nate.45
How far a distance is the point shooting viable?
I think that will be situationally dependant based on
1. The individuals prior skills level, experience and training
2. Which point shooting skill is used as there are several not just one available to each of us
3. What one decides "viable" is to themselves
One has the option of using Fairbairn/Sykes 1/2 hip [ Elbow up/Ebow down ]; Fairbairn/Sykes 3/4 hip; Applegates point shoulder; Quick Fire; and Quick Kill and probably several others. Each has their strengths within a certain range of distances and isn't necessarily dependent on a fixed distance but a range of distances and each can flow into one another seemlessly as the time/distance equation is worked out from outside stimulus.
I mentioned the 2-4 yds range earlier, as that would allow 1/2 hip to be utilized effectively on minute of man with the speed I mentioned, even while starting to move out of the way. 1/2 hip is fast on threat, it precludes having to raise the gun to near or eye level saving that time one may not have, let alone need. 1/2 hip can still be utilized out past 5 yrds and beyond if one were "under the gun" sorta speak and behind the reactionary curve with great effect. Like any skill, one should know their own limitations, but with the proper training/practice one can push the distances with reliable hits quite easily with 1/2.
3/4 hip which moves the gun further into the peripheral vision with the accompanying visual ques can be used from 4 yrds out to at least 6 yrds with utter reliability on minute of man and still takes less time to use that bringing the gun up to line of sight. It can also be used while moving rapidly off the line of potential fire one handed which gives one better balance as the other arm/hand is helping with counter balancing the body and precludes much of the two handed awkwardness in certain positions which will be of benefit in getting solid hits as well.
Point shoulder can be utilized very effectively from 4 yds out past 8-10 yrds with utterly reliable hits and could be substituted for 3/4 hip as time permitted. One always wants to be able to get the gun up further into the line of vision if they have the time to do so, but given the lack of time will hit minute of man on a flat out run at the 8-10 yrds distances and works within the bodies balance requirements quite well as it also used one handed shooting.
Quick Fire can be utilized one or two handed at the 8-10 yrds and is just another option available to a shooter trained in it's use.
Quick Kill can be utilized anywhere from 4 rds out past 30 yrds [ 90 feet ] at any time both one and two handed, and really comes into it's own when dynamic movement is required as long as one keeps the gun in their peripheral vision near line of vision. Snap shots by students after 15 minutes of playing with it out to 50 yrds will keep all shots on minute of man and had been reported in AAR's as not only possible but the students have done so with that little time on the skill. I'm not saying one would choose to use it at the further distances, only that it's quite easily accomplished without looking at the gun with very little time on skills.
When I shoot Rio steel matches against master class and grandmasters I use Quick Kill exclusively as the distances are longer than a typical SD scenario in general by quite a bit and many of the steel plates are smaller than minute of man. Quick Kill has the ability of making hits at 7 yrds into 2" inch groups just below line of sight. On this forum one student reported about the class in Tenn a few years ago and he watched me make hits into that 2" group using Quick Kill skills for 17 rds out of a g17. Many of the students shot almost that well, and none were over 4" groups as 7 yrds with only a few hours on the skill in that class. Quick Kill is what it is, it's fast, and can be extremely accurate. Not as accurate as front sight press, but as accurate as flash sight skills without a lot of time in training.
How far a distance is point shooting viable?
We can see it depends on what is considered viable which is a relative word. Viable to me means getting hits on upper torso's [ and most within -1 scoring areas ] and continuing to pour them into the threat until that threat is deemed no longer viable to have to engage. If I take the time to bring the gun to line of sight when it's not necessary to break a shot into the threat I've given the adversary some time advantage. I don't want to do that.
Others are of the mindset that accuracy is the final word and one should always take the time to attempt perfect COM hits and that means more visual information using front sight press/flash sight picture two handed. While accuracy is commendable, it's of no benefit to take the time to make that shot if one takes a round while doing so when the time/distance equation didn't dictate having to do so.
Some will argue that front sight press/flash sight skills are not slower in any way and adhere to the idea that with training they can make hits as fast with greater repeatable accuracy, sometimes citing examples to support those claims of IPSC or IDPA people who win with front sight press/flash sight skills at line of sight. While that is true to an extent, it doesn't present the total picture of SD on the street.
I don't shoot for score on the street, I shoot to get shots into them before they return the favor. I'm looking to utilize the best skills that balance the time/distance equation on the street coupled with the amount of accuracy needed in any given situation, which then will give me any little edge in making up the time they may have had by starting the draw first, by being reactionary in nature.
There's a difference between offensive skills and defensive skills. I don't use the 1/2 hip; 3/4 hip; point shoulder skills on the steel matches as those skills are not as reliable at the distances the plates are usually set out or due to the necessary precision requirements based on the plate dimensions [ some of which would be trying to make heads shots at 7 yrds or more ]. I use my Quick Kill skills at the match, and regularly beat a dozen master class shooters and a few grandmasters in various stages of fire [ 4 of them total for the night ]. The match utilizes proactive skills exclusively based on distance and threat size alone, the street will usually dictate defensive skills up close and with more threat exposed to shoot. The El Presidente is an unrealistic offensive SD skill based on a low percentage scenario on the street both in time and distance and is not at all indicative of the majority of SD problems encountered. While it is a nice standards drill and skills to own, the probability of using that skills is very low when compared to the 2-4 yrds SD skills one will likely encounter. I don't want to spend an inordinate amount of time training for a low percentage scneario, I want to train for the high percentage scenario and the skills necessary at the more realistic distances encounter. One time is better served training/honing their skills for the fight that's more likely to happen first and foremost IMO.
When the steel is small and further away or covered with a no shoot [ which again directly translates to a precision shot ], I'll transition to line of sight and make that shot. I also have good line of sight sights skills when necessary. I was also professionally trained in precision sighted fire, came to front sight press over the years and then happened to meet men who showed me I could be faster at some time/distance skills with threat focused [ point shooting ] skills. It's all aimed fire, and I think some people confuse point shooting with just shooting from the hip as an incorrect generalization. That has apparently been a bane of some of the misunderstanding and source of heated arguments over the years. Many don't understand that not all point shooting is from the hip or slower than various sighting methodologies available and being used today by top shooters.
When should the point shooting method be taught, first, second or at the same time as sighted fire?
There is no one point shooting method, there are many that are available to the informed/trained shooter based on time/distance requirements that allow for faster shots with and without movement at various speeds from a groucho walk, fast walk like a forced march pace, to picking up the pace till you are actually getting both feet off the ground at a flat out run. Most of them one handed which gives one better balance and consequently less gun movement in doing so which directly translates to better hits the faster one is moving from all fact in evidence.
I believe one need to learn sighted fire as it builds good gun handling/control, trigger control skills which are absolutely necessary at times for making the harder more precise shots. I also believe one needs to learn various threat focused skills for minute of man [ and that is not to be construed as saying just anywhere on the torso as a very high percentage of the shots will fall within COM on threats as the students find once trained properly on the skills ].
Which should come first? I don't have an answer to that question. Both are absolutely necessary on the streets, but where the greater percentage of SD scenarios based on collected evidence and data suggest they fall within a 4-5 yrds maximum distance or closer, the threat focused skills are imperative if one wants to consider the time/distance equation of getting hits sooner that line of sight.
I've not ever seen any line of sight shooter make .40-45 second COM shot from the buzzer. I can do those times regularly with 1/2 hip if the time/distance equation dictates that's all that's necessary. If one takes the time to line of sight when it's not necessary, they're disadvantaging themselves to some extent. How much disadvantage? That's also been bantered about as dismissed by many that 1/10's of seconds is somehow irrelevant, it won't matter. I disagree vehemently with that thought process. In fact it seems odd that people who make those comments also practice to be as fast as they can be to make hits and try to reduce the time to shots as that's counter to their statements that time isn't important.
As I suggested in the above post, if I can put two COM from 2-4 yrds in .65-68 seconds reliably from holster, and one practices line of sight religiously to get to that for the first shot in the same time, they've taken at least one and probably two before they trip the sear themselves. Two into an adversary anywhere on torso now seems quite the advantage. I sometimes wonder how many line of sight shooter, with excellent speed would be so accurate if they had one in them, and the second shot made contact as they tripped they sear. Seems the advantage would be with the one who didn't have one or two holes in them to me, and I don't want to be the one trying to get to my sights in some fashion [ lets call it line of sight ] and take ANY shots trying to do so when the time/distance equation didn't dictate I need to.
In the end, it's not about my skills, or someone elses skills, it's about what skills I can impart in students in my classes. The reviews speak for themselves over the last 3-4 years. Students from the novice housewife/mother who has hardly handled a firearm to a highly trained soldier with the SF 5th group or men from the USAF PJ's find multiple threat focused skills extremely valuable and easy to learn over the course of two days. It is their opinion that counts where the skills and training is concerned, and they've spoken loud and clear that these skills are invaluable to staying alive.
Anyone who has any interest in what people feel about the skills they've been given can easily travel here
http://www.threatfocused.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=19 or can search this forum under the name brownie, Quick Kill, or Integrated Threat Focused Training Systems. An open mind and willingness to understand will probably be prerequisites.
nate.45, I thank you for your questions and the opportunity it has afforded myself attempting to answer them as thoroughly as possible. In that regard, I hope I haven't bored everyone with the considerably lengthy reply.
Brownie
That was used in my post when Lee edited out a particular phrase I used to get a point across. It wasn't finished but enough so that people got the message, and it wasn't the best way to make the point.
