D How bout you?

Sam

ctdonath

June 11th, 2006, 01:48 AM

If you shoot a life threat 4 or so times, they will probably stop and/or die."You can't miss fast enough." Sorry, when my life is on the line, I want the FIRST shot to work with maximum probability - not the 4th. If the 2nd COM shot hasn't dropped him, it's on to a full Mozambique - not the 3rd & 4th or more attempts at the same general area. Sighted fire only takes a fraction of a second longer, and is far more likely to stop the fight right there.

Its main strength IMO is the fact you focus on the target or threat at all times. Most people do this anyway when under high stress situations such as gunfights. And...they usually miss. Those that use the sights usually hit.

I frankly don't understand the bitterness displayed toward anyone that talks positively of point shooting.The bitterness comes from frustration at the propogation of ignorance. If your sights are not on the target, YOU WON'T HIT IT. Without that positive visual feedback, you don't know where a lethal projectile is going!!!

Point shooting, as commonly understood, forgoes visual feedback confirming targeting. You don't know where that gun is actually pointed, a problem exacerbated by high-stress situations where your body is not doing things exactly the same way as in training. In other words:
POINT SHOOTING VIOLATES RULES #3 AND #4: KEEP YOUR FINGER OFF THE TRIGGER UNTIL THE SIGHTS ARE ON THE TARGET, and KNOW YOUR TARGET AND WHAT IS BEYOND.
While breaking one rule will grant safety via the other three, breaking half the rules is a recipie for disaster.

You have heard and seen the stats that show solely sighted fire trained people miss an extrordinary amount of the time haven't you?That's precisely because those people didn't use the sights! Regardless of their training, they simply didn't do what they were told & practiced to. Those who DO use their sights in a gunfight consistently report very satisfactory results.

Lets see, no misses on threat for over 500 rds.We'll grant that those who train enormously are indeed capable of great feats. Through extensive training, you may very well be able to hit what you want under duress without sights. I have to wonder how much you trained and how much innate ability you possess - substantial on both, I assume.

So long as a very simple rule is remembered and observed when needed, I can impart comparable skill to a newbie much faster: "line up the sights on the target (here's what it looks like), and pull the trigger". It works. It provides positive feedback prior to launching a lethal round downrange.

And at close enough ranges, the margins for error may add up to an acceptable hit ratio. Problem is, unless those sights are lined up and you visually confirm prior to pulling that trigger, you just don't know for sure; pulling that trigger might introduce some error, but you'll get that regardless.

I want that first shot to work. I don't want a miss. If that target is still standing there, I don't want it to be a failure of appropriate shot placement.

brownie0486

June 11th, 2006, 02:23 AM

[B]Quote:
Its main strength IMO is the fact you focus on the target or threat at all times. Most people do this anyway when under high stress situations such as gunfights.

And...they usually miss. Those that use the sights usually hit.

Agreed, it's called spray and pray and has nothing to do what-so-ever with threat focused skills. They are worlds apart in their effectiveness on threats.

If your sights are not on the target, YOU WON'T HIT IT. Without that positive visual feedback, you don't know where a lethal projectile is going!!!

I beg to differ, I use a 45 in training others, see the picture that has NO sights on it at all in my previous post?, and can call the shots on threat quite nicely, and the hit ratio is up near 98% from quite extended distances with that one gun with speed. How could that be possible with a gun with no sights if your statement was true?:)

Point shooting, as commonly understood, forgoes visual feedback confirming targeting.

Again, not correct. There are two kinds of potential visual input which we all possess. Direct and peripheral. Quick Killl uses peripheral visual feedback and is a threat focused skill [ commonly known as pointshooting by others ].

POINT SHOOTING VIOLATES RULES #3 AND #4: KEEP YOUR FINGER OFF THE TRIGGER UNTIL THE SIGHTS ARE ON THE TARGET, and KNOW YOUR TARGET AND WHAT IS BEYOND.

If I violate rule 3, does that mean I can't hit anything? I do so with that 45 shown all the time.

If I have direct focus on the threat and not 18 inches in front of my face, I CAN see what is beyond it much easier than direct fous on the sights. Try driving your car and looking at the front of the hood going 60, and then drive like you normally do looking out over the road in front of you. Which do you think has the better chance of "knowing" what is out beyond your arms length?

We'll grant that those who train enormously are indeed capable of great feats.

Having been trained to be one of what the world considers to be the sharpest sighted fire shooters known on this planet [ a U.S. Marine ], I picked up the threat focused skills in 5 minutes in 1981 and there was NO degradation of hit rate %'s at combat distances with a hangun or rifle using Quick Kill.

I just trained 12 people for two days in Knoxville, the thread is in this section on the HR, perhaps you missed the reviews of what people were doing in 15 minutes without looking at the gun? No enormous amount of training, just being shown HOW to use the skills they already possessed. Students of that class would seem to disagree with your statement here. They have the knowledge now and speak from their personal experiences within the threat focused realm.

So long as a very simple rule is remembered and observed when needed, I can impart comparable skill to a newbie much faster:

I beg to differ, and I train people in both sighted and threat focused skills, and have for a couple of decades now. Perception becomes reality, but no always the truth.

And at close enough ranges, the margins for error may add up to an acceptable hit ratio. Problem is, unless those sights are lined up and you visually confirm prior to pulling that trigger, you just don't know for sure

There is NO acceptable hit ratio on the streets except 100%. Errant rounds, whether they are from threat focused skills, sighted fire or spray and pray can not/must not be considered acceptable.

I want that first shot to work. I don't want a miss.

I want my first shot to work as well, but as we know there is no magic bullet and we are never guaranteed a first shot stop [ working ]. My own thoughts are that if someone deserves one, they are getting three. Spilts between them usually run around .21-.25 seconds. Thats 3 shots/hits in 3/4 of a second.

I don't want to miss on the streets or the range either, I think that goes for all of us if we are prudent, don't you?

Now take a close look at the 45 I use in my previous post, and attempt to magine how I can hit anything with no sights on the gun if what you have written is true about the sights having to be on the target?

Simply, if you have not been trained formally in threat focused methodologies, and you attempt to use the gun without verifying your sights as you have always done previously, you are not then using threat focused skills, you are using spray and pray. That's not what I train others in, and students hit what they intend to hit with Quick Kill in very short periods of time.

There is no right or wrong here, only facts based on personal knowledge and experiences, not from the lack thereof.

Brownie

okjoe

June 11th, 2006, 12:00 PM

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=203291

This is the link to the threat focused training AAR.

..........

And to repeat part of my note of clarification, not discussion/argumentation, which is close to the top of this page:

A 9 inch pie pan "gong" hangs in the BB trap behind the newsprint. If you have your volume on and run the videos, you will hear 4 out of 4 hits or 5 out of 5 hits..... And since people are roughly 14-16 x 14-16 or so inches across and up and down, I doubt that a real person would not be hit.

..............

Just ran accross this link which address this "issue":

http://www.jamesakeating.com/maajak9.html

ctdonath

June 11th, 2006, 01:16 PM

I've been through this argument before with others, and don't have time to carry it on again.

Suffice to say:
- If the sights are not lined up on the target (whether or not you check if they are), then the barrel is not pointing at the target, and you won't hit the target. Period.

- Anything less than a full visual sight picture before firing means you don't know for absolue certain that you're launching a deadly projectile at exactly what you intend to hit. It's :cuss: irresponsible.

- The various forms of "point shooting" amount to fudging probabilities, overlapping standard deviations and trying to keep sloppy shooting within a "good enough" range. It's still sloppy shooting.

- Hand-eye coordination can indeed be trained to an exceptional degree. Without positive feedback, you still aren't exactly sure - there is no way to preemptively know "oops!"

- Yes, the fight may be close enough & fast enough that the precision of sighted fire may be excessive - a "can't miss" distance. Yet - people still miss because they don't sight then.

- No professional shooters use "point shooting" as policy. No serious competition shooters use "point shooting". Even shotgunners line up the barrel & bead on the target (then proceed to launch dozens of projectiles across an area of effect). Those who seriously count on results use sights.

- Every blurb I've read about point shooting sounds like snake oil, right down to the "instant", "superior", "magical" and other BS adjectives.

