Swedish Police Point Shooting

Status
Not open for further replies.
Interesting indoor range. It appears they can shoot 3 of the 4 walls.

As for the the training, it's usually always a mistake to take a technique that works at 5 feet or less and expect it to work at 7-10 yds or more.

For a brief moment, you can see the girls target has misses about the head of her target. In other shots, it looks like the way she holds and shoots the gun is a jam waiting to happen due to weak-wristing.

Further, using the "sling-shot" method to work the slide isn't as reliable as other methods.
 
we used to train to shoot like that...back in the '80s

our range master learned it at an FBI school and just repeated it to the department...it looks like it's been updated a bit

his real passion was Trap shooting...i always wondered why there was a trap setup at a police range
 
Last edited:
Two thumbs down on that marksmanship training imo...

Go with what you know I guess.
 
I hear you guys, but the Swedes are winning a whole lot of gunfights since they started including point shooting in the program back in 1996.
 
I hear you guys, but the Swedes are winning a whole lot of gunfights since they started including point shooting in the program.

I am glad for that as those folks are putting their lives on the line for their fellow citizens.

This is a good example of how confidence, developed in training, can be a significant factor in success despite technique. How many times have we seen boxers, wrestlers, or other competitors prevail due to "heart" and despite "technique". This happens in military conflict as well.

While technique can always be argued, success can not.
 
I'm still lost with the whole fascination with point shooting. It seems some people won't be happy until you hammer those useless sights off your weapons.
 
Jon_in_wv
Mainly because it saves half a second in firing time at close range with no significant loss of accuracy. At ten feet accuracy is fine but speed wins.
 
I hear you guys, but the Swedes are winning a whole lot of gunfights since they started including point shooting in the program back in 1996.

Makes you wonder how bad their "training" was prior to 1996, doesn't it !
 
I wonder if they are seeing better results now due to the inclusion of point shooting or are they simply getting more training in general?
 
Great range.
I first trained Ulf in 1993 and he talked his bosses into building the range for him in 1995.
I was in Sweden most summers until 2005 ( my wife is a Swede and we visit the "old country" most years) where I ran free point shooting clinics for the police, SWAT and the Swedish Army on a regular basis.
Before point shooting they were teaching the modern technique with the Weaver stance as the standard.
All of the gunfights that Ulf's cops (over 2000 officers) have been in have been won with point shooting.
I should add that in the past 10 years there has been a lot more violence directed at the Skane (South Sweden) police, and distances have been very close.
BTW, aimed fire is still very much taught by the Swedish police, although Ulf has been responsible for killing off the Weaver for the MI.
Point shooting has always been a compliment--not a replacement--for aimed fire.
 
Last edited:
Mainly because it saves half a second in firing time at close range with no significant loss of accuracy. At ten feet accuracy is fine but speed wins.

That is HIGHLY debatable. Most point shooting advocates aren't talking about close distances like you mention. They will argue that point shooting is better at much longer distance. I agree that at 10 feet or less point shooting, especially from a protected position where you aren't sticking you weapon out to be disarmed, isn't going to be as much of a liability. But beyond that getting good hits on a moving target is in my opinion a fallacy. You need well aimed, effective fire to end the threat. Getting the shot off quicker doesn't do any good if it misses the target.

Edited.
That is HIGHLY debatable (referring to it being faster, you can train to acquire a sight picture and shoot very quickly the difference may be negligible). Most point shooting advocates aren't talking about close distances like you mention. (I should have said MANY not most, it SEEMS like most if you peruse the threads on this subject on these forums.)
 
Last edited:
I know of no point shooting advocates who propose point shooting at longer distances.
Can you name some who do?
Then again, I start to define long distance somewhere past 7-10 yards, which you may disagree with.
I train for reality and since so many armed encounters occur from 0-10 feet I practice point shooting along with aimed fire.
But I have also had good results in FOF getting excellent hits on moving targets via one and two handed point shooting out to 8 yards or so, so I will have to agree to disagree with you on the effective distance point shooting allows.

Then again, rereading your first comment (I'm still lost with the whole fascination with point shooting. It seems some people won't be happy until you hammer those useless sights off your weapons.) debating this with you may be "point"less.
Unless, of course, you can name someone who has called sights useless and that they should be hammered off
 
Last edited:
Jon,
I've done extensive tests on my ability to point shoot and I have a good picture of what I can do - you're mileage will vary. For me point shooting is an option at 5 yards or less, I will accept 7 yards if I have to, so I do some practice at this range.

