Swedish Police Point Shooting

Status
Not open for further replies.
Are you claiming that Rob Pincus is not teaching unsighted fire?
I have heard Rob lecture once and have read his book and seen two of his DVD's and I beg to differ on this.

Then again, those without an axe to grind can decide this for themselves.
Check out this video
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_1Gj...9D0FAB86&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=70
where Pincus states in the first few seconds to "Touch the trigger--focus on the one--"
Sure looks like point shooting to me.
(In fact, that is the exact way I begin my point shooting classes ---except I tell them to focus on the Q)
 
Last edited:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4HfNiD6gh-4&feature=PlayList&p=CC5286979D0FAB86&index=71
And there is this video from Rob on the same page, where he states:
We've found that it's much easier to teach shooting intuitively and then increase their level of precision with mechanical target-shooting type skills...combat accuracy is best achieved by intuitive shooting. Again, we will incorporate as much mechanics as we need to, but also as little as we have to-Rob Pincus
Click to expand...
;)

Not Rob, but I like this one, too:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnrIdpo9odA
 
Yes..I have an old book by Jeff Cooper where the Col states nearly the exact same thing.
I can give the exact quote if requested....
In this regard, however, I must disagree with Mr. Pincus.
I prefer to teach point shooting as an advanced skill, taught to shooters who are already very skilled in sighted shooting.
I have, however, had good results teaching point shooting to complete novices, but I would consider someone with ONLY point shooting skills to be half trained at best.
 
Last edited:
(GASP!)Surely not Col. Jeff "Front Sight-Press" Cooper:eek:

:)
I believe it was in Fighting Handguns and went something like:
."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)
Click to expand...
 
Yes sir, that is the pages, and you are a brave man to post that.
I surely would not want to stand too close to you on a golf course, since Mother Nature may not have had enough practice and the lightening bolt meant for you may hit me instead.
Especially if she tried to use her sights...
 
Are you claiming that Rob Pincus is not teaching unsighted fire?
I have heard Rob lecture once and have read his book and seen two of his DVD's and I beg to differ on this.
Click to expand...

I said, specifically, that they (Andy and Rob) never said anything about point shooting/reflexive shooting (not using sights) during my training with them. I'm glad you read the book and saw the movie, I've shot with Rob, trained with him, ate dinner with him and his lovely wife in their house, built guns in with him and consider him a great guy and a friend.

I do not however, consider him a point shooting apologist. And with that, I've got bigger fish to fry. The best thing about beating your head against a wall is that it feels awesome when you stop.
 
Actually, Kelly, I would be very interested in hearing how you , as a professional instructor, would advise an officer to handle an armed perp who--in low light--is 7 feet away and closing fast?
Which shooting method would you teach him/her to employ and why?
 
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.
Click to expand...

Keep in mind that not everything done by "tier 1" personell is offensive in nature. They too are ambushed and caught "flat footed" just like everyone else.
 
Hey guys....

CFS certainly advocates unsighted fire congruent with the brain/body's obvious tendency (and initial need) to focus the eyes on the threat combined with the human ability to integrate well with tools after intuitive skill development.

That said, many people that are advocates of CFS and have been through the course still have their hackles raised when "point shooting" is mentioned. I use the term "unsighted" because while I do not advocate the consciously perceived focus on the sights or any part of the gun for majority of realistic defensive shooting, I also do not advocate shooting at any position other than extended in and parallel with the line of sight when shooting at a target "beyond 2 arms reach. The obvious corollary to that position is a retention position (gun indexed at the torso), to be used when necessary .

Shooting in this way (at extension) does a couple of things:

1. It works well with the TRUE human pointing heuristic which is developed not long after birth due to poor spatial awareness/depth perception as a behavioral response to reaching for something that you can't actually reach, ending up with your hand in your land of sight (as an infant) to that object and getting the Mommy or Daddy person to bring it to you magically. Yes, we can "point" from our hip or other position, but only works really well, and intuitively, in our line of sight.
2. It allows shooters to become comfortable with realistic defensive shooting quickly and it is not as perishable a skill as trying to shoot out of your line of sight and/or with a million specific mechanics in play (sight alignment, sight picture, non-fully-extended in LOS position, etc). In fact, we start people shooting in CFS with unsighted extended-in-LOS shooting and it works really well, as has been documented time and again. We then add sighted fire to the skill development process as appropriate (as soon as hour 2 of a 2 day course, depending on the students and setting/context).
3. It does a better job of establishing intuitive fundamentals in the new shooter before they start using their sights, which, when introduced too early, can cause over-thinking and over-dependance on mechanics.

I hope that makes the apparent misunderstanding and the CFS approach clear.

Keep in mind that not everything done by "tier 1" personell is offensive in nature. They too are ambushed and caught "flat footed" just like everyone else.
Click to expand...

Well put, NC... the overwhelming majority of the training that I have done for hundreds of special operations personnel since 2004 has been counter ambush in nature. In fact, the basic 5 day package is titled "Close Quarters Counter Ambush" and is tailored to each teams mission.

-RJP
 
Last edited:
Good points, Rob.
I think it is time for us to define our terms, which may show that most of us are on the same page.
I define point shooting as firing a gun with your eyes totally focused on the target/threat.
No matter if it is from two handed fully extended, one handed fully extended, 3/4 extension, 1/2 extension or from a retracted position.
(This is where Rob Pincus and I will have to agree to disagree, since I believe both 1/2 and 3/4 hip shooting to be vital skills which should be mastered.)
So when I hear someone saying that they are against point shooting, but will use retention shooting out to 10 feet or so, I kind of shake my head in wonder, since they are one and the same--at least to me.
Not to mention that 10 feet probably includes 95% of all civilian/regular law enforcement situations.
Sometimes I wonder if the term "POINT SHOOTING" is what is causing all of the grief , which is why I am starting to prefer the terms "Threat/Target Focused Shooting, which is a more accurate description of what is being conveyed.
 
When I was Trained we had 3 types of shooting, point shooting/hip shooting/retention shooting all basically the same thing but threat driven. Then farther out point shoulder shooting/flash sighting and finally actual aimed fire. All three have to be practiced IMHO to be proficient for all situations.
 
armsmaster270:
A very similar approach is shown in Bill Jordan's book, "No Second Place Winner"
It is distance--not one's favored shooting position--which dictates technique.
 
Yes, Matt... you and I use "point shooting" to mean the same thing, but I tend to use "unsighted fire" much more often to avoid the stigma/confusion about the PS term.

-RJP
 
" Yes, Matt... you and I use "point shooting" to mean the same thing, but I tend to use "unsighted fire" much more often to avoid the stigma/confusion about the PS term."

-RJP
__________________
The Best Defense: Wednesdays on Outdoor Channel!
Combat Focus Podcast!
I.C.E. Training Company.
LinkedIn Profile for Rob Pincus

Probably for the best, although it sure does make some a mite confused.
I do hope that KellyTTE does not start calling you a point/unsighted shooting apologist from now on.
 
Last edited:
Showme...

You have my apologies if you are under the impression that any of my posts are directed in a confrontational or egotistical manner. That is NOT my intent, and I have great respect for our LEO's and the job they do, and fully understand that there IS a place for target focused / point shooting.

then all those cops would magically focus on the front sight and not look at the object that's trying to kill them.
Click to expand...

I believe it's not magic at all as much as it is a result of operant conditioning developed through focused and realistic training. My arguement stems from the lack of realistic and effective training under stress that results in an individual acting in an uncontrolled reflexive manner as opposed to a deliberate manner. Realistic training teaches stress management that allows individuals to perform in a detached and deliberate manner despite stress and fear due to successful repetition under realistic conditions. Most of us will always be under stress and experience fear, but good training should show that that doesn't matter, and controlled actions are more effective than uncontrolled actions. I stand by my opinion that most "professional" agencies, civilian and military, do not meet this standard with their typical "check the block" qualification type training.


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...
Click to expand...

I do not have all the answers, and like most of us, am in a constant pursuit of effective training to save lives. The proverbial "kick in the ass", be it physical or verbal, is simply a part of the operational conditioning that takes place during training and is nothing more than a form of positive punishment used for a selective few. Sometimes we ALL need a good swift kick in the butt to pull our heads out.

if the military has it right with their training,
Click to expand...

The "military" doesn't have it right. Some organizations within the military do, but the overwhelming majority do not.

why does it take so many rounds to kill so few bad guys?
Click to expand...

For the very same reasons you cited. Budget, time, experienced trainers etc, and there are VERY few military folks who scoff at a raise vs. more range time.

I use as few rounds as possible as my motto is "never send a man to do what good high explosives can do better". ;)

I am not a "sighted fire" guy. I am a "see what you need to see" guy (Enos dictum that sums it up best imo). The only way to learn "what you need to see" comes with experience through good training, a shot timer, and an accuracy assessment after the fact. Sometimes, we need to see more than the target at ranges closer than we may think.
 
I am not Showme, but I never thought that your posts were directed in a confrontational or egotistical manner.
I think we all want to do/teach the right things ( I am a N.R.A. certified Law Enforcement Handgun/Shotgun Instructor as well as a N.Y.S. Armed Security Guard Instructor) and are doing our best to provide realistic survival skill to our charges.
It is my belief that officers do not "do as they are trained"--i:e look at the sights up close--because it violates the human tendency of looking directly at the threat to arrive at a solution.
Now we have two choices:

1) Practice like heck to "train out" this instinct OR

2) Teach a shooting method that USES this instinct to the shooters advantage. ( Which is what point shooting is all about)

Let me assure you that within it's range point shooting is capable of providing pinpoint accuracy ( even though such accuracy is rarely needed in reactive, close combat.)
By pinpoint I am talking about a burst of 3-5 shots very nearly in the same hole out to a considerable distance.
And since point shooting can be picked up in a matter of hours ( in some cases minutes), needs very little practice to maintain and IS NOT meant to replace--but compliment--sighted shooting skills I fail to see why it has been so misaligned for so long.
Again, I am not Showme, but I think this is what he was trying to convey.
 
Last edited:
Matthew here is the article it was in http://www.armsmaster.net-a.googlepages.com/negrete

NegreteSD.jpg
 
I was just thinking...these threads always degenerate into PS vs sighted fire...but in 100% of them, there is 100% agreement that PS is useful!

It should be "at what distance, PS vs sighted fire?" Even the most strident "PS is useless" posters qualify that with "beyond retention range."

So, the only argument is over distances. Should you PS or use sights at: 3ft, or 6 ft? At 9ft? 12ft? 5 yds? 7 yds? 10yds? There is no right or wrong answer....as Enos so aptly put it "See what you need to see" (including no sights at all) which depends on shooter skill, target size, distance and body position (can add in light, movement etc).

I know I can hit at 3yds from the hip 100% of the time. I know I can hit at 5yds from shoulder point or 3/4point 100% of the time I also know that at 5 yds, I'm good enough (if standing still) that I can hit just as fast and more accurate using a flash FS picture. However, if I'm moving real fast laterally, I cannot get on my FS in a timely manner and need to PS to get a hit (at 5yds).

I know at 10yds I can hammer 2 rds in 8-12" circle using ISO stance and PS....but it is irrelevant because I can again use the sights at that distance just as fast for better hits.

Die hard anti-PS folks say never do it beyond retention distance (what is that 6 ft? less, more?)

Consensus seems to be no more than 5 yds.

Die hard PS advocates seem to say out to 7-10yds. I don't see a real big thing to argue about?

I like Rob Pincus' approach to explaining the balance of speed relative to distance and target size. It's too bad that the term "point shooting" has to be skirted around though...
 
Applegate worked out the distance factor decades ago:
"The best descriptive term for using the hand gun in combat without the aid of sights is by "instinctive pointing"
This is a close-quarter method and should not generally be advocated for distances greater than 50 feet" ( pg 105 KOGK)

"What is meant by close-quarter combat shooting?
it is a matter of record that the average hand gun shooting affray takes place at a distance not exceeding 20 feet. Any distances not exceeding 40 feet can be considered as close quarters in the combat use of the pistol or revolver.
Beyond that distance the capabilities of the average individual and of the weapon show a marked decline.
This applies either when the sights are used or when they are not. It must be remembered that the enemy will seldom remain stationary and that many times
the light and other external conditions will be very poor, making shooting conditions far from ideal..." (pg 104, KOGK)

Which is why I do not get hung up on the distance factor.
Learn both, and then let your trained mind decide which technique is appropiate.
 
As a general rule and there is fudge factor for prevailing conditions such as lighting, subject charging, and type of weapon built in to this my standards are
7 yards Unsighted fire ( Thanks for the word Rob.)
15 yards point shoulder
25 yards and beyond aimed fire

I fully agree: Learn both, and then let your trained mind decide which technique is appropiate.
__________________
 
Attorney: When you shot at the gunman, you hit the daughter of my clients and killed her instead. Were you not aiming your gun?

Shooter: Well sir, I wasn’t aiming per se. I was relying on my body’s natural ability to point the weapon. I like to call it, "instinctive shooting."

Attorney: So you weren’t using the sights?

Shooter: Well, no. Not exactly. You see, I really don’t use my sights. Shooting a gun is a lot like pointing your finger so you don’t need to look at your sights. It’s kinda in your peripheral view.

Attorney: Now, I’m not an expert shooter or anything, but aren’t you supposed to line up your sights when you want to hit what you are aiming at?

Shooter: I don’t really see a need to do so.

Attorney: My clients would beg to differ.

Jury: Guilty of negligent homicide.

Remember. You must survive physically, mentally, and legally. Be very cautious in any approach that would tend to diminsh any of those facets.

Be aware. Shoot accurately.

Joshua Scott
www.FrontSightFocus.org
 
Last edited:
What a load of CR*P, its a proved system, use it if you want , if it doesn't fit you so called world view so be it.

I learned it from pros years ago and it has served me through war and Police shootings .
 
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