- The only time sighted fire fails is when the shooter fails to sight before firing - i.e.: switches to "point shooting" at the moment of truth.

Irresponsible :cuss: :banghead: :fire: ...

JMusic

June 11th, 2006, 01:26 PM

I recently participated in a Brownies Threat Focused course here in Knoxville. As I watch yet another thread go to hell discussing this topic I would like to make a few observations. We had a mix of people at our seminar from civilians with revolvers to LEO's who were looking for some tools to use in their every day work. To a single person not one was disappointed in the skills they aquired and what they were able to do with a firearm.

Some comments on this thread talk about fear of stray shots from using "point shooting". You are more likely to fire stray shots from inadequate training than any "point shooting" course you will take. Sighted fire under stress at close range is not usually used. Sighted fire under stress is not usually thought about. Shooting back is what is thought about, or running.:D Therefore you spray and pray whole backpeddeling, both bad things to do. Watch video's of LEO's who end up surprised in a traffic stop next time and see what happens.

Ladies and Gentleman I use sighted fire and unsighted fire. It is part of being a complete shooter. Take care.
Jim

SkyGuy

June 11th, 2006, 02:25 PM

In the scheme of things, both sight shooting and pointshooting have their place.
But, sighted fire is near impossible in a close encounter and point shooting degrades exponentially as distances increase.

The highly practiced 'sight' shooter will go for the sights out of habit and the highly practiced 'point' shooter will point shoot out to relative ineffectiveness. Both techniques, when out of their realm, come up insufficient.

For example, and applicable to 'both' techniques, a mere 1/4" deviation of the gun barrel results in a 16" POI deviation on a 20' distant stationary target.

So, in a practiced, quick draw-point shoot situation....and excluding all other stress variables....at 20', if the barrel comes up a 1/4" to the right of dead center-com the POI will be 16" to the right. A very bad shot.
Now extrapolate that! :)

Worthwhile handgun self defense training should be uncomplicated and involve the smooth transit from arm's length distance to disengagement distance.
The training should include movement to cover and various stationary, moving, bobbing and shoot/no shoot targets.

The training is 'seriously deficient' if it does 'not' include shooting in low light, darkness, over/under/around cover and awkward positions.
A correctly trained SD shooter will relentlessly outperform both the sight shooter and the point shooter. That's a fact!

It bugs me to see the way both techniques are touted as the end-all, be-all solution.....when all it takes is a bit of common sense to understand that both techniques are just pieces of the greater SD puzzle. Neither being absolutes, both being complimentary opposites.

Bottom line is, unless you're hooked on training, learn to basically sight shoot, point shoot and incorporate 21st century technology into your real life training regimen.
.

sacp81170a

June 11th, 2006, 03:01 PM

It bugs me to see the way both techniques are touted as the end-all, be-all solution.....when all it takes is a bit of common sense to understand that both techniques are just pieces of the greater SD puzzle. Neither being absolutes, both being complimentary opposites.

LOL. This reminds me of the endless arguments in the martial arts world between the styles that emphasize kicking versus the styles that emphasize hand technique or any "us vs. them" controversy.

SkyGuy, you have *so* hit the nail on the head. My department practices both sighted shooting from 25 yards all the way in to shooting from the hip (retention position) at 3 yards. I can put all my shots in the "A" zone at 25 yards in not much more time than it takes me to put all my shots in the "A" zone at 3 yards. Both skills are necessary, and anyone who neglects one because he considers the other to be superior is depriving him or herself of a useful tool.

We shoot strong hand, weak hand, draw with strong hand and weak hand, shoot from awkward positions, around and through obstacles to learn projectile behavior, etc. All necessary skill sets for survival. To all you point shooters, have you ever set a target up 12 inches from a flat cinder block wall and shot at a slight angle to the wall from 25 yards? Try it, you'll be amazed at how magically your bullets find the target when they glance off the wall a few feet in front of the target. It'll also teach you to stay the hell away from flat walls. Same thing with the flat surfaces of vehicles.

Just my $.02 worth, YMMV, DTTAH, etc.

brownie0486

June 11th, 2006, 03:20 PM

Skyguy,

The highly practiced 'sight' shooter will go for the sights out of habit and the highly practiced 'point' shooter will point shoot out to relative ineffectiveness

Absolutely incorrect. The "highly practiced" pointshooter knows exactly when he needs to use his sights and does so for the very simple reason he is highly practiced. Not one threat focused shooter thats ever posted on the net or written narrative in a book, has ever indicated they would not be thinking sights, nor would not use their sights when time and distance dictate they can do so within the parameters of a SD situation.

Not one threat focused shooter who posts around the error-net has ever indicated they are strictly a "pointshooter" as well, suggesting that they do know how to use their sights, recommed using them when necessary. Your assumption/stated opinion in the above italics is simply another form of misinformation put forth through lack of understanding that side of the equation.

For example, and applicable to 'both' techniques, a mere 1/4" deviation of the gun barrel results in a 16" POI deviation on a 20' distant stationary target.

"So, in a practiced, quick draw-point shoot situation....and excluding all other stress variables....at 20', if the barrel comes up a 1/4" to the right of dead center-com the POI will be 16" to the right. A very bad shot.
Now extrapolate that! :)

A 1/4" deviation from the intended mark at one foot from the muzzle would extrapolate to being 5" at 20 feet. Better re-extrapolate your calculations there.:rolleyes:

1 inch off at 300 feet would only be off another inch at 600 feet, commonly known as minute of angle.

A correctly trained SD shooter will relentlessly outperform both the sight shooter and the point shooter. That's a fact!

A "correctly" trained SD shooter? My own thought is that it is not a matter of "correctly" trained, but more a matter of well trained SD shooter, and a well trained shooter is both a sighted fire and threat focused shooter.

It bugs me to see the way both techniques are touted as the end-all, be-all solution.....when all it takes is a bit of common sense to understand that both techniques are just pieces of the greater SD puzzle.

Every threat focused advocate has alwasy stated both sighted and unsighted skills are necesaary based on a time/distance equation in SD. There is no end-all, be-all to the threat focused world, but there is plenty of evidence to the contrary where sighted fire proponents are concerned.

Now when can we expect your contact information as requested, so that I and others can make arrangements to get some of your own considerable training knowledge under our belts? You did state you trained people in shooting pistols, I'd like to make arrangements to get this training.

Has anyone actually written an after action review of your training stating the time, the specific techniques they learned, place of venue and how they thought the course of instruction went? Please provide this information for us.

Brownie

brownie0486

June 11th, 2006, 03:30 PM

To all you point shooters, have you ever set a target up 12 inches from a flat cinder block wall and shot at a slight angle to the wall from 25 yards?

sacp81170a:

Why yes, I have:D . The training was in 1981, some 25 years ago at Powder Springs, Ga. They were called "rabbit rounds" when we learned that skill.

Can you tell us the largest degree of angle the gun can be from those walls to reliably make the hit? Can you tell us how the bullet acts upon making contact with the wall from the widest to the narrowest angles? Can you tell me how far along the wall the bullet will travel after touching it before it moves off the wall again at various angles?

Can you tell us how the bullets will act based on velocities on impact? The differences between an 870fps 45 ball and a 9mm at 1050fps. The differences of the angles experienced between the two?

Have you ever tried the same thing on brick walls, wood walls? We had that training as well back then, but what does that have to do with this discussion?

Brownie

LawDog

June 11th, 2006, 04:13 PM

A 1/4" deviation from the intended mark at one foot from the muzzle would extrapolate to being 5" at 20 feet. Better re-extrapolate your calculations there.

Re-read his quote:if the barrel comes up a 1/4" to the right of dead center-com

He is quite clearly referring to a quarter-inch deviation of the muzzle. Not a quarter-inch deviation on the target.

LawDog

brownie0486

June 11th, 2006, 04:19 PM

LawDog:

He is quite clearly referring to a quarter-inch deviation of the muzzle. Not a quarter-inch deviation on the target.

That still extrapolates to 5 inches, not 16 as he stated. Placing the muzzle on the target, moving it 1/4 inch to either side and then holding that deviation moving back 20 feet will not produce 16" off center, but 5".

