Point Shooting: Under-appreciated & practiced!
- Thread starter Mad Magyar
- Start date
- Status
Shotguns used in hunting and the clay sports are always pointed as opposed to aimed...you don't squeeze the trigger on them either, you slap it...unless you're talking about hunting ducks with a Browning Hi-Power
That is why shooting shotguns is detrimental to gun handgunning...until you learn to switch trigger control modes
That is why shooting shotguns is detrimental to gun handgunning...until you learn to switch trigger control modes
Vern Humphrey
Member
But if you look at the guns used by serious (money-winning) shotgunners, you will often see they have a stick-on pad on the comb of the stock. Those pads come in varyng thicknesses, and they are designed so the shooter can adjust the height of the comb, so when the gun is "cheeked" he is looking right down the barrel.
You never see a competitive shotgun shooter shooting with his head up. His cheek is always firmly on the comb.
Hangingrock
Member
I’ve never been an advocate of point shooting as be discussed (unsighted fire). That’s not say it can’t be an acquired skill by individuals. I also realize that there are those among us that can achieve results that others can’t.
If some one would be so kind as to send me free of charge ten thousand rounds of WWB 9mm Luger ammunition I’ll try my best to acquire the necessary skill of point shooting.
If some one would be so kind as to send me free of charge ten thousand rounds of WWB 9mm Luger ammunition I’ll try my best to acquire the necessary skill of point shooting.
Owen
Moderator Emeritus
This reminds me of the debate about sight reading.
At some point people noticed that really fast readers that retained a lot of information weren't reading the words, they were recognizing them. In fact you could mangle the spelling for the words, or even leave many of them out, and it wasn't much of an issue for the skilled, high retention rate reader.
Contrasted to poor readers who had to sound out the words in their heads (this is where the moving your lips when you read insult comes from), the skilled readers could easily read twice as fast.
Some geniuses in our educational system decided that they wanted kids to be good readers, so the kids needed to learn to recognize the words, not reading them.
Well lets save some time the educators thought, lets stop teaching things that the students don't need.
Many schools stopped teaching phonics, and started teaching sight reading. The result was high school seniors that could barely read the front page of the newspaper.
The lesson was that those good readers were sight reading because they read alot. They didn't have to stumble over the words, and sound them out in their head because they they had worked out the phonics years ago, and had seen those words hundreds or thousands of times.
I think point shooting is kind of similar. Through sighted shooting you learn how to point the gun and build muscle memory. At some point the skill level is high enough that you no longer need the sights for close in targets.
If you read books about USPSA shooting at high levels, one of the things the authors talk about (I have Brian Enos in mind specifically) is learning the level of precision required to make a specific shot. As you learn what's required, you learn how much sight alignment is required, and discover that at short ranges you're just putting the gun in front of your face and slapping the trigger.
While that might work out for point shooters in the typical 3yd confrontation, their tool box is missing some key tools if they need to shoot further away. In these days of audio tapes from the Middle East talking about more Mumbai style attacks, I think its misguided, and robbing the shooter of their full capability.
At some point people noticed that really fast readers that retained a lot of information weren't reading the words, they were recognizing them. In fact you could mangle the spelling for the words, or even leave many of them out, and it wasn't much of an issue for the skilled, high retention rate reader.
Contrasted to poor readers who had to sound out the words in their heads (this is where the moving your lips when you read insult comes from), the skilled readers could easily read twice as fast.
Some geniuses in our educational system decided that they wanted kids to be good readers, so the kids needed to learn to recognize the words, not reading them.
Well lets save some time the educators thought, lets stop teaching things that the students don't need.
Many schools stopped teaching phonics, and started teaching sight reading. The result was high school seniors that could barely read the front page of the newspaper.
The lesson was that those good readers were sight reading because they read alot. They didn't have to stumble over the words, and sound them out in their head because they they had worked out the phonics years ago, and had seen those words hundreds or thousands of times.
I think point shooting is kind of similar. Through sighted shooting you learn how to point the gun and build muscle memory. At some point the skill level is high enough that you no longer need the sights for close in targets.
