Swedish Police Point Shooting

Status
Not open for further replies.
The problem with aimed fire (using the sights) is that most people don't use it when confronted with deadly force...they concentrate on the threat.
Click to expand...

The problem is a lack of effective and consistant training. Due to budget constraints, most armed agencies fail miserably to develop proficiency and condition their shooters to develop and trust their sight pictures. A failure to properly train and condition shooters creates a defensive action stemming from fear rather than a deliberate action based on confidence and repetition. How often are armed agencies required to conduct force on force training? Probably not often, if at all, due to budget constraints and other training issues that are deemed more pressing.


As a former police instructor myself who taught the so-called Modern Technique for years, I got a rude awakening when our department starting incorporating video training and Simunitions. When confronted with a live person or a person on a video screen, I NEVER used my sights.
Click to expand...

In my military training, my men have experienced the exact opposite and are amazed when they miss targets because they failed to aim, and they get a boot from yours truly for "spazzing out" instead of doing what they are trained to do. Their failure reinforces the fact that fast shooting is worthless unless you get your hits, hence, you better aim. The technique we train with ranges from a sight picture based on the index of the weapon ( point shooting), to rapid aimed fire with iron sights and optics. The technique used is dependant on target size and range, and is developed in training on the flat range, and in the house.


If you're planning on shooting at targets that don't shoot back like paper or steel, then by all means focus on the front sight and bang away. It is the most accurate way to shoot.

But if you're interested in learning how to hit a human being a ranges at 10 yards or less, take a look at Conti's book. It's definitely worth the read.
Click to expand...

I don't agree with that at all.

If you are interested in point shooting / threat focused training, than by all means research, practice, or get training, but LET THE SHOT TIMER AND ACCURACY determine WHEN you need to use the sights.

You may find that the range is closer than you think, and from what I saw of that video, some of those folks SHOULD have been using more than just a threat focused index on target.
 
Yes, however he is assuming that if one point shoots then one will miss the target.
Quite a few with equally impressive creds as Mr. Lamb will disagree with that assumption.
 
Last edited:
JoeS,

I hear your argument all the time from the sighted fire guys...and it's always do more. Yeah, most cops don't use their sights at close distances, but if we could only do more and better training then all those cops would magically focus on the front sight and not look at the object that's trying to kill them.

OK...I'll buy that so let's get specific. How much more training...once a month, once a week, every day? And what about the type of training...PPC or Combat, emphasizing fundamentals, or distance shooting? Expenditures of ammo...how much and how long is this training gonna take? And what happens when that grumpy old guy called the Chief asks what's this going to cost? No real answers from the sighted fire guys.

Here's a couple of facts the sighted fire guys don't like to talk about. Out of 6000 shootings the NYPD looked at, only 20% of the cops said they used their sights...not very good when you consider the cops are trained in sighted fire techniques, but there's a simple answer to that right Joe...let's just do more training.

Here's another fact the sighted fire guys don't like to hear...for every 5 rounds fired only one hits the target and that's at distances usually under ten yards. That's kinda scary, especially when we carry guns that hold 14 rounds.

You did convince me of one thing Joe...when I was doing my F.A.T.S. and Simunitions training and realized I was not using my sights, all I needed was a swift kick in the behind by "yours truly" when I "spazzed out."

Sorry if I'm boring you, but here's something I KNOW is true after 37 years of being a cop. If the choice is more firearms training or a 3% raise, cops take the money every time.

To you, I'm just another smack on the Internet with a keyboard and an opinion, so that's why I mentioned Conti's book, but for a big time military instructor like yourself, what could a guy who runs the firearms training for the Massachusetts State Police bring to the table huh Joe? He probably voted for Obama anyway.

You seem to have all the answers with your military training and your first class instructional methods by kicking people in the ass when they spazz out, so just answer me one more question...if the military has it right with their training, why does it take so many rounds to kill so few bad guys?

Have a nice day...
 
Yeah, attack the military folks because some guy doesn't agree with your ideology. You might find that unpopular around here. Your years as a cop and the Military's mission aren't even remotely analogous. Would you like all the military guys on this forum that have been in REAL firefights to start instructing you how it differs from FATS or playing with paint balls? It is a little transparent that you mention that as your source or information rather than your personal experience in REAL firefights. Theory is great, in theory anyhow.


To you, I'm just another smack on the Internet with a keyboard and an opinion, so that's why I mentioned Conti's book, but for a big time military instructor like yourself, what could a guy who runs the firearms training for the Massachusetts State Police bring to the table huh Joe? He probably voted for Obama anyway.
Click to expand...

This behavior somehow validates your opinion? Or invalidates his? Truth be told no one knows if ANYTHING you or Joe or anyone else here says is true or total bunk. Its supposed to be a FORUM. You state your opinion and let people take it for what its worth. What you KNOW or how long you were a cop doesn't entitle you to be right OR to be rude. You only have a few posts on this forum so maybe you haven't caught on that this isn't the place for that. Take a breather and relax, your opinion is just that, nothing more.
 
Last edited:
No one is attacking the military, but I do feel that the mission of the military and that of law enforcement/civilian are different.
Especially concerning distances and the heavy reliance on handguns for the private sector.
I also wonder if the current trend of going to the special ops community for basic police/civilian self defense has a basis for reality.
ShowMe2 makes some good points, especially concerning the horrific hit rate for the NYPD, which is actually worse than the published reports.
Actually it may be more than just which type of firearms training an officer should receive--perhaps we are not really training our people for the realities of close quarter violence?
Both from a physical and mental standpoint...
 
I just spent a week with Paul Howe working on my instructor credentials and asked him about this very subject. Keeping in mind that MSG Howe has killed more bad guys than Ebola, Cancer, and Old Age, whereas Mr. Tempkin's information is theoretical, at best, I'll stick with Paul's answer, which was, short version:

A waste of time.

If a person is resorting to reflexive fire in a critical incident, thats a sign of lack of a training. A software issue as it were. I know for a fact that surgical, sighted fire can be delivered on demand from a skilled shooter. Anything else is simply turning ammo into noise and smoke.
 
ShowMe2 said:
...Out of 6000 shootings the NYPD looked at, only 20% of the cops said they used their sights...for every 5 rounds fired only one hits the target and that's at distances usually under ten yards. ... but here's something I KNOW is true after 37 years of being a cop. If the choice is more firearms training or a 3% raise, cops take the money every time....
Click to expand...
So what's the answer? Less training? Target focus? Sighted fire?

If only 20% of the NY officers said they used their sights and the overall hit ratio is about 20%, does that mean anything? Probably not, because they're different samples.

But the more I read of this debate, the more I think that either system will work if, and a big "if", one trains hard enough at it. I suspect that overall, a lot of folks not using their sights are missing a lot.

A working hypothesis: people who diligently train and practice point shooting/target focused techniques will hit their targets quickly; people who train and practice flash sight picture techniques will hit their target quickly; and people who don't train and practive either diligently enough will not, at least not consistently.

What I'm not convinced of, and what some point shooting/target focused advocates seem to me to be suggesting, is that people will more readily become adequately proficient using a point shooting/target focus system.
 
My department teaches point shooting, pretty much just like what was in the video but from the holster.

We do that out to about 5 yards then go to shoulder point shooting out to 10 yards.

After ten yards we use sights.

I've talked to officers in other departments and they have like training. I believe its standard to teach that method for close in shootings these days.

The reason of course is someone 7 (ish) yards away can charge me and be on me before I draw and raise my weapon. So we learn to point shoot to give us a half second or so advantage.

Makes sense to me.

The instructors did a demo where they asked for the fastest runner in the group to come up. He stood behind an officer touched him and sprinted away, at the touch the officer drew his weapon and fired point shooting into the target in front of him. The runner covered 9 YARDS at the sound of the shot.

That’s why we point shoot.
 
"just spent a week with Paul Howe working on my instructor credentials and asked him about this very subject. Keeping in mind that MSG Howe has killed more bad guys than Ebola, Cancer, and Old Age, whereas Mr. Tempkin's information is theoretical, at best, I'll stick with Paul's answer, which was, short version:
"

My source of information is hardly theory.
I have trained with quite a few legal killers, and not one has called point shooting a waste of time.
Plus I have been in my fair share of guns drawn situations so I have an inkling as to how civilian/security/law enforcement situations go down.
Not to mention the past record of point shooting from Fairbairn & Sykes, Col. Applegate, old school police gunfighters such as Jelly Bryce and a host of others.
Funny that you mention Paul Howe, since he is on record as saying one can use his sights at 0-300 yards.
Sights at ZERO yards--with all due respect to Mr. Howe and his body count, but I find that statement just a bit unbelievable.
 
Last edited:
Paul's answer, which was, short version: A waste of time.

Interesting. Especially since the people who trained Paul's direct forefathers in the OSS were responsible for advocating the concept of point shooting in the first place.

Some years ago I read in one of the old SF group newsletters- 7th Group I think it was, from back in the 1950s- how Special Forces was teaching tracking to the Border Patrol. Cycle forward in time a few decades, and I read in the then current magazine how the Border Patrol was teaching tracking to Special Forces.

And around we go. Again.

lpl
 
Just my take on things; there have been a few progressions in the realm of fighting and shooting over the years. We no longer teach people to box in the same manner displayed by the fisticuff fighters of the 1800s. Shooting too has progressed from what was being taught in the 40s and 50s.

I personly advocate point shooting while in contact distance. Other than that I believe you should be using the sights. In my personal experience I've been able to focus on my sights during periods of high stress. The same holds true countless other trained shooters. As an aside, the biggest advocates of point shooting in my agency are the guys that are content just putting rounds anywhere they can on a threat. The guys that hold themselves to a greater accuracy standard, as they should, advocate use of the sights.
 
Interesting. Especially since the people who trained Paul's direct forefathers in the OSS were responsible for advocating the concept of point shooting in the first place.
Click to expand...

And someone OSS forefather thought that squaring up in long lines and shooting volleys of fire at each other is the the bees knees too. There comes a point in time where any technique can be looked at as dated or no longer efficient.
 
the biggest advocates of point shooting in my agency are the guys that are content just putting rounds anywhere they can on a threat.
Click to expand...
While I advocate getting the best hits possible, sometimes getting rounds on the target while getting off the line of fire we may accept larger groups.

However that's not the same as 'anywhere they can on a threat'. It's possible to shoot good groups while moving at a pretty good rate of speed and point shooting.

I do subscribe to the theory that 'Any hit on the BG is bad for him and good for you' though.
 
Lining up and firing volleys at each other was getting a bad reputation by the mid point of the Civil War, and was replaced by more effective tactics by 1863
Yes, once it was the bees knees, but the rifled musket put an end to those tactics.
Translation:--new weapons demanded a change in combat methods.
However, I still do not see what in pistol combat has changed so much since the 1940's.
Or the 1880's for that matter.
Distances are still very close, lighting conditions are still bad and the need for speed--in most cases--is still great.
Nor have the handguns greatly changed since the days of the 1911, P-38, Browning Hi-Power, Walter PPK, etc, etc.
Agencies which have included point shooting in their programs-- Swedish Police Force, Mass State Police, California Highway Patrol, Akron OH police department-- to name a few that I am familiar with--are reporting excellent results on the streets with point shooting.
Quite frankly point shooting does not sound very obsolete to me....
 
Last edited:
When you are within arms length, sticking your gun out to sight is stupid, all it does is block your view of his hands and allows him to put hands on your gun and possibly take it from you. hold an empty gun in your hand and have someone grab it and twist it against your fingers and see how easy it comes out. If done properly it will also break the finger.
 
Quite frankly point shooting does not sound very obsolete to me....
Click to expand...

Of course not, you're an apologist for the system. I always love the 'friend of a friend that got trained by this HSLD kinda guy'.

I'm more curious which top tier shooters have you worked with lately?
 
Kelly TTE:
I am not sure what you mean by top tier shooters.
I have shared range time with SouthNarc, Andy Stanford and Tom Givens during their presentations.
In fact SouthNarc invited me to his home a few years back where I was able to train with some of his SWAT guys.
I have also trained with former SAS trooper Phil Singleton, John Farnam, Fred Yates of Blackwater, Jimmy Cirillo, Rex Applegate, Mike Conti, Bert DuVernay, Mike Boyle, John Petersson, Rance Deware of SigArms, John Benner of TDI, Bill Cambell of the NRA Law Enforcement Division, Mike Rayburn and a host of other, lesser known instructors.
I have also trained with friends who have trained with Jeff Gonzales, Larry Vickers, David Harrington, Eric Haney, Mel Perry, Mas Ayoob, Chuck Taylor and Jeff Cooper--to name only a few.
I have taught point shooting to special police/military teams in Poland, England, Sweden who have allowed me to go through their advanced, room combat training at no cost.
Now I have a question for you---
I see in your bio that you have trained with Rob Pincus in Combat Focus shooting.
Since many of Rob's methods are similar to Applegate's I would be interested in your opinion on Combat Focus.
 
Last edited:
Folks,

A gentle reminder- we are all friends here. Attack the point of view all you wish, but not the person who holds the point of view.

lpl
 
Point shooting is just a part of a well rounded shooter. If a shooter feels and is more proficient with front sight press use it. I was taught point shooting when I was a toddler. Just as many of the point shooting advocates have. They all use sights, they all use scopes. We are talking about tenths of seconds here. at 3 yds what does five thenths of a second get you ? Both dead? Point shooting is a skill set worth learning IMO. Just as many of the other courses advocated here.



Jim
 
I am really curious as to what made KellyTTE train with Rob Pincus in Combat Focused shooting, since it appears that he is 100% anti-point/threat/target focused shooting.
I am also curious as to his opinion of the Combat Focus system.
Kelly?????
 
Last edited:
Also remember...what a HSLD Tier 1 military operator does with high end red dot sighted carbines during an offensive combat (or SWAT) operation is waaay different then the mom, or cop or other citizen caught flat footed in a dark parking lot.

Knowing and instigating combat, even at room distance, is different than being thrust into a violent situation not of your own volition.

Point shooting works best IMO #1 at very close range 3-15 ft. and for shooters who can't practice as much. Yes, there is no speed advantage at 5 yds point vs sighted for a well trained shooter. All benefits to sights, no downside...BUT! for the typical cop or citizen who isn't that well trained, they will be a lot faster at 5yds point shooting and still get acceptable (A zone) hits.

I'm better trained than the average police officer and shoot more...but I know I can hit at 6 yds and under point shooting from a dead run. I can't do that using my sights...should I not do that in combat just because [ideally] I would use my sights if I trained more? I can hit now w/out them. Someday, I may be at the highly trained level where I can use sights just as quick for all but retention distances...I'm not there yet. But PS lets me get really fast, combat accurate hits, while moving, at 0-6 yds or so....now.

Point shooting is the fastest way to get a complete novice from potential victim to gunfight winner at 0-15 ft which is where for cops and citizens, they most likely occur. Tack on sighted fire for 15ft and beyond out to 25yds where they have time to use them. Then someday, if they do train enough, hopefully, they can get to the point where they think point shooting is "useless" for them at all but retention range because of how fast and well-trained they are with sights.
 
Strambo, I could not have stated it better myself.
Except for your last sentence that is--which I suspect was a tad tongue in cheek.
( And I hope someone has been in a whole lotta gunfights before they considers themselves so well trained.)
Funny, but anti point shooters such as Chuck Taylor, John Farnam and Mas Ayoob do teach how to point shoot a rifle, either via underarm assault or from the shoulder/sternum when the distance is close.
Which begs the question as to why a rifle can be point shot but not a handgun which was designed for close combat?
 
At no point did Rob, nor Andy Stanford ever advocate 'non-sighted' fire. The 'combat focus/speed-shooting' was on acceptable hits versus speed, not on unsighted fire. Andy and Rob are fine instructors, but neither of them are 'point-shooting/reflexive fire' advocates.

If more people spent their time in a 70/30 dryfire versus livefire regime, and actually improved their skillset, rather on relying on dated technique, preached by apologists, this would all be a moot point. But to quote a very gifted SpecOps shooter:

Being a world class shooter isn't really that hard, its just that 99% of most gun owners suck.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Matthew Temkin
  • Locked
Boston Point Shooting Training
Replies
2
Views
288
Matthew Temkin
Matthew Temkin
Matthew Temkin
  • Locked
Boston Firearms Seminar
Replies
0
Views
278
Matthew Temkin
Matthew Temkin
W
  • Locked
Swedish mauser question
Replies
4
Views
697
Jim K
J
Matthew Temkin
  • Locked
Point shooting...4 hour syllabus
2
Replies
39
Views
3K
Matthew Temkin
Matthew Temkin
whughett
  • Locked
Swedish Police TV Series.
2
Replies
32
Views
3K
toivo
toivo
Back
Top