Brownie

SkyGuy

June 11th, 2006, 04:39 PM

He is quite clearly referring to a quarter-inch deviation of the muzzle. Not a quarter-inch deviation on the target.

LawDog

That's right. A 1/4" deviation at the muzzle angles out to about 16" POI off the intended dead center at 20'.
Or is it 20" at 20'. :)

LOL Gettin that damn oldtimers disease.
Whichever it is, it just ain't a good thing when point shooting.
.

Dr.Rob

June 11th, 2006, 05:04 PM

"Took me minutes to learn it in 81, and over time it has ONLY gotten faster to use, NOT anymore accurate than the day I was shown how to use it."

Shouldn't you get faster AND more accurate over time?

Learned in just FIVE minutes? That's why it sounds like snake oil when you try to sell it. I've seen point shooting, don't deny it's effective.

Don't know how I'd teach anyone to 'snap shoot' with a rifle or shotgun or handgun in just 5 minutes if they weren't already very well versed in the use of arms.

Justin

June 11th, 2006, 05:40 PM

A 9 inch pie pan "gong" hangs in the BB trap behind the newsprint. If you have your volume on and run the videos, you will hear 4 out of 4 hits or 5 out of 5 hits..... And since people are roughly 14-16 x 14-16 or so inches across and up and down, I doubt that a real person would not be hit.

Joe, correct me if I'm wrong, but you have posted pictures of static targets that you've shot at the range that had misses on them.

Not misses as in shots that were outside of the scoring rings, but that missed the paper altogether.

How you qualify that as satisfactory shooting is utterly beyond me, and your posturing as someone with a valid technique, despite his utter lack of practice, sets my teeth on edge.

I'm sorry, but your "technique" is as sloppy as it is dangerous. Even with your little assistive device, the accuracy of your shots is utterly beyond acceptability for shooting on a static range under ideal conditions, especially for someone who continuously toutes themselves as having a valid technique to teach. Maybe it just makes me a big ego freak, but, quite frankly, I expect people who claim to be teachers to actually have skills above and beyond those that I, a potential student, possess.

Your shooting is innacurate even at close ranges, and, quite frankly, the other point-shooting advocates on this board would do well to distance themselves from you.

brownie0486

June 11th, 2006, 06:50 PM

Sky1,

That's right. A 1/4" deviation at the muzzle angles out to about 16" POI off the intended dead center at 20'.
Or is it 20" at 20'. :)

You are going to try to continue to convince us that 1/4" deviation at the muzzle is going to move the bullets trajectory 1" for every foot the bullet travels? Not hardly, anymore than the bullets trajectory would be off 3/4" of an inch in 1 foot at your stated 16" off center of POA.

Dr Rob,

Shouldn't you get faster AND more accurate over time? More accurate? I could do exactly what was stated in one of the aar's here recently within minutes of learning Quick Kill at McDaniel's hands. Here's what people actually saw me do, and just for edification and clarity, two cops in the class did the same thing opening their full mag total group with QK to 1.25 and 1.375 inches at 15 feet.

Here's the paragraph from HSO's review:

Brownie was much quicker and far more accurate as would be expected, but it gave us an example of what could be further accomplished with practice. Heck, he snapped shot after shot from the draw that made tight little groups of holes in the targets with amazing ease.

and this excerpt from another review by HSO:

we had folks that were producing groups of 1 and 2 inches at ranges of 12-15 feet using 2 hand QK shot at our own pace (not me, I grouped in the 4-6 in. range{Brownie scolded me for shooting too fast} ). Brownie showed us that he could make one ragged hole over and over again at that range and at further distances.

Don't know how I'd teach anyone to 'snap shoot' with a rifle or shotgun or handgun in just 5 minutes if they weren't already very well versed in the use of arms.

Well, there you go. You don't know and I do, it's pretty simple really. Here's an except from Sports Illustrated back in 1968 on the man "Lucky" McDaniel and how he could get people to hit small objects in the air in minutes.

The article was titled "Shooting by Instinct," here's the excerpt from the author named Kane:

"he taught me, in little more than an hour, to shoot with such marvelous accuracy that soon I was hitting crawling beetles and tossed pennies with a BB [pellet] gun, with scarcely ever a miss. The first time I ever wore a pistol I was able to draw it and hit a pine cone in the road, at a distance of some 20 feet, six times out of six, shooting from the hip. "

"This occurs in an incredibly few minutes, usually under a half hour. During that time the shooter has been kept very busy. Lucky gives him no time to think about what he is doing, no time to theorize, no time to tense up. Targets are tossed in fast succession while Lucky keeps up a patter of suggestion pretty much implying that this is just about the brightest pupil he ever has taught. The pupil is inclined to think so, too."

"A true McDaniel follower will go so far as to have the sights removed from his weapons because they are a hindrance to him. He will point rifle or pistol as naturally as he could point a finger, pretty much as good shotgunners do: Looking at what he wants to hit and quite disregarding the cant of his weapon or the state of his breathing, he pulls the trigger. He does not squeeze the trigger. He might even slap it, as shotgunners sometimes do. That is all. He hits the target, which may be a flying dime or an Alka-Seltzer tablet tossed into the air by Lucky."

Having never trained with McDaniel, you would NOT be well versed to be able to understand or make an educated statement as to the time it takes or the effectiveness of Quick Kill. On the other hand I was trained by McDaniel personally, and so can discuss this through experience and first hand knowledge over the last 25 years of performing Quick Kill.

So, we see what was written in 1968 about it, and we see reviews here of the recent training in the same techniques which mirror the information reported some 37-38 years later.

Hard to argue with first hand reports then or now I would think, whether you don't know how or not. Others like myself, do know how and are getting students squared away in very short time frames of training in the system of Quick Kill.

It' that simple, you and others can believe what is written about the system and wonder how, or you and others can be involved in the training I provide and see for yourself like HSO and others here did recently.

There's NO question as the effectiveness, accuracy or speed that can be attained in short order. Only those unwilling to accept that which they find hard to believe in the face of facts presented will continue to argue the point.

Edited to add: Just let me point out once again that I was observed holding 1-2 inch groups at 15 feet and beyond without the use of sights, the gun below the line of sight between the nose and chin, with a full mag of 9mm in the G17 by students. The best group was just one inch and several groups of 17 rds were spread at 1 1/8 to 1 1/4 " extreme center to center on the bullet holes.

I suppose if we now take what Sky1 assumes, to heart, about the muzzle not being able to be a 1/4" off from center when the gun is fired or we create holes that are 16-20 inches off the mark of COM, that this Quick Kill must be letting students shoot superbly accurate for those groups to have occured with students when asked to repeatedly keep the rds as close as possible. ALL without looking at the sights or the gun.

Edited to add this from a review of a student this summer as well:

Brownie settled me down, and we tried some drills to accomplish this...it worked. I was shooting a rock, 12" in diameter at 60yds....did I mention no sights!!! 90% hits...the shots that did not hit were real close, enough to make that rock jump if it had legs.

I wonder what the deviation of the barrel from COM was for this shooter to be able to make this happen at 10 times the distance Sky1 mentioned of around 7 yards. :D When he says "did I mention no sights!!! , take that literally please, he arrived with NO sights on his own glock 17 for the two days of training with me.

Brownie

brownie0486

June 11th, 2006, 07:22 PM

BTW Skyguy,

When are you going to let the members in on where we can get this training you provide with contact information?. I can provide your own statements in quotes from another forum if you'd like, as a reminder, of the training you state you provide.

Looking for pricing, location and contact information from you. I have three people who will come in for that training as soon as you provide us the required contact information and dates you are available.

Brownie

okjoe

June 12th, 2006, 12:09 AM

Justin,

You are welcome to pick on me because I am not a shootist or a trainer.

I also have been and still am very critical of some police training past practices, and those who support them, based on real world results in terms of the death and injury of Police Officers.

Keep in mind that the stats on hits on BGs, by those trained to use their sights, is < 20%.

And of those trained to use their sights, the vast majority said that they didn't use them.

Are you unaware of those facts?

..........

One of these days I may start a thread on, what's the big deal about being trained by one who has BTDT? , or what does having BTDT have to do with altering training policies and tactics as related to CQB effectiveness?