If you read books about USPSA shooting at high levels, one of the things the authors talk about (I have Brian Enos in mind specifically) is learning the level of precision required to make a specific shot. As you learn what's required, you learn how much sight alignment is required, and discover that at short ranges you're just putting the gun in front of your face and slapping the trigger.
While that might work out for point shooters in the typical 3yd confrontation, their tool box is missing some key tools if they need to shoot further away. In these days of audio tapes from the Middle East talking about more Mumbai style attacks, I think its misguided, and robbing the shooter of their full capability.
That is how I learned to read and to this day cannot really sound out words...Dr Seuss, Dune and The Hobbit were real struggles.
This is actually a very good example of the need to first develop the ability to hit with aimed fire, before moving on to point shooting
Al Thompson
Moderator Emeritus
Excellent , uh, point there Mr. Owen Sir.
Point shooting really IS combat shooting IMO.
There are not very many situations where there is really time enough to line up the sights. Fast shots win or at least help fend off the threat.
I've read that the LEO hit ratio is 11% in street shootings. I'm not surprised by this at all.
The surprise and HUGE amount of stress experienced in a shooting situation to going to really mess up anyone’s shooting skills.
Also IMO LEO's really don't train for the situation. (YET) Going out to a range and popping off aimed shots at a target is not training.
The stress aside, look at shootings on video, everything is MOVING! The officer is MOVING the BG is MOVING there are things in the way (like car doors) it’s not at all like a shooting range.
It's really fricking hard to hit a moving target while you are moving (and you better be if you’re getting shot at!) during a moment of high stress while point shooting. Thus the 11% hit rate.
Cops aren't bad shots, the conditions under which they are shooting are.
There are not very many situations where there is really time enough to line up the sights. Fast shots win or at least help fend off the threat.
I've read that the LEO hit ratio is 11% in street shootings. I'm not surprised by this at all.
The surprise and HUGE amount of stress experienced in a shooting situation to going to really mess up anyone’s shooting skills.
Also IMO LEO's really don't train for the situation. (YET) Going out to a range and popping off aimed shots at a target is not training.
The stress aside, look at shootings on video, everything is MOVING! The officer is MOVING the BG is MOVING there are things in the way (like car doors) it’s not at all like a shooting range.
It's really fricking hard to hit a moving target while you are moving (and you better be if you’re getting shot at!) during a moment of high stress while point shooting. Thus the 11% hit rate.
Cops aren't bad shots, the conditions under which they are shooting are.
The Old Fuff has noted that most of those that insist one MUST use their sights to obtain a flash sight picture were brought up and trained in Jeff Cooper’s “Modern Technique” school of doing things. I had the pleasure and privilege of knowing him, and he was unquestionably right about many things.
I also knew Rex Applegate, who was a strong advocate of shoulder-height point shooting. He strongly disagreed with much of Cooper’s theories as they applied to close range gunfights.
Then there was my good friend Bill Jordan, who could shoot at waist level (obviously not using any sights), and in a small fraction of a second hit things at close range you couldn’t believe.
Each of them taught me something, but the most important thing was that there is no “one way,” or system that is perfect for any and all situations. Therefore none of them was completely right – or wrong. Something they themselves admitted.
From my own perspective I believe, as distances get shorter, going down to arms’ length, aimed fire of any kind uses up too much time. But then I have the advantage of being able to use any of the methods advocated by the above well-experienced gentlemen. Knowledge and mixed skills is never a handicap.
I also knew Rex Applegate, who was a strong advocate of shoulder-height point shooting. He strongly disagreed with much of Cooper’s theories as they applied to close range gunfights.
Then there was my good friend Bill Jordan, who could shoot at waist level (obviously not using any sights), and in a small fraction of a second hit things at close range you couldn’t believe.
Each of them taught me something, but the most important thing was that there is no “one way,” or system that is perfect for any and all situations. Therefore none of them was completely right – or wrong. Something they themselves admitted.
From my own perspective I believe, as distances get shorter, going down to arms’ length, aimed fire of any kind uses up too much time. But then I have the advantage of being able to use any of the methods advocated by the above well-experienced gentlemen. Knowledge and mixed skills is never a handicap.
smince
Member.
I had never taken a Point Shooting class until I had several thousands of rounds downrange in the aimed modern technique style shooting.
We did quite a bit of P/S shooting in the S.I. Extreme Close-Range Gunfighting and 0-5Ft Gunfighting courses.
Would I have did as well with P/S without those 1000's of rounds of aimed fire? I'll never know. As most LE aren't 'shooters' and only practice when required to, this could answer part of the question. They just aren't that skilled at aimed fire, and are even less so with P/S shooting.
FWIW, though, Roger Phillips (SweatnBullets on this site) and a few other instructors do very well teaching Point Shooting to rank beginners.
We did quite a bit of P/S shooting in the S.I. Extreme Close-Range Gunfighting and 0-5Ft Gunfighting courses.
Would I have did as well with P/S without those 1000's of rounds of aimed fire? I'll never know. As most LE aren't 'shooters' and only practice when required to, this could answer part of the question. They just aren't that skilled at aimed fire, and are even less so with P/S shooting.
FWIW, though, Roger Phillips (SweatnBullets on this site) and a few other instructors do very well teaching Point Shooting to rank beginners.
bigfatdave
Member
I see nothing wrong with training in some muscle memory for point shooting. But if your plan is to point shoot all the way to slide lock, you have the wrong idea.
Point shoot your way to a sight picture, or shoot and scoot for cover ... I've been working on draw & fire practice and I have learned that you can pop off a shot into a reasonable target (9" circle in my case) at a reasonable distance (7-8 yards here) during the draw. But the goal is to get the sights on target, not to point shoot from start to finish.
If all you have to practice on is a rental range with stalls, tables, and stationary targets you won't be able to do things like shooting on the move or draw and fire without resorting to Airsoft or a laser trainer. I'm lucky in that I have a good indoor and outdoor range where I can shoot on the move, work from a holster*, utilize fake cover, or have multiple targets. I can't make my targets move so far, but at least I'm not on the target range punching paper with my feet bolted down.
* (do some snap-cap/airsoft/dry practice on that one first, folks!)
Point shoot your way to a sight picture, or shoot and scoot for cover ... I've been working on draw & fire practice and I have learned that you can pop off a shot into a reasonable target (9" circle in my case) at a reasonable distance (7-8 yards here) during the draw. But the goal is to get the sights on target, not to point shoot from start to finish.
If all you have to practice on is a rental range with stalls, tables, and stationary targets you won't be able to do things like shooting on the move or draw and fire without resorting to Airsoft or a laser trainer. I'm lucky in that I have a good indoor and outdoor range where I can shoot on the move, work from a holster*, utilize fake cover, or have multiple targets. I can't make my targets move so far, but at least I'm not on the target range punching paper with my feet bolted down.
* (do some snap-cap/airsoft/dry practice on that one first, folks!)
Matthew Temkin
Member
As with Old Fuff I knew Applegate very well.
I have also been mentored by men who trained with Col. Askins, Jelly Bryce &, Bill Jordan.
None of these masters thought that point shooting was the end all method of combat shooting, but rather, that it was a compliment to aimed/sighted shooting.
There are many factors that come into play in a firefight, such as time, distance, lighting conditions etc, etc.
I feel that a wise man will take the time to practice both methods.
Just IMHO of course.
I have also been mentored by men who trained with Col. Askins, Jelly Bryce &, Bill Jordan.
None of these masters thought that point shooting was the end all method of combat shooting, but rather, that it was a compliment to aimed/sighted shooting.
There are many factors that come into play in a firefight, such as time, distance, lighting conditions etc, etc.
I feel that a wise man will take the time to practice both methods.
Just IMHO of course.
It is highly unlikely that one will ever encounter the same circumstances/situation more then once, but as Rex Applegate, Charles Askins and Bill Jordan pointed out to me it will most likely:
1. Be unexpected.
2. Occur within distances measured in feet, not yards.
3. Be over in a matter of seconds.
And they were in a position to know.
