Does a gunfight at contact to 1 Yard really require shooting skills?
- Thread starter Glamdring
- Start date
- Status
You know I have thought about this before, but never did real close practice. Probably because I keep thinking danger from bullet splatter or bounceback.
I'm thinking about using clay pigeons (hanging like a target on the backer) or small ballons for safe, cheap, reactive targets for bad breath range.
You know with ballons you could mix knife techniques in, and with clay pigeons impact weapon or forearms (or hands with gloves?).
Hmmm. How about taking a paper grocery bag and unfolding it to get el cheapo half silhouette. Place a clay pigeon at head and groin positions (head bad target for most knife attacks, though slashes at eyes/forhead can blind, head bleeds bad) and some ballons at heart and kidneys?
***
Jim March: I think we can agree
DA snubbies are king of HG for contact/near contact shooting.
I'm thinking about using clay pigeons (hanging like a target on the backer) or small ballons for safe, cheap, reactive targets for bad breath range.
You know with ballons you could mix knife techniques in, and with clay pigeons impact weapon or forearms (or hands with gloves?).
Hmmm. How about taking a paper grocery bag and unfolding it to get el cheapo half silhouette. Place a clay pigeon at head and groin positions (head bad target for most knife attacks, though slashes at eyes/forhead can blind, head bleeds bad) and some ballons at heart and kidneys?
***
Jim March: I think we can agree
DA snubbies are king of HG for contact/near contact shooting.Edward429451
member
I most certainly do not shoot steel at this distance, silohettes only. When I plan to practice these type of things at the range, I always go extra early to beat the others so I can go up to hug the backstop, so no "fly overs."
Double Naught Spy
Sus Venator
A blind paraplegic in contact with an attacker could land all 6 shots from a revolver on his attacker without ever seeing the attacker, gun, or sights. Simply put, proximity negates skill. By random chance, you are more apt to hit a target close by than way off in the distance. With me so far?
With that in mind, close in fighting may require talents beyond marksmanship. What should be kept in mind is that such proximity that might not require great marksmanship is going to require quicker reactions. Up close, events happen much quicker and you are in more jeopardy. For example, a person with a knife is hugely more dangerous to you at 1 yard than at 10 yards. If you are hoping to draw your gun and fire at the bad guy, at 1 yard, you may already be way behind the curve and not actually have enough time to draw before you get stabbed several times.
Similarly, due to physical contact with the attacker, you are more likely to have a malfunction and therefore it would be ideal if you had great gun skills relevant to clearing malfunctions even though you may not be needing great marksmanship. Similarly, you will be needing good retention skills to not lose the gun in the struggle. At 10 yards, you probably aren't even giving consideration to retention.
With that in mind, close in fighting may require talents beyond marksmanship. What should be kept in mind is that such proximity that might not require great marksmanship is going to require quicker reactions. Up close, events happen much quicker and you are in more jeopardy. For example, a person with a knife is hugely more dangerous to you at 1 yard than at 10 yards. If you are hoping to draw your gun and fire at the bad guy, at 1 yard, you may already be way behind the curve and not actually have enough time to draw before you get stabbed several times.
Similarly, due to physical contact with the attacker, you are more likely to have a malfunction and therefore it would be ideal if you had great gun skills relevant to clearing malfunctions even though you may not be needing great marksmanship. Similarly, you will be needing good retention skills to not lose the gun in the struggle. At 10 yards, you probably aren't even giving consideration to retention.
Preacherman
Member
Some good points made. I think training in close-range defensive skills (including shooting, but not limited to the gun) is extremely valuable in three areas:
1. Scoring hits from an unaimed retention position, and what to expect if you're using a handgun that can injure you from a retention position (e.g. a snubby revolver, with flame from the cylinder/barrel gap - this can burn you through a light shirt);
2. Weapon retention and disarming techniques (both very useful under certain circumstances);
3. Moving away from the threat, opening distance while engaging, firing on the move, etc. Certainly, if you're jumped by a BG at halitosis range, the LAST thing you want to do is stay close in! Move away while defending yourself - get to a range where your skills can make a difference. As Clint Smith says, "proximity negates skill" - at close range, the BG only has to be lucky, not trained...
1. Scoring hits from an unaimed retention position, and what to expect if you're using a handgun that can injure you from a retention position (e.g. a snubby revolver, with flame from the cylinder/barrel gap - this can burn you through a light shirt);
2. Weapon retention and disarming techniques (both very useful under certain circumstances);
3. Moving away from the threat, opening distance while engaging, firing on the move, etc. Certainly, if you're jumped by a BG at halitosis range, the LAST thing you want to do is stay close in! Move away while defending yourself - get to a range where your skills can make a difference. As Clint Smith says, "proximity negates skill" - at close range, the BG only has to be lucky, not trained...
