Point Shooting foo-foo (again)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Fast Point

Yo Brownie!

When I was a lad of 16, I had occasion to witness the gol-dangedest thing I ever did see.

A huge man with hands the size of ham hocks was knocking aspirin tablets off a table at 10 feet...and bottle caps at 20 feet with a double-action revolver from the hip. He accomplished this feat from the leather on a signal, and if you blinked at just the right time, you wouldn't see him move at all. His best recorded time from signal to shot was 27/100ths of a second...and he did a few on that day from under a suitcoat at a measured
35/100ths of a second average time for 10 tries.

In all fairness, he was lined up with the target, but I'd still estimate that he could have turned and drawn from concealment and hit those bottle caps in under a half-second. Of course...He did practice a lot.

His name was Bill Jordan...

Cheers!
 
Yes, Bill was a master at his craft and a real gentleman.

Never got to see him shoot in person as you relate here, it would have been a highlight of my life if I had.

You are fortunate to have witnessed one of the greats, no question about it.

Stay sharp

Robin Brown
 
You won't be able to "prove" anything to John Melvin Davis (aka GunKid, aka Bibedo aka etcetera, etcetera...) because he is trolling his same old act trying to boost his posts thru distilliing archaic info derived from his only real experience-- reading (and/or misinterpreting) from old stacks of shooting magazines, and garnering attention therefrom.
There is "QK" and there is "aimed fire" , but as I understand it and was taught as a young man, in the sevice more than thirty years ago, QK is aimed fire, it's just a different approach. Anytime you are visual on your weapon, and aware of it's orientation regarding muzzle/target (of any description) you are doing some kind of aimed fire, or so I have been taught.
Ankeny, I think, had it correct, we do a lot of the same things just approach and describe them differently. I enjoyed the vid, by the way and the history of the target build IS a riot!
SatCong
 
point shooting.

If I remember right, Mr. Jordan used a Mdl 19, with adjustable sights. Also, Ed McGivern claimed that he used the sights also.

Smoothbore shooters also have a front, and sometimes, a middle sight on their shotguns.

We index on something in relation to the target. It might be the slide, barrel, or an imaginary line continuing from the arrow to the target thats picked up in periphial vision.

Factor in time, distance, training, and the ' oh shi_, someones tring to kill me' factor, I suspect that all of us would use some tipe of 'point shooting'.

Admittedly, I don't shoot too much these days and my eyesight certainlly ain't what it used to be, but I still rely on a front sight to help me put my rounds into a target. That front sight might be something that resembles a tennis ball more than a Nat'l Match sight system.

I submit that the advocates of 'point shooting' vs. 'aimed fire' differ mostly in their definitions.

salty.
 
Jordan

bibeo said:

u didnt see anything of the kind
_______________________

Dang! Busted...I'm a pathological liar and I never even shot a gun.:rolleyes:

Yes...I saw Jordan hit those targets. He was timed. He actually beat his "book" time by 2/100ths of a second that day. I watched him closely and he didn't jump the timer...Not once. He never moved until the signal went off. It was a live-fire demonstration that was put on for the Sheriff's department and he wasn't using wax bullets. Subsequent shots wouldn't be relevant because it wasn't a combat demo, and therefore never intended to use "Double Taps" or whatever term that you armchair commandos are so fond of tossing around in order to sound all tactical and dangerous. The object of his exercise was to hit a small target quickly with the first shot.

I think that...because you can't do these things, you don't want to believe than anyone else can. I also think that you really believe that an IPSC stage is really really like a gunfight, and that because you do well at your discipline, that you'll do equally well if it ever came down to it...when what you are more likely to do is get shot to Helen Gone.

Going strictly on your posts on this thread...and by your question on the Roundtable to the effect: "Does everybody already know it all?"
I have to ask...Are you trollin' for a fight...or are you just tryin' to see how long you can get away with backdoor insults before gettin' hammered?
 
I too was going to make some remarks about the nature and structure of bibeo's posts. In addition to this post, take a look at the post about the running deer. Wrong thread, begins with the argument that few people know squat. Basis his premise on less than scientific evidence. Ends with the conclusion that unless you subscribe to his thought process you are less than worthy. Yeppers, it's John, andy, TheMan, GunKid. He's back...
 
SatKong:

From the 23-71-1 USArmy manual introduction page.

"Quick Kill has been developed and refined from the method recognized among civilians as INSTINCT SHOOTING. Basically, Quick Kill is doing what comes naturally. It is a distinct departure from most methods taught which tend toward mathematical precision. The key to the successful employment is simplicity. IT IS AS SIMPLE AS POINTING YOUR FINGER."

And on page 10, chapter 4, 11th paragraph "the instructor next explains to the soldier that he is to LOOK [ NOT aim, point, track or lead ] at the TOP EDGE of the target. The shooter is NOT to look at the barrel"---

The above, even the large cased words are exactly as written in the manual. As we can see, one points the finger, they do not aim the finger.

QK is a point shooting system using ones natural ability to "point" [ not aim ].

If I was capable of posting the pics here from the manual as well, everyone could see the line of sight for long guns [ which this manual only covers ] is above the barrel by 2-3 inches, both eyes open and not close to aiming at anything.

saltydog452: indexing is not mentioned in the manual relative QK point shooting anywhere. Since the US Army developed the QK system through Lucky McDaniels instruction, guidance and direction to train the troops thusly, neither Mr. McDaniels who was the originator of QK nor the US Army mention anywhere the word indexing.

Having been very fortunate to personally have been trained by Mr. McDaniels in 1981, I can also state not once was there direction given about indexing in the full two days spent with him.

The word "indexing" has been attached/referenced in connection to pointshooting at some point since the 1960's when QK was developed by Lucky and adopted by the UA Army by unknowns for unknown reasons. Mentioning indexing as some physical way to perform QK is actually diluting the pure form of the QK system.

bibedo stated: "I SAID that point shooting still works fine at 10 ft. It just doesn't work worth a hoot at 15 ft, when you also have to pivot or traverse, and when you have to do it FAST."

So we are to believe based on your statements above that alls well and good and PS works better than sighted fire at 10 feet but then doesn't work at another 5 feet of distance for some unknown reason?

Please state your background for us so we may then determine the experience you have with handling weapons systems in an attempt to better determine your apparently impeccable credentials to make such claims as you have here to be indisputable facts [which of course many are disputing].

Robin Brown
 
flame.

bibedo, you knew Mr. Jordan well enough to refer to him by his first name did you?

salty..
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Some points:

1. It takes the same time to see as not to see..
2. Body aligns, eyes verify (if you do not want to verify with your eyes, then it is up to you- some would call this point shooting and it is in fact what is put forward by Fairbairn and Sykes). The point is you don't have to lose time verifying with your eyes.

3. I know some very good point shooters (my Dad for instance) but they are at CQB- they say beyond that distance you should run :)) (smile)..whatever works for you, mon!!

4. For CQB esp. a target focus is best and your body can bring your gun to point along that visual plane naturally.

5. Ayoob sees 1 (above) as possible that's why he is 'against' total PS where you are not seeing what you need to and CAN SEE. Not saying he's wrong or right, just trying to address Rabbi's question.

6. Every top action pistol shooter speaks about your ability to bring the pistol up on target using kinesthetic awareness as a base to progress in competition shooting. I came from the 'see the sights' school and never understood the benefit of kinesthetic awareness in shooting until I practiced to do it. Now the gun comes up on target with sights aligned, I only refine the sight alignment for precision shooting.

In summary it all boils down to 'SEE WHAT YOU NEED TO SEE FOR THE TARGET'- understand this and all the postulations for and against sighted and/or point shooting becomes unnecessary.. this is like isosceles vs. weaver, 9mm vs. .45ACP, .223 vs. .308, revolver vs. pistol, big vs. light, fast vs. slow... I guess it is entertainment for some.. yawn, yawn, yawn..
 
Island Beretta pretty much nailed it from an IPSC shooter’s point of view.

I believe the fundamentals of shooting are the same whether you are on the range or behind the Mini-Mart. The fundamentals don’t change. The fundamentals are simple. The bore of the pistol must be in alignment with the target and the gun must fire while the bore remains well enough aligned to strike the intended target. Technique is how one goes about accomplishing those simple fundamentals. I believe stress and tension will cause the techniques one employs to accomplish the fundamentals to erode. The better you are at accomplishing the fundamentals, preferably at an almost subconscious level, the better your chances of making the shot under stressful situations.

I am going to explain the technique of visual and kinesthetic inputs that many IPSC shooters subscribe to today. The information cited comes from Brian Enos but most world class IPSC shooters/instructors subscribe to similar notions with only minor differences. In his book, Enos describes five focal points/shooting types. They are:

Type 1: “The single target at extreme close range where I need an extremely fast hit, there is no directed focus on the sights or the target.†“I may be seeing the target or I may be looking for the sights to come into my peripheral vision, but I may not wait to see them. Even though I may be aware of my sights when they get there, I shoot by feel.â€

Type 2: “When I am faced with multiple targets at extreme close range and, as above, I need extreme speed, I first confirm my index, then I simply focus to the scoring surface of each target. The sights may or may not be in my peripheral vision…the gun just appears wherever I look.†“If I need to shoot two shots on each target, I may keep my focus on the target or I may shift my focus back to the sights, depending on the difficulty level…I have the sensation of looking through the sights. When you’re moving to this focus type, be aware of the danger of shooting without focusing on anything.â€

Types 3-5 are explained in his book which is available on his Website. Essentially, the type of focus changes with the difficulty of the shot.

If your system and connection will allow you to view a small .wmv file take a look at the following. If you haven’t already done so.

Simple Drill

In that video, the target is at 7 yards. The sizes of the plates are generous so the visual inputs required to confirm the index are minimal. On the draw, I index to the first target and break the shot at the end of the draw stroke as soon as I verify alignment my seeing the slide and sights in my peripheral vision. The shot is by pretty much by feel through kinesthetic awareness (or as Avery says, sight alignment by feel) but with two shots to follow I want to visually confirm the index. The shot feels and looks good so the index is confirmed and the shot is “calledâ€. I still see the sights peripherally as the gun settles while I am breaking the second shot, largely by timing. I can see both the round plate and the gun peripherally as I snap my eyes to the center of the second target. I ride the recoil while moving the gun, breaking the third shot as soon as I visually confirm the index is complete. The gun appears where I look. I have the sensation of looking through my pistol to the target.

OK, that’s what I do on that particular drill at that distance. The distance at which a person can use a type one or type two focus depends on the individual’s skill set and the difficulty of the shot. In the video, the draw was a 1.04, followed by a .15 split, with a .18 transition to the head. I am sure many of you can draw much faster, but I need a good solid draw in order to bust a monster split and a killer transition.

So, for you point shooters, what would you do on that drill that is so radically different?
 
Different?

Ankeny asked:

So, for you point shooters, what would you do on that drill that is so radically different?
-----------------------

Dunno Ankeny...I never really paid that much attention to it. I just point
and shoot.

One difference is that I start the trigger pull before the gun comes on target, and time it so that the hammer breaks just as it does...Other than that, I'd hafta go through it slow and write everything down.
 
Ankeny:

The first thing I see is that you are not using your sights. My initial guess is that you have done this "drill" so often that it's more muscle memory than sighting and sighted fire. Your arms are conditioned to the timing to perform the drill from repetitions.

Your use of the word "drill" seems to suggest it is not something just set up for you to perform and hence your speed between shots is "timed" through many repetitions.

No different than a plate shoot where someone is using a 2000.00 race gun with high profile fixed sigths and doing the times on all six in 2.3-2.5 seconds. At those speeds it is impossible to say you saw the sights. having witnessed some who do the plates in those times, they have practiced it to the point of muscle memory and timing and are just "running" the plates.

Funny thing is, I've seen point shooter do the same thing.

Now go forth and shoot some FoF when another or three BG's are trying to kill you with airsofts and try to repeat that performance and speed on targets that are moving all the time and shooting at you.

I thought you were doing the same thing bibedo was mentioning by setting up and squaring on the target , knowing from practice like the plate shooters where to put the gun and just pull the trigger, letting the body/arms move rotely through practice [ cheating was the word I think he used ].

You are not saying you used the sights at those speeds are you? They were not necesary at that distance anyway as you mention.

Looks to me that if the IPSCers are shooting that close with those times they have come to a point where the sights are no longer necessary. In other words, point shooting through vigorous practice and repetitions.

What if you could do the same thing with little or no practice in a day or less using your natural ability? No novice will do what you are doing in the vid. That vid showed much practice to the point it was ingrained into your memory of how to do it at those speeds.

In the real world, things run differently. Just observations you asked for. BTW-- nice shooting

Robin Brown
 
Great going.. going for GM next year??
Click to expand...

I am bumping up against the limits of my ability hard. GM seems so far away. That jump between M and GM requires a lot of resources. My best shot would be in Production. I can get there through the classification system but what good is that? My draw is too slow for the speedshoots and I suck on field courses. :D
 
brownie:

Actually I made the target that morning out of our Steel Challenge stuff so I can offer Double Trouble at our future shoots. I taped the drill as a lark for another fourm. That film was the first time I shot that drill on that target. However, I have drawn many thousands of times, shot a bazzillion splits, and the transition to the "head" is child's play. I rarely practice Mozambique Drills.

Yes, I am an accomplished shooter, a five division USPSA Master and a two division IDPA Master. What you see in that video is a result of countless hours of practice. As for "setting up", I can shoot going into a position, leaving a position, on the move, from awkward positions, drawing and shooting laterally, and so on.

I have done FOF training and it's a hoot. Adds a new dimension and gets the pulse pounding. That's where the well developed index really shines.

What would I say if a realtive newbie could learn a system that would allow him/her to reach a decent level of performance at CQB distance in a couple of afternoons instead of years? That's a no brainer for sure. Go learn that system.

Looks to me that if the IPSCers are shooting that close with those times they have come to a point where the sights are no longer necessary. In other words, point shooting through vigorous practice and repetitions.
Click to expand...

That's my point exactly. I am absolutely convinced the ISPC crowd is PSing on our hoser stages. We just came at it from another angle.

For the record, even the IPSC guys no longer subscribe to the old school dogma of front sight, trigger, front sight, trigger. You don't need perfect sight alignment, you need perfect sight picture, even if that sight picture is the third button down on a puke's shirt.
 
Ankeny:

I'm duly impressed sir.

"I am absolutely convinced the ISPC crowd is PSing on our hoser stages. We just came at it from another angle. "

Which would give a lot of credence to the idea put forth by a few here for years that PSing is valid and works just fine.

I like that thought process of yours, and tend to agree with it wholeheartedly.

Well said, well written.

Stay sharp

Robin Brown
 
..just to add to what Ron said:

You develop a certain 'instinct' through the training and this makes you aware of what it takes to shoot what you want to shoot. We tend to not put all 'resources' such as full visual input (see Ron's comment on focus types) into hoser stages but we still could and the result would be no worse. Rob Leatham, classified by some as the greatest instinct shooter ever, conceded that he does not always see his sights before firing a shot, but he also conceded that until he improved his sighting techniques he was severely limited in how far he could reach in the sport due to the differences in target challenges in a match.

That said PS can take you to high levels and I don't think the common criminal have Leatham-like shooting skills..so it still will be effective in a defensive situation.

In competition action shooting you have to be dynamic and quite often you switch to a target that requires 'marksmanship' detail to one that you just pause the gun on it and break the shot on your way to another target.

One of the hardest concepts to grasp in shooting is the speed of your eyes. Your eyes can see a lot in a compressed time frame and you can train them to see even more and quicker. This is because your eyes act on the principle of light and we know how fast light is.
 
Thought about this a bit more and two things sort of stand out. Clint Smith probably coined the term "The Hole" which is (IIRC) where you and your opponent are within 7 yards (or so). His point was that at that close a range, the winner was often the quickest person to acheive good hits. His other phrase, "proximity deletes skill" applies there. I also recall the relavation from the late 70's/early 80's that cops tended to win fights over the magic 7 yard distance and the close fight was more of a coin toss.

Cooper also noted that most fights are at "conversational" distances - what ever that is.

Awerbuck recently had a nice interview in The Accurate Rifle (Aug 2004) where he mentions the need for folks to practice on smaller targets as your aggressor will probably be both moving and blading.

My surprise at hitting hose 8 inch plates at 10 plus yards with fast point shooting also nags me.

Can't do anything as I'm about to go on shift, but next week I'm going to take a hard look at this at the range with my timer.

BTW, my neighbor (IPSC Grand Master) mentioned using his GM with no sights to 15 yards. Said it worked fine once he got used to focusing on the target not the sights. Sound familier? :)
 
Regarding the convulsive grip....
Fairbairn taught to grip the pistol hard enough until your hand shook.
That is the convulsive grip.
Applegate taught to back off a bit until the hand stopped shaking.
Either or is fine.
Sound as if you are doing very well in your point shooting home study course.
You are finding how fast, accurate and easy to learn point shooting is.
In time you will learn that it is every thing that Cooper, Thunder Ranch and otheres claimed that it was not.
 
Pointer Points

T'was asked: (sic)

What do you point shooters see?
____________________________

I may be able to shed a little light on that question...

In practice, you may very well see the gun aliging in your periphery..which some would claim that is actually a rough flash sight picture and weapon alignment...but the gun is actually aligned before it comes into view.

In a real-world event, you won't see it because your field of vision will narrow. The oft-mentioned "Tunnel Vision" is very real, as is the time/distance distortion. Also very likely that you won't hear the report or feel the recoil of the gun. If your opponent is hit and goes down, you may not see him any more after tha point unless you look for him...because he will fall outside of your field of view. You may not even realize that you've hit him until the smoke clears if you have multiple assailants to deal with.

Point-shooting makes sense to those who have been in a bad situation,
mainly because it works within the human natural response to visually home in on the threat at the outset of the action...and that focus is often on the instrument of that threat...your would-be killer's weapon. Witness the number of people who are shot in their gun hand or arm in close-range firefights.

While training and practical courses of fire are very good training aids that sharpen your skills...the thing that is conspiculously absent is the tunnel vision and time/distance distortion. That's the real fly in the ointment, and that's one of the main reasons why the games are really only approximations of what really happens. The adrenalin may well cause your hands to shake...but they won't shake as badly as when your target is
willing and able to kill you...and probably trying his best to do just that.

Just my 2% of a buck...
 
Just my quick .02. I've seen 1911Tuner practice what he's preaching, and so has Fed168. No BS about the man.

When trying to fire fast, I find myself naturally indexing the pistol at about chest level with both eyes open and surprised myself by hitting the x ring consistently at 21 feet. For PPC, dang skippy I'm using sights.
 
BTW, my neighbor (IPSC Grand Master) mentioned using his GM with no sights to 15 yards. Said it worked fine once he got used to focusing on the target not the sights. Sound familier?
Click to expand...

I'll buy not using the sights in the conventional sense, especially on speed shoots and hoser targets. However, to be a competitive GM in a big match, you better be shooting 95% of the available points and that means using your vision to confirm the relationship of the bore to the target face. Then again, I am talking about the games.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Matthew Temkin
  • Locked
Brief History of Fairbairn & Sykes Point Shooting
2 3
Replies
50
Views
2K
Jeff White
J
Matthew Temkin
  • Locked
Using Your Bullets As "Cover"
2 3 4 5
Replies
102
Views
5K
Matthew Temkin
Matthew Temkin
Matthew Temkin
  • Locked
Applegate and centerline.
Replies
11
Views
544
strambo
S
T
  • Locked
SHooting One Handed?
Replies
5
Views
552
TonyB
T
Matthew Temkin
  • Locked
Point Shooting Home Study Course
Replies
18
Views
723
JMusic
J
Back
Top