Brief History of Fairbairn & Sykes Point Shooting

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Mar 13, 2003
Messages
1,263
Location
NYC
Let’s get off to a good start and define our terms.
Point Shooting means firing the weapon with total focus upon the threat/target without any reference to the gun/sights WHATSOEVER.
Now that that is cleared up, let us go into a brief history of W.E. Fairbairn.
While no one man can claim to be the inventor of point shooting ( that honor belongs to the first cave man who discovered that a rock can be thrown) W.E. Fairbairn’s influence on the field of close combat is well documented.
After only three years with the Shangahi Municipal Police, Fairbairn was promoted to musketry officer in 1910.
He took his job seriously and went on as many shots fired calls as possible--which happened on a weekly basis.
In 1919 the SMP lost 9 officers to hostile gunfire, out of a force of 1500, which shocked even the bosses.
They called Fairbairn into their office to ask what was the problem with the men?
Why were they losing so many gunfights?
(Gotta love the bosses. When in doubt, always blame the troops. Some things never change)
Fairbairn responded by stating that it was not the fault of the men, but rather the outdated training methods that he was forced to teach them.
(For the record they were being taught standard one hand bullseye shooting at long distances.)
Fairbairn was asked if he could solve the problem, and was given free reign to do so.
It was a chance that he was obviously preparing for quite some time.
The first thing he did was to replace the revolvers with Colt 1911’s in .45 for his larger officers and Colt 1903’s in .380 for those with smaller hands.
To avoid a possible embargo, he decided to use American ammunition, and Remington responded with both the ammo and a sales rep named E.A. Sykes.
(Who, according to Applegate, was also an American spy, but that’s another story.)
Next was to completely revise the training.
Based on his extensive combat experience, Fairbairn noticed several things that most men would do under stress,
1) Face the target squarely.
2) Slightly crouch.
3) Fire quickly, usually with the elbow well bent.
4) Rarely take the time to use the sights.
Fairbairn also noticed that most fights happened within 12 feet, as opposed to the longer distances required of them in previous training.
To better prepare his officers for battle, he decided to devise his system around these facts, rather than trying to impose “Good marksmanship” techniques on his troops.
In his book SHOOTING TO LIVE he describes the basics as follows….

1) Extreme speed, both in drawing and firing.

2)Instinctive, as opposed to deliberate aim. (Note that instinctive means the ability to point a finger at an object and not inborn ability to shoot a gun.

3)Practice under circumstances which approximate as nearly as possible to actual fighting conditions.

The first two were accomplished with his simple point shooting method and the latter with the creation of a “Mystery/Kill House”

The results were outstanding, and after the training the SMP began winning the vast majority of their gun fights.

Since Shangahi was an international city many nations had an armed presence there, including the USA.
After Fairbairn’s pistol shooting article was published in the March, 1927 edition of The American Rifleman, many U.S. Marines came to visit and exchange notes on all aspects of close combat.
One was Wallace, who later became a General, Marine Raider and was send by Roosevelt to observe British Commando training in Scotland in early 1942.
One SMP story which I always enjoyed occurred in 1927, when a few Chicago police officers were sent to Fairbairn on a lend lease type of deal.
After seeing more violence than they could endure, they soon begged to go home to where it was “safer” to be a cop.
In 1940 both Fairbairn and Sykes reached retirement age and set sail for England, where a small problem with Germany was happening.
They were immediately made captains in the British Army and were assigned to teach combat tactics to the Home Guard, who were preparing for an all out invasion.
By 1941 the threat had passed, and F&S were assigned as instructors for the then forming commandos, special intelligence agents and other special ops units.
In 1942 Fairbairn was loaned to the O.S.S, assigned to the Washington D.C area and was assigned a young lieutenant by the name of Rex Applegate as a student of close combat.
Applegate eventually added his own take to the Fairbairn system, which was later written down in his own book which is still available, Kill Or Get Killed.
( In 1996 Applegate admitted to me that he wrote a great book, but gave it a lousy title)
The main difference is that Applegate preferred to bring the gun up to nose/chin level rather than the hip/chest level favored by Fairbairn.
Applegate was later assigned to the combat section ( section 8, which I find rather humorous) at Camp Ritchie, MD where quite a few famous people paid visits.
Two of which were FBI firearms instructors, who would later adopt many of the Camp Ritchie methods.
By the war’s end the point shooting system--handgun, rifle, shotgun and submachine gun, was well established and had passed the test of actual combat and time.
While many feel this system to be obsolete and no longer practical, I must heartily disagree.
 
Me three. :D

Fairbairn, Sykes, and Applegate demonstrate that mindset goes over technique. They were going for blood and the technique followed their intent - something that game oriented guys never seem to grasp.
 
If these methods work well (in terms of getting hits fast) in "the real world", then they should work well for close-range targets in a competition setting.

Have you done so, and what were the results compared to someone using a "modern" technique?
 
There is a completely different emphasis, Zak. You are comparing apples to oranges. The test of "competition" today is skewed towards high capacity space guns which are totally impractical. Fairbairn, Sykes, and Applegate used standard revos and small autos. They just had attitude. ;)
 
Set up some shor range stages and test both.

If PS works well for making hits fast in a real world setting, surely shooting at static targets won't challenge it.
 
BigG said:
There is a completely different emphasis, Zak. You are comparing apples to oranges. The test of "competition" today is skewed towards high capacity space guns which are totally impractical. Fairbairn, Sykes, and Applegate used standard revos and small autos. They just had attitude. ;)

In competition you are only scored against those using similar equipment.

Single Stack is now a division in USPSA. Or for a controlled test we can have all the shooters limited to the exact same number of rounds.

The challenge I issued to Matthew Temkin still stands....if point shooting works so well you should be able to attend any national level match and finish at 50% or higher in your division.
 
OK - I did not want to get in the middle of any um contest. The attitude that Fairbairn et al displayed was such that a reasonable person would not have a chance. They would be dead before they knew they were in a fight. That was the nature of their work. Competition is not even in the cards. They would commit flat out murder, and I think we're lucky the OSS did fight on our side.
 
Point Shooting means firing the weapon with total focus upon the threat/target without any reference to the gun/sights WHATSOEVER.
What is the position of the pistol, in your definition? Just below eye level, at shoulder level, or at the level of the solar plexus?

If the gun is held higher rather than lower, I think the debate to some degree boils down to semantics. What some might call a coarse visual index (focus on the target, gun in your cone of vision but you're not focusing on it), others might call point shooting?
 
I think the debate to some degree boils down to semantics.
I think you are right.

Those guys would shoot in total blackness. No way to pick up sights if you wanted to. That's why I said comparing apples to oranges. These guys were using weapons practically, while the others are trying to win competitions. Sure, they would probably use different techniques if they were in the range trying to compete by today's rules, but in the field they used whatever worked at the time, without regard to rulebooks. Very different conditions, imho.
 
12 Feet? Yes I can shoot faster WITHOUT sights, but hit the vitals without them? Not nearly as often. I'll stick with them.

Kevin
 
Originally Posted by Matthew Temkin
While many feel this system to be obsolete and no longer practical, I must heartily disagree.
I will agree with that statement. It is when you suggest that it is superior, that I must disagree.
Originally Posted by BigG
Those guys would shoot in total blackness. No way to pick up sights if you wanted to. That's why I said comparing apples to oranges. These guys were using weapons practically, while the others are trying to win competitions. Sure, they would probably use different techniques if they were in the range trying to compete by today's rules, but in the field they used whatever worked at the time, without regard to rulebooks. Very different conditions, imho.
I will agree that vetting your combat system solely based on performance in competition is flawed logic. However, let's keep in mind what is being discussed, the skill to quickly put rounds on a target with a handgun. It make no difference whether the target is a person or a piece of cardboard. If a system is capable of delivering the goods on the battlefield, it should also be capable of doing so on the playing field.
Originally Posted by Zak Smith
That must explain why when regular and special US forces want to learn how to shoot handguns better, they seek out and are trained by USPSA/IPSC GM's.
That is a fair counterpoint but let's not pretend that everything that the GM is doing is suitable for a combat environment and is adopted by the military.
 
Fair words by Blackhawk 6.

Force on Force training is GREAT, but it's impractical and too expensive for MOST to do on a regular basis.

If we're talking about how a "regular guy" can use a pistol for self defense, he would be better off with regard to gun-handling and marksmanship (putting hits on target at speed, on the move, etc) shooting one IPSC match a month with his carry setup, instead of putzing around at the range by himself "pointshooting" and deciding his hits at 9 FEET are "good enough for self defense." That just does not include enough objective feedback to be helpful, nor challenge the shooter to really improve (ie, as he sees other guys just SMOKE a stage faster than he thought was possible).

I purposefully do not include MINDSET or TACTICS in the above paragraph, because they are orthogonal to shooting technique.

-z
 
A few additional thoughts regarding Captain Fairbairn's success;

Originally Posted by Matthew Temkin
The first thing he did was to replace the revolvers with Colt 1911’s in .45 for his larger officers and Colt 1903’s in .380 for those with smaller hands.
He discarded the "difficult-to-shoot-well" revolvers for more shootable single-action automatics. (I would also point out that the sights on said automatics did not lend themselves to rapid acquisition)
Originally Posted by Matthew Temkin
To better prepare his officers for battle, he decided to devise his system around these facts, rather than trying to impose “Good marksmanship” techniques on his troops.
In his book SHOOTING TO LIVE he describes the basics as follows….

1)Extreme speed, both in drawing and firing.

2)Instinctive, as opposed to deliberate aim. (Note that instinctive means the ability to point a finger at an object and not inborn ability to shoot a gun.

3)Practice under circumstances which approximate as nearly as possible to actual fighting conditions.
He had his officers practice under combat conditions.

I would submit that a more shootable weapon and realistic training had a greater role in any success experienced by Captain Fairbairn than his preferred sighting method (or lack there of).

Which leads me to a question; how is the success of the Fairbairn/Sykes/Applegate method quantified? The only statistics I was able to locate were in Shooting to Live. Fairbairn states in 666 shootings there were 260 criminals killed and 193 wounded. It fails to mention the number of shots fired nor the number of participants. At best what can be discerned is that those trained in Fairbairn's method had one round connect with a criminal in 69% of the shootings.

Zak-

If you keep using words like "orthogonal" I am not going to be able to keep up with the discussion.:D
 
Match

I'd say that the way to settle it is to have an accomplished point-index shooter go up against a IDPA high score shooter with paintball guns at 30 paces...barechested and wearing shorts...with only goggles to cover the eyes. Let's introduce a little fear-induced stress into the equation.
Targets that don't shoot hurtful things at you don't really do much to induce a feeling of reality.

Round One should be done with both antagonists facing, guns in hand at low ready, with an argument/showdown to trigger the killing stroke. That'll let one or the other...or both... understand how hard paintballs hit.

Round Two:
Contestants should meander around, guns holstered...and the signal should be both audio and visual...from an independent, uninterested source.

Round three can be a draw-induced signal...First from one, then the other.
By this time, whoever lost or won in the prior two rounds will be in real dread of that paintball on his bare torso.

Any takers?
 
In the book "Inside Delta Force" by a founding member of it he described learning "instinctive shooting" which I assume is the method described in this thread. He was very enamoured of it.
 
How will a "point shooter" make this shot?

A100_0334_img.jpg
[ link to LARGER image ]

I am all for Force on Force, and I submit that using just one technique (e.g. pointshooting) will NOT be effective in all circumstances. Being able to drive the gun from only kinesthetic input all the way to a sharp front sight focus, while on the move, gives a person a lot more tools in his box than just one technique.
 
"Point Shooting means firing the weapon with total focus upon the threat/target without any reference to the gun/sights WHATSOEVER.

What is the position of the pistol, in your definition? Just below eye level, at shoulder level, or at the level of the solar plexus?"

It doesn't matter, the description is what it is no matte3r where the pistol is held. Focus defines whether the sights are used in anyway or not. If the focus is on the gun, it is sighted fire. If it is on the threat, it is threat focused/pointshooting. Clear and simple, something that is not new, but decades old in descriptors.

If the gun is held higher rather than lower, I think the debate to some degree boils down to semantics. What some might call a coarse visual index (focus on the target, gun in your cone of vision but you're not focusing on it), others might call point shooting?"

The only semantics are those who have attempted to change the descriptors in the last 15 years or so and their followers. It is what it has always been, redefining the descriptors does not automatically make those definitions valid.

"That must explain why when regular and special US forces want to learn how to shoot handguns better, they seek out and are trained by USPSA/IPSC GM's."

They also seek out people who use threat focus methodologies. You didn't know that?

"12 Feet? Yes I can shoot faster WITHOUT sights, but hit the vitals without them? Not nearly as often"

Seems you may need some formal training if that is the case. Vitals are very easy at 21 feet and in all day long. I've shot plate matches on 8 inch steel disks at 33 feet without sights, scoring 4.0 seconds on six plates, sometimes sub 4.0 second runs.

8 inches is certainly staying within the "vitals" area on a humanoid threat. In fact that is shooting head shots at 33 feet.

"I will agree with that statement. It is when you suggest that it is superior, that I must disagree."

It's another tool in the toolbox. One that can be used very quickly to score good hits on threats at distances some would feel unrealistic. BTDT.

"If a system is capable of delivering the goods on the battlefield, it should also be capable of doing so on the playing field."

Delivering the goods on the battlefield, one is NOT concerned with score or getting A hits. Though A hits are common using FAS and QK [ the system I use and have been trained in ], I'n not about to worry about geting B hits all day long in the real world. I'm not shooting for score there, I'm shooting to get rds on them and keep them on them until they are no longer a thread.

The playing field also is not the same as the battlefield. When was the last time you saw a target drawing and firing at you where the contestant was then required to have to return fire under stress of incoming at under 21 feet or die, and the only score was getting hits?

On the street you react under pressure to incoming or potential incoming. On the playing field you know where the threats are, how many there are, have time to "game" it and decide the best course of fire to use the least amount of time for score. So you can hunt the threats on the playing field, quite different than reacting behind the curve of anotehrs actions against you.

"Force on Force training is GREAT, but it's impractical and too expensive for MOST to do on a regular basis."

Too expensive? Too impractical? Airsofts are 120-160 dollars. If thats too expensive, one better put the guns away as the ammo to shoot will also be too expensive to ever get proficient enough to count on the street. You grab a friend, go to the back yard, and run scenarios. Thats a lot more practical than having to drive to a range for most.

"If we're talking about how a "regular guy" can use a pistol for self defense, he would be better off with regard to gun-handling and marksmanship"

If one doesn't have good gunhandling skills, one should shoot more, it doesn't have to come from the playing field.

"instead of putzing around at the range by himself "pointshooting" and deciding his hits at 9 FEET are "good enough for self defense." That just does not include enough objective feedback to be helpful, nor challenge the shooter to really improve (ie, as he sees other guys just SMOKE a stage faster than he thought was possible)."

Really? 9 feet? Thats not even considered on the range for me. I shoot at 21 to 33 feet poinbtshooting. Drawing and firing on the steels I use that are torso in size. I hear that ringing, I'm connecting, in the real world that translates to surviving on the streets.

It's done on the move, it's done stationary, it's done with speed. Is it grandmaster speed? Probably not, but I'll be hiding behind a hail of bullets while moving into you so fast you'll think I'm a grandmaster while taking that incoming, and there will be NO misses out to 21 feet all day on those torso plates.

"I would submit that a more shootable weapon and realistic training had a greater role in any success experienced by Captain Fairbairn than his preferred sighting method"

Well, that may be your opinion, but lets take a look at that a minute. At the "sightless in Tucson" threat focused shooting event where 7677, Matt and I were instructing over three days in Oct., there were 1911's, glocks, Sigs. Every one of the students were capable of performing FAS and QK out past 21 feet before the end of the weekend with excellent hits ratios.

Seems the "preferred sighting method", be it FAS or QK is what works and not so much concerned with the shootable weapons, whatever they may be.

Robin Brown
 
RE: "Inside Delta Force"

In the book "Inside Delta Force" by a founding member of it he described learning "instinctive shooting" which I assume is the method described in this thread. He was very enamoured of it.

I suspected this would be brought up.

Check page 180 of the book to get an idea of the amount of shooting that unit was conducting. You will see the were shooting "eight hours a day." You will also see they were reprimanded by the commander of that unit for not shooting enough, having only expended 1 million rounds for the monthes of June and July.

If you want to give me 28,000+ rounds a month, every month, I am fairly certain I can get pretty good shooting my handgun any way you tell me too. That does not necessarily make it the best way to shoot.

However, keeping in mind that members of that unit are renowned for their "common-sense" approach to combat and their willingness to discard a current technique for one that suits them better, consider this quote from Paul Howe, a more recent member of that unit.

I usually get cornered a couple of times a year by a current or former student who ask me at what distance I use my sights. I reply that I use them from 0-300 meters or as far as the target is away. Routinely they relay a shooting situation that theywere involved in and talk about how many rounds were “lost” during the incident.

I won’t knock point shooting, but I will make a few points. First, I don’t believe you can consistently replicate the stress you will be under in a gunfight on a flat range. Your muscles will be different from the first shot to the last, before or after your workout. I learned a long time ago that all good shooting requires is being consistent and doing the same thing every time.

For the full text of his excellent article go here: http://www.combatshootingandtactics.com/published/Tactical_Shooting_Thoughts.pdf
 
Last edited:
"How will a "point shooter" make this shot?"

With his sights, of course.;)

"I am all for Force on Force, and I submit that using just one technique (e.g. pointshooting) will NOT be effective in all circumstances"

No threat focused advocate has ever stated pointshooting is the ONLY way to shoot. Quite the opposite, we all state use the sights when necessary and ignore them when they are not necessary.

Even Leatham is on record as stating many times he does not look at his sights on stages of fire. Wait!!!--that means a grandmaster who knows how to use his sights better than most somehow finds value in unsighted fire? Imagine that, we have been saying the same thing he is doing all along.

Seems the pointshooting advocacy people have been on to something, and gamers have figured out the same thing. Now if all of those "non grandmasters" could just figure out how to bow, nod, wink, and relax about what can be used and works, we'll all get along a lot better.

Robin Brown
 
brownie0486 said:
"That must explain why when regular and special US forces want to learn how to shoot handguns better, they seek out and are trained by USPSA/IPSC GM's."

They also seek out people who use threat focus methodologies. You didn't know that?
Are you saying that USPSA/IPSC GM's use only "THREAT FOCUS"? Funny, Brian Enos didn't mention that in his excellent "Practical Shooting - Beyond Fundamentals". He does, however, mention 5 different aiming methods used depending on speed/distance/difficulty.

The playing field also is not the same as the battlefield. When was the last time you saw a target drawing and firing at you where the contestant was then required to have to return fire under stress of incoming at under 21 feet or die, and the only score was getting hits?
We're not saying they are the same. We are saying that in a controlled environment, one ought to be able to demonstrate the superiority of PS over whatever it is you're arguing against.

Too expensive? Too impractical? Airsofts are 120-160 dollars. If thats too expensive, one better put the guns away as the ammo to shoot will also be too expensive to ever get proficient enough to count on the street. You grab a friend, go to the back yard, and run scenarios. Thats a lot more practical than having to drive to a range for most.
Yes, because training value gained from FOF is more than just "paintball/airsoft hose-fests."

If one doesn't have good gunhandling skills, one should shoot more, it doesn't have to come from the playing field.
You are correct that one can certainly develop good gunhandling skills from real training. Going to the range and target shooting does NOT develop gun handling skills, unless the person has already had formal training. Training classes are over $200/day. A match will give you the same type of EXTERNAL pressure and are about $15 for a half day IPSC match. Furthermore, dealing with malfunctions on the clock under pressure is much different than dealing with a malfunction while putzing around by yourself at the berm.

Really? 9 feet? Thats not even considered on the range for me. I shoot at 21 to 33 feet poinbtshooting. Drawing and firing on the steels I use that are torso in size. I hear that ringing, I'm connecting, in the real world that translates to surviving on the streets.
I got 9 feet from Matthew, when he said most of his practice is within that distance.

What is your guys' thesis? This whole conversation never gets anywhere because the PS guys cannot separate any good points they have from hatred of modern technique and competition.

Target focus? Kinesthetic aiming? Not using "front sigh press"? Tell a modern IPSC shooter about that and he'll be like, "So what? I do that all the time."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top