Jim March
Member
If a fight started at 7ft or more out, I personally would create distance plus move sideways towards whatever hard cover seemed useful.
BUT at 5ft or less, I *personally* would hang close, or even close. BUT that's because I have some rough clue what to do with a knife (which in turn is applicable to the gun as discussed). While closing, one hand is going claw-like at his face, while I go low and sideways while pumping rounds in. The "claw to the face" is to put him off-balance just for that instant I need to slow him down.
For one thing, one hand on the opponent can be used as a "sensor" to what he's doing.
Second, if you take away somebody's balance, their ability to use ANY weapon suffers.
Therefore, I want to take advantage of those close-range techniques. While a close-range fight IS dangerous, by moving out of "bad breath range" you give the guy too much time to take a close-range shot at you while you're NOT upsetting his balance or otherwise applying dirty tricks.
BUT: it's not worth closing from too far out to do so.
I hope that makes sense.
BUT at 5ft or less, I *personally* would hang close, or even close. BUT that's because I have some rough clue what to do with a knife (which in turn is applicable to the gun as discussed). While closing, one hand is going claw-like at his face, while I go low and sideways while pumping rounds in. The "claw to the face" is to put him off-balance just for that instant I need to slow him down.
For one thing, one hand on the opponent can be used as a "sensor" to what he's doing.
Second, if you take away somebody's balance, their ability to use ANY weapon suffers.
Therefore, I want to take advantage of those close-range techniques. While a close-range fight IS dangerous, by moving out of "bad breath range" you give the guy too much time to take a close-range shot at you while you're NOT upsetting his balance or otherwise applying dirty tricks.
BUT: it's not worth closing from too far out to do so.
I hope that makes sense.
Sweatnbullets
Member
I'm in the group that would say "distance is my friend" especially due to the fact that I will must likely have much more training than the BG. I do not have knife fighting training, but my firearms training seem pretty close to what some of the knife guys are saying.
I would go with a palm strike to the eyes to get his head involuntarily flinching back. Then I would present my weapon at the same time as I would be stepping back out of contact distance. Most likely diagonally to the right rear or left rear. I would get off the appropriate number of shots, all the while moving around the BG. Much like a boxer working the angles, all the while putting more distance between myself and my adversary.
I would go with a non-standard response until I shoot him to the ground, or transition up for the cranial ocular cavity for the finish, all situational.
If you ask me training in CQB is equally as important as being able to make the hit under pressure out to 25 yards (and everything inbetween). Find a reputable instructor and learn it all. Sure it's a lot of work, but it's a labor of love.
I would go with a palm strike to the eyes to get his head involuntarily flinching back. Then I would present my weapon at the same time as I would be stepping back out of contact distance. Most likely diagonally to the right rear or left rear. I would get off the appropriate number of shots, all the while moving around the BG. Much like a boxer working the angles, all the while putting more distance between myself and my adversary.
I would go with a non-standard response until I shoot him to the ground, or transition up for the cranial ocular cavity for the finish, all situational.
If you ask me training in CQB is equally as important as being able to make the hit under pressure out to 25 yards (and everything inbetween). Find a reputable instructor and learn it all. Sure it's a lot of work, but it's a labor of love.
Well you can pretty much guarantee the guy carrying a ported pistol has NEVER fired a shot at contact range.
Lots of stuff can happen, like catching your clothes on fire, blowing your own glasses off, etc.
Learning to shoot at contact distance is a valuable thing.
Lots of stuff can happen, like catching your clothes on fire, blowing your own glasses off, etc.
Learning to shoot at contact distance is a valuable thing.
Ryder
Member
Great discussion - Tailor Made.
I've been remodeling the bathroom and had a full length mirror installed on the closet door this last week. Never had one before. After my shower last night I put on my gear and was looking to check for printing when the thought struck me. That full length mirror would be just the ticket for checking out my draw! I've only had the permit for a year or so now and just recently began training in self-defense/closeup scenarios.
The mirror rules! I was rushed for work so didn't have much time to experiment but I did clear the pistol and try a couple presentations with dryfire. Very enlightening! Much of what was discussed in this thread immediately came to light.
I was so close to the mirror that a close-in retention hold was mandatory, or risk busting my brand newfull length mirror. Several quick draws later I was I was getting a good feel of where my pistol was pointing, I seemed to be "hitting" very high, like chin area. I do cross draw (it's way fast!) and was dropping my elbow too far. Bringing the point of aim down wasn't hard to figure out, just had to tighten or hunch the strong shoulder. In fact I think that with more practice (need to try it with real bullets for one thing) I should be able to pull off a mozambique with a high degree of certainty.