Some people will not accept an alternative shooting technique, different from the one they were first taught, just as some people will not accept that their choice of cartridge is not the greatest ever.

After I demonstrated point shooting to someone he called it "trick shooting, no use in a real gunfight" despite 8 holes in the ten ring of a target.
 
I also practice point shooting up to 15 yards and it is very effective at close range, after that of course you use sights. Some people just like to down play anything they don't do..
 
Can you name some who do?

I don't feel obligated to do so. I take your word on its face, you can do the same for others without them having to justify themselves to you. Your second paragraph is an obvious attempt to start some bickering I'm not going to engage in. It was merely a statement of the fact that SOME point shooting advocates claim sights are virtually useless and point shooting is the only way. If thats not YOU (which I would suspect it isn't) then it wasn't referring to you was I? Also, you may notice the sentence you quoted me on wasn't in quotes originally. I never said that was a statement that anyone ever made literally so why would I try to tell you the name of someone that did? Thats ridiculous. You are ASSUMING a lot about my statements that are just off base really. You need to relax a little.

Jon,
I've done extensive tests on my ability to point shoot and I have a good picture of what I can do - you're mileage will vary. For me point shooting is an option at 5 yards or less, I will accept 7 yards if I have to, so I do some practice at this range.

That has been my experience too but keep in mind that is on a stationary target and likely you weren't moving. If you throw in movement of yourself or the target or firing from differing positions or from cover then use of the sights increases accuraccy greatly in my experience. Personally, I think most shooters just don't really practice enough. When faced with a real threat they will revert to instinct to focus on the target and just point the weapon and pull the trigger. This explains why most shootings happen at such short distances yet result in such a high rate of misses. If you practice point shooting at short distances and develop the technique and muscle memory to shoot more accurately it no small wonder that your speed, hit rate, and overall accuraccy will improve and will in turn improve you survivability in the fight. The real question is whether or not that same amount of time spent practicing and developing fast, well aimed fire is better or not. Personally I fall into the BOTH is best school of thought. If the target is close then point shooting from a "weapon retention" stance probably the most practical and should be practiced to develop speed and accuraccy. Then as distance increases you should transition to your sights to ensure your ability to make sure hits. I don't like the term, "instinctive shooting" because I don't think there is really anything "instinctive" about it. I see it as a skill that needs to be practiced and honed to make it "reflexive" and automatic.
 
Last edited:
Matt I agree. I know men who can shoot much further point shooting, but its a close in sport. Ignorance is bliss I guess. Many techniques that go with point shooting. It made me faster with the same accuracy. What it allows is the shooter can keep his eyes on the threat at all times. My guess is all but the very disiplined do that anyway.


Jim
 
Here is a review of a class that I taught for Gabe Suarez in 2007.
As you can see, those who actually train in point shooting sing a different tune than those who just quote myths.
Some may find the 7th paragraph especially meaningful:
( Members of WarriorTalk are welcome to find the original link)


Class: Interface Of Sighted Fire/Point Shooting
Instructor: Matt Temkin, Roger Phillips (assisting)
Location: Prescott, AZ
When: 10/27-10/28, 2007

This is "Chan2" checking in. This was my first formal instruction in point shooting. I have been shooting for a little over a year, but that's long enough to be caught in the crossfire (pun intended) in the "Point Shooting vs. Sighted Fire" holy war. I've read both sides, and after taking the class, it's easy to see that the whole "debate" really is assinine.

First of all, as the name of the class suggests, it is not an "either/or" proposition. The instructors, who are grouped in the point shooting camp, both clearly state that point shooting has its applications, and sighted fire has its application. During the course of a fight, you may have to flow from one to the other.

Next, if you've read ANYTHING that Matt or Roger has written, it is that Point Shooting is a concept, not a method. If you want to know how to do it, it's not some secret magic technique. Although Roger has succinctly described how to do it recently, Fairbairn and Applegate descibed it half a century ago in publications you can download for free.

This brings me to my next point. If Point Shooting is a concept, why does it take a two day class to teach this? Actually, it only took a couple of hours and about 200 rounds of ammo. The class is better described as Fast Effective Combat Shooting. The class teaches and conditions you to get your gun into action as quickly and effectively as possible to solve the problem at hand.

What Matt teaches is based on WWII techniques taught by Fairbairn and Applegate. The titles of some of the published sources he uses as references, "Shooting to Live" and "Kill or Get Killed" exactly describes the situations one is caught up in when this skillset is deployed. Matt also integrates his 17 years of firearms experiences as a police officer, trainer, and student into the curriculum, and encouraged us to take what we learn and run with it and make it grow.