The answer to both questions is IMHO, not much.

.........

All I say is that PS works and works very well and even by a seldom if ever shooters like me, given my 400 or so rounds per year, compared with your 10 or 12 K per year.

So relax. The world is not about to end.

..........

And, even my misses (since I use "small" targets), should still hit any BG in front of me given home defender and practical handgun shooting distances.

..........

Went out to the garage today, hung up a sheet, and threw small small balls up in the air and shot at them at 8 - 10 feet. The airsoft pistol used, doesn't shoot that precisely at all. So, not much success. Shot 20 or 30 times in total.

Couldn't tell if the balls were deflected in the air.

Will secure some nerf balls, and try that as they are lighter and may react better to the very light BB's.

I was able to effectively shoot at a 3 inch hollow plastic ball on the ground and hit it with about 1 out of three shots with my imprecise gun. (That's around a 33% hit rate on a 3 inch target) I imagine its just finding around with the right mix of balls and gun, and improving the lighting from not so good to better.

Of course, practice could probably increase my success rate even using the same gun.

The bottom line IMHO, is that PS is simplier than sight shooting, and takes less time to acquire and shoot at a target.

So, it sould garner better results than traditional training methods in CQB situations. Even a 30% hit rate would be a 50% increase in effectiveness.

And since P&S is the simplest of methods, and also can be used to enhance -> ALL <- other shooting techinques if a gun is appropriate to its use, IMHO, it should be considered by home defenders.

It also can be learned with little or no training. It is effective and the technique can be maintained with little if any practice.

..........

I also understand that you have not been trained via an instructor or via self training in either QK or P&S.

If that is true, I find it odd that you denigrate a method about which you really are unaware of in terms of a reasonable amount of "hands on" testing that you would be willing to write up and sign your name too.

However, you have a lot of company in the world of the gun.

..........

Lastly, here's a few questiona for you:

Do you have confidence in using Sight Shooting in a CQB situations??

And if so, why do you think you will have a better result than thousands of police officers, who I am sure with the best of intentions, since their life was in jeapordy, and following their training as best they could, achieved only a 20% hit rate?

Or is a 20% hit rate Ok with you?

LawDog

June 12th, 2006, 12:15 AM

Actually, if my somewhat rusty trigonometry skills haven't gone totally paws up -- and if a 0.25" deviation comes out to 2.4 degrees -- then at 240 inches (20 feet) you'd have a shift of ten inches and some change.

Two degree deviation would be 8.4 inches, three degrees would be 12.5 inches and 3.2 degree deviation would come up to 13 and change -- all at 20 feet.

3.8 degree shift would put you at 16 inches at 20 feet.

The shorter the pistol, the more degrees are covered by a quarter-inch shift.

*shrug*

Pretty much a word problem from high-school trig, although someone a little closer to math class may want to check my figuring.

So much for that.

So.

Is this thread going to continue to devolve into a fire-hydrant-marking contest, or is going to head back towards the high road somewhere?

LawDog

brownie0486

June 12th, 2006, 01:01 AM

LawDog,

Assuming your trig is correct, it would mean that my 1 inch 17 shot group at 21 feet would then mean that my deviation of muzzle, without looking at the gun at that distance was somewhere around what?--1/10th of .25 inches at the muzzle for 17 consecutive shots?

The calculator tells me that 1/10 of 1/4 [ .25 deviation ]" is what .025 of an inch at the muzzle or less for ALL shots? I think that pretty much clears things up nicely that threat focused skills can be counted on, once trained how to use themto make the hits quite nicely in short periods of time.

That doesn't, nor wold ever be considered spray and pray, hope for the best hail mary shots. Lets assume for all intents and purposes that the groups were no larger than 10 inches by all students within 21 feet with speed.

No student was outside that .25 deviation of muzzle with threat focused skills all weekend once they understood the techniques they were trained in. Pretty good results by anyones standards, No?

The High Road should probably be taken by those who are arguing that threat focused skills are "snake oil" or that it is impossible to know where your shots are going [ meaning one would not be able to keep all shots within that .25 deviation at 21 feet without divine intervention ];) without using ones sights and the verification in their alignment.

I've provided quite a bit of documentation to the contrary here. Documentation that may fly in the face of probablilities to some, but are facts that are indisputable nonetheless. The only way for those who don't believe the training brings people to levels of proficiency as stated in the times stated would be for those same people to deny the truth or suggest the students after action reviews are total lies solely for the propagation of the same.

How this will turn out is up to the people who don't understand the skills others are capable of, by those who will continue to deny the facts put forth in the AAR's, or the people who won't accept that because they can't or don't know how to perform at the stated levels using threat focus that it can't be possible.

People write opinions based on the lack of knowledge here where this subject is concerned. Those who know what they can do through the threat focused training first hand are not the people who argue against the possibilities within everyones capabilities once they are shown the way. In other words, the people who argue against the skills that can be performed using theat focus just don't know what they don't know.

Brownie

SkyGuy

June 12th, 2006, 02:10 AM

3.8 degree shift would put you at 16 inches at 20 feet.

Thanks for your input, Lawdog. I'll serve the crow. :)

A 4 1/4" commander barrel angled 1/4" is, indeed, 3.8 degrees which apparently calcs out to a 16" deviation at 20 ft.
But for those who don't like math, the use of a simple laser easily illustrates the deviations that occur at distance with very slight barrel movements.

With that said :)......nearly anyone with basic handgun skills should be able to quickly learn to point shoot a decent group from 3ft up to car length distances (15-20ft).

Worthwhile handgun self defense training should be uncomplicated and involve the smooth transit from arm's length distance to disengagement distance.

It is important that training includes movement to cover and various stationary, moving, bobbing and shoot/no shoot targets.
Training is 'seriously deficient' if it does 'not' include shooting in low light, darkness, over/under/around cover and awkward positions.
.

brownie0486

June 12th, 2006, 02:33 AM

Come on Skyguy,

You are on the high road, take it, and give us some contact information. Surely one with your talent and penchant with handguns whose a trainer in his own right can't allow your reputation to be compromised by not providing us with a way to connect with you to get this training.

I don't know of any professional trainer who would continuously refuse/ignore requests from prospective students to give out contact information so you can be contacted for training.

t is important that training includes movement to cover and various stationary, moving, bobbing and shoot/no shoot targets.
Training is 'seriously deficient' if it does 'not' include shooting in low light, darkness, over/under/around cover and awkward positions.
.

You keep mentionining this aspect of training. I and others have to assume you train people in these very skills, otherwise you would be admittting to being deficinet in some way yourself as a trainer. I'm asking for contact information to receive these very invaluable skills you seem to suggest you provide.

I would also like to thank you for bringing to everyones attention that a 1/4" deviation is nothing to worry about where threat focused skills are concerned anymore than sighted fire with it's inherent accuracy.

People hold 4-8 inch groups at the most at 20 feet all the time, most in the last class hovered at 4-6 inches, 8 being the largest standard grouping and or less in the class for two days of high speed shooting without the use of sights.

Seems your point of deviations of a 1/4 inch and worrying about threat focused skills not being able to stay well within that limit are unfounded from the reviews of many many students, and the list keeps on growing. We must be doing something very well to keep the students on track and never having to worry about looking at the gun.

I would not have thought about deviation had it not been for your remarks, which seem to now be irrelevant to either sighted or unsighted fire, training and their respective incumbent results.

Brownie

MAURICE

June 12th, 2006, 03:03 AM

I do not claim to be an expert, but I thought I would throw my .02 in here.
When we qual at work (AR Dept of Correction) we shoot at targets from 2 yards to 50 yards, using either a S&W .357 or Glock G22 pistols. Every time we have shot (either for quals or at the instructor school) the fastest times (at 2-7 yards) have been those who simply draw and fire from the hip. At that distance any difference in accuracy is minimal. When you have 12 seconds to fire 6 rounds, dump, reload, and fire 6 more with one of the wheelguns (most of the time with no speedloader), shooting from the hip is what will get you in under the time limit.
The instructors and supervisors prefer you do it this way anyway at close distances just for the sake of weapons retention.

Personally, I prefer to point shoot at close targets.

bogie

June 12th, 2006, 10:18 AM

Guys, I think that we're getting a little anal here. We're not talking about ones and zeroes. It isn't black and white.

