Gunfight failure analyses and corrective measures. (Point shooting video)

[clubsoda22]

I recently found that out to about 15 yards in rapid fire i point shoot my bersa thunder more accurately than using the sights. Also, point shooting my taurus PT92 at 10 yards, i had three consecutive bullets touch holes while shooting 4 shots per second. The rest were all within an 8" circle. The friend who i was shooting with dropped his jaw as this was the first time i had outshot him in defensive drills. I strongly believe that at close quarters, point shooting is the best method for me. It's as intuitive as throwing a baseball through the strike zone.

Now, obviously, some of the neat tricks like touching 3 consecutive shots or quick drawing and popping a hole inbetween the eyes of a shillouette target is just a fluke or the law of averages, but i find that the more i've been practicing and the more i've dry fired, the more often it has been happening.

 

[Ankeny]

clubsoda22:

Maybe I am wrong. If you can truly shoot at 15 yards without any sight picture and get better results than you can with sights you are one of the greatest instinctive shooters to have ever walked the face of the planet or you just don't know how to employ your sights properly. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and let you knock TGO (he looks at the target too) off of his pedestal.


As for those of you who have found the one and only true way, point shooting, I commend you. I am glad you found what works and I hope you continue to improve. Old farts like me who come from the old school dogma still find the teachings of Ron Avery's Practical Shooting Academy, Jerry Barnhart's Tactical Shooting Technology (he has trained law enforcement and military for 15 years), and so on to be very useful. I even think places like Thunder Ranch and those guys with the ravens on their caps have something to offer. It's just really difficult to accept that all of those world class shooters and defense trainers are just dead wrong.

Shoot (I mean point shoot) straight and stay sharp.

 

[7677]

tetleyb,
I also have been in combat and 99% of our gun battles took place at longer distances 30meters to over 500meters and further out with the M2. At these distances we used aimed fire. However, someone had to go into fighting positions and/or buildings to clear them out this is where point shooting came in handy. Point shooting is only a complement to aimed fire not a replacement and by all means if you have time to use your sights then use them. The one time that I used point shooting that comes to my mind is we were clearing a fighting position and we went into a underground room and on the far side of the room there was another entrance just about the same time my partner and I entered the bunker and the Iraqi soldier entered the bunker from the other side. He immediately decided we were not friendly and started to raise his weapon to take a shot at us. I do not remember looking at my sights there was no time. I just pointed my rifle at the soldier and let off a three or four round burst and all of my rounds found their mark and I'm here to day.

Ankeny,
I have to agree, anything beyond 7 yards is pushing my envelope for point shooting.

There is a darn good possibility that we employ similar techniques with different terminology.

I think there may be a good possibilty your using point shooting and you don't even know it. I was in the same boat until two years ago a firearms instructor asked me after a simunition training "so where did you learn to pointshoot at?" before then I had never gave much thought to what style I used.

 

[MrAcheson]

Old farts like me who come from the old school dogma still find the teachings of Ron Avery's Practical Shooting Academy, ... It's just really difficult to accept that all of those world class shooters and defense trainers are just dead wrong.

Point shooting is an older school technique than practical shooting. People were teaching point shooting before IPSC was a glimmer in Jeff Cooper's eye. Heck people were teaching it before Jeff Cooper was alive. I would submit to you that the instinctive aiming sense of the highly trained IPSCer and the point shooter are one in the same. The point shooter just gets to it faster because he focuses on developing it first.

 

[tetleyb]

I'm going to also agree with Ankeny. I believe alot of this argument goes down to semantics. What exactly is the definition of point shooting? As Ankeny says, I see what I need to see to make the shot. At 3 yards and in, do I need perfect sight alignment/sight picture, and trigger control? No, I do not. I can use the slide of the weapon, the barrel of the weapon, etc to act as my "sights" and reference center of mass on the person. And get good hits.

However, as that distance increases, the more I have to rely on increased sight alignment/picture. I believe Brian Enos said it best in his book, Practical Fundamentals. It has been coined as Five Levels of Focus. And it described the different amount of sight focus needed for different target distances.

7677 says why not learn two systems. Well, lets be brutally honest here. Most people don't have the time, money, and/or self discipline to learn one "system" let alone two. Here is a good link from Paul Howe. For those who do not know him, Paul is a former Delta Operator. I took a course from him in Hostage Rescue (excellent course by the way).