Sighted fire has widespread appeal and point shooting is put down as voodoo science, I think because every aspect of sighted fire can be quantified and explained. Point shooting is more ambiguous, but I can tell you that within its envelope of effectiveness, point shooting is accurate, and more importantly, FAST. It really shines when the shooter is behind the reaction curve and have to deal with a bad guy who has intitated action. Funny, that sounds like what most private citizen shooting scenarios entail.

The class will dispel a lot of myths that are circulating around. "Point shooting is no good at distances further than arm's length." "You can't point shoot while you're moving." "Point shooting is spraying and praying."

Point shooting is a controversial subject in the shooting community, and having experienced it firsthand, I am ready to make my own controversial statement. Ready? Here it is:

Point shooting is not for p@#$@

There, I said it. Now let me explain.

What does this mean? It's not that the "techniques" are only for HSLD secret squirrel He-Men. It's not that there's some secret, that once revealed, will be so shocking that your hair turns white and your heart will stop in three days. What it means is this: the key in owning this and doing your best using point shooting as taught in this class is pure aggression. If you take this trying to learn techniques, or taking each exercise as only a drill to sharpen skills, it will only take you so far. However, if you apply it by taking the fight to the enemy without thought you will achieve almost superhuman feats.

Okay, now I sound like I've joined the Point Shooting Cult. All I can say is that the targets don't lie. Matt was trying to clarify the statement that point shooting was "instinctive." As a twist to that, in light of what I said above, I would add that point shooting is primal. You can't think about. You can't be timid about it. Put on your warface and just do it.

Just to reiterate so there's no misunderstanding, point shooting is not a repacement for sighted fire. After class I was shooting at a red gong on the other hill. It was pretty far away (anyone know how far that one was?). You bet I was using my sights (and I hit that thing too! After quite a few misses, of course). Use your sights when you need to, and when you can. You hear this all the time, but after this class you will know what it means.

This was a cool class with really cool people. I would say it is as eye-opening as your first FoF class. If you have a chance to study with Matt, please consider it. He's a man who has done his homework, and will hold nothing back from you. I can't thank Matt enough for this great experience. Also hats off to Roger and Gabe.
 
Last edited:
It seems that you didn't really wish to share that video, but to extoll the virtues of point shooting..........
 
It does work here is the coroners drawing on my shooting I was taught the Same as in the video and have never met Mr Temkin. At the time I was being charged by the subject and backpedaling as fast as I could.

CoronerDiagram.jpg
 
Is there any comparative data on people trained with point-shooting to a significant degree, vs. aimed-fired? Would probably be hard to get a direct comparison, but they say "data ends arguments" (yeah right I know... ;)). I mean numbers of people, over a period of time, and real analysis of what happened.

We all tend to argue for what we know. Mr. Google will find anecdotal support of anything.

I have probably spent only 1% of my shooting doing anything like this, and it's mostly from retention (so no peripheral vision alignment of gun, just proprioceptive [body sense] aiming). It feels less "comfortable", though more intuitive in a way. I think to compare apples-to-apples (or apples-to-Applegate's) you'd have to practice a good bit and really test yourself.

I was skeptical of the modern isoceles until I read some very good discussion of it and actually received some hands-on professional training. Probably a good thing for people to be skeptical in general regarding defense, but things do improve. Trench warfare, anyone?

From a physiological point of view, it seems that there is an a priori reason to think point techniques might work. Why? 'Cause significant chunks of your brain are dedicated to (1) integrating positional feedback from your body into extremely fast responses (2) building visual-spatial models of the world in real time (why people can throw balls and predict ballistics so well, etc.)

An old friend of mine is not a gun person but a fantastic video gamer. He showed me some pretty impressive performance with an arcade shooting gallery once by extending his index finger and firing the pistol with his middle. He had a mental model of where his index was pointed. I am NOT advocating this as practical shooting, just noting the similarities. It was hard for me because it felt totally unfamiliar.

3D perception, distance, height, etc, actually have a lot to do with perspective rather than binocular vision (more useful closer-in), despite popular conception. That is why pilots can judge height above runway and why cats sometimes move their heads from side to side before they jump. The outline of the weapon in an intermediate-extension provides a rough index of barrel direction (e.g. fire just up from low-ready). This is the variant of point technique I was formally taught.

Food for thought. I sure haven't made up my mind, but I also think I haven't practiced point techniques enough to argue religiously against them for practical defense.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top