It all looked pretty good with one exception. My weak arm was just hanging out there doing nothing. Looked awkward and goofy as you can imagine. My first attempt to correct that had me holding my fist tight over my heart. That just didn't get it. Extra bone between my heart and the muzzle of a bad guys 25 caliber belly buster would be a good thing but not in the hand! Next thing I tried was holding the fist higher, up under the chin with it protecting my neck and the forearm parallel to my center mass with the elbow tucked in tight covering my left side as viewed head on. Arm at full "cramp" like that felt very secure and didn't look so goofy from my angle. It uses the offside arm bones as a shield for the spine and heart. I liked that. My arm was cocked and ready for a punch out over the pistol if need.
I've been doing some moving and shooting close up work at the range so hopefully it will all eventually come together into something I can use instinctively. Also very interesting in this thread was talk about non-ported guns and slide disconnect on contact. I found out my new summer gun the XD-9 Subcompact has a "standoff" feature. The guide rod for the recoil spring extends out past the muzzle a fraction of an inch, and it's a solid non-moving part. I've seen a picture of a contact wound where a single pistol shot seriously looked like the guy swallowed a grenade. It's the expanding gasses which do the damage. Anybody think maybe going with a low flash powder would decrease the desired explosive effect? Are the expelled gasses in equal amounts with low flash verses high flash? Just less visible? I haven't even an educated guess at that other than I do think more powder would equal more gasses. A compressed powder load would have to kick butt over pinch of bullseye for example.
I've been remodeling the bathroom and had a full length mirror installed on the closet door this last week. Never had one before. After my shower last night I put on my gear and was looking to check for printing when the thought struck me. That full length mirror would be just the ticket for checking out my draw! I've only had the permit for a year or so now and just recently began training in self-defense/closeup scenarios.
The mirror rules! I was rushed for work so didn't have much time to experiment but I did clear the pistol and try a couple presentations with dryfire. Very enlightening! Much of what was discussed in this thread immediately came to light.
I was so close to the mirror that a close-in retention hold was mandatory, or risk busting my brand newfull length mirror. Several quick draws later I was I was getting a good feel of where my pistol was pointing, I seemed to be "hitting" very high, like chin area. I do cross draw (it's way fast!) and was dropping my elbow too far. Bringing the point of aim down wasn't hard to figure out, just had to tighten or hunch the strong shoulder. In fact I think that with more practice (need to try it with real bullets for one thing) I should be able to pull off a mozambique with a high degree of certainty.
It all looked pretty good with one exception. My weak arm was just hanging out there doing nothing. Looked awkward and goofy as you can imagine. My first attempt to correct that had me holding my fist tight over my heart. That just didn't get it. Extra bone between my heart and the muzzle of a bad guys 25 caliber belly buster would be a good thing but not in the hand! Next thing I tried was holding the fist higher, up under the chin with it protecting my neck and the forearm parallel to my center mass with the elbow tucked in tight covering my left side as viewed head on. Arm at full "cramp" like that felt very secure and didn't look so goofy from my angle. It uses the offside arm bones as a shield for the spine and heart. I liked that. My arm was cocked and ready for a punch out over the pistol if need.
I've been doing some moving and shooting close up work at the range so hopefully it will all eventually come together into something I can use instinctively. Also very interesting in this thread was talk about non-ported guns and slide disconnect on contact. I found out my new summer gun the XD-9 Subcompact has a "standoff" feature. The guide rod for the recoil spring extends out past the muzzle a fraction of an inch, and it's a solid non-moving part. I've seen a picture of a contact wound where a single pistol shot seriously looked like the guy swallowed a grenade. It's the expanding gasses which do the damage. Anybody think maybe going with a low flash powder would decrease the desired explosive effect? Are the expelled gasses in equal amounts with low flash verses high flash? Just less visible? I haven't even an educated guess at that other than I do think more powder would equal more gasses. A compressed powder load would have to kick butt over pinch of bullseye for example.
ACP
Member
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2002
- Messages
- 1,334
My close-range dry fire practice has resulted in the following observations:
1. weak hand (left) either covers the head/neck region or simulates pushing away the attacker.
2. strong hand (right) draws from pocket, firearm indexes at belt buckle, and is slightly canted to the right.
1. weak hand (left) either covers the head/neck region or simulates pushing away the attacker.
2. strong hand (right) draws from pocket, firearm indexes at belt buckle, and is slightly canted to the right.
Jim March
Member
Ryder: now mix it up a bit. While drawing, take your strong-hand leg and step back and sideways with it one page. With your off-hand, backhand the "opponent" in the face.
Why backhand? If he has a knife, a cut to the back of the hand/forearm is less serious. The idea is to distract for a sec while you go low with the gun.
The initial footwork puts you in a slightly different place than you were in the first millisecond of the fight. Basically, where you are at the start of the situation is the most likely place he's going to pump fire at, even if wounded/stunned/distracted/dying. That "initial point" on your part should be thought of as the "kill zone" - DO NOT hang out there. Begin the motion process right away.
If you don't know what you're doing in-close (in a circling fashion) then get the hell out, back and sideways. The goal is to take yourself out of the most likely path of incoming fire: the place you were when you started.
Why backhand? If he has a knife, a cut to the back of the hand/forearm is less serious. The idea is to distract for a sec while you go low with the gun.
The initial footwork puts you in a slightly different place than you were in the first millisecond of the fight. Basically, where you are at the start of the situation is the most likely place he's going to pump fire at, even if wounded/stunned/distracted/dying. That "initial point" on your part should be thought of as the "kill zone" - DO NOT hang out there. Begin the motion process right away.
If you don't know what you're doing in-close (in a circling fashion) then get the hell out, back and sideways. The goal is to take yourself out of the most likely path of incoming fire: the place you were when you started.
Ryder
Member
Thanks Jim. The bathroom is too small for much movement but I'll work on that at the range.
I've done a LOT of hunting in my time. I've missed so many moving targets that it's rediculous. It's going to be very important in any sefl-defense incident. It took me too many years and much dissapointment to get the hang of shooting where they are going to be as opposed to where they are. I doubt many street punks have the ability to lead a moving target. That's a good thing for us good guys and we certainly should use it to our advantage.
I've done a LOT of hunting in my time. I've missed so many moving targets that it's rediculous. It's going to be very important in any sefl-defense incident. It took me too many years and much dissapointment to get the hang of shooting where they are going to be as opposed to where they are. I doubt many street punks have the ability to lead a moving target. That's a good thing for us good guys and we certainly should use it to our advantage.
Cosmoline
Member
I don't know. CQB training is great, but I think you still need to have great comfort and familiarity with your firearm. You MUST master the basics, which means a lot of target shooting from the classic stances. After that, you can move to the more challenging training.
1 yard distance is most dangerous of all. More elements are involved and they favor both parties being injured. This is why contact distance gunfighting is usually taught to advanced students, not novices.
Sure, we all know the Speed Rock, but how many really practice so as not to shoot their own butt, leg, side, hand or arm? -yet these are common self-inflicted injuries during gunfights.
As for knife-fighters in this range, an accomplished knife fighter can perform 10 vital area strikes in the same 1.5-2 seconds it takes a 'extremely good' pistolier to perform a failure drill.
Conflict within 7 yards is a very scary place.
Sure, we all know the Speed Rock, but how many really practice so as not to shoot their own butt, leg, side, hand or arm? -yet these are common self-inflicted injuries during gunfights.
As for knife-fighters in this range, an accomplished knife fighter can perform 10 vital area strikes in the same 1.5-2 seconds it takes a 'extremely good' pistolier to perform a failure drill.
Conflict within 7 yards is a very scary place.
CWL:
To me that is like saying we should teach people to drive on a closed course with no intersections and all the traffice going in one direction.
And then send them off to drive on regular streets and traffic.
Yes, contact distance IS more dangerous than shooting at 7 yards.
But contact shooting IS what is most likely to happen for self defense.
Part of the reason I started this thread is that I think most/all shooting schools go along with students delusion that shooting at 5, 7, 12, 15, 25 yards is good practice for self defense.
I have noticed that most people that have gone to name schools talk about having a good time. And none of them seem to use equipment and concealment (of weapon) that they use in real life.
Example: I met a married couple that had been to Thunder Ranch several times. They were carrying using fanny packs. Not the gear they used to shoot while at TR.
Most of the people that I know that carry are not hard core shooters. They might shoot a gun couple times a year on average. They don't carry full sized guns with IWB/OWB strongside holsters.
They carry little guns in pocket holsters and off body carry. They are average people that want something for self defense.
I think there should be something available for these people and the rest of us. A basic, simple course of training and practice that isn't time intensive or expensive.
So far the closest stuff I have seen is Applegate's short point firing training method. I don't think it is perfect, but it was designed to address this type of problem.
I also find it worth noting that IDPA doesn't include contact range shooting even for their advanced competition.
To me that is like saying we should teach people to drive on a closed course with no intersections and all the traffice going in one direction.
And then send them off to drive on regular streets and traffic.
Yes, contact distance IS more dangerous than shooting at 7 yards.
But contact shooting IS what is most likely to happen for self defense.
Part of the reason I started this thread is that I think most/all shooting schools go along with students delusion that shooting at 5, 7, 12, 15, 25 yards is good practice for self defense.
I have noticed that most people that have gone to name schools talk about having a good time. And none of them seem to use equipment and concealment (of weapon) that they use in real life.
Example: I met a married couple that had been to Thunder Ranch several times. They were carrying using fanny packs. Not the gear they used to shoot while at TR.
Most of the people that I know that carry are not hard core shooters. They might shoot a gun couple times a year on average. They don't carry full sized guns with IWB/OWB strongside holsters.
