Swedish Police Point Shooting

[Matthew Temkin]

JScott--I worked in the NYC criminal/supreme courts ( as well as 8 years in the Grand Jury) for 20 years and I never heard a Q&A go down like that.
Using the sights or not using the sights would not be the issue in this type of case.
Being justified to shoot and not acting in a reckless manner would be the key to this type of testimony.
Do you actually think that I would feel better if your missed shot killed my child if you used the sights?
Or if your well aimed bullet passed through the bad guy and then killed my wife?
Then again, your assumption is that point shooting will guarantee a miss and using the sights will guarantee a hit.
You know what they say about assumptions, yes?

 

[Crusader103]

Leadbutt

Ah, that may be, but would sighted fire serve just as well, or better?

The unfortunate thing is that many of the "pros" are nothing more than readers of the latest magazine article or range experts. Not all of course. There are many greats out there with real world experience. One thing is for sure though, all else being equal my money is on the guy applying the fundamentals of marksmanship.

Yes, proponents of point shooting can survive shootings as well. That doesn't make it the superior choice.

In any case, nobody is out to hurt feelings so no need to be testy. Good discussion is good for all.

Be aware. Shoot accurately.

Joshua Scott
www.FrontSightFocus.org

 

[Crusader103]

Matt, in my most recent shooting, in which I scored a square hit and no miss I was asked point blank in the subsequent inquiry as to whether or not I aimed or pointed. That's with everything going right. Further, I have provided expert testimony (Snohomish County, WA) in which this very issue was not only relevant but a critical issue in the case. If things go right I would agree that it would not be an issue. If something goes wrong, and unfortunately sometimes they do, your every move will be dissected without fail.

We may not like it but our skill will only get us through the moment. Our technique can and often is questioned. Despite our world view, that is not what is important. What is important is the standard by which we will be measured and the perception of those who hold our future in their hands.

I do not however make the assumption that point shooting guarantees a miss. There are many cases in which people have been successful with the technique. That does not make it the preferred method. Therefore, I do make the claim that sighted fire and the application of the fundamentals of marksmanship will provide a greater success rate.

Yes, I know what they say about assumptions. If I point I assume that I will hit the target. If I aim I can be certain.

Be aware. Shoot accurately.

Joshua Scott
www.FrontSightFocus.org

 

[Matthew Temkin]

"Ah, that may be, but would sighted fire serve just as well, or better?"

There are times when the use of sights would be too slow or just plain impossible.
I too teach police officers, security guards and armed citizens.
Just last week I finished up teaching a NYS 47 hour armed security guard class.
The last skill that I showed was shooting in near total darkness at about 10 feet.
I rapid fired a .38 Model 10 into a group about the size of a fist.
Just how would using the sights have "served just as well, or better" in this situation?
Then again, point shooting is just one vital skill amongst several which a self defense shooter should master.
In my 47 hour course only 1-2 hours are devoted to point shooting.
If you feel that aimed fire only is the way to go then we will have to agree to disagree and move on.
Which is pretty much what Leadbutt ( who, btw, is one of my combat veteran mentors) was getting at.

 

[Matthew Temkin]

Good for you, but the NYPD is enjoying a 14% hit rate with their aimed fire only training.
Are you making the claim for a 100% law enforcement hit rate with sighted shooting in your neck of the woods?
Not for nothing, ( and this may offend some) but why not just state that you focused on the front sight if ( and that is a big IF, btw) your shot missed the target?
Since the national police hit rate is about 35% it would probably fly quite well on the stand.

 

[Crusader103]

Matt, I think that it is great that you can shoot so well with that method.... and I'm not just blowing smoke. It really is commendable.

Too slow? I can't agree with that. If you have time to bring your weapon up just below eye level or to look past your sights you have time enough to line them up. I see no way in which point shooting can be faster. I do shoot at very close distance without my sights. I do not consider this point shooting. It is contact range or near contact range and that type of shooting very much has it's place. Beyond gun grab distance you should be able to line your sights up as fast as you thrust it forward, negating the need for point shooting.

Serving better. Maybe, maybe not. Serving just as well. Absolutely. If you can score awesome hits point shooting you can surely do the same sighted.

Obviously, I am not a proponent of point shooting, but I do not preclude it from presentation in a course either. Cursory coverage in a 47 hour course sure wouldn't get me in a ruff. I will present techniques that are not my preferred method and let a student decide what is right for them. I simply tell them it is a method, present it, let them try it out, and tell them why it is not my method.

I would submit that many on THR can become great point shooters. I would also submit that the vast majority of those carrying an offensive or defensive firearm don't practice nearly enough. Point shooting for the average shooter is not likely to go over well in a real world scenario. Accomplished shooters may be able to pull it off. Again though, the range is not real life so range demonstrations don't hold much weight with me.

Be aware. Shoot accurately.

Joshua Scott
www.FrontSightFocus.org

P.S. No, no way would I ever make an argument for 100% accuracy. Too many variables. The biggest detractor is the poor training, or lack of practice, of our men in blue. Exactly why I would rather have these guys and gals aiming than pointing.

"Not for nothing, ( and this may offend some) but why not just state that you focused on the front sight if ( and that is a big IF, btw) your shot missed the target?"

Why not lie? Integrity I guess.

 

[Matthew Temkin]

"I do shoot at very close distance without my sights."
You may not consider that point shooting, but I do.
Any other arguements are just semantics.

 

[Crusader103]

No, definitely not semantics. If you can stick your weapon into somebody's side and pull the trigger it is neither aimed fire nor point shooting. It is contact range shooting.

Be aware. Shoot accurately.

Joshua Scott
www.FrontSightFocus.org

 

[armsmaster270]

Up to about 7 yards I hip shoot, 15 point shoot, 25 yards aimed fire it has served me well for 40 years

 

[Ryder]

On a stationary target starting from 1 step away and backing up I am good for 3 more steps. So that's 4 yards (12 feet) with all my shots grouped fairly well on a paper plate. By the 5'th step I transition to sights for a final shot. These groups are half the diameter of the plate. Obtaining the ability to center the groups has eluded me but all shots are on the plate.

I can only wonder if such a skill can be learned by people who do not have decades of shooting experience. This kind of shooting still requires the same trigger control as aimed fire and it must coupled with a feel for when the gun has recovered from recoil. I suspect if one has not learned to time the rhythm of recoil to align their sights during "aimed" fast fire exercises they're probably not going to do real well without sights.

Hard for me to be certain because like most things in life I learned it through natural progression and although I have taught many people the basics of shooting I've avoided pushing them into more advanced techniques. I've tried teaching people other things I have mastered in the past and it just doesn't work. There are prerequisite abilities which they must learn before moving on to the next logical step. They don't teach karate students to break bricks with their head on their first day if you know what I mean

By the way, if they need an address to send all that useless brass they were sweeping up just let me know

 

[Matthew Temkin]

Without proper training point shooting is hard to grasp.
At least it was so for me.
With proper training fist size groups are possible out to 7 yards while pulling the trigger as fast as possible.
These results occur within a 4 hour course.
(My splits are.22 with point shooting.)

 

[Ryder]

That's interesting. I'll have to give it a try next time I take my kid shooting. He's only 22 years old but always been a naturally good shot. Outside of basic theory I am self taught other than reading and it did come really fast to me like you say. Thanks for the feedback Matthew.

There's one thing we as defenders can't get around and this is why I undertook such experimentation in the first place. Trying to present a gun (especially a concealed gun) out in front of you to get a sight picture when your antagonist is 1 step and an arm reach away from contact just isn't logical. In every life threatening experience I have had with people on foot that was the case.

The thing is people who wanted to kill me never gave me any forewarning from a distance. Sure your instinct tells you something bad is going to happen before they get that close but who goes around in public pointing guns at strangers just because they are walking toward them or speaking to them from a distance? Can't do that.

See, I do not plan for my pistol bullets to stop anyone. I don't care how good I am or how much confidence I have in my abilities. It's a gun fight for survival, not a choreographed ballet. Nothing can be expected! I have decades of hunting experience and without getting too graphic let me just say it is truly amazing how difficult it can be to stop anything against its will even with a long gun. No way do I expect a 200 pound man 5 feet away who has voiced his intention to kill will be stopped by a couple measly pistol bullets to his center mass. The safe bet is to plan for a concerted effort to stop the treat and IMO the faster bullets begin impacting the threat the faster they will be stopped. To me that means the first few shots will not be aimed from 5 or 6 feet away as I backpedal bringing the gun up to eye level. Why would anyone waste the time it takes them to raise the gun to eye level when they could already be shooting at something so close it is rare to miss. That means sacrificing a couple of shots even with slow cyclic rates. With Mathews .22 splits you're talking about 5 shots and by coincidence that equals the group size I am used to putting on paper before I bring the sights up to eye level in my drillsduring my drills. Another way to look at it is that's 5 shots the badguy can putting into you as you raise your gun up to eye level. No?

I've heard it reported that over 60% of people shot with handguns do not die. Well that's fine by me, I never want to kill anyone, but I do hope others who hear that can realize it means their bullets are not magic.

 

[Matthew Temkin]

"There's one thing we as defenders can't get around and this is why I undertook such experimentation in the first place. Trying to present a gun (especially a concealed gun) out in front of you to get a sight picture when your antagonist is 1 step and an arm reach away from contact just isn't logical. In every life threatening experience I have had with people on foot that was the case.

"The thing is people who wanted to kill me never gave me any forewarning from a distance. Sure your instinct tells you something bad is going to happen before they get that close but who goes around in public pointing guns at strangers just because they are walking toward them or speaking to them from a distance? Can't do that."""

"See, I do not plan for my pistol bullets to stop anyone. I don't care how good I am or how much confidence I have in my abilities. It's a gun fight for survival, not a choreographed ballet. Nothing can be expected!"

You have said a mouthful there, and how true.
The human instinct under threat is to look at it.
Point shooting uses this instinct-as opposed to fighting it tooth and nail--and bases the technique around it for very close range reactive shooting.