Careful aiming has its place. Point shooting has its place.

If all you do is practice bullseye aiming, if you have some guy running at you and he's 5 yards away, you don't have time to screw with sight alignment, and all that. Likewise, if you're into just point shooting, and some doof is popping rounds at you and your family from behind a car door 30 yards off, well, point shooting just isn't a valid means of engagement.

Practice. Practice. Practice. In all ways.

Guys, I shoot a lot. But I don't shoot a .45 all that much. Like I said, probably under 5,000 rounds... But I carry one. Ergonomically, it just clicked. I can deal with the sights regardless, but point shooting requires muscle memory, and it _really_ helps to start with a gun that fits you, rather than require that you adapt to fit the gun. Since I started playing with point shooting last year, I've run about 1,500 rounds through the .45s, and I'm fairly comfortable with 'em - That's the main thing. I won't carry a J-frame, even if it is just purely easily light, for one reason: At 7 yards, without using the sights, I naturally shoot about knee height instead of chest height. The word here is "naturally." If I'm using the sights, I'm on, but I don't want to _have_ to use the sights...

Nothing is magic. Everything requires practice. I know I've run well over 5,000 rounds of .22s down a pair of Ciener kits... And I shoot a few thousand benchrest rounds every year.

sturmruger

June 12th, 2006, 04:06 PM

from Dictionary.com
pros·e·ly·tize

1. To induce someone to convert to one's own religious faith.
2. To induce someone to join one's own political party or to espouse one's doctrine.

I believe that PS has it's place so we do agree on that, but I am sooo sick of the PS believers trying to convert the rest of us like we are lost sheep or something. Why not stop saying how much better your way is and start talking about how sight shooting and point shooting both have a place in defensive gun uses. It seems to me that only the proselytizing PS advocates want it one way the rest of us are open to either technique. Next thing you know you guys are going to put up a big tent, and start having altar calls.

brownie0486

June 12th, 2006, 05:07 PM

As HSO has gratiously allowed me to use this phrase-------

"The problems drive the solutions"

When time is short, and distances moderate, threat focused skills are the solution to the problem.

Recently while training a class in Easton, Pa., I asked the students at the end of the first day if a person who could effectively use threat focused skills through proper training as well as the sights was well rounded. They all answered in the affirmative.

I then asked them if a person who was not well versed in threat focused skills was well rounded, and they all said no.

I agree with their assessement. Now ask yourself, are you well rounded in your SD skills with a firearm? Only you can answer that question, the students all seem to think after the formal training they are, and come to the realization that before that training they just thought they were.

It's not what people know, it's what they think they know that becomes their reality.

Brownie

SkyGuy

June 12th, 2006, 08:21 PM

I am sooo sick of the PS believers trying to convert the rest of us like we are lost sheep or something.

Really man, just how much can be said about point shooting? lol
It's an amazingly simple skill to learn! It's the practice that counts.

Read enough of these touting posts and you realize that it's all about the money. ;)
.

Dr.Rob

June 12th, 2006, 08:39 PM

Well if ANY idiot can learn it in five minutes, put your money where your mouth is.

You want to convince the masses here?

Offer this training, free of charge, to a handful of THR members and let's get their feedback... you know we have a forum for just that purpose.

I'd suggest a pool of trainees from ZERO experience up to full n 500+rds a week active duty (or similar) and have them post their experiences.

You've spent hours of typing, where you could have spend a handful of minutes explaining how it works. I realize trainers want to make money, and that specialized knowledge isn't 'free.'

Just a suggestion.

brownie0486

June 12th, 2006, 10:20 PM

Dr.Rob:

I'd suggest a pool of trainees from ZERO experience up to full n 500+rds a week active duty (or similar) and have them post their experiences.

http://www.threatfocused.com/forums/showthread.php?t=223
This guy works for a major dept. in California as a firearms instructor. He's had some of the best training out there.

http://www.threatfocused.com/forums/showthread.php?t=226
This guy has been to untold Front sight courses and was taught by Sweatnbullets whose also one of our instructors.

http://www.threatfocused.com/forums/showthread.php?t=255
This guy had NO experience with a handgun at all, except a basic NRA course.

http://www.threatfocused.com/forums/showthread.php?t=312
This guy has been in front of the major instructors in the country numerous times.

http://www.threatfocused.com/forums/showthread.php?t=305
This guy works on a campus as a police officer and shoots IDPA extensively as well as trains with major national instrcutors.

http://www.threatfocused.com/forums/showthread.php?t=368
This guy had very little in the way of handgun training.

http://www.threatfocused.com/forums/showthread.php?t=380
HSO, is right here on this forum, and this is his review. His wife shoots very little and he posts about her there as well. Members can send him a pm anytime from this site.

http://www.threatfocused.com/forums/showthread.php?t=393
This guy was a cop in California, and now works for the fraud bureau on NM. His partner that was there is a state certified firearms instructor, investigator, and with the Sheriffs office for 10 years.

http://www.threatfocused.com/forums/showthread.php?t=374
JMusic is from this forum and everyone can pm him here as well on his thoughts after rading his review. I'll let him explain his background if he so chooses.

http://www.threatfocused.com/forums/showthread.php?t=313
This guy is the new shooter above who also attended Easton, Pa after being out here with me one on one in the other review.

http://www.threatfocused.com/forums/showthread.php?t=151&highlight=quarter
This one mentions the 5 minutes time frame with the rifle qk as do others in their reviews above.

Then this from a member of the 5th SF group, one of our finest who trained with me one on one before heading to Iraq after receiving all the elite organization he belonged to could give him. Now deceased when an IED blew up, he wrote the following 20 days before leaving us.

"One of Brownie's many talents is that he is able to clearly elucidate in writing what he does with the gun. Everything he writes, he showed me first hand. It is truly simple once he shows you the way, because you already know how to do it, just was never cognizant of it.

For those willing to learn, his postings are invaluable in getting you to think differently about shooting.

From the sandbox
ataha

and this from Ayman later as well:

The techniques Brownie and 7677 are using are making all the difference for me over here. Believe me, when you are clearing rooms for real, you definitely want those techniques in your toolbox. Stay sharp,

ataha

You've spent hours of typing, where you could have spend a handful of minutes explaining how it works. I realize trainers want to make money, and that specialized knowledge isn't 'free.'

http://www.threatfocused.com/forums/showthread.php?t=46
The link to the narrative on your suggestion to explain this this. It's been out there for some time now.

Well if ANY idiot can learn it in five minutes, put your money where your mouth is.

I put my money where my mouth is every day Dr. Rob. I let the students speak to the training and what I can get people to do in very short timeframes. I don't need to prove to you or anyone by giving "free" training that what I do works and works in short order.

Learned in just FIVE minutes? That's why it sounds like snake oil when you try to sell it. I've seen point shooting, don't deny it's effective.

I take the high road until people start alluding to what it is I do as "snake oil", then it's time to get down to it. If it is snake oil, its a snake oil that works.

It's not like the information was not out there, you were just not looking on the right forum :D

Brownie

brownie0486

June 13th, 2006, 12:04 AM

It's an amazingly simple skill to learn! It's the practice that counts.

Wife shoots about every two months, 300 rds or so. We get out to the range and I tell her to remember what I told her. She starts making nice tight little groups without the use of sights.

another myth dispelled:rolleyes:

I laid off the guns completely for almost 5 years having burned out on competition to the point is just was not fun anymore to shoot. The firstrds downrange got the same results as the day I laid off them. These skills use your natural ability, we only open the door to what you are already capable of doing [ as a few of the reviewers mention like Ataha from the sandbox ].

Myth dispelled again.:rolleyes:

Really man, just how much can be said about point shooting?

A forums worth: http://www.threatfocused.com/forums/index.php

And volumes of books starting from the early 1900's. Any other questions?:uhoh:

Try to follow along, do the research and perhaps one day you too will be able to speak intelligently about the subject matter here.:D

Brownie

hso

June 13th, 2006, 12:09 AM

Dr.Rob,

I got nothing to sell. I actually was there. I'm a member and I took the training. So did JMusic who is also a member. So did PWard who is a member. How many more THRoaders need to take it who saw it as a valuable skill is needed?

