Videos show you can repeatedly hit fast moving targets with a hangun.

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm probably mistaken, but I thought that Point Shooting has been generally considered less effective then aimed fire, and thus isn't taught as a method...?

-Nick
 
Pointshooting, if done properly, is only marginally less accurate than aimed fire, and much faster. On a good day, I can get 5 shots through the same hole (under 1" center to center) from about 10-12 feet away, with each shot fired from the draw. Although this is using Shooting to Live method, not the Point and Shoot method espoused by the owner of pointshooting.com. Different methods (including sighted fire) work better for different people. Shooting to Live definitely works for me. The problem is the people who try to say their one system is the best. Mostly the sighted fire people that do that. Point shooters seem to all get along just fine, despite the radically different methodologies behind Point and Shoot, Shooting to Live, Quick Kill, and Center Axis Relock.
 
I didn't have an opinion on point shooting techniques until I took the ITFT System. I can honestly tell you that I think it's something that everyone involved in defensive handgun use should learn along with sight shooting. Both techniques compliment each other and support a good shooting skill set.

Point shooting is fast and has good accuracy out to the 30 ft distance it trains to. Some people do well beyond 30 feet and others do well only out to ~21 feet, but within it's range range :scrutiny: it fills a need for getting rounds on target fast.

At greater ranges and when greater precision is needed and the time permits, aimed shooting excels. When speed is essential and you're in close, point shooting excels.
 
The way I've seen "point shooting" demonstrated is that it's basically a technique that allows you to get a decent sight picture very fast. Every effective "point shooting" technique I've seen involves quickly bringing the weapon to eye level and then using non-sight, or front sight, cues to determine if the weapon is on target before firing.

To me, a true "point shooting" technique would be like using hip shots at 50ft effectively but we all know that will never happen,
Mark(psycho)Phipps( HAHAHA! )
 
While I was "stationary," the distance to the target when it was not moving, was 11 feet from the end of the gun muzzle when my arm was extended. That distance increased as the target moved from right to left and back again.

And when I was moving from the "far" right to the "far" left, and the target was also swinging, the range varied from the 11 feet or so, to a max of about 20 feet or so.

The point of matter is that what was done, is both easily doable, and repeatable.

And I don't really practice much if any. So, I imagine that for those who shoot and/or practice some to a lot, they would be able to be much faster in shooting and in moving as well.
 
I'm thoroughly unimpressed.

You've just shown that someone possessed of a modicum of spatially oriented instinct, under ideal circumstances, and shooting at a predictably moving target at close range can, in fact, keep some of the pellets from a 6mm airsoft pistol on an 8-1/2 x 11 inch sheet of paper.

Please explain to me why pointing a gun in the general direction of a large target and hitting it a handful of times is an epiphany-inducing revelation?

What's next? Extolling the ease of employing a coup-de-gras shot to a kneeling, blindfolded victim at contact distances?

"Wow! Look! With this method I can hit him in the head absolutely 100% of the time, and I never need to practice! This is the best pistol technique ever!"
 
I did not know if you had a real question, or were just leading one on, as the answer to your ques was in the linked 2 page.

If you shoot a life threat 4 or so times, they will probably stop and/or die.

Don't plan to discuss this here as often times PS discussions turn into squabbles.

Had thought that some would find the info of interest. That's all.

Thanks for your input.
 
one drill we used to do involved bike tires with cardboard inserts. you have one guy roll one down hill, and the other sees if he can hit the target as it bounces and rolls along. Now before any of the rightous start bleating about 'knowing whats behind your target' , or that you will shoot your eye out, of course, we did this with a good back stop.
The point is, that this drill sure developes your ability to hit a fast bouncing, moving target. Since I have never had to confront a crowd of hostiles, this has paid off for me just in hog hunting.
 
You know, there are all kinds of competitions that involve shooting moving targets. They tend to use the sights, and, you know, not miss.
 
It sounds like a system that should be looked at, but airsoft is hardly a test comparison to live ammo.
 
Point shooting IMO tends to fit well with combat\self defense pistol shooting. Its main strength IMO is the fact you focus on the target or threat at all times. Most people do this anyway when under high stress situations such as gunfights. I frankly don't understand the bitterness displayed toward anyone that talks positively of point shooting. It is just another method of utilizing your firearm.
Jim
 
I didn't used to believe in it.

Guys, I shoot benchrest rifle. I get all twisted about accuracy.

And then a fellow named JR offhandedly suggested that I just shoot. Target ain't that small at 7 yards or under.

With proper ergonomics (i.e., something that points right), it's profoundly spooky.

It's all about a mix of ergonimic aiming, and then frontsight....
 
Yes, because there's absolutely no need to be concerned about those rounds that miss your target when out on the street!

Justin, I think we all pretty much realize there is need for concern in rds that miss the target, on the street in a real gun battle, maybe more so or maybe less so, it would be situationally dependant, of course.

