Jeff Cooper on Point Shooting

[Matthew Temkin]

Many years ago Carl Cestari loaned me a book written by Jeff Cooper called Fighting Handguns which was published in 1958.
With a wink Carl asked me to turn to page 97 and read what Cooper had to say about "pointer fire".
Quite frankly I was stunned, especially since this was the height (1992) of the anti point shooting push in the gun rags.
Anyway, Paladin just republished the book, so let's hear about point shooting in Cooper's own words....
....."It's an axiom that hitting your target is your main concern, and the best way to hit is to use your sights, but circumstances do arise in which the need for speed is so great, and the range so short, that you must hit by pointing alone, without seeing your gun at all.
...Pointer fire is not as hard to learn as sighting, once you realize it's range limitations. using the 1911 auto-pistol I have found that I can teach the avjerage infantryman to stay on a silhouette at 10 yards--using pointer fire in two shot bursts--more easily that I can get him into that 25 yard bullseye using slow fire and sights.
Of course this sort of shooting is strictly a way of obtaining body hits at essentially indoor ranges ( 30 feet and under)..
..But up close pointer fire can be murderously effective, and it's mastery is often the difference between life and death."( pg 97-98)

 

[sniper5]

I think Jeff was just restating something that Applegate was trying to say and got misinterpreted a lot over the years. A lot of people think Applegates teachings on close quarters combat meant that aiming is not important. I don't think that's true at all. If the question is: Which is more effective-aimed fire or point shooting? The correct answer is: Yes.

It depends on the circumstances. Every tool has an appropriate application. The more you learn, the more effective you are.

At EXTREMELY CLOSE RANGE marksmanship is not as important as speed because the hit probability is so high and instinctive shooting can be very effective (if the weapon has good pointability characteristics). AS RANGE INCREASES it is important to transition to aiming as hit probability decreases and consequently speed becomes second to accuracy. I think it's a continuum, not black and white.

I don't remember who said it, but I recall hearing one old west gunfighter as being quoted: "Fast is fine, but accuracy is final."

Just my thoughts.

 

[kcshooter]

Yeah, yeah, we got it, you don't like sights. Since you start a new thread every other day about it, it's become pretty clear.

I've beat point shooting advocates at ranges as close as 7 yards using front-sighted and flash-sighted shots, we were equal in speed but I was much more accurate.

Some of us just don't see a need beyond the range of a handshake.

 

[Matthew Temkin]

And I have had students, and students of students, kill bad guys with point shooting out to 20 yards.
No, I do not hate sights.
Heck, every time my job makes me re qualify I use the sights for each and every shot.
It's just that I think that point shooting--along with sighted fire techniques-- has a place in the great scheme of things.
All I have been doing is quoting men who many think of as sights always advocates singing the praises of point shooting when other methods are nearly impossible.
As they say, knowledge is power.

 

[brownie0486]

kcshooter,

I've beat point shooting advocates at ranges as close as 7 yards using front-sighted and flash-sighted shots, we were equal in speed but I was much more accurate.

Which tells us nothing about the people you beat or their threat focused skills or exactly what threat focused skills they were using.

Lets back up just a few steps and not get so snooty about beating point shooting advocates until we determine who these advocates are that you purport to have beaten.

Now, lets take some actual front sight press shooters at the Rio Salado Sportsman Club in Mesa, Az which is the home to some of the best front sight press modern technique shooters in the world.

I regularly beat a dozen master class shooters and a few grandmasters on 4 stages of fire every Tuesday night using two handed Quick Kill at just below line of sight on multiple threats in different stage setups. They're ranked, so they have a record of their accomplishments with their skills. I'm not, I'm just a street guy who goes up there, has fun with it and the scores at the end of the night tell the tale. Some of them beat me every week as well, those are on the stages where the steel is placed at further distances and smaller in diameter. When it's minute of mans chest and inside 15 feet, they get a run for their money.

Now, lets take it one step further-------

You stated you've "beat point shooting advocates at ranges as close as 7 yrds" in your post. That's interesting, very interesting, as I wouldn't expect any threat focused trained shooter to use those skills at 7 yards with the same accuracy as front sight press. I wouldn't use threat focused skills at those distances myself and I've used these skills for 28 years and taught it professionally for 4 years.