My previous training is in traditional sight shooting. So was PWard's. So was my wife's. So was the whitewater rescue cop and the jailer and the construction company owner and the engineer and the homemaker and and the whitewater coach and... Well, everyone but Brownie and Paul Gomez (who is a THRoader).

There were people in the course that shoot 100 rounds a month and there were people in the course that shoot 1000 rounds a month, so your request has already been satisfied.

There's nothing magical about it, but it is odd at first and then it becomes natural. It takes practice. It takes coaching. Because it's a physical skill it's not easily explained and more effectively demonstrated. It takes an open mind. It's another tool in the tool box to be used when it's the best tool for the job while at other times traditional sight shooting is the best tool in the tool box to use.

I can say that it works for me and the others for what it's intended for.

Sweatnbullets

June 13th, 2006, 12:10 AM

http://www.csicop.org/sb/9812/snakeoil.html

" "Snake oil." The expression has come to be synonymous with a quack remedy."

"In time worthless cure-alls came to be known as "snake oil.""

As a Integrated Threat Focused Instructor, I also take exception to this term. I know my students do not think me a "quack" or that what I teach is a "worthless cure-all." The link posted above from my student RAM, came from a person that was an MP in the Airforce and is a current firearms instructor at Frontsight.

Quick kill can be taught in five minutes, I did it again last weekend. Quick fire also takes about five minutes, as does alternative sighting methods such as sighting down the slide and from the silohuette of the back of the slide. All four of these threat focused techniques take five minutes or less to teach and learn. Last weekend my students saw all four and picked Quick Kill as the threat focused technique that they would use all weekend.

Just because one does not have the knowledge, the experience, or the open mindedness, does not make them an expert on the subject. Our students have all three of these vital characteristics. Their AAR's speak for themselves!

You can either listen to the those that truely know, or those that "assume" they know.

I use my sights, I love my sights, but I refuse to die trying to get to my sights. FOF has shown me time and time again what I will do in a dynamic confrontation, where I am behind in the reactionary curve. It is the exact same thing that I hear from the vast majority of people with combat experience. Training in the use of sights is important, but no more so than training for the times where it is impossible to get to them.

Since the vast majority of people involved in a dynamic confrontation, where they are behind in the reactionary curve, are unable to get to their sights, not only is it "irresponsible" to not practice threat focused skills, it is just plain foolish.

Sighted fire only skills degrades to "spray and pray" because there are no other skills to fall back on. Threat focused skills remain threat focused skills, The knowledge, experience, time, and practice have been put in and you own the skills. You are now well rounded.....opposed to being flat sided. It is hard to just keep rolling along when you have flat sides.

Do not let your past "closed minded" training limit you. Open minded common sense will always lead you to the best alternatives.

brownie0486

June 13th, 2006, 12:29 AM

We'll be back to Knoxville this fall. Anyone who has interest in the training can let him know, he'll keep you in the loop here. He'll likely announce the dates here as he did before for everyone who's interested.

We'll also be back in Easton, Pa this fall for those who hail from that part of the country.

If you have read the review links provided and would like to sponsor a class in your area, as HSO has done, email me and we'll get something set up for you as well.

Roger and I also hold one on one classes of one or two days in our respective areas of the southwest US as well. He in the Vegas are, myself in the Phoenix area.

Integrated Threat Focus Training Systems has recently announced a "Fighting at Night" course in the desert if anyone is interested, the link is here:

http://www.threatfocused.com/forums/showthread.php?t=395

This course is going to really be a hit IMO. Imagine being able to fire all night in the desert with no distractions and gaining real world skills in lowlight as well as learning to and making use of those flashlights in the dark while running through the materials with a handgun.

Brownie

SkyGuy

June 13th, 2006, 02:03 AM

Integrated Threat Focus Training Systems has recently announced a "Fighting at Night" course in the desert

It's about damn time. I've been yankin you guys' chain about low light, no light shooting for too long a time. Thought you'd never get your act together.

Now's your opportunity to come into the 21st century and learn/teach the immediate tactical advantages of laser sighted shooting.
Show your students how to focus on the threat in the dark.......as you simultaneously and 'accurately' superimpose the POI on the target at all meaningful distances.

Lasers 'rule' in low light and darkness. Teach your students their intermittant and tandem use with white light techniques.

If none of the instructors are capable, I'll teach it all for a minimum fee, a piece of the gate and expenses....in advance. PM me for terms/details.

It would be so worth it just to see everybody's jaw drop in amazement. :))
.

okjoe

June 13th, 2006, 02:08 AM

From DR Rob:

"....Well if ANY idiot can learn it in five minutes, put your money where your mouth is.

You want to convince the masses here?

Offer this training, free of charge, to a handful of THR members and let's get their feedback... you know we have a forum for just that purpose.

I'd suggest a pool of trainees from ZERO experience up to full n 500+rds a week active duty (or similar) and have them post their experiences.

You've spent hours of typing, where you could have spend a handful of minutes explaining how it works. I realize trainers want to make money, and that specialized knowledge isn't 'free.'...."

..........

Well DR Robb, what you don't know is that Brownie is a natural and brilliant writer who has the ability to calmly, methodically, logically, and simply respond to, and without rancor, jibes and comments that such as me would just not put up with.

I would like to think I am a Zell Miller type of conservative/liberal-liberal/conservative.

I don't readily turn or give cheek, or respond as I am supposed to or should.

It's still a free country, or is it?

You should also keep in mind that even those who may know how to do something and do it well, may never be able to pass that life saving info along to others who could use it to save their lives and the lives of associates, for lack of the ability to express themselves well.

The real judgment should be check it out and and see if it WILL IT DO THE JOB.

That's the only criteria of value.

My site has info on various PS methods.

They work for idiots like me, perhaps they will also work for you.

Why not check them out, test them out, and get back to us???

brownie0486

June 13th, 2006, 02:39 AM

SkyGuy

Send me your contact information.

Brownie

Dr.Rob

June 13th, 2006, 04:11 AM

I'll be happy to do the research and thanks for the links...

"Rancor" was hardly my intent. These threads, as I've said before always draw ire... we as mods (myself included) shouldn't throw gasoline of the fire.

Posting the link to how it's done, kudos for doing so.

may I quote?

From the passage...

"Find a light switch across the room."

to the passage...

" I don't have need to worry about 0-3 yards or 7-10 yards or beyond 10 yard methodologies, the commonality of one focal point in using Quick Kill with a handgun under the stresses of self defense is easier to ingrain into memory once it has been mastered."

Is remarkably similar to the 'indexing' technique I described at the front end of this thread, and it makes a great deal of sense. I wish you had posted that link a lot earlier in the discussion, seems we have more in common than I thought.

brownie0486

June 13th, 2006, 04:36 AM

I'm okay with that Dr.Rob:)

The information I wrote in that narrative which is now registered copyright with Wash, DC has been available for about 2 years on the net.

Yup, lots of ire on these types of threads, and I was keeping my nose out of this one until it became apparent that whether people agree with okjoe and his ideas/shelf/P+S or not,

I'm not inclined to have others misunderstand that certain systems of threat focused methodologies and the Quick Kill threat focused system in particular that I use and train others in, is neither reliable nor accurate at any real SD distances people will likely encounter where they'll be using a pistol to defend with.

Feel free to check out the threat focused site and kick the tires, there is a lot of good information available for everyone to peruse.

Brownie

SkyGuy

June 13th, 2006, 01:55 PM

>>>I'll teach it all for a minimum fee, a piece of the gate and expenses....in advance. PM me for terms/details.<<

SkyGuy
Send me your contact information.
Brownie

It's encouraging to see that you're opening your mind to 21st century equipment and tactics.
It's never too late for an old dog to learn new tricks. :)

Night-fighting training and tactics by including laser sights is, indeed, cutting edge. Many of the 'master' trainers now teach the techniques. I'd be happy to share my own insights on night-fighting since we did so much of that in Vietnam. For example, a white light is an easy target.

As you know, I teach HTH and basic handgun use to those less able to defend themselves because of gender, age, weakness, poor sight, immobility or impairment. It's done by my arrangement and is always pro bono....unless you're able bodied and fit, like me. :)

I'd enjoy giving a demo on empty hand SD techniques, canes, keys, pens, walking sticks, etc. and a short tutorial on situational awareness and avoidance.

PM me for terms/details. I'm back and forth between AZ and CO and FL.
.

Justin

June 13th, 2006, 02:55 PM

You are welcome to pick on me because I am not a shootist or a trainer.

Joe, I'm sorry, but I've seen you post the same misinformation on this board over and over and over, and yet you continue to advocate the same, utterly unsafe practices.

I also have been and still am very critical of some police training past practices, and those who support them, based on real world results in terms of the death and injury of Police Officers.

I'm not a cop, I'm not concerned with police training tactics. Stop beating that straw man.

Keep in mind that the stats on hits on BGs, by those trained to use their sights, is < 20%.

Source, please? Also, please include the yearly expended roundcount of those people.

And of those trained to use their sights, the vast majority said that they didn't use them.

So what?

Are you unaware of those facts?

I dispute them, because they've been disputed here before, and you have never, ever come anywhere close to backing up your thinking.

One of these days I may start a thread on, what's the big deal about being trained by one who has BTDT? , or what does having BTDT have to do with altering training policies and tactics as related to CQB effectiveness?

The answer to both questions is IMHO, not much.

Are you high?
Again, what do you have to offer me? What possible advantage does your method confer?
Opinions are like skin pores. Everybody's got a million of 'em. Your opinion is not valid. Facts are. Quite frankly, endlessly repeating that you believe that there is no need to train with people who are better than oneself does not make it so. argumentum ad nauseum.

All I say is that PS works and works very well and even by a seldom if ever shooters like me, given my 400 or so rounds per year, compared with your 10 or 12 K per year.

So relax. The world is not about to end.

No, according to what you've posted both here and on your website, the pointshooting technique you advocate does not work well. Your accuracy is abysmal, and the fact that you land hits at all has more to do with the laws of probabilities than any "technique." Any idiot can point a pistol in the general direction of a close-in target, empty the magazine, and land hits. That hardly makes it useful. Spray 'n' Pray is the technique of the untrained, and those who are completely unconcerned with collateral damage. Are you honestly telling me that you would use this technique on a crowded street?

Again, I point out that you have posted pictures of test targets where you admit to missing the target completely! To advocate a technique that results in misses, at close range and under ideal circumstances is, as far as I'm concerned, criminally irresponsible on your part.

And, even my misses (since I use "small" targets), should still hit any BG in front of me given home defender and practical handgun shooting distances.

What was I just saying about you being criminally irresponsible? You miss the paper at close range distances, and consider that "good enough?" And we're just supposed to believe, on your sayso, that those rounds "would" have hit a human-sized target?

Went out to the garage today, hung up a sheet, and threw small small balls up in the air and shot at them at 8 - 10 feet. The airsoft pistol used, doesn't shoot that precisely at all. So, not much success. Shot 20 or 30 times in total.

Couldn't tell if the balls were deflected in the air.

YOU MISSED THE TARGETS!

Will secure some nerf balls, and try that as they are lighter and may react better to the very light BB's.

I was able to effectively shoot at a 3 inch hollow plastic ball on the ground and hit it with about 1 out of three shots with my imprecise gun. (That's around a 33% hit rate on a 3 inch target) I imagine its just finding around with the right mix of balls and gun, and improving the lighting from not so good to better.

In other words, gaming the system until you get the results you want, instead of changing your technique to be applicable in as many situations as possible. 20% technique.

Of course, practice could probably increase my success rate even using the same gun.

A basic understanding of marksmanship of any sort would probably do this.

The bottom line IMHO, is that PS is simplier than sight shooting, and takes less time to acquire and shoot at a target.

Your opinion. Again. Are you willing to put that to the test?

So, it sould garner better results than traditional training methods in CQB situations. Even a 30% hit rate would be a 50% increase in effectiveness.

Oh? So are you planning on using your "technique" in the course of some CQB training? Simunitions, perhaps?

And since P&S is the simplest of methods, and also can be used to enhance -> ALL <- other shooting techinques if a gun is appropriate to its use, IMHO, it should be considered by home defenders.

P&S? Would that be Pray & Spray?

It also can be learned with little or no training. It is effective and the technique can be maintained with little if any practice.

Again, I point out that anyone can empty a pistol in the general direction of a target and make hits at close range. This is the most bottom-of-the-barrel shooting technique extant! Nothing I've seen of your technique shows it to be otherwise.

I also understand that you have not been trained via an instructor or via self training in either QK or P&S.

If that is true, I find it odd that you denigrate a method about which you really are unaware of in terms of a reasonable amount of "hands on" testing that you would be willing to write up and sign your name too.

However, you have a lot of company in the world of the gun.

Joe, I denigrate your method because all I see on your website is sub-par accuracy shot in sub-par times, with a "technique" that amounts to nothing more than emptying the weapon in the general direction of the target. I am utterly confident that I, too, can go to the range and empty a weapon in the general direction of an exceedingly close-in target and score hits.

Lastly, here's a few questiona for you:

Do you have confidence in using Sight Shooting in a CQB situations??

False dichotomy. At point-blank ranges one need not use the sights. That is not validation of your "technique."

And if so, why do you think you will have a better result than thousands of police officers, who I am sure with the best of intentions, since their life was in jeapordy, and following their training as best they could, achieved only a 20% hit rate?

Or is a 20% hit rate Ok with you?

Give me a break. Is that all you've got? A pathetic attempt to introduce doubt into my mind about my own, objectively shown, level of shooting prowess? That's high comedy coming from someone who just posted how they plan to change around the size of their targets, the lighting, and a bunch of other variables that would be unavailable in a CQB situation.

Joe, shooting competitively and practicing on my own has made me firmly aware of the limitations of my skill.

How about you?

Justin

June 13th, 2006, 03:04 PM

Joe, how well does your "technique" work at 25 yards?

Zak Smith

June 13th, 2006, 03:04 PM

And if so, why do you think you will have a better result than thousands of police officers, who I am sure with the best of intentions, since their life was in jeapordy, and following their training as best they could, achieved only a 20% hit rate?Give me a break. Is that all you've got? A pathetic attempt to introduce doubt into my mind about my own, objectively shown, level of shooting prowess
The right answer is-- because he is a better pistol shooter than the officers, on average, in that study (if it can be cited at all).

If one wanted to generate valid data about hit ranges in "realistic" situations, all one has to do is set up some force on force scenarios using consistent and good role-players, and cycle shooters through it. Measure the hit rates and see who does well and who doesn't.

-z

okjoe

June 13th, 2006, 05:08 PM

Justin,

Check out the info by experts that is posted on my site, as well as the studies.

Just click on the link below, and do some exploring, I am not into bottle feeding.

..........

As to missing a 3 inch target at 8 - 10 feet with an airpistol that shoots sort of Ok most of the time, a man sized target will still get hit at gunfight range as the misses were not that far off. The same applies when a small paper target is missed. Verticle misses could be as much as a foot or more and still stop/kill a human sized threat.

PS may not be precise, but it works. The average Joe or Jane need not be a shootist, or practice much to achieve good hits with it at gunfight distances. They can check it out on their own to see if that is so. Their targets will let them know if it is for them or not.

..........

As to saying that Sight Shooting is better, by inference or whatever, got any proof that Sight Shooting has ever worked in a CQB situation?

Got any videos of it ever working in a CQB situation?

Just trot it/em on out.

There should be thousands of records and videos since it's been taught for use for about 100 years now.

Got dates? Got links?

I doubt it, as they don't exist.

Or folks like you, would have already stuffed them down my throat, and most likely gleefully as well, and we would not be having this "discussion".

I may be an idiot, but I am not so stupid that if I ran across some to lots of proof the SS did not fail most all of the time in CQB situations, and had my nose rubbed in that proof time after time, that I would not recognize that.

Got any proof that the hit rate in CQB situations using Sight Shooting is above 20%.

Just trot it on out as well.

I as well as millions of folks in the gun world would be interested in it.

