"It Points Well" - Do You Verify Using Live Rounds?

[shoobe01]

I disagree. Sighted fire is the order of the day for everyone I know, including instructors in classes. There may be point shooting types about I am unaware of, but I am pretty sure even the USPSA guys I know always aim. Flash sight picture (et al) are still sighted fire.

 

[murf]

index.

maybe you should explain what that is in regard to "it points well".

murf

 

[ATLDave]

[duplicate - please delete]

 

[ATLDave]

I disagree. Sighted fire is the order of the day for everyone I know, including instructors in classes. There may be point shooting types about I am unaware of, but I am pretty sure even the USPSA guys I know always aim. Flash sight picture (et al) are still sighted fire.

It depends on what you mean by "aim." I promise you that many shots at very close range are taken in USPSA matches with a total focus on the target and either a purely kinesthetic aim or only visual confirmation that the back of the slide is over the target.

 

[ATLDave]

maybe you should explain what that is in regard to "it points well".

Sure. "Index" means the ability to look at a target (or a specific spot on the target) and, without conscious effort, have the gun point at that target with the sights already aligned at or nearly at that same spot (or the dot on the spot). The better the index, the more the sights are used to "confirm" where the gun is pointing rather than used to affirmatively get on target. This is, of course, a matter of degree.

 

[guyfromohio]

I pick up a 1911 and bring it up to a target....the sights align immediately. It points well for me.

I pick up a Glock and bring it up to a target, I have to adjust my wrist angle to align the sights. It does not point well for me.

Has nothing to do with testing, vetting, etc... it’s just a cursory observation.

 

[Jim Watson]

How long have you shot a 1911? How much have you shot a Glock?
Old fashioned paper gunzines frequently told us of the great "pointing" of a SAA and a Luger. Not usually in the same article, though.

 

[ATLDave]

How long have you shot a 1911? How much have you shot a Glock?
Old fashioned paper gunzines frequently told us of the great "pointing" of a SAA and a Luger. Not usually in the same article, though.

Precisely. "Pointing" - really index - is a characteristic of the shooter, not the gun. If you've spent the time to develop a good index with one gun, the more similar another gun is to it, the better it will "point" for you.

Obviously, it is possible to imagine/describe guns that would be difficult to develop a decent index with... things with 90° grip angles, or 20° grip angles, or grips laterally offset from the bore. But those things don't really get made anymore... evolutionary market pressures killed them off about 100 years ago. Nowadays, almost every mainstream design/format is well within the fat part of the bell curve of things that a shooter can adapt to in terms of index/pointing.

That's not to say that guns don't have other intrinsic traits of ergonomics and handling. But "pointing" is a human characteristic.

 

[Stevie-Ray]

If you're saying "It points well" in the gun shop, you are commenting that it fits your hand well.

maybe you should explain what that is in regard to "it points well".

murf

I pick up a 1911 and bring it up to a target....the sights align immediately. It points well for me.

I pick up a Glock and bring it up to a target, I have to adjust my wrist angle to align the sights. It does not point well for me.

Has nothing to do with testing, vetting, etc... it’s just a cursory observation.

guyfromohio has it right. For a gun to point well, it needs to fit the hand properly and when quickly picking it up and aiming at a point on a wall, or whatever, the sights need to clear immediately.

However, that's not the end of the story. You now know what gun you need to rent to finish the story. Otherwise you may end up with an expensive safe queen, like I did with my HK, which pointed perfectly for me.

 

[murf]

so, you have to develop this "index" to shoot faster (see target/hit target)?

murf

 

[JR24]

I pick up a 1911 and bring it up to a target....the sights align immediately. It points well for me.

I pick up a Glock and bring it up to a target, I have to adjust my wrist angle to align the sights. It does not point well for me.

Has nothing to do with testing, vetting, etc... it’s just a cursory observation.

How much Glock time do you have compared to the 1911. I'd wager it's a muscle thing, not a gun thing.

I say this because I was in the same boat for years until I ended up with a Glock and decided to learn it. Didn't take too long to determine that once I learned the gun it is my best "pointer" alongside the 1911, the hands will learn (well the brain) the difference with practice.

Whether you determine it is worth the effort is certainly a fair question. I'm glad I did as Glocks are a good fit for me (compared to all the other striker guns I've tried, which is almost all of them), but 1911s are still my favorite.

 

[ATLDave]

so, you have to develop this "index" to shoot faster (see target/hit target)?

I get the suspicious feeling you know the answer to that question!

For the audience: Yes.

 

[murf]

I get the suspicious feeling you know the answer to that question!

For the audience: Yes.

actually, I have never done the "run and gun" thing. I do, however, practice snap shooting at golf balls in a dry wash from ten to twenty yards away. my grip on my glock 30 allows me to point the gun and shoot quickly.

I was curious about your definition of "index" because I thought you might have meant "index" points on your grip. I have three index points on my grip: palm crease, first knuckle on trigger finger and the whole trigger finger along side the handgun frame. my grip is the same for all handguns. just checking. I don't worry about sight alignment because, with my grip, the sights are always aligned.

thanks for the clarification,

murf

 

[guyfromohio]

How much Glock time do you have compared to the 1911. I'd wager it's a muscle thing, not a gun thing.

I say this because I was in the same boat for years until I ended up with a Glock and decided to learn it. Didn't take too long to determine that once I learned the gun it is my best "pointer" alongside the 1911, the hands will learn (well the brain) the difference with practice.

Whether you determine it is worth the effort is certainly a fair question. I'm glad I did as Glocks are a good fit for me (compared to all the other striker guns I've tried, which is almost all of them), but 1911s are still my favorite.

Absolutely. I have 4 Glocks...a Gen 2 17, G48, Gen 5 G19 and Gen 4 Wilson G19. The Gen 4 points the best in my hand. It is absolutely a person thing and not a gun thing. If I used my Glocks as much as I used my 1911s, I’m sure they would point better for me.

 

[ATLDave]

I was curious about your definition of "index" because I thought you might have meant "index" points on your grip. I have three index points on my grip: palm crease, first knuckle on trigger finger and the whole trigger finger along side the handgun frame.

No doubt consistency of how one grips the gun has a lot to do with how good/reliable the index is.

 

[Pat Riot]

“Points well” to me means if I point the gun as if to shoot and the sights line up with where I intend them to be it “points well” for me.

I 1911s for years. They never “pointed well” for me. I made do. Same with my Cowboy guns.
One day I was invited to an IDPA match and was loaned a Glock 17. That gun “pointed well” for me. I liked it. Bought a G34 and that was even better. Glocks with the larger frames work for me. G19 frames and the like do not.

You can say what you wish. I found a gun that “points well” for me regardless if I am pointing at an imaginary target or shooting one.

I have tried many other different guns looking for something that “points well” for me better than my Glocks. I haven’t found it yet.

I have shot many other guns well but I made the effort to shoot them well.

 

[entropy]

The Glocks feel like a 2x4 in my hand, but I can shoot them well, so despite that, I guess you could say they point well for me. I prefer the feel of a 1911, particularly with the Hogue grips I put on. (see post # 4)

 

[Apuesto]

The cat won't like it if I used live ammo.

 

[tipoc]

I pick up a 1911 and bring it up to a target....the sights align immediately. It points well for me.

I pick up a Glock and bring it up to a target, I have to adjust my wrist angle to align the sights. It does not point well for me.

Has nothing to do with testing, vetting, etc... it’s just a cursory observation.

This is about right. It's been for generations of shooters a casual observation about the easy point-ability of one gun versus another. It has it's obvious limitations which folks have pointed out here (not all hands are the same, if a person is used to shooting revolvers all semis may point "off" for you at first, etc.) If is not about aiming a gun or accuracy, a nickel plated gun with nickel sights is hard to aim accurately in bright sunlight, for example but may still be a good pointer.

All guns can shoot well with training and properly using the sights. So it's not about that.

There even was a test for it in older books and magazines. 20-30 years ago I used to see folks doing this in gun stores and at the range. The test was this:

With an empty gun and pointing at a safe spot; Raise the gun and aim carefully at a spot on the wall or tree etc. Do that a few times and focus on feeling the gun and make yourself comfortable. Now close your eye and raise the gun rapidly to where you recall the object you were aiming at was. Open you eyes and see how far off the sights are from what you were aiming at. Do this a few times. A good pointer, or "natural pointer", will be dead on or close enough to where you were using your sights to aim. It will point "naturally" for you, like pointing a finger. You won't have to adjust the wrist angle or elbows, etc.

That's all it means and it obviously is a casual observation and your mileage may vary. But the point is it's an old piece of gun saying and it actually has a meaning that folks understood years back.

 

[ATLDave]

With an empty gun and pointing at a safe spot; Raise the gun and aim carefully at a spot on the wall or tree etc. Do that a few times and focus on feeling the gun and make yourself comfortable. Now close your eye and raise the gun rapidly to where you recall the object you were aiming at was. Open you eyes and see how far off the sights are from what you were aiming at. Do this a few times. A good pointer, or "natural pointer", will be dead on or close enough to where you were using your sights to aim. It will point "naturally" for you, like pointing a finger. You won't have to adjust the wrist angle or elbows, etc.

That's all it means and it obviously is a casual observation and your mileage may vary. But the point is it's an old piece of gun saying and it actually has a meaning that folks understood years back.

All this "old wisdom" would do is test how similar the tested gun is to the gun that the tester used to develop their current index.

"Pointing" is a characteristic of the shooter, not the gun.

I'm sure a CZ would "point" better for me than a Glock because I have a well developed index with Tanfoglios. CZ's are similar, so they would "point well" for me - or, more accurately, my current index would end up aligning the gun's sights pretty close to correctly without conscious attention. Glocks, with their different grip angle and other erogs, wouldn't.

Does that mean Glocks don't "point well"? No, it means I don't currently have a good index with a Glock. With a few thousand dry fire reps, I could trade my Tanfo'/CZ index in for a Glock index. But then I'd be stuck shooting Glocks, so no thanks.

 

[tipoc]

All this "old wisdom" would do is test how similar the tested gun is to the gun that the tester used to develop their current index.

"Pointing" is a characteristic of the shooter, not the gun.

I'm sure a CZ would "point" better for me than a Glock because I have a well developed index with Tanfoglios. CZ's are similar, so they would "point well" for me - or, more accurately, my current index would end up aligning the gun's sights pretty close to correctly without conscious attention. Glocks, with their different grip angle and other erogs, wouldn't.

Does that mean Glocks don't "point well"? No, it means I don't currently have a good index with a Glock. With a few thousand dry fire reps, I could trade my Tanfo'/CZ index in for a Glock index. But then I'd be stuck shooting Glocks, so no thanks.

What do ya want? It tells you what it tells ya...that the gun points well for the individual pointing it.

It also tells ya, in some cases, that some guns point well for alot of people or don't point well for alot of people. When folks used to say that both Lugers and Colt and Ruger Single action revolvers "point well" it meant that they point well for a good many people. Doesn't tell you much about a particular individual.

Sometimes simple things are just simple things. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, as Freud used to say.

Sometimes it doesn't pay to try to read more into something that's quite simple. In this case it's a part of what folks mean when they say a gun is "easy to handle", a "natural pointer", "feels good in the hand" etc. To some folks an N frame M27 with a 7" heavy barrel feels good and points well. To others the same gun is cumbersome. Obviously that will vary from person to person.

 

[tipoc]

"Pointing" is a characteristic of the shooter, not the gun.

Actually it's both, it's the interaction of both.

 

[ATLDave]

Actually it's both, it's the interaction of both.

I mean, yes, but that's like an online review of clothing that says "great fit." Useless for anyone else. Dumb thing to say in a review.

And what "points well" for an individual is not immutable. Whatever they put in the time with will "point well." A Glock would "point well" for me if I spent time with it. So the characteristic of "pointing well" is not the gun - it's me vis-a-vis the gun.