He related a story being in Panama, when he and his partner, were doing a real life "hit." They were being shot at by the enemy and his partner returned fire, shooting approximately 8 rounds. All missed. What? From a Delta Operator? From that moment on, he took off any "high speed" scopes, etc and went back to using NOTHING but his iron sights. His quote, "If I have the front sight on the bad guy, press the trigger, I know I'm going to hit him."

http://www.combatshootingandtactics.com/published/Tactical_Shooting_Thoughts.pdf

My point is simple, when shooting at a real person, living breathing, and that person is wearing clothes, etc. How do I know I hit them? You can't go by the fact they just fell to the ground or I saw blood. Unlikely on both. So how do I know I hit them? I know, when I see my front sight lift off the area I was aiming at, after I pressed off the shot.

 

[okjoe]

I just finished an article on Point Shooting with pics that I am circulating for publication. It was developed from a handout prepared by Mathew Temkin for use in his instructor classes on Point Shooting. He wrote it for instructors.

The books Shooting To Live by Fairbairn and Sykes, and Kill or Get Killed by Rex Applegate, were also used as sources.

It forms a good basic and introductory training guide on their type of Point Shooting that can be used by most anyone.

Here is the URL to it. www.pointshooting.com/apple.htm

Feel free to copy/distribute it as you see fit. If you want I can send you a text version with the pics as an attachment for use in your local pub/newsletter,etc.. Mathew has reviewed it and says it is OK.

 

[7677]

tetleyb,
That is the beauty of point shooting it is not a system but complement to aimed fire. Matt or I could show you how to point shoot in one day. I'm not exactly sure how your example related to point shooting because point shooting is the absences of all "high speed" fancy items. Did the training fail the operator or did the operator fail the training I do not know I was not there. Actually, your story about the delta operator is typical for first time combatants according to Murphy's law. I think the biggest misunderstanding with point shooting is people don't understand it and when it should and shouldn't be used. The max range I would ever use point shooting with a handgun is ten yards and seven yards on the move.

MrAcheson,
You are correct about the history of point shooting. My last post I was interrupted before I could finish it and it ended along the same lines of your post.

I would submit to you that the instinctive aiming sense of the highly trained IPSCer and the point shooter are one in the same. The point shooter just gets to it faster because he focuses on developing it first.

 

[Matthew Temkin]

Actually Jeff Cooper was singing the praises of "pointer fire"--which he learned/used for real in WW2--long before the Big Bear days.
For his exact words see my thread on GT titled, JEFF COOPER ON POINT SHOOTING.
I fully agree that many are now arguing semantics.
Others are trying to redefine their terms to prove that they were really, really teaching point shooting all along.
Whatever......
PS...six people sent me e mails requesting the video.
Nice guy that I am, I spent $60 at the video store making copies.
Exactly ONE guy followed through and sent me $13.00 in cash.
( As Mrs. Temkin predicted, with a roll of the eyes..)
That tape will go out Thursday.
I have learned a valuable lesson, so please, I will not accept any more "orders".
Luckily I have a few contacts who will be happy ( I hope) to recieve a free video.
However...any local PD/LEO agency who wants a free day of training are welcome to contact me.

 

[Ironbarr]

Well, for one thing...

As I related earlier - I asked about this some time back (TFL) and got a few replies... some support, some not.

I am happy to see this discussion blossom as it has. Much, much information, comments, opinions and good links to more.

My thanks to all for both sides of the "better technique(s)", and for those, like me, in the middle ground.

Also, to pass on decorum, whenever there is strong experience, hard hours and dollars invested training, there is a natural feeling that "this way is best". Pick a subject - guns, race cars, ball games of all sorts, and dance, etc., it's generally taught "this way is best" as in "proven to work". But, if there is one thing humans are, it's inventive; we always seem to find, if not always a true "better" way, at least a palatable alternative - it has different, and useable, attributes. My point is that while there are strong differences of opinions (based on experience and work), this discussion has been a solid investment for me. It is an informative thread, and well presented and written.

Thanks to all.

-Andy

 

[clubsoda22]

Maybe I am wrong. If you can truly shoot at 15 yards without any sight picture and get better results than you can with sights you are one of the greatest instinctive shooters to have ever walked the face of the planet or you just don't know how to employ your sights properly. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and let you knock TGO (he looks at the target too) off of his pedestal.

Maybe you misunderstood me. I'm talking 15 yards rapid fire. As in squeezing off rounds quick. Of course i can shoot better in aimed slow fire at 15 yards, but when it comes to drawing from a holster and putting a full magazine's worth of lead downrange fast, i'm more accurate point shooting than i am trying to get a quick sight pucture and firing at the same speeds. If i was taking the "hostage shot" at 15 yards, you can be damn sure i'd be using my sights.

 

[brownie0486]

Matthew Temkin:

I se you are stirring up trouble again on the Point shoot/aim fired issues hey?

How about we introduce these fine people to the art of "Quick Kill, instinct shooting" as well? As taught by Lucky McDaniels who the army brought in in the 70's to teach the troops.

As you know, I was fortunate to have been trained by Lucky himself in "quick kill" while working with an old original OSS operative named Mitch WerBell 111 in the early 80's.

Haven't used sights since 82 under 20 yrds. with any handgun. Lucky could hit at 50+yds all day with the gun never reaching eye level. I'd say that was point shooting at it's best.

I got into the game of IPSC for a very short time. My take on the "game" is it creates bad habits for the street. Having worked the streets for 25+ years in and out of the country in real situations, being a combat veteran as well, in the Corps in the late 60's, and having swat, counter sniper and counter terror gov type training behind me as wel, I got out of the "games" which produce the bad habits [ great scores and times but bad habits ].

One of the biggest bad habits they profess and which users need to do to be competitive is reload on the fly. In the real world, you reload in the open while moving and you'll likely die. For timed events, this is great but for the "street", it can be fatal to be reloading in the open.

Now, here's the rub between aimed and point shooting [ I'll call it point shooting here but it can be called quick kill, instinctive shooting, you get the idea ]. The gamesman practiced till they dropped, I did not practice between matches and was somewhere at the top of the board [ usually ] at the end of the day.

Why? because I used my natural ability which all men and women possess that is with you at all times and not something that is "learned" and has to be reinforced continuously to remain relatively proficient.

Sights? God didn't put sights on your finger, yet you can point at something instinctively with the index finger from about the time you are 2 years old. It's the natural ability of humans to be able to do this, so why did someone feel the need to put sights on handguns except to be able to aim at the longer distances?

Learn to use your natural ability to point. Anytime you use something that comes naturally to humans, it's going to be faster than something that requires a learning curve, and then continuous practice to maintain that level of proficiency.

I instruct in quick kill. Not all, but most can pick it up in 5 minutes. The problem I see continuously is they will revert back to their sighted fire after they leave the range that day. Hey, if it takes more than 5 minutes, it's not something thats natural to the human body.

Brownie

 

[Ankeny]

I'll just delete my ramblings. Coltdriver says it best in the next post.

 

[Coltdriver]

I learned Applegates point shooting method years ago. I find it to be excellent counsel and especially applicable in a real world situation.

I was in law enforcement in Denver many years ago (it turned out not to be my lifelong career). The reactions defined by Applegate are spot on and I can personally testify to that from experience.

The great thing for me about point shooting is that I can do it as well with a revolver as I can with a .45. By practicing aimed shooting and point shooting I am well defended should the need ever arise.

So for most of the arguments above this post all I can say is what is right for you is right. In the end nothing else matters. But, no matter how right you are for you, it may or may not apply to others.

Getting beligerant about any point of view belies somthing else.

Relax and let everyones experience benefit you.

 

[Ankeny]

"To me, shooting is a sport, nothing more, nothing less. But practical pistol shooting does teach a life-saving skill. If I had to save myself or someone else from drowning, I'd much rather be an Olympic swimmer. That's the same correlation I make with practical shooting. Practical shooting develops high-speed gun handling ability and refines everything to such a reflexive level that I am confident in my ability to shoot. Learning tactics is a different story and I don't confuse the two. " ---Brian Enos

That pretty much sums up how I also feel.

clubsoda:

I understood you perfectly well. Like I said, if you can truly shoot faster without visual inputs at 15 yards you are at the top of the heap. I would buy it at 3 yards but at 15 yards you are kidding no one but yourself.

 

[Navy joe]

I'm sure there are some very good pure point shooters(as Brownie sounds to be). For most, I will believe it when you remove all sights from the gun and figure out how to tape your glasses off so you cannot see your gun below eye level. Maybe stick the gun in a paper bag while it is in your hands and extend(or not) out and shoot. Deny yourself all visual reference to the gun. If you are still hitting good then, you is a point shooter.

I am just starting to become competent with a pistol. Many times I cannot remember seeing my sights after shooting. That does not mean I did not see them. Flash sight picture, target focus, Cirillo sight picture, point shooting, many different names for same thing I think.

I like the BE quote on shooting games. It gives me a motivation to handle a gun daily and is the best thing for developing fast and competent gun-handling short of picking a gunfight with a 3rd world army twice a week.
No it is not real. In real life I may just game the other guy to death if the opportunity presents itself. Putting holes in stuff fast is a basic skill, no matter where you learn it.

 

[Matthew Temkin]

When I was 19 I worked part time as a life guard.
Which mandated that I get training in lifesaving techniques and first aid.
Eventually I made quite a few saves.
So my question to you is this....
Who would you rather have going in to save your 5 year old daugher....
Someone with training and experience in actual lifesaving....
Or someone who only has a gold medal?

 

[brownie0486]

Navy joe:

Thats exactly how WerBell and Lucky McDaniels had us learn the quick kill.
No sights on the 1911's at all.
We were to follow Luckys directions and could not cheat and look for the sights, they were not there [ front or rear ].

Quick kill utilizes a reference point on the muzzle of the handgun. You'll need to see it in your peripheral vision while your focus is on the target out in front of you. Remember, you were not able to focus on the front sights as they were removed along with the rear sights.

Paper bag over the gun would not be a hinderance to effective quick kill [ point ] shooting. Though it can be performed without a reference point, the distances will be reduced considerably for effective consistant hits.

When I speak of point shooting or quick kill shooting techniques, it doesn't mean I can't see the gun in my peripheral vision. As there are reference points which ensure repeatable results, one needs to be able to "reference" to something consistantly or it is less repeatable and more intuitiveness and luck to be able to produce the same results consistantly.

When humans point their finger at something, it's usually just below eye level and they are looking at the object pointed at, not their finger. Quick kill [ as taught by Lucky ] utilizes this same principle.

It's natural for humans to point at things, most make it harder than necessary by using sights which slow your reaction to a percieved threat while you "look" for those crutches called sights.

I'll use sights for precision or longer distances, but under 20 yrds they are completely unnecessary and waste valuable time while taking incoming.

edited to add: I had a Conn. pharmacist take the quick kill course with his 1911 a few summers back. Got it down great while with me and called a week later that he could not get it to work once back home. He came back to me a month later, did great in front of me and repeated a few weeks later he could not make it work when alone.

Had him come back, took the sights off the gun and he could repeat his previous performance with me. He went home, left the sights off the gun for a month and trained with it everyday with no sights with success. After that much time, he put the sights back on and had no problems from that point forward.

His problem was that he was cheating and was "looking" for the sights [ cause they were there ]. Once he understood that, he was good to go.

Brownie

 

[Ankeny]

Matthew:

The quote from Brian is nothing more than an analogy. It was presented as food for thought, not cannon fodder for a flame war. I am not going to argue semantics with you.

It appears to me that all you are interested in is winning this "virtual debate" for the purpose of ego gratification. OK, you win and it's not because Robbie Leatham, Brian Enos, Todd Jarrett, Jerry Barnhart, Phil Strader, Ron Avery and all the rest are a bunch of incompetent chumps. You win because I don't need to roll around in the gutter to know I am going to get dirty and this has gone far enough.

 

[clubsoda22]

I understood you perfectly well. Like I said, if you can truly shoot faster without visual inputs at 15 yards you are at the top of the heap. I would buy it at 3 yards but at 15 yards you are kidding no one but yourself.

Who said anything about no visual inputs? I'm not shooting from the hip here! The gun is held just like you would normally hold a gun, i'm simply holding it a bit lower (maybe an inch at most) and looking at my target instead of my front sight. Other visual inputs include hits on the target. If the target is getting hit, i know i can keep doing what i'm doing.

It's just a lot faster than getting a sight picture and after 1000 rouds you start getting quite good at it.

I think you may be confused as to how far away 15 yards is. Hitting the torso of on FBI shillouette at 15 yards isn't exactly a challenge. (this is not precision shot placement)

 

[brownie0486]

clubsoda22: states

" Hitting the torso of on FBI shillouette at 15 yards isn't exactly a challenge."

In total agreement with that statement. The challenge comes in getting multiple shots on the target [ or several targets ] in the same time it takes another to get one on the target by taking the time to find the sights.

Brownie

 

[clubsoda22]

In total agreement with that statement. The challenge comes in getting multiple shots on the target [ or several targets ] in the same time it takes another to get one on the target by taking the time to find the sights.

Exactly, and like they say, practice makes perfect. If you dry fire and go to the range a lot, you WILL develop the muscle memory you need to pull that off.

It takes me less time to focus on a target and have my muscles remember or take an educated guess as to how to point at what i'm looking at then it does for me to adjust my eyes to focus on the tiny red dot on the front sight every time the muzzle comes down.

Your description of the quick kill method seems to be what i've figured out on my own through practice.

When i first started practicing firing rapid strings i'd try using my sights. I noticed that i'd use them for the first few shots then completely disregard them for the remainder. So i started not even bothering to look at them for the first couple shots and it worked just as well. Countless rounds later i've pretty well got it down, though i still wouldn't pass up the opportunity to take get a lesson from someone who has ben formally trained in a point shooting method.

I consider point shooting effective up to around ten paces back to back (ala old cowboy films). Basically, 15-20 yards.

 

[okjoe]

I used to post now and then on Brian Enos's site about Point shooting (P&S) for use in CQB situations.

I was laughed at, called names, and in general told to go away and not come back!!!

Brian Enos even made the point that his site was for those that shoot for fun and games, not real time stuff.

I grant that he is superior among superior gun handlers/shooters. I have even seen some videos of him shooting. Great stuff.

However in CQB situations, the studies and scientific inquiries, and the literature about stress effects on shooting skills and vision and human motor skills, gives the nod to the use of Point Shooting.

I believe that most folks are not SEALS, SWAT types, or don't send a cazillion or so rounds down the range each week or month to maintain their skill level.

I seldom shoot, but when I do, I have excellent results using Point Shooting at CQ distances, which is where real life armed encounters occur. www.pointshooting.com/guntests.htm

You don't have to like it, but that's fact not fiction.

I understand that the CHP has moved to Point Shooting (Target Focus Fighting) because of the "on the street" results that have been achieved with it. They are betting their lives and the lives of their associate officers on it.

The US Army definitions of what a flash sight picture is, and when they suggest you use it, a description of their brand of Point Shooting which they recommend for use at 5 yds or less (which is the distance at which most all real life and death pistol encounters occur), and other factual info is available on my site and for free.

Is Sight Shooting used in real life and death CQ armed encounters? The facts are that it is about 1/4 of the time +/-.

Those that make up the rest, and there are thousands of them who have "seen the elephant" and furnished study inputs, have said they used/defaulted to point shooting/instinctive shooting. They did not use the sights or could not recall what was used.

Them's are the facts.

No need to get down in the gutter, or hop around like rumplestilskin.

As Sgt Joe Friday used to say on TV "Just the facts mam, just the facts."

PS - I don't use big targets. I usually use the much smaller about chest sized ones, and "let er rip." More of a challenge that way.

P&S works for me, your results may vary.

 

[clubsoda22]

I've been using the term point shooting to discribe any kind of shooting where the sights are not used. Perhaps it is this broad definition that leads to disagreements. Like i said, when i point shoot i'm holding the gun exactly at the same level i do for aimed fire (though a bend my elbows a bit for recoil control and take a slightly more bladed stance.) The only time i'll shoot chest level is if i'm parcticing gun retention in close range engagements. I shoot at shillouettes as they are man sized and shaped...which is what i expect to be encountering. (maybe i should get some space allien shilouettes for good measure though )

 

[brownie0486]

clubsoda22 :

Try this for targets.

Use 10 inch pie plates only at all distances you practice at in lieu of the silhouette [ large targets ].

When you have developed the speed on these to be as fast as on the larger targets, you are [ zen ] "good to go" on anything that presents itself that's larger like the ones you use presently. The speed on the larger targets will be astonishing.

Brownie

 

[Ankeny]

clubsoda22:

Now I understand what you are talking about. Looking though the sights or seeing them peripherally is one of those focus types that Brian Enos mentions in his book. An awareness of the relationship of the bore to the target face, confirmed visually, can take many forms. In this case, it's a type two focus and yes it works, but at 15-20 yards I need a better sight picture.

When shooting multiple targets on the "square range" (I know that has no real world value but bear with me) my goal is to get the hits as quickly as possible. The ability to call each and every shot with certainty is what empowers a really good shooter to shoot fast and accurately. On multiple targets at 15-20 yards, I see what I need to see to make the A-zone shot (but will accept less at times), and in my case I need a pretty good sight picture. I shoot, watch the sight lift and return, then shoot agin, snap my eyes to the next target and repeat the process. It took many thousands of rounds and years of practice to learn that at 15-20 yards I can shoot all A's (or mostly A hits) looking at the sights faster than I can shoot the "torso" looking through the sights.

If you dry fire and go to the range a lot, you WILL develop the muscle memory you need to pull that off.

We can all benefit from dry fire and live fire. FWIW, I begin my day with dry fire practice before work. I also dry fire in the evening. I try to do it seven days a week, but it usually ends up being 5 days. I shoot a lot of live fire practice and I shoot a couple of dozen matches a year. You are correct, practice, practice, practice...