In these days of merit pay, if some police/gov trainers/administrators/etc., had proof that their shooting method REALLY WORKED in CQB situations, they would be shouting that out from the tops of their HQ building and also demanding merit pay bonuses. I used to be a Civilian/Fed, so I know how such works.

Apparently you want people to trust in what you say, and use a shooting method in life or death CQB situations, for which there is no documented proof that it really works.

Sorry, but based on the data that has been around for years and is not refuted, I don't buy into that.

Lastly, as to a home/owner - appartment dweller applying deadly force with a handgun at a range of 25 yards, I don't think so, and don't plan to go there.

If you live where that happens ever so often, better to have a rifle hanging over the fireplace, and an attorney on retainer to defend you.

Thanks to all who have chimed in here. I shall again try and sit on my hands and be quite for awhile.

crofrog

June 13th, 2006, 05:25 PM

Reductio ad absurdum

Make it stop my head hurts.

Sighted shooting works ask a swap cop who's seen his sights in a gun fight, ask any trained shooter who's seen his sights in a gun fight for that matter.

You steadfastly refuse to do any FOF work with it, and continue to do bull**** games with the gun that do nothing more than prove your technique can't even come close to equaling what's already available. With out the draw backs associated with your asinine middle finger pulling the trigger crap.

Seriously just go away. You not only piss off everyone on the boards be repeatedly spewing your crap, you make all the real people trying to point shoot look bad.

Because I associated you with Brownie and Matt Tempkin, I basically completely dismissed them and point shooting as a waist of time, and assumed they where *******s because of you.

If it wasn’t for the AAR of Brownie’s class by Gomez and HSO and the level headed discussion at Brownie's forum. I’d continue to completely dismiss it. Instead I'd like to attend one of Brownie's classes now, because he appears to have good skills to offer than blend seamlessly into my existing framework.

Also note, I said said skills, not tactics. Just because he doesn't utlize shooting around cover, or low light etc etc in his class doesn't mean it's a worthless class.

It appears to me he's teaching a _skill_. It's a tool in the toolbox not a one shop stop.

Chris

Justin

June 13th, 2006, 05:25 PM

Just click on the link below, and do some exploring, I am not into bottle feeding.

Joe, by the basic rules of debate, if you make a supposedly factual claim, then the onus is on you to produce a citation when requested.

As to saying that Sight Shooting is better, by inference or whatever, got any proof that Sight Shooting has ever worked in a CQB situation?

Got any videos of it ever working in a CQB situation?

Where did I ever assert this? I'm criticizing your "technique." I've made no assertions other than to point out that your technique has even less to do with combat than most competition shooting, and is exceedingly poor to boot.

But, since you asked:
http://www.hosercam.com/video.html
Specifically, any of the videos with the word "Limited" in the title, which are iron-sites only.
Given that I've never heard a high-level IPSC/IDPA competitor ever advocate point shooting, I'd say those should suffice.

Apparently you want people to trust in what you say, and use a shooting method in life or death CQB situations, for which there is no documented proof that it really works.

And you can prove, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that your "technique" will result in hit rates above 20% in a CQB situation?

Ok, prove it. How many of your disciples have used your "technique" under the stress of a life or death situation?

Lastly, as to a home/owner - appartment dweller applying deadly force with a handgun at a range of 25 yards, I don't think so, and don't plan to go there.

So you readily admit that your "technique" has absolutely zero merit outside of gutshot distances, and evidently only within the confines of a home constructed so that it contains all of the rounds that go zinging past the threat, through the wall and into the neighbor's place?

Wow, now that's versatility for you.

Don't plan to go there, or can't?

If you live where that happens ever so often, better to have a rifle hanging over the fireplace, and an attorney on retainer to defend you.

Right, I forgot, because nobody ever has the need to carry a handgun on their person on the street.

Sweatnbullets

June 14th, 2006, 12:14 AM

If it wasn’t for the AAR of Brownie’s class by Gomez and HSO and the level headed discussion at Brownie's forum. I’d continue to completely dismiss it. Instead I'd like to attend one of Brownie's classes now, because he appears to have good skills to offer than blend seamlessly into my existing framework.

Thank you Chris, for checking the links and not stereotyping us.

Here is a new AAR from a private course I put on in Vegas last weekend. Hopefully I will be able to release a little video clip of some of the stuff we did.

http://www.threatfocused.com/forums/showthread.php?t=404

Pickpocket

June 14th, 2006, 12:31 AM

Also note, I said said skills, not tactics. Just because he doesn't utlize shooting around cover, or low light etc etc in his class doesn't mean it's a worthless class.

It appears to me he's teaching a _skill_. It's a tool in the toolbox not a one shop stop.

That's a very nice distinction. Seems that point gets lost in all of the controversy sometimes.

Sweatnbullets

June 14th, 2006, 02:19 AM

It appears to me he's teaching a _skill_. It's a tool in the toolbox not a one shop stop.

Well, we are not just teaching a skill, we are teaching much more. Quick Kill is only part of the curriculum, but it is a very important part.

We tend to customize the coures to what the students want. We have four or five days worth of material, but usually only have two days to run the course. The student or the host tells us what they want and we deliver that. Some are big into learning as much as they can about Quick kill. Some want that plus FAS PSing and Quick Fire. Some are most interested in our dynamic movement portion. Now we are offering the "Fighting at Night" course. Some of our students are extremely advanced, some have very little experience, and everything in between.

So far the course that I have put on have covered this,

Threat focused methodologies, including Quick Kill, Quick Fire, and FAS PSing. I also throw in some other alternative sighting methods.

Being able to make solid hits all the way through your drawstroke, one handed and two.

Being able to make solid hits from any positon and from any angle. If you can see it, you can hit it.

Zippers, hammers, and multiples.

Controlled movement drills.

"Get out of the kill zone drawstroke"

Dynamic movement drills, in all directions.

The private and semi-private course that I have run put the round count around 1600 to 1800 rounds.

I have heard that we are giving out whole new tool boxes not just one tool.

Here is a quote from this thread http://www.threatfocused.com/forums/showthread.php?t=226, I wanted to take QK thinking I would have a new tool for the tool box... After a full day on the range with Roger I've got a whole new toolbox to carry around I wish my writing skills could only do it justice.

crofrog

June 14th, 2006, 12:49 PM

Thank you Chris, for checking the links and not stereotyping us.

I try not to sterotype normally, but I have to admit I did in this case.

You should vocally disassociate yourself with "point and shoot" because it really does make you look bad saddly. More than a few people I know dismissed you because of his online persona and all the other downsides of his "system."

Chris

brownie0486

June 14th, 2006, 02:56 PM

crofrog;

Because I associated you with Brownie and Matt Tempkin, I basically completely dismissed them and point shooting as a waist of time, and assumed they where *******s because of you.

I'm glad to hear you are now clear on any association threat focused instructors have with okjoe sir.

I'd like to attend one of Brownie's classes now, because he appears to have good skills to offer than blend seamlessly into my existing framework.

7677 and I should be back in Easton, Pa this fall and would enjoy having you up there for that class if you can make it after dates have been set. We will also be back in Knoxville in the fall sometime as dates are established and the weather gets a little cooler there.

Thanks as well for stopping by at http://www.threatfocused.com/forums/index.php and your comments regarding the levels of discussion we have there.

Brownie

okjoe

June 14th, 2006, 03:49 PM

from crofrog:

"You steadfastly refuse to do any FOF work with it, and continue to do bull**** games with the gun that do nothing more than prove your technique can't even come close to equaling what's already available. With out the draw backs associated with your asinine middle finger pulling the trigger crap."

Well frog,

You got any proof that the hit rate in CQB situations using Sight Shooting is above 20%.

Or any proof that most people trained to Sight Shoot, will use it in a CQB situation?

I as well as millions of folks in the gun world would be interested in such.

Apparently you like Justin, want people to just trust in what you say, and use a shooting method in life or death CQB situations, for which there is no documented proof that it really works even most of the time.

Per the NYPD SOP 9 study of 4000+ police combat cases:

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.

And the NYPD officers were trained in traditional sight shooting as I understand that situation.

..........

Sorry frog, but based on the data that has been around for years and is not refuted, I don't buy into your thinking.

..........

And I don't want to brag, but my dull and boring and mainly text site on PS methods, usually comes up as