Lets take your statement one step further here:

I'll guarantee you you won't be anywhere near as fast as myself or any threat focused shooter worth his salt at 2-4 yds with your two handed front sight press or flash sight skills [ which as you so eloquently put it, is quite a bit further than handshake distance ]. In fact, at those distances I'm documented on video shooting from the buzzer inside a -1 IDPA scoring ring COM in .43-.45 seconds from my daily street holster. You will certainly not be as accurate with one or two shots in you before you get to fire that shooter of yours, again proving your better accuracy in competition with others will mean nothing on the streets. At splits running about 1/5 of a second with the first shot breaking at .45, you'd better be able to get that shot off from your holster at SD distances in less than .65 seconds give or take a few thousandths or you'd have two in you, how accurate you gonna be then?

The day you can draw and fire COM -1 scores from the holster with your front sight press/flash sight skills in those times, you let me know, and I'll gladly meet you half way between Kansas City and Az, put us on videotape and make a side bet for any amount you'd like that you won't beat me, and you can rest assured, you won't beat Matt either. I don't see grandmasters breaking their shots that fast with their front sight press/flash sight picture skills, so unless you are better than a grandmaster, it's well within reason to expect you aren't going to be faster either.

Your statement that you beat somebody claiming to be a point shooting advocate with unknown trained skills at that discipline at no less than 7 yrds isn't something to be that proud of at all and proves nothing here.

In fact, I've got several past students on this forum who'd very likely kick your butt at 2-4 yds with threat focused skills after just a few days of training with myself. 6-12 feet is well within the range of common SD distances and if you take more than .60 seconds from a street holster which is well past your comment about not seeing the need for these skills past handshake distances, you'd lose to many of the students.

BTW-- whats with the attitude with Matt to begin with here? Are you a master class or grand master ranked shooter by any chance? Take the high road sir, and calm down lest you further make yourself look like the back end of a donkey. You see, I can have a major tude as well in a heartbeat in response to someone who posts like you did, but I'd rather take the high road as a rule.

Matt posted statements made by Cooper and you take the opportunity to make comments like you did about Matt? If you can't address the content about another mans statements without going on the offensive with the messenger, it might be best to not post at all in the future. You're a fairly new member here, in fact, just this year I see. You've proved nothing here except you don't know how to play nice yet [ at least in this thread ] and I suspect you think too highly of your ability which suggests a closed mind.

Brownie

 

[Old Fuff]

I had the privilege and pleasure of knowing both Applegate and Cooper. Both had their own theories and techniques, and Applegate in particular strongly disagreed with Copper’s “modern technique” ideas.

Cooper however did not dismiss below-eyelevel shooting, he simply relegated it to a lesser importance except in point-blank situations. He felt that his system took less time to master, and resulted in more accurate hits at various distances.

Clearly both men knew what they were doing, and chose to disagree.

The quoted paragraph from Jeff’s book is an accurate summation of his views, but does not include his later position on other techniques and methods.

Another gentleman of my acquaintance, who also had considerable experience in the field was Bill Jordan, who opined that Cooper’s methods had merits when it came to fast, accurate shots at longer distances, but for the short range situations usually encountered in law enforcement it was too slow.

In a way I think they were all correct, it was, and remains a question of where to apply the most emphasis.

 

[sniper5]

OK, Old Fuff. Gotta ask now that you said you knew Applegate. Were the urban legends of the "mugger bait" medallion so he could keep in practice true?

 

[qwert65]

you knew bill jordan old fluff? very very cool

 

[Old Fuff]

OK, Old Fuff. Gotta ask now that you said you knew Applegate. Were the urban legends of the "mugger bait" medallion so he could keep in practice true?

Can't say, as the discussions I had with him covered tactics and weapons, not mugger bait. But from what I knew of the gentleman I doubt it. He didn't need mugger bait to keep in practice. He also went to some lengths to avoid attracting attention to himself, which I suspect was left over from his O.S.S. experiences.

Never in my wildest dreams would I want to try and mug that gent...

 

[Old Fuff]

you knew bill jordan old fluff? very very cool

He wasn’t a hard man to get to know…

I first met him at of all places, the National Pistol Matches at Camp Perry, Ohio. He was getting ready to give a demonstration, and I spent an hour helping blow up small balloons and stuffing them into a mattress cover. That in itself is an experience…

Some years later I met him again when my job within the firearms industry brought us into contact – usually at the annual SHOT Show. He once remarked with a grin that two important things happened in 1911 – one was his birth, and the other had to do with an obscure pistol John Browning designed for the Colt Company.

As many people know, he was a revolver advocate, and that may be the reason he’s seldom mentioned in these discussions. Ed McGivern (who I never knew) was another one, but I know that McGivern did have an early influence on Applegate, because I have his personal copy of Fast and Fancy Revolver Shooting with Applegate’s marginal notes – written in red ink no less.

 

[JoeSlomo]

It's just that I think that point shooting--along with sighted fire techniques-- has a place in the great scheme of things.

Ditto...

 

[qwert65]

Well, if i remember from jordan's book he mentioned that he didn't think autos were good do to having to use fmj. course you would know better than me

 

[crankshop1000]

Perfect reason to use a laser sight as a training tool for point shooting. Your brain seems to learn to tie the POI to the hand position over a short time of use. After that point shooting (with or without the laser) becomes much more natural and accurate, at least it worked that way for me! Chuck.

 

[brownie0486]

Chuck,

Your brain seems to learn to tie the POI to the hand position over a short time of use.

What your body did was develop proprioceptors rather quickly. Here's a thread on proprioception I wrote some time ago.

http://www.threatfocused.com/forums/showthread.php?t=448

Brownie

 

[CraigJS]

And I believe the FBI has stated that by far the most SD shootings happen at well under 7 yards...

 

[Rob Pincus]

Guys,

FWIW, I think that worrying about what someone else said or did isn't the point. Individual opinions change over time, so one quote may not tell the whole story. Competency and Performance are heavily influenced by experience and personal athleticism/skill, so comparisons between people may be irrelevant. Personal experience and behavioral bias effect any attempt to "compare" techniques yourself off the cuff.

The merit of information is not based on who said something, it should be based on underlying concepts, facts and explanation. Can the underlying claims be verified objectively? Technique validity should not be based on one other persons performance, but rather how it works for you and fits into your circumstances. Lastly, please try to keep in mind the context of defensive pistol shooting, this thread (and those related at other forums) are full of shooting at non-probable defensive distances (100 feet, 7 yards, etc), in competition and otherwise controlled/contrived situations. The worst things happen very close and very unexpectedly.


As Brownie said above,

If you can't address the content about another mans statements without going on the offensive with the messenger, it might be best to not post at all in the future

:

For more along these lines, see this article: Respectful Irreverence. For my thoughts on aimed and unaimed shooting, follow the sig line link to the podcast and listen to The Balance of Speed & Precision.

-RJP

 

[Geronimo45]

"Every age has its own outlook. It is specially good at seeing certain truths and specially liable to make certain mistakes. We all, therefore, need the books that will correct the characteristic mistakes of our own period. And that means the old books. All contemporary writers share to some extent the contemporary outlook - even those, like myself, who seem most opposed to it. Nothing strikes me more when I read the controversies of past ages than the fact that both sides were usually assuming without question a good deal which we should now absolutely deny...Not, of course, that there is any magic about the past. People were no cleverer then than they are now; they made as many mistakes as we. But not the same mistakes. They will not flatter us in the errors we are already committing; and their own errors, being now open and palpable, will not endanger us." - C.S. Lewis.

 

[Rob Pincus]

Excellent Quote. I will add that we should "stand on the shoulders" of those who came before us... building on what they have done.

If we, instead, choose to kneel at their feet, we will never move forward.

(Anyone using a quill pen to post on this forum may feel free to debate the idea that progress is acceptable and good! )

 

[Matthew Temkin]

Here is another great quote..
"Those who are ignorant of the past are doomed to reinvent it"
Or this one from my dad,
"War is like marriage--it seems attractive to those who have never done it"

 

[Loosedhorse]

Matt--since I have to little to offer about point shooting, perhaps I can in friendly fashion repay your experienced comments by expanding on the quotations you mention.

"Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it."--George Santayana

Your dad's quote started with Erasmus: "Dulce bellum inexpertis.” (War is sweet to those inexperienced in it.)

And finally: "If I have seen farther it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants"--Isaac Newton

 

[Matthew Temkin]

"Every generation thinks that it has discovered something that somehow has eluded all others." ( Cassidy)
PS to Loosedhorse..Go Sox!!!

 

[Rob Pincus]

And finally: "If I have seen farther it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants"--Isaac Newton

Well Done, Loosed, thanks for completing my reference... the father of the modern scientific method and one of the best examples of critical thinking in history. The humbleness of that quote should be obvious. It is just that kind of deference and respect that should be paid to those who provide us the opportunity to move forward. Complimenting those who came before us out of respect ("giants"), is very different from believing that the sun revolves around the earth just because they did.
Using the observations they made and experiences they had as a foundation to continue moving forward is what we owe them and they best way to show respect, if you ask me. Newton would, I presume, celebrate the advances in physics that have essentially proved much of his work obsolete. It does not belittle his greatness.
To think that the greats from the past need or want us to repeat what they said verbatim is, I would hope, insulting. As a teacher, I love it when a student develops past a level of performance that I can achieve through a combination of their natural talent and professional development. If the professionals that came before us deserve the title, they should feel the same way. When one of my staff instructors comes up with a new drill or a better way to express a concept in CFS, we celebrate it!

Along those lines, I think just about everyone has figured out that the "Point vs. Aimed" debate should be dead......:banghead:.... it is plausible that we could need either and therefore we should develop both. With the exception of a few extremists on either side, most contemporary instructors are acknowledging some kind of sliding scale of deviation control or balance. To me, the progressive discussion is which to teach first, not which one is "right".

As Matt's last quote points out, it is hard to really "discover" things. Unless some psychic invented the front sight before the first man-portable firearm was built and fired, I think we can be pretty sure the first shooting was down without perfect sight alignment..... No mystery there. No one had to "discover" point shooting. We don't need to discover anything really new when it comes to guns and shooting them, that would be hard...... but it is easy to be able to explain them better and more thoroughly by looking harder and longer than those in the past did. Simply by starting where they left off we have a big head start. We have dash camera videos, hyper-realistic simulations houses, sim-guns, trained role-players, impact reduction suits and legions of neurologists and psychologists doing clinical studies on how the brain and body function.... It would take blinders or willful ignorance not to be able to add to the body of knowledge.

 

[ETH77]

Newton's physics isn't obsolete, it's a special subset of a larger field now. This is equally true for how one targets threats - close enough, point and blast, farther aim it more carefully. Not that I'm implying point and shoot isn't aiming. I learned that technique 30+ years ago, but I now use a more modern stance as well.

 

[Matthew Temkin]

Rob..you must be confused.
I have never heard any one who professed the need for point shooting that dismissed the need for the use of the sights, use of two hands, use of cover, etc, etc, when necessary.
Not so sure I can say the same for the "other side."
To us it was never a Point Vs. Aimed debate but a " Point in addition to sighted fire" debate.
Which to me is just common sense.
But considering the amount of negative vibes I have seen on the internet, many will not agree with you that the "debate" is over.

 

[ReadyontheRight]

It's just that I think that point shooting--along with sighted fire techniques-- has a place in the great scheme of things.

I am certainly no expert in this debate, but I practice both.

I took a defensive pistol course from the late, great Darrel Mulroy at Burnsville Pistol Range.

Darrel taught three points I have not seen mentioned in point shooting I thought I would share:

1. He said this more eloquently: We all have years and years of practice pointing our fingers at stuff. We learn to instinctively know where we are pointing. It is a natural reaction to a threat to point at it from chest level. Gun choice and point shooting practice should follow this version of "natural point of aim".

2. Darrel taught a "night shooting" technique that really helped me get a good feel for point shooting. He would dim the range lights and he had set up a light behind a large torso target. As your rounds went through the target, the back light would show where you hit...so you could "walk in" your shots to center of mass.

3. Use point shooting as a way to "warm up" at the range. It loosens you up, gets a few rounds down range and gets you ready for more accurate practice.

In this debate, I'm in the "all of the above" camp. I hope there are more people out there like Darrell teaching point shooting.