You have heard and seen the stats that show solely sighted fire trained people miss an extrordinary amount of the time haven't you? You have seen the fed stats on errants rounds and % of misses by LE right over the last several decades haven't you? All trained to use their sights and lots of misses in gun battles on the streets. Those misses go somewhere, and I can't imagine my threat focused misses would be any more prone to killing an innocent than ones missed by someone using their sights.

Now the question may be, does threat focused skills create more misses than sighted fire? Good question, lets take a look at that if we can here.

I shot over 500 rds in two days with HSO from this forum recenly in the Knoxville threat focused course he sponsored for me. I had NO misses all weekend throughout those rds fired. Hmm, I used Quick Kill throughout the course demonstrating the techniques they were introduced to. I shot from the hip, upside down and backwards, from behind my back without turning around during that course as well as got students to do the same thing in short periods of time.

Lets see, no misses on threat for over 500 rds. How much thought needs to go into this idea of missing with threat focused skills if in fact the above is true? Lets also keep in mind I fired at a much faster rate of fire than I could have if I had waited to verify my sights in any way. That means more hits in less time on threat.

Isn't that what we train and practice for, for the street in the real world? It is to me, and I think it is to most who take gun handling skills seriously. It takes training, not an inordinate amount of it either to get people to hit what they are "looking" at, which is the threat, not their sights.

I was also seen demonstrating 2 inch groups with 54 rds through 3 mags out of the G17 from 15 and as far as 21 feet. Think I'm going to miss a threat that presents itself to be 16 x 21 inches in the upper torso on the streetfrom those distances?

I doubt it very much to be quite frank with you. I shoot threat focused skills using two and one handed Quick Kill as well as most people will ever shoot using their sights on the streets. All without ever looking at the gun.

I also know two here who were there in Knoxville who can do the same damned thing on demand now. One is HSO and the other is JMusic. These are not idle claims, read HSO's review of the course we are talking about.

To make fun of threat focused skills because you do not understand how to use them properly and with great effect seems to me to be less than objective in your comments and assessment of those skills.

I assure you, take the sights off any gun you hand me and I'll whack groups as good or better than most on the forums. How can I make that claim? Because I have been at this game for a very long time, and I know what I can do with a gun.

More importantly, I know what I can get others to do with a handgun in very short order. Here's the gun I use quite often when training people in my AO, notice no sights on the gun? :)

Brownie
 

Attachments

  • no sights 45-1.JPG
    no sights 45-1.JPG
    48.8 KB · Views: 90
Last edited:
Brownie, I will readily admit to the following:

The vast bulk of my shooting, roughly 240 rounds per week, is very precise aimed fire.

However, I am not deluded enough to believe that shooting bullseye style is how I would react in a lethal encounter.

A couple of weeks ago, I shot an IDPA match for the first time in several years, and it was the first action-type shooting I'd done since last August.

One of the stages was set up like the picture below.

At the sound of the buzzer, the competitor was to immediately begin moving backwards, draw his pistol, and engage the hostile targets.

I have a vague recollection of drawing my pistol, bringing it up far enough to see a front site, double tapping the right-most target, shuffling back and left while double-tapping the center target, and then continuing the move far enough to see the left-most target before popping my focus back to the front sight, back to the target, and again pulling the trigger twice.

I cleared the stage with a raw time of 4.69, with an adjustment to 5.69 for two penalties right outside of the A zone. Out of twenty shooters, this put me pretty squarely in the middle of the pack, with the fastest raw time being 2.62 and the slowest 9.52.

Certainly not phenomenal shooting, but I was able to score six total hits on three targets while moving laterally backwards, and with no prior practice.

So, yeah, when the situation warrants it, I guess I point shoot. But so what? It seemed like the thing to do at the time.

*shrugs*

I guess I just don't see what all of the fuss is about. If a target's close, become aware of the spatial relationship between you, the pistol, and the target, and pull the trigger. Big whoop. At such close distances and with such large targets I just can't really fathom missing.
 

Attachments

  • idpa.jpg
    idpa.jpg
    25.1 KB · Views: 116
Please define close for us.

I can shoot groups of 1-2 inches with no sights on the gun at distances of 21 and even out to 30 feet that most would find unbelievable or difficult at best using their sights.

We train people to run laterally against multiple threats at 21 feet and keep 90-95% of their shots at a flat out run on torso both from the left and from the right using QK as the base knowledge to get this done. Not duckwalking, not skipping along but flat out running with the gun.

Your stage didn't give distances to threats just times. If the distances were close by my own standards, I understand why bother to fight to the sights when it is unnecessary.

It's those comments that state once you move much past contact distance that you'll not reliably hit the threat which is pure bull pucky once you have the "trained" skills to do so out to 21-30 feet. There has been so much negativity and resistance to that which has been proven time and again for years that it gets old pretty quick after awhile to listen to that type of talk anymore.