I would add to this:
4. Under low light or near-dark conditions.
1. Be unexpected.
2. Occur within distances measured in feet, not yards.
3. Be over in a matter of seconds.
And they were in a position to know.
I would add to this:
4. Under low light or near-dark conditions.
Old Fuff explained it real good. I've seen people shoot at targets and do a fabulous job, but these same people couldn't hit a deer standing still. In probably a three week period a friend of mine actually missed three Deer that were standing still.
I learned years ago with a High Standard w/o sights and it takes constant practice. I don't really know if crouching and checking your front sight as you're squeezing the trigger is true point shooting, only you can determine what works for you. I do recommend one hand, strong & weak. If you have time for a two hand grip you have time for sights.
bigfatdave
Member
Probably true, or at least you're up enough to index on the gun as a whole.
One time I was having a light hearted discussion about the Weaver Stance with Bill Jordan. He opined that if some fellow came up to him and thrust out his left forearm with the palm of his hand open and fingers extened - and then started to make a drawing move with his other hand - with all of that prior advertisement concerning his intentions... well he'd never get his hands up to shoulder level. If you'd ever seen him shoot you'd believe it.
Vern Humphrey
Member
I've seen Bill Jordan shoot. He's right.
But no matter how you went up against him, unless you were standing behind him with your gun out and sights locked on his back, you'd still be a dead man.
A proper modified Weaver draw doesn't require extending the weak hand at the outset of the draw -- the hands move together, not separately.
But no matter how you went up against him, unless you were standing behind him with your gun out and sights locked on his back, you'd still be a dead man.
A proper modified Weaver draw doesn't require extending the weak hand at the outset of the draw -- the hands move together, not separately.
True, but both Bill and I had seen shooters throw out the off-hand first and telegraph their next move. His basic point was that if the distance is close enough, shooting from waist level (if the gun is in a waist-level holster, as it usually is) will be faster then coming up to shoulder level and trying to pick up a flash sight picture - all other things being equal.
He also noted with a big grin that waist-level shooting took a big dive in popularity when folks switched from revolvers (that didn't eject fired brass) to pistols ( that did)...
Vern Humphrey
Member
True -- and the same people would have probably got their butts whipped in a fist-fight, for the same reason.
He was right there, too -- but as the man said, "You can't miss fast enough to win." The statistics show a lot of misses at very short ranges.
Matthew Temkin
Member
He was right there, too -- but as the man said, "You can't miss fast enough to win." The statistics show a lot of misses at very short ranges.
True.
But I wonder how many of those misses happened to people who had no training in point/hip shooting?
True.
But I wonder how many of those misses happened to people who had no training in point/hip shooting?
Vern Humphrey
Member
Well, if a man misses, by definition he had time to get off a shot. So given that he can get off a shot, how can he best insure he gets a hit?
Matthew Temkin
Member
Having time to get off a shot is one thing.
Having time to use the sights--or even get the gun up to eye level--is something else.
I suppose learning both point and aimed fire--anywhere from retention/ hip and up to eye level--would be the best way to prepare to get hits.
Having time to use the sights--or even get the gun up to eye level--is something else.
I suppose learning both point and aimed fire--anywhere from retention/ hip and up to eye level--would be the best way to prepare to get hits.
Vern Humphrey
Member
I believe it was Wyatt Earp (who had a bit of experience in these matters) who said, "Get your gun out as quick as you can, and take your own sweet time about aiming."
Someone else said, "You can't miss fast enough to win."
So given that you are going to shoot, don't miss. I don't say you can't get a hit by point shooting -- but given the performance degradation that is normal in combat, it's probably better to be sure, rather than rely on hope.
Someone else said, "You can't miss fast enough to win."
So given that you are going to shoot, don't miss. I don't say you can't get a hit by point shooting -- but given the performance degradation that is normal in combat, it's probably better to be sure, rather than rely on hope.
I think the misses are due to them starting to fire as soon as the gun clears the holster. They start firing too soon and they try to empty their gun without ever getting the gun up where it should be. With point shooting the gun would be in the general area when they start shooting.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked