Carbine Point Shooting AAR

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Mar 13, 2003
Messages
1,263
Location
NYC
Last week I was invited to teach rifle point shooting at a Mass. police conference, while my Swedish police friends taught point shooting with a pistol.
All students were either experienced SWAT members or military.
All were already very good weapon handlers and had excellent marksmanship abilities.
Here is the lesson plan of what we covered in 4 hours and about 350 rounds.








CLOSE QUARTER CARBINE















1) Aims of course: These techniques are designed for room combat and closer distances. They can be used in any lighting conditions and with any type of sights--or lack of them---on the carbine. Cover the five types of long gun shooting.
Explain combat “stance”…elbows locked in, toes to the target, back heel raised---and show how this is used for all firearms, baton and hand to hand methods.
A) Classic aimed fire using both front and rear sights.
B) Weapon at shoulder, ignoring the rear sight but placing the front sight on target.
C) Weapon at shoulder, but completely ignoring the sights.
D) Underarm assault position.
E) Folded stock into midsection.

2) Aimed Fire Drill.
This is to evaluate the student’s basic rifle skills.
From the 15 yard line have them fire a series of one and two shot bursts from low ready position.
Check for basic marksmanship, reloading, malfunction clearance and weapon manipulation. Two 15 round magazines.

3) Move into the 10 yard line and place orange dot on the throat area.
Shoot single shots with the front sight placed on the dot, with no reference to the rear sight. Explain how this negates the need to “hold high” for a close range precision hit, and also talk about the Thornberg reflex.
Repeat with 2-4 round bursts and have them transition to the pistol when the rifle runs dry. Show how if the eyes focus on the bottom of the chin then the handgun rounds will impact near the orange dot.


4) Point Shoulder Drill.
Move to the 5 yard drill and do the same (60 rounds) drill with point shoulder technique.

5) Explain that the true goals of the course is to place a bullet in the exact spot that your eye is focused on.
Procceed to 4 to the body, two to the head drill.
Explain that the head shots are made just by changing your focus. 60 rounds.

6) Zipper Drill. Explain it’s purpose in combat, as well as a good “Hands follow the eyes” drill. 60 rounds.

7) Moving in drill.
Discuss the importance of being in motion, especially toward the threat if the distance is short and cover is not an option. Start at the 7 yard line and move in, firing 5-6 shots, stopping at about eh 3 yard line. 30 rounds.
Then repeat the drill with another magazine, but add backward motion. 30 rounds.

8) Pivot Drills.
One magazine with stationary right/left pivots, then another magazine while stepping in/moving forward with the pivot. 60 rounds.

9) Marching drill.
Explain the training reasons behind this and how moving in gives the best accuracy.

10) Lateral Motion Drill.
One magazine to the right, then another magazine to the left.
Then do two magazines with the right/in/left/in/back drill. 120 rounds.

11) Multiple Target Drill.
Explain concept of stepping/lunging in towards each target.
Two magazines shooting at 2-4 targets. 60 rounds.

12) Underarm Assault position.
Show proper technique, and then do one magazine with 1-2 shot bursts, then another magazine of 3-4 shot bursts. Distance is 10 feet. 60 rounds.

13) Four shots to the body, two to the head. 60 rounds.

14) Hip-Shoulder Drill.
First whistle begin rapid fire from underarm assault and on second whistle transition to point shoulder rapid fire without any pause. Each drill should be about 10-15 shots, but do not state any such requirement.

15) Pivot Shots.
One magazine stationary left/right pivots, another magazine moving in pivots. 60 rounds.

16) Slapping stock into side from port arms and firing shots. 30 rounds.

17) Multiple Target Drill.
One magazine stationary, one magazine stepping in towards each target. 60 rounds.

18) Weapon Transition. ( One Pistol magazine)
Stress cradling the rifle in the weak arm...muzzle up... if standard/no sling is used.


19) Weapon Strikes.
First teach Fairbairn stick fighting method, and then show how it pertains to the rifle.
Also teach giving up the rifle and using handgun.
Show a few simple methods of weapon retention.

20) S drill.


My main goal was to instill a ruthless kill or get killed attitude, along with making the rifle sound like a machine gun when shot on semi automatic. And much to their delight I insisted that all firearms be slung and loaded at all times when not in a ready position.--something that I picked up from John Farnam last year.
I also insisted on pin point accuracy along with speed.
For many of the drills the target was a 1 1/2 inch orange dot, placed at throat level.
I also insisted that they not only shoot the BG to the ground, but also to shoot him while on the ground..provided that he is still a lethal threat.
Since some of the target stands would fall down when shot ( and we were working on a dirt range) these drills worked out quite well.
I did make it quite clear that this class was not a replacement for rifle marksmanship but rater a compliment to what they had learned earlier in their patrol rifle course.
 
Good stuff, thanks for sharing. I like running a "hot" range too. Guns dry? Why the heck haven't you changed mags already! If someone can't be safe and comfortable with a loaded weapon at all times on the range how will they be in combat? Instills "safety, sling, and muzzle awareness" not drop mag, lock bolt to the rear, let instructor check...

I need to practice my carbine point shooting skills more. 4X ACOG is a bit slow for me at less than 7 yds.
 
Good solid course Mathew. Not nearly enough of this type of course going on right now. I gotta admit I like your attitude. Take care.

Jim
 
Yes Mathew there is alot of confusion. The argument of defaulting to your training is one that I have to question from my own experiences. I believe you will default to the most logical choice. I was only "surprised" on a few occasions. On those occasions I used techniques that I had not practiced nor had been instructed on. They were very close and over quickly. On one occasion I caught the movement out of my periphrial and had drawn and pushed the revolver into the back of the subjects head before he could complete his movement and before I was able to get my head turned to see what was happening. None of those techniques were taught to me other than drawing but it was the quickest way to the threat. Now that is simply my experience but I certainly did not default to my training which would have been to turn my body toward the threat in a modified weaver position and do a two handed extended lock. Sights at eye level. Point shooting will not be accepted in this day and age unless it is given a try and then practiced.

Jim
 
Yes..I agree with that.
I teach the NYS 47 hour armed guard class at a local gun range and the only shooting methods that I teach is one and two handed Isoc.
Yet in FOF drills I see them time and time again go into a hip shooting position when attacked up close--something which they were never formally trained to do.
It is also tough to read so many genuine experts ( but who do not have a clue about point shooting) endlessly give false reasons as to why it cannot work or how it is inaccurate/dangerous/causes bad breath or impotence.
Such is life.
 
MT,

I used to help with a defensive handgun course using Simunitions. People who had minimal training before the course and folks that had significant levels of training almost always used point shooting reflexively when the scenario was close/fast. They drove the guns up to sights if they kept firing, but they all pointed the gun and fired from the start(le).

The folks that had some training in point shooting made hits on me (assistant instructor also meant BG/target:rolleyes: ) low and fast and continued to make hits as they drove the gun up to the sights. Folks without any training less so. When running low/no light scenarios there weren't any sights visible to use so they all used point shooting.

I've seen it work in FOF training and on the training range.
 
I must make another point--and that is regarding point shooting and accuracy.
The main objection to point shooting is that many feel that it is inaccurate and more akin to spray and pray.
Negative.
I quite often use one and half inch orange dots in my training and place them on the target as a visual reference for the students to focus on when point shooting.
Many would be amazed when told how many of the students end up shooting the dot to oblivion with nothing but target focused shooting.
 
An untrained shooter is an untrained shooter

I ran force on force scenarios for a living while in the Army. I am a certifed observer controller and instructor on the MILES system. I have also ran force on force scenarios for the local police tactical teams. I probably have more time planning, conducting and evaluating force on force training then most people who talk of their experience with it have. It just happened to be a big part of my job as the Training/Readiness NCO for an Infantry Rifle Company.

I have more then a little experience with this.

The fact that people default to using improper techniques is a sign of a training deficiency. That's it. That's what it means. When that happens it's time to readjust your training program and go back and cover the basics.

Unsighted fire, point shooting, voodoo, whatever you want to call it, is a system that requires just as much training and practice to master as any conventional shooting technique. The untrained person who defaults to his untrained status and shoots wildly one handed is going to miss. It doesn't matter if he is is untrained in conventional techniques or if he's untrained in point shooting, the end result is a miss when you need a hit.

The instructor I had when I took the state mandated basic course for peace officers was one of the best point shoooters I ever saw. But he taught modern technique. Why, because it is the easier system to learn.

I'm not saying that point shooting isn't a tool a person should have. Everyone who is taught to shoot from retention is point shooting. But that's all it is, another tool.

Perhaps if the proponents of point shooting would get over their inferiority complex and accept where their method fits in both communites could get along. It's time to stop this incessant bickering and develop an integrated fighting program. Point shooting has it's place. It's right there with integrating HTH into close range gunfighting skills.

I'm not and I will never buy the idea that because untrained people try to point shoot it's a better, more appropriate technique.

Jeff
 
You will have to help me Jeff but I see no comments in this thread that states a novice can learn point shooting faster than any other system. I am far from an inexperienced shooter and have seen many gunfire exchanges between individuals live and on video. All are very enlightening and all demonstrate that no matter how they were trained (that I have seen) result in one armed fire while backpedaling. My comment on pointshooting is true. Pointshooting is not accepted by the large majority of shooters yet I have to ask how many have given it the time and effort due. At close range I will have shots at com faster than most. Believe it or not I have no dog in this fight. The course we hold here in Knoxville do nothing but cost hso and myself money. At the end all feel they have developed a new skill set that is usable. I have great respect for your contributions to this site and your experience but it is beyond me why you insist this system has no merit.

Jim
 
Jim,
Point shooting has it's place. It's the only way to fight at arms length and closer. It is not and never will be a replacement for sighted fire.

It's comments from the point shooting proponents like this one that get me reaching for more atenolol:

Yet in FOF drills I see them time and time again go into a hip shooting position when attacked up close--something which they were never formally trained to do.

That is not justifcation for anything but more training on whichever method you prefer. The fact that people sometimes react in ways that are contrary to their training just means that the training was not adequate.

I continually see the point shooting proponets post statements like that. The argument that you're going to shoot one handed when you get into a hurry anyway is a non starter for me. I don't understand how anyone who claims to understand how people learn and how to train them to react under pressure can make that kind of a statement. That is the same as a major league pitching coach telling a pitcher who gets excited and starts missing his release point in high stress situations, that he should just learn to throw that slider without hitting the proper release point because thats the way you will do it when the pressure is on.

Point shooting is a skill just like sighted shooting is. Someone who is minimally trained in point shooting is just as likely to miss as someone who is minimally trained in sighted fire. Panic is panic and being proficient in any shooting technique is not the way to negate it's effects. the only way to negate the effects of stress and panic is innoculate yourself against them. The big reason the military uses things like confidence courses, the 200 ft night rappel in the mountain phase of Ranger school and other fear inducing training events is to innoculate the soldiers against the effects of fear and stress and teach them that they can in fact perform when they are in fear of death or great bodily harm. High angle assault tactics are not a viable option for most of police tactical units. Yet every SWAT course I know of teaches them. Why, for the same reasons the military does.

However the online point shooting proponents either don't understand these things or choose to ignore them. No one shooting method is more appropriate for use under stress. You should pick your engagement method based on your own skills and training and the distance/time involved in the engagement. I totally reject the argument that people are incapable of being trained to a level that allows them to react the way they have been trained.

Jeff
 
Understood Jeff, I was surprised we were not seeing eye to eye. We usually do. There is no secret I am an instinctive shooter yet I use my sights whenever possible. I wish the term point shooting was never used. You are right training and practice to reinforce said training is the key. Thanks for responding I was perplexed by what was obviously a misunderstanding on my part. I do not endorse any type of shooting but will give aproval of systems that I have seen work. Just today I was at the local PD talking with them on how they qualify. Since 9-11 they have given up close range shooting in the officers terms Point shooting tactics to shooting at 25 yards. When asked why he said terrosist tacktics may go long range. Yet they are not alowed to carry a rifle in the cruisers. Again my apologys.
Take Care.

Jim
 
Jeff,

I was going to stay out of this one, but feel some things should be brought to the light of day with your comments about point shooting proponents [ of which you know I am a big one in the shooting community ].

No one shooting method is more appropriate for use under stress. You should pick your engagement method based on your own skills and training and the distance/time involved in the engagement.

Point shooting has it's place. It's the only way to fight at arms length and closer. It is not and never will be a replacement for sighted fire.

I don't believe you can find one real threat focused trainer who feels differently than your above statement. In fact, the point shooting [ I prefer threat focused ] instructors I know all profess to a man that both sighted and unsighted fire skills need to be tools in the tool kit.

I also would disagree with the statement that pointshoting has to be used at arms length or closer. The students shoot at great distances than that with as good or better hit ratios all the time in short order.

In fact, here's an exceprt from a moderator here who has taken the time to see what it is we offer the shooting community:

The thing to remember isn't that you're not replacing sight shooting skills with these skills. This just provides additional skills. Brownie may be able to chew a ragged 2 inch hole out of a target with 2 handed QK at 30 feet, but I would still use my sights if I had to put bullets into a space that precise at that range. He never claimed it was a replacement for what we knew or for sight shooting under all circumstances. Instead he kept reminding us that if you don't have time or don't have space or don't have a sight picture, for what ever reason, you could still hit a man sized target out to 30 feet without the sights.

That is not justifcation for anything but more training on whichever method you prefer. The fact that people sometimes react in ways that are contrary to their training just means that the training was not adequate.[/I]

Could not agree with that more. Now which method, and specifically, which technique, might be best in any given circumstance is another issue of discussion which sedgwicks into this idea.

Those who have no formal threat focused skills, or perhaps more importantly, improper or inadequate threat focused skills and then under stress of FoF try to use that skill which they do not own outright or properly would be at a serious disadvantage over their more ingrained modern technique skills.

If someone reverts to threat focused type skills under stress, and isn't trained in use of same, the results are not going to be worth arguing about. It would behoove every shooter to have such skills should their training fail otherwise and they find themselves in a threat focused technique however.

Your comment here:

You should pick your engagement method based on your own skills and training and the distance/time involved in the engagement.

Exactly fits the terms I use in the classes when asked to resolve some shooting scenario. The technique used should be based on the time distance equation. Which technique one uses depends on what tools they have in that tool box.

No proper threat focused skills training? We can't expect them to use a tool they don't own. That shooter would have to rely on the limited tools in his individual tool box. Here's the rub there though---if one tool would be better for a time/distance resolution and that tool can't be used, or used properly for lack of knowledge or training, the shooter will have to make due with those tools he does have. Not that the tool can't get the job done, but that tool may be inappropriate for the circumstances and therfore cause the shooter to get shot or killed when another tool that was faster to threat could have been used but for that lack of skills.

I don't understand how anyone who claims to understand how people learn and how to train them to react under pressure can make that kind of a statement. That is the same as a major league pitching coach telling a pitcher who gets excited and starts missing his release point in high stress situations, that he should just learn to throw that slider without hitting the proper release point because thats the way you will do it when the pressure is on.

I tend to agree but lets keep in mind that your scenario makes use of a "professional". Unlike the pros you and I may have worked with in the field or Mils or LEO's, civilians are not pros and may revert to types of responses that are under the body alarm response [ BAR ] which can and does take over under stress many times.

Would it not behoove these people who are not "pros" and don't train adequately or enough to know some of these skill which make use of their natural startle BAR's?

In short, I would appreciate if, in the future, you would not lump all threat focused trainers/proponents into the same pot, we are as individual as any of the modern technique trainers out there. In short, some are better than others and some understand what can be done and can't be done.

Thanks for your time and posts, I agree with most everything you are saying, and as usual we are pretty much on the same page here.

Brownie
 
Jim,
No apologies are necessary. We should be able to discuss these things without resorting to shouting. Unfortunately point shooting vs. sighted fire is one of those topics that generates a lot of it.

I would love it if the sighted fire proponents could accept that at very close HTH range you need to be able to point shoot and for the point shooting proponents to admit that because people try to point shoot when pressed for time, doesn't mean that it's the best technique for all situations and that someone who is minimally trained in point shooting is just as likely to miss as someone who's minimally trained in sighted fire.

We have two techniques that should complement each other but instead it's always looked at an all or nothing proposition by most people on both sides of the issue.

A legally armed citizen or police officer needs to be proficient in an integrated skill set that includes sighted fire, point shooting and hand to hand techniques. He/she also need the most important thing, mindset.

But instead of developing an integrated combatives skillset and the mindset on how to employ it, we argue over what component is best.....

Jeff
 
Agreed Jeff. I believe we instruct in the manner you have described. At no time is use of sights discouraged except during cetain exercises. I tell you what and this may be difficult. We encourage a diverse crowd at our events. If you and someone else would like to attend or observe you are welcome. Only costs would be that of ammo and lodging. And we may be able to work out the lodging. We would encourage an unbiased report afterwords one way or the other. This is the only way to bring these two camps together. We as Americans are the front lines against crimes and terrorism in this country. The faster we come up with the ideal program the better. Take care.

Jim
 
Jeff...I have never argued that point shooting is best.
I believe that it is one skill that should be mastered along with several others.
And some of those include aimed fire, H2H, knife fighting/defense and stickwork.
Along with tactics.
So it seems that you and I agree.
But we will agree to disagree on certain things.
For example, if many people instinctively tend to hip shoot at close distances then I see no reason not to teach them how to do so both properly and accurately.
In other words, I do not see such methods as improper, but rather a vital skill to be mastered and employed within it's proper perspective.
In fact, my father---who was a member of Darby's Rangers--
told me that hip shooting with a rifle/Tommygun was one of the most vital skills that he learned from the British Commandos and one that he used quite often in actual warfare.
PS..in the interest of mercy this will be my last comment on the subject.
 
I think that the problem is with the idea that people will default to point shooting and that they'll be effective as a result.

I can "see" how it "sounded" like that, but it just ain't the case. People under stress may default to something similar to what's seen in point shooting, but I think we've got the cart before the horse if we think they make hits with it. Point shooting takes advantage, or incorporates, or compentsates for some of the same movement that people default to. That doesn't make it the same as point shooting. It just means that you can integrate it into the system to help remove the negative effects. It still takes training to make it useful. It takes thousands of repetitions to burn the proper techniques in the muscle memory to make good hits.

Guys that point without training may get lucky and get hits, but that's no different than folks who front/rear sight shoot without training making hits. Without good technique they're depending upon the blind squirell to find an acorn to get hits.

So before anyone out there gets the idea that point shooting will be effective without lots of practice let me say there ain't no free lunch, anything that sounds too good to be true is, etc. It takes work and perfect practice to make perfect. If you didn't have to train at it no one in last weekend's course would have gotten one whitt better after the first 10 minutes of being shown the technique if it was as easy as point and shoot. Instead what we saw was a development of skill over a two day period of hard training where the trainees got faster and more accurate with pratice.
 
I think PS can be a more efficient way to get newbies to achieve fast hits at 0-7 yards than sighted fire. (It's a theory of mine...don't flame me too bad;) ) Why? Because it eliminates a whole category of stuff they have to think about. All they need to focus on is trigger squeeze, grip and stance. They will see immediate feedback on the target of a failure in these aeas. A sighted fire newbie has to worry about the above in addition to focusing on the front sight, sight alignment and sight picture. Can be overwhelming and can disquise the cause of errors. So, I feel sighted fire newbies will get more accurate hits...at much slower speeds. PS newbies will get acceptable hits (still in vital zone) at much faster speeds.

If they 1st practice getting a good index and results out to 7 yards...when you introduce the sights, they are already on the target somewhere due to good body position. All they have to do is shift focus to FS, verify and fine tune. Just my opinion, I've got more than average experience training others, military and civilian, but nowhere near what the Big Dawgs in this fight have.

I think the mis-communication between the camps is accidental. The PS advocates are the underdogs currently. They (every single one I've encountered) all say sighted fire is at least equally important. Need both. My theory is the problem comes when sighted proponents say PS isn't accurate enough beyond 3 yards or so. So, naturally, the PS proponents provide evidence that it can be quite accurate out to 15 yards or more. This makes the sighted fire guys assume the PS advocates are saying it can replace sighted fire out to those ranges. Not at all, I see no reason not to be on the sights at 7-15 yards unless I literally cannot see them. They are just trying to prove its effectiveness not detract from the effectiveness of sighted fire.

I find it ironic that the IPSC masters seem to arrive at the same place, "Seeing what they need to see" for each shot. Through 10s of thousands of rounds per year in practice, they have developed the body index and cooridination to know their sights are on target at certain ranges without the need to verify. The PS advocates just start out with this premise and work the problem from the body index, coordination side of the equation 1st. When you use the sights, they will be on target due to a good index and/or coordination.

Again, the PS advocates all view sights and sighted fire as necessary. The other day I was shooting fist size burst groups from 1/2 hip at 3 yards with my M9 in full combat gear. Further than "arms length" and more accurate than anyone else on the line. I'm no virtuoso, I don't practice all that much. Maybe average 100 rds/month, most of them good 'ol fashioned sighted fire.
 
Without getting into the whole point/aim, fire, I thought the "Underarm Assault position" was outmoded and no longer used? Why would this be better than having your stock seated in "the pocket"- where it could quickly and easily transition to sighted fire?

John
 
Matt,
Excellent material.

Jshirley,
You cannot always have your weapon shouldered and the under arm assault positions is for close quarters shooting when you do not want your weapon sticking way out in front of you.
 
I've always found indoor ready to be a much better position then the underarm assault position when operating in a building. Also much safer as you aren't going to cover a teammate with your muzzle.

Jeff
 
Underam assault does not have to be with the muzzle pointed at a threat....it can be used as a ready position with the muzzle angled down...a very comfortable carring position when on patrol.
Underam assault can also be snapped in from port arms or from low ready...or indoor ready for that matter.
The advantage of underam assault for use within a building is that it reduces the length of the weapon and is good for retention. It is also a faster way of getting off a quick shot/burst than from the shoulder.
As a wise man once said, just another tool in the toolbox.
 
Jeff,
Do you know where I can see a picture of the indoor ready? I'm sure I've seen it before but I want to be on the same page with you because these days everyone has different terms for the same technique.

I also agree with Matt that I often carry my rifle/shotgun in the manor that Matt describes when in the field. However, I often forget that when I was in the military my weapon was on a sling and some of the newer 3-point slings would make underarm assault position hard if not imposable to do.

The way I look at techniques is this...techniques are like tools, try them and see if they work for you. If they do then place it in your toolbox and if it doesn’t discard it and look for one that does.

We are all different and certain techniques work better with certain people/systems. As a trainer, our job is to make the shooter better and to give them the tools to become such. What I commonly see is a person that has only one system and are striving to make clones out of their students. Being left-handed I have had to re-design most of what is taught and to make it work for me. This is something that is finally changing in the last few years.

In closing, I would like to address one thing that was said and clarify it. I only know of one point shooter that thinks point shooting alone is the answer to every problem and he has been banned on this site. The rest of us the promote point shooting because we believe it has been left out of most shooting schools. We believe that learning both makes a person a complete shooter. Matt and I believe in both the use of sights, which everyone is teaching, and the use of point shooting techniques, which only a few people teach. We promote and write about it so people know what is missing however, that does not mean that we think it is a stand-alone system.

We are not point shooters but shooters that at times use point shooting.
 
The Great Debate?

To open, let me say that I am not about to waste your time or mine in debating what I am about to state, it is my opinion and that is about it. If it opens a few minds good, if not, so be it. You will pardon me if that sounds a bit rude, however we all know how these discussions can get, and I prefer not to travel that road, again. Now on with the show…

There is no actual basis for the “point shooting vs. sights only” debate. Everyone point shoots and I do mean everyone. If you did not point the weapon at the target, how could you acquire the sights? Sights are the instruments used to fine-tune the pointed weapon for increased accuracy. Therefore, I believe we can all agree on this.

Furthermore, I think we can also agree that some people can and do shoot successfully, regardless of range, only using their sights.

A point of contention may be my theory (and I cant be the only one who arrived at this conclusion) that advanced “sights only” shooters only think they still use their sights and in reality are finely tuned pointers. I did say theory and it is based upon the impressive times some of you people can attain. The acquisition and use of the sight(s) would have to be in mille-seconds of time. Either way it does amaze me and I admire the skill and dedication. Something else that assisted me in this conclusion was my son’s statement, after shooting an IDPA match and doing well for his first time out, he said, “You know Dad, I don’t remember using the sights?” Did he or did he not?

Personally, I believe the “debate” (read that argument) stems from two main groups (though there are others). The unenlightened whose only knowledge derives from a “tactical” shooting class so they have time and money invested in their guru’s method (who HAS to be right) and those gurus who make a living doing the teaching (and who cannot admit to being fallible in any way). Perhaps there is a third, the folks who have not read and studied upon the subject, in general, and in particular the book "Shooting to Live" by Fairbairn and Sykes. To my knowledge this is the first book ever written on the subject and still a valid one.

Now before you say ”oh no, not another one of those FSA devotees” let me explain. If you study, and the key word is study, the book you will realize that F&S had to systemize a program that would enable them to easily and hurriedly prepare an extremely varied group of multi-ethnic individuals to shoot in one of the most dangerous places in the world.

Some of the points I gleaned are the text are as follows:

* Point shooting in not difficult to learn at the ranges for which it was intended.
* Point shooting is an adjunct to, not substitute for, sighted fire (this statement basically seems to get ignored in the infamous debates).
* Point shooting IS aimed fire.
* The time and money invested in maintaining these skills are much lower and let us face it; even police do not train for a living only professional instructors do).
* Knowledge of sighted fire was never discouraged, quite the contrary in fact (formal target shooting was graciously discouraged as a combat tool however).
* Gain knowledge of it as its combat proven and it works (at least as far as the author’s and their department were concerned).

In actual documented close combat shootings, the misses far outweigh the hits – agreed.

This is unquestionably owing, somewhat, to the inability to perform the fine motor skills, necessary in rigid form, sights-only shooting, under the extreme stress of combat and to the low-light conditions under which many/most of these confrontations occurred (you cant use ‘em if you cant see ‘em). If some highly trained specialists can loose control of certain bodily functions under these conditions, can the average person be expected to do anything but simply react – hopefully?

The basis for point shooting training, as traditionally thought (I say traditionally because many are now putting their own twist on things and claiming it they always did this), eliminates the need for fine motor skills, and enables one to prepare for how they will probably react under close-range fire.

Granted, much depends upon the individual and their level of expertise. Not to mention their maintenance of said skills. Perhaps more importantly, is their interest in achieving these skills in the first place, nevertheless I digress.

In conclusion, it is up to the individual to gain the talent they feel works best for them in their particular situation. Let us not be close-minded concerning the skills we personally choose or recommend, what works for one does not, necessarily, work for another and visa versa.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top