Moving backwards is not an option on the street if you want to stay alive in a gun fight. That stage forcing the shooter to do so you showed us is only setting the shooter up for disaster if repeated on the streets. In reality, those three BG's would have been throwing lead your way simultaneously. Moving rearward does nothing to change their acquisition of you.

So practice aimed fire the bulk of the time and then used some threat focused shooting when pressed for time [ which actually sounded more like front sight press than pointshooting based on your description ].

Don't you then feel that indicates you should practice some threat focused skills in lieu of all aimed precision fire in your practice so you become familiar with what needs to be done to solve street problems when also pressed for time? It would seem logical to me.

"If a target's close, become aware of the spatial relationship between you, the pistol, and the target, and pull the trigger. Big whoop. At such close distances and with such large targets I just can't really fathom missing."

I can't fathom missing out past 21 feet, is that close in your opinion?

Brownie
 
So, yeah, when the situation warrants it, I guess I point shoot. But so what? It seemed like the thing to do at the time.

I don't currently practice point shooting (range would kick me out the door, and I've not got a proper setup out in the desert yet), either.
That said, if you do see that point shooting may have a place in certain, specific circumstances... why not spend time practicing? If time is a factor and you don't think its worth the time, then that's a good reason not to practice it... but if someone else has the time and inclination, why do anything other than encourage the behaviour?

More practice generally means more hits... and fewer misses.
 
Bogie don't run. Laterally or otherwise. I figure if I need to, I'll likely be taking a few days off afterward to let my knees recover.

That said, pay attention to ergonomics.

I'm not going to carry a J-frame .38 or .357. Why? It doesn't point naturally. What works for me is the 1911A1. I _know_ I'll be on target, and if I want to get into fine tuning, it's less effort and less distance to maneuver the sight radius.

Ergonomics. If the gun doesn't fit, don't carry it.
 
bogie,

the problem is that okjoe seems insistent on the idea that learning to use the sights is a waste of time. All you need to do is buy his doodad.

What experience teaches is that you end up instincively using the sights to the degree they are needed.

Am I going to use modified isosoles at 2 yards? Nope.

However as the range increases, the sights become more and more important. Training with the sights, on the clock teaches you the degree to which those sights are needed. Brian Enos has a much better descciption of it in his book.

(watching the video, okjoe does indeed have the gun up between the target and his face...looks like he's looking over the sights to me, not point shooting)
 
Please define close for us.

When all was said and done, the furthest shot on that particular stage was probably under 15 feet. There were ones that were further out, as well.

I can't fathom missing out past 21 feet, is that close in your opinion?

21 feet? That's all? :confused:

That stage forcing the shooter to do so you showed us is only setting the shooter up for disaster if repeated on the streets.

Something which I am unconcerned with in this instance. The discussion is in regards to point-shooting, and I've offered my experience (which is obviously not negative) with it. I've never been in a gunfight, and, truth be told, had very little defensive training. As a result, I'm not going to put on a patriotically-hued helmet and cape and start talking about how I'm Captain Tacticool.
 
Point shooting sure does raise hackles faster than 9mm vs. 45 or what caliber for zombie bears...

It became pretty clear to me in my first few months of IDPA that 'indexing' your target is in fact the first step to point shooting.

Unlaod your weapon or use snap caps or a dummy gun (rules rules rules) post a handful of targets in your space. Study them. Shut your eyes and DRAW on those targets. When you open your eyes is your muzzle on target? If so, you are developing the muscle memory to put the sights on target without thinking... hence at close range you don't need the sights.

There is no training at shooting moving targets like shotgunning. Unfortunately few shotgun ranges allow you to blaze away with your pistol at clays. But shotgunners talk about mounting, swing and follow through as one fluid motion, no matter WHERE your target is.. left right, up, down, coming at you or away.

I've seen some pistoleros do some amazing things, running and gunning fast and accurate. The one thing they all had in common was a lot of practice. Just like good shotgunners.

Mix 'indexing' with practice at moving targets and yes, you too can do some amazing things. Sighted, hipshooting, or at long range.

I still wouldn't take the sights off my pistol though. After accuracy, you can work on speed. You cannot shoot fast enough to make up for a miss.
 
I think Dr. Rob does a good job of saying what I'm getting at.

There is a place for pretty much any given technique, and I don't understand Brownie's animosity. Especially since I said nothing disparaging about his apparent abilities with a handgun.

It's those comments that state once you move much past contact distance that you'll not reliably hit the threat which is pure bull pucky once you have the "trained" skills to do so out to 21-30 feet.

I never said that. If you can hit a target at 30 feet without even seeing the gun, well, bully for you. I don't understand the need to get so defensive.

All I said in my original post was a criticism of OKjoe's technique. He sees a super-duper sure-fire technique, I see sub-par shooting.

Po-tay-to, Po-tah-to.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top