They carry little guns in pocket holsters and off body carry. They are average people that want something for self defense.
I think there should be something available for these people and the rest of us. A basic, simple course of training and practice that isn't time intensive or expensive.
So far the closest stuff I have seen is Applegate's short point firing training method. I don't think it is perfect, but it was designed to address this type of problem.
I also find it worth noting that IDPA doesn't include contact range shooting even for their advanced competition.
Hey Glamdring,
I don't know if we fully disagree but we have a few differences.
I believe that you have to crawl before you can walk. Most people don't have the money or time or inclination to learn grappling + retention excercises. Getting most out the door with the basics of safety & self-defense is much better than not at all.
Contact stuff is falls into advanced training because of the inherent dangers to trainees when they try to apply tactics.
If you read my post carefully, I write about the most likely possibility of both parties trading damage when in contact distances. I also point out the dangers of self-inflicted injuries.
So to answer your post:
The answer is YES. Lots of skills and training & practice.
In addition, any training in gunplay & SD is good, it adds to the smoothness in motion, mental alertness & calm under stress. So one shouldn't stop training at longer ranges (although I think that 15yards is probably the max for practical SD handgun) just because they can assume that most altercations will happen within 1 yard.. This seems to imply that there is no need for any training at all since a false perception is that it's easy to push a gun into a BG & pull the trigger.
I also think that in your examples, people are making their best compromise on how they will carry. Not everyone can walk about daily with speed rig strapped to their side.
I don't know if we fully disagree but we have a few differences.
I believe that you have to crawl before you can walk. Most people don't have the money or time or inclination to learn grappling + retention excercises. Getting most out the door with the basics of safety & self-defense is much better than not at all.
Contact stuff is falls into advanced training because of the inherent dangers to trainees when they try to apply tactics.
If you read my post carefully, I write about the most likely possibility of both parties trading damage when in contact distances. I also point out the dangers of self-inflicted injuries.
So to answer your post:
The answer is YES. Lots of skills and training & practice.
In addition, any training in gunplay & SD is good, it adds to the smoothness in motion, mental alertness & calm under stress. So one shouldn't stop training at longer ranges (although I think that 15yards is probably the max for practical SD handgun) just because they can assume that most altercations will happen within 1 yard.. This seems to imply that there is no need for any training at all since a false perception is that it's easy to push a gun into a BG & pull the trigger.
I also think that in your examples, people are making their best compromise on how they will carry. Not everyone can walk about daily with speed rig strapped to their side.
brownie0486
Member
Man with a knife at contact or out to 10 feet gets my undivided attention and I will not be pulling heat.
If I can create distance, I may draw the weapon. I can get to and have ready [ opened ] either the left or right knife in under a second from startle mode. Can't get the gun out in that time frame.
At these distances it is H2H or H2knife. Going for heat will get you killed prety quick at under 10 feet. The percentages are not in your favor. If I make an attempt to present and he's now on me, one hand is uselessly tied up at the sidearm, I'm only able to defend one handed, backing up, sideways stepping, etc.
I want both hands available to defend/deflect the attack and attempt to control or create enough distance to draw the heat.
Brownie
If I can create distance, I may draw the weapon. I can get to and have ready [ opened ] either the left or right knife in under a second from startle mode. Can't get the gun out in that time frame.
At these distances it is H2H or H2knife. Going for heat will get you killed prety quick at under 10 feet. The percentages are not in your favor. If I make an attempt to present and he's now on me, one hand is uselessly tied up at the sidearm, I'm only able to defend one handed, backing up, sideways stepping, etc.
I want both hands available to defend/deflect the attack and attempt to control or create enough distance to draw the heat.
Brownie
CWL: I don't know if we really disagree.
If I understand you correctly you think contact range practice is to dangerous for people that are not real skilled with their firearm.
I might agree that Live Fire practice isn't what you should start with, but why can't you start with inert training guns on day one, and move to paintball/airsoft on day two?
I think the real reason why people, & shooting schools, tend to ignore contact range practice is because it isn't a shooting problem. It is a combination of empty hand, weapon retention/disarm, and point/contact shooting, etc.
Usually the only people that play with guns are people who like to shoot.
***
It is similar to what I have seen in unarmed self defense classes. People tend to view the issue of self defense thru the lens of their hobby/sport. Which leads them to poor tactics and training for self defense.
The only reason I have a problem with that is the non hobbyist that doesn't understand the dynamics of self defense tends to go to a martial artist, LEO, or shooting instructor for advice and training for self defense. Then thinks they have learned something useful for self defense.
***
I think a gun is needed for effective self defense. But I think the skill set is not the same as what you would use for shooting at even 7 yards.
If I understand you correctly you think contact range practice is to dangerous for people that are not real skilled with their firearm.
I might agree that Live Fire practice isn't what you should start with, but why can't you start with inert training guns on day one, and move to paintball/airsoft on day two?
I think the real reason why people, & shooting schools, tend to ignore contact range practice is because it isn't a shooting problem. It is a combination of empty hand, weapon retention/disarm, and point/contact shooting, etc.
Usually the only people that play with guns are people who like to shoot.
***
It is similar to what I have seen in unarmed self defense classes. People tend to view the issue of self defense thru the lens of their hobby/sport. Which leads them to poor tactics and training for self defense.
The only reason I have a problem with that is the non hobbyist that doesn't understand the dynamics of self defense tends to go to a martial artist, LEO, or shooting instructor for advice and training for self defense. Then thinks they have learned something useful for self defense.
***
I think a gun is needed for effective self defense. But I think the skill set is not the same as what you would use for shooting at even 7 yards.
For what it's worth:
Added the following to a thread on GT about using paper plates, and have also added on a URL to an article I plan to shop around re CQB..........
Here's a 10 inch paper plate.
http://www.pointshooting.com/pietarg.jpg
Used a marker to add the rings. For the small ring, I used the center of an almost empty roll of duct tape. Marked and used both sides. Note that some holes are in, and others are out.
Used a Glock 26, 9mm, at 12 feet, and point shot in bursts of 5. Went through lots of plates besides that one.
Of interest is the location of the hits. With most of the plates the hits were lower rather than higher. I suspect that is due to the edge of the target area of the plate being held by the clip used to hold targets, and knowing that, one will mentally try and not shoot the clip, and as such shoot lower.
I also think that the plates are harder to shoot than bigger targets, as you don't know how close your "misses" are. Bigger "B" targets can show you how to correct your aim even while shooting a burst of shots.
Also used a few 11x17 inch targets at 25 feet and hit them just fine, i.e., one with 4 shots out of burst of 5, and within a group of about 7 inches.
The target ring area on the pieces of 11 x 17 inch paper, was the lower two-thirds, and most all hits were in the target ring area.
I point shot my way (P&S and with my little helper). I just point and pull one handed, or with the weak hand over the wrist of the strong hand. Not orthodox.
I also tried "plain" point shooting, (visualize, point, and shoot), more than 10 times (50+ rounds). May work fine for some, but not that well for me yet. I will try again another day.
I don't use an "indexed stance" or "indexed arm positioning" and suspect that accounted for my poor performance in attempting to shoot that way. I was pointing and blasting away, as fast as I could, and missing most of my shots.
Lastly, FYI, an officer from one of the local and large PD's in the area, was at the range and sighting in some AR's. He said he was an instructor.
Asked about Point shooting, and he said that they Point Shoot under 21 feet. As to the reason why, he said "You will be looking at the threat, not at the sights," or something very close to that.
PS I also had tried the focus-point-shoot method before with about the same results. Not good.
[[ Matt, I really tried, so I think that indexing of some sort or some MOJO that I don't have, must be the key. ]]
I also have tried the CAR method and found it to work OK, but with it one uses an "indexed" position. Looks like that is a clue.
...........
Here is the link http://www.pointshooting.com/thedots.htm
Added the following to a thread on GT about using paper plates, and have also added on a URL to an article I plan to shop around re CQB..........
Here's a 10 inch paper plate.
http://www.pointshooting.com/pietarg.jpg
Used a marker to add the rings. For the small ring, I used the center of an almost empty roll of duct tape. Marked and used both sides. Note that some holes are in, and others are out.
Used a Glock 26, 9mm, at 12 feet, and point shot in bursts of 5. Went through lots of plates besides that one.
Of interest is the location of the hits. With most of the plates the hits were lower rather than higher. I suspect that is due to the edge of the target area of the plate being held by the clip used to hold targets, and knowing that, one will mentally try and not shoot the clip, and as such shoot lower.
I also think that the plates are harder to shoot than bigger targets, as you don't know how close your "misses" are. Bigger "B" targets can show you how to correct your aim even while shooting a burst of shots.
Also used a few 11x17 inch targets at 25 feet and hit them just fine, i.e., one with 4 shots out of burst of 5, and within a group of about 7 inches.
The target ring area on the pieces of 11 x 17 inch paper, was the lower two-thirds, and most all hits were in the target ring area.
I point shot my way (P&S and with my little helper). I just point and pull one handed, or with the weak hand over the wrist of the strong hand. Not orthodox.
I also tried "plain" point shooting, (visualize, point, and shoot), more than 10 times (50+ rounds). May work fine for some, but not that well for me yet. I will try again another day.
I don't use an "indexed stance" or "indexed arm positioning" and suspect that accounted for my poor performance in attempting to shoot that way. I was pointing and blasting away, as fast as I could, and missing most of my shots.
Lastly, FYI, an officer from one of the local and large PD's in the area, was at the range and sighting in some AR's. He said he was an instructor.
Asked about Point shooting, and he said that they Point Shoot under 21 feet. As to the reason why, he said "You will be looking at the threat, not at the sights," or something very close to that.
PS I also had tried the focus-point-shoot method before with about the same results. Not good.
[[ Matt, I really tried, so I think that indexing of some sort or some MOJO that I don't have, must be the key. ]]
I also have tried the CAR method and found it to work OK, but with it one uses an "indexed" position. Looks like that is a clue.
...........
Here is the link http://www.pointshooting.com/thedots.htm
Glamdring: a couple points. One problem with shooting schools and IDPA is that they have to take safety into consideration. Most ranges, most shooting schools, and IDPA recognize "the 180". Your gun has to at all times be pointed down range. At both schools and at IDPA matches, you have people standing behind you, you don't want to point a loaded gun at them. For this reason, you have to use a holster that maximizes safety even though it might not be what you carry. For example, if you have a fanny pack, and it is in front of you, you will be making your draw while covering half the firing line with your muzzle. Training should be as safe as possible.
When you attend a shooting school, you usually stay for five days. You can't go from novice to expert in five days. Therefore the basic courses, cover just that, the basics. Sight alignment, trigger control, breath control, drawing your weapon, making magazine changes, basic marksmanship etc. In an organized school, they have to ensure that everyone is on the same page. When you take a more advanced class that actually involves tactical senarios, it was required that you also took the basic class as a prerequisite so that when they teach the more advanced classes, everyone is on the same page.
There is nothing wrong with any of this. I work as a firefighter. Any call we run at any time can become deadlly. BUT, when we train, we don't try to set up senarios that are deadly to us. We practice the basics, we discuss the tatics etc, but it doesn't have to be exactly like the real thing. Knowing that the whole structure could come crashing down on your head at any moment doesn't add anything to perfecting your basic techniques. We know it could happen, we know what to look for, we are aware of it, but having it present in training would be counterproductive as we killed our own people for no reason.
When you attend a shooting school, you usually stay for five days. You can't go from novice to expert in five days. Therefore the basic courses, cover just that, the basics. Sight alignment, trigger control, breath control, drawing your weapon, making magazine changes, basic marksmanship etc. In an organized school, they have to ensure that everyone is on the same page. When you take a more advanced class that actually involves tactical senarios, it was required that you also took the basic class as a prerequisite so that when they teach the more advanced classes, everyone is on the same page.
There is nothing wrong with any of this. I work as a firefighter. Any call we run at any time can become deadlly. BUT, when we train, we don't try to set up senarios that are deadly to us. We practice the basics, we discuss the tatics etc, but it doesn't have to be exactly like the real thing. Knowing that the whole structure could come crashing down on your head at any moment doesn't add anything to perfecting your basic techniques. We know it could happen, we know what to look for, we are aware of it, but having it present in training would be counterproductive as we killed our own people for no reason.
voilsb
Member
I checked out that link on point shooting that okjoe posted did some practice draws. After drawing, I would check my sights to see where I was shooting. Turns out, it's pretty darn tootin' accurate. I'm definitely going to have to try it at the range whenever I can get the chance.
sanchezero
Member
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2002
- Messages
- 555
I don't typically hash on anyone about anything but I just gotta pipe up here, even tho this has all been said before (in fact this entire reply has been cut and pasted from a thread on GlockTalk).
1. 4 out of 5 hits on a 9x14 inch target at 10-15 FEET, particularly when the shots are spread all over the target anyway, is not a ringing endorsement of your technique. Add to that this statement:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course, all of results were not as good as those shown on the targets.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
...and it becomes even more disheartening.
2. The above is somewhat compensated by this:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The hits were made by an old geezer, who seldom shoots (only six test shoots plus a few other range shoots in over forty years)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, you have 'developed' a technique which you advocate others (even LEOs) to use in self defense of their lives which not only have you not tested, but you can't make work effectively.
3. Pulling the trigger with your middle finger has all sorts of problems associated with it. 1. Many people find that just a bit of light pressure on the slide of their gun can cause malfunctions and you're advocating a whole finger. 2. The middle finger is demonstrably less controlable than the index finger. 3. You state that point shooting is an excellent resource for CQB work and then tell the shooter to manipulate his weapon in a manner that makes it nearly impossible to retain it in a scuffle.
4. How many holsters are available to fit your 'invention'? If it's so natural to point your finger, then why add the rail anyway?
Understand, this isn't pointshooting...
Pointshooting is a valid, proven technique, and while some disagree with its use for a variety of reasons, it's results can't be ignored. I happen to like pointshooting, and I know that with little effort groups half the size of those pictured on oct's site can be shot at those ranges (and probably faster) one-handed from retention.
There is no reason to sacrifice your safety just so you can perform poorly.
The GT thread:
http://glocktalk.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=166178
1. 4 out of 5 hits on a 9x14 inch target at 10-15 FEET, particularly when the shots are spread all over the target anyway, is not a ringing endorsement of your technique. Add to that this statement:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course, all of results were not as good as those shown on the targets.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
...and it becomes even more disheartening.
2. The above is somewhat compensated by this:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The hits were made by an old geezer, who seldom shoots (only six test shoots plus a few other range shoots in over forty years)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, you have 'developed' a technique which you advocate others (even LEOs) to use in self defense of their lives which not only have you not tested, but you can't make work effectively.
3. Pulling the trigger with your middle finger has all sorts of problems associated with it. 1. Many people find that just a bit of light pressure on the slide of their gun can cause malfunctions and you're advocating a whole finger. 2. The middle finger is demonstrably less controlable than the index finger. 3. You state that point shooting is an excellent resource for CQB work and then tell the shooter to manipulate his weapon in a manner that makes it nearly impossible to retain it in a scuffle.
4. How many holsters are available to fit your 'invention'? If it's so natural to point your finger, then why add the rail anyway?
Understand, this isn't pointshooting...
Pointshooting is a valid, proven technique, and while some disagree with its use for a variety of reasons, it's results can't be ignored. I happen to like pointshooting, and I know that with little effort groups half the size of those pictured on oct's site can be shot at those ranges (and probably faster) one-handed from retention.
There is no reason to sacrifice your safety just so you can perform poorly.
The GT thread:
http://glocktalk.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=166178
I guess I just disagree with the people that think you can't teach contact range shooting techniques safely to novices.
I don't see how it could be dangerous to start them off with inert guns (the type used for weapon retention and disarms). And then moving to airsoft or paintball. This would allow them to practice situational awareness in the class.
If you combined that with marksmanship (ie trigger control, sight picture, etc) and weapon manipulation (ie malf clearances and reloads) I think you could go a long ways in three 8 hour days towards improving their chances of surviving a real world attack.
They way I would organize it (3 day class) would be four hours before lunch break each day (using airsoft/paintball type "guns") doing gun safety, contact range techniques, including situational awareness, finding & using cover, etc.
Working lunch with short lecture or case studies and Q&A.
Then after lunch each day work on the shooting skills. The real basics: sight alignment, trigger control, and malf clearance.
If done that way I think it would be safer (long term) than regular shooting classes. Most people don't spend enough time handling their gun except on the gun range. The contact range exercises, with airsoft, would require and develope better safe gun handling skills than you can get shooting on a flat range.
I don't see how it could be dangerous to start them off with inert guns (the type used for weapon retention and disarms). And then moving to airsoft or paintball. This would allow them to practice situational awareness in the class.
If you combined that with marksmanship (ie trigger control, sight picture, etc) and weapon manipulation (ie malf clearances and reloads) I think you could go a long ways in three 8 hour days towards improving their chances of surviving a real world attack.
They way I would organize it (3 day class) would be four hours before lunch break each day (using airsoft/paintball type "guns") doing gun safety, contact range techniques, including situational awareness, finding & using cover, etc.
Working lunch with short lecture or case studies and Q&A.
Then after lunch each day work on the shooting skills. The real basics: sight alignment, trigger control, and malf clearance.
If done that way I think it would be safer (long term) than regular shooting classes. Most people don't spend enough time handling their gun except on the gun range. The contact range exercises, with airsoft, would require and develope better safe gun handling skills than you can get shooting on a flat range.
Matthew Temkin
Member
Like OKJOE, I have been banned from a few forums for keeping true to my belief in point shooting, albeit sometimes to the point of being overly sarcastic.
So be it.
Unlike OKJOE I shoot quite often and teach PS to quite a few special police/military officers both here and in Europe. Quite frankly I see excellent and fast results with the standard trigger finger and I see no rational for using the middle finger. Especially since I believe that both PS and aimed fire have their important places.
OKJOE's website has some excellent info, but I am perplexed as to why he touts shooting with the middle finger.
While it is true that some WW2 O.S.S. assasians were trained this way, Applegate told me that the vast majority used the standard trigger finger with telling results.
Just IMHO, of course.
So be it.
Unlike OKJOE I shoot quite often and teach PS to quite a few special police/military officers both here and in Europe. Quite frankly I see excellent and fast results with the standard trigger finger and I see no rational for using the middle finger. Especially since I believe that both PS and aimed fire have their important places.
OKJOE's website has some excellent info, but I am perplexed as to why he touts shooting with the middle finger.
While it is true that some WW2 O.S.S. assasians were trained this way, Applegate told me that the vast majority used the standard trigger finger with telling results.
Just IMHO, of course.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked