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

[brownie0486]

Justin,

The 21 foot comment was without the use of sights, at thta range I'll not miss as fast as I can pull the trigger. I've kept 22 shots from that sightless 45 on a torso at 60 feet as well [ just to see how far I could extend the Quick Kill shooting ]. I can go further out and some of the aar's on my own site show the student being able to take head size rocks and bust em without the use of sights over 90% of the time.

If the furtherst shot on that stage was under 15 feet, getting a flashsight picture or even looking at the gun is totally unnecessary when you have been shown how to make the hits without looking at the gun..

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.

If that is true, I misunderstood your original comment in this thread about the "misses" where pointshooting was concerned, and if you reread my response to that comment, you'll see why I addressed that in that manner. If that was not your intend, I apologize. I was not the only one who took that comment that way however, so perhaps your statement was not as consice as it could have been to convey exactly what you meant by it.

I'm certainly not demonstrating animosity toward anyone here. Simply explaining that those people properly trained to not have to rely on the weapons sights can make called shots into COmM all day long from distances others would think impossible.

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.

The above seems to need clarification as well. Point shooting is not about whether you can see the gun or not [ which suggests you and perhaps others think pointshooting is all from the hip ]. Threat focused skills [ what others call pointshooting ] is being able to use a gun without looking at it, the focus is on the threat. Not focusing on the threat, back to verify any form of sights in alignment or front sight press work, then back to the threat. It is pure threat focused shooting, never taking you eyes off the threat, and ignoring the gun using any direct visual imput.

Peoples perceptions of exactly what pointshooting is is part of the problem Justin, your perception that I stated I could use QK to 30 feet meant the gun was out of visual range is one of the reasons for half the discussions going downhill like they do on the forums. Pointshooting is not described as just shooting without seeing the gun, it is about where your direct focus is directed when you pull the trigger.

Brownie

 

[444]

Skip it

 

[okjoe]

A few notes of clarification, not discussion/argument.

A 9 inch pie pan "gong" hangs in the BB trap behind the newsprint. If you have your volume on and run the videos, you will hear 4 out of 4 hits or 5 out of 5 hits..... And since people are roughly 14-16 x 14-16 or so inches across and up and down, I doubt that a real person would not be hit.

As to precision shooting and small groups, I had not tried to move and shoot a fast moving target before, so I did not expect small groups.

As to regular shooting, one party mentioned here that he shoots 200+ rounds per week.

I shoot 3 or 4 hundred rounds per YEAR.

If I shot more or practiced much, I probably would be accused of being a trick shot artist of some type. A trick shot artist, I am not.

I also do not say "only Point Shoot" or "never use the sights". I use sights with a rifle, and have used rifle quick kill where you do not use the sights.

IMHO, the explanation by the manufacturer of Seecamp pistols, as to why Seecamp pistols come with out sights, addresses this issue appropriately and from a realistic and "legal" perspective. You should check it out.

http://seecamp.com/faq.htm

Home self defenders, do not have the same "liberties" and responsibilities that fall to Police and the Military.

Thank you all for your inputs.

 

[Justin]

If that is true, I misunderstood your original comment in this thread about the "misses" where pointshooting was concerned, and if you reread my response to that comment, you'll see why I addressed that in that manner.

My comment was directed at joe. Not point-shooting in general. Apologies for the misunderstanding. Again, all honesty, I cannot make criticism of the technique due to lack of personal experience.

If the furtherst shot on that stage was under 15 feet, getting a flashsight picture or even looking at the gun is totally unnecessary when you have been shown how to make the hits without looking at the gun..

Possibly. I didn't think when shooting the stage, It just happened that way.

I'm certainly not demonstrating animosity toward anyone here. Simply explaining that those people properly trained to not have to rely on the weapons sights can make called shots into COM all day long from distances others would think impossible.

I've certainly seen plenty of people do things that are "impossible" with rifles, pistols, and shotguns. It's all a matter of refining something to the point of effective repeatability.

 

[bogie]

The best thing you can do to improve your overall accuracy with your pistol, besides making sure the dang thing fits (I'm serious about that one...), is to spend a coupla hundred bucks, and maybe more for some gunsmith time if you break something..., and put a LOT of rounds downrange.

Guys - I probably have under 5,000 rounds downrange with a .45... They've just always felt "right" to me...

 

[brownie0486]

Sort of like----If you don't shoot, you can't shoot.

In the last three weeks alone, I've probably got in excess of 2500 rds downrange with the 9mm. Over the last 35 years in excess of a few hundred thousand rds downrange. Thats not as much I'd like to have, but since 81 [ 25 years ago ], 95% of those rds have been downrange using the threat focused skills of Quick Kill.

Took me minutes to learn it in 81, and over time it has only gotten faster to use, not anymore accurate than the day I was shown how to use it. The reason for that is "The mind is the limiting factor". Once you get past having to mentally verify any sight picture of any kind, you can really shoot as fast as you can pull the trigger with QK, your mind learns to not wait for any direct visual verification which slows your potential speed down.

Brownie

 

[thales]

*


Gentlemen, gentlemen.....

Just ask yourselves, "How many champ shotgun shooters (whether sporting clays, trap, or skeet) use precisely adjusted sights, carefully dope the wind, adjust the elevation, wait until the sights are aligned juuust right and then carefully (don't want to throw off the alignment, y'know) slowly, carefully squeeeze that trigger"?

And how many varmint hunters expect to have any realistic chance of hitting a prairie dog at 400 yards through instinctive point shooting without going through the foregoing ritual?

My humble opinion tells me that a handgun shooter who wants to shoot the eye out of a squirrel at 50 yards better use a scope and a rest and take his time.

It also tells me that a handgun shooter who has a 300 lb badass wielding a tire iron trying to whack his head off better know something about quick draw and point shooting.

But then that's my humble opinion acting up on me again.


*

 

[Mannlicher]

I just wish I were as tactical and skilled as others here. We have some BAD dudes posting.

 

[SkyGuy]

Point shooting, aka instinctive shooting, is a simple skill. You just look at the 'threat', point at the threat and shoot.
The closer the threat, the easier it is to hit.

With basic handgun skills and some quality instruction nearly anyone should be able to draw and hit somewhere on a stationary, life size target at 20ft or less....in about a second.....for four hundred bucks.

But, lotsa 'practice' is what makes perfect.
.

 

[brownie0486]

Skyguy,

I understand you yourself train people in firearms skills. You mentioned you did on another forum yourself, so I have it on good authority this is correct.

Please provide your contact information here publicly, and when I may be able to come to your location for this training. Your insight in this subject warrants my request, always willing to be trained by the best.

Please provide the cost of this training, the location, when your next class is being held, the name of the school you run for all of us here. I'm sure there are others who would very much like to get the training you provide to the public.

Brownie

 

[Sam]

Come on down and I'll give you a chance to hit fast moving targets with a handgun.
I got jackrabbits aplenty for you to practice on. I can get 6-8 out of 50 shots. How bout you?

Sam

 

[ctdonath]

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

"You can't miss fast enough." Sorry, when my life is on the line, I want the FIRST shot to work with maximum probability - not the 4th. If the 2nd COM shot hasn't dropped him, it's on to a full Mozambique - not the 3rd & 4th or more attempts at the same general area. Sighted fire only takes a fraction of a second longer, and is far more likely to stop the fight right there.

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.

And...they usually miss. Those that use the sights usually hit.

I frankly don't understand the bitterness displayed toward anyone that talks positively of point shooting.

The bitterness comes from frustration at the propogation of ignorance. If your sights are not on the target, YOU WON'T HIT IT. Without that positive visual feedback, you don't know where a lethal projectile is going!!!

Point shooting, as commonly understood, forgoes visual feedback confirming targeting. You don't know where that gun is actually pointed, a problem exacerbated by high-stress situations where your body is not doing things exactly the same way as in training. In other words:
POINT SHOOTING VIOLATES RULES #3 AND #4: KEEP YOUR FINGER OFF THE TRIGGER UNTIL THE SIGHTS ARE ON THE TARGET, and KNOW YOUR TARGET AND WHAT IS BEYOND.
While breaking one rule will grant safety via the other three, breaking half the rules is a recipie for disaster.

You have heard and seen the stats that show solely sighted fire trained people miss an extrordinary amount of the time haven't you?

That's precisely because those people didn't use the sights! Regardless of their training, they simply didn't do what they were told & practiced to. Those who DO use their sights in a gunfight consistently report very satisfactory results.

Lets see, no misses on threat for over 500 rds.

We'll grant that those who train enormously are indeed capable of great feats. Through extensive training, you may very well be able to hit what you want under duress without sights. I have to wonder how much you trained and how much innate ability you possess - substantial on both, I assume.

So long as a very simple rule is remembered and observed when needed, I can impart comparable skill to a newbie much faster: "line up the sights on the target (here's what it looks like), and pull the trigger". It works. It provides positive feedback prior to launching a lethal round downrange.

And at close enough ranges, the margins for error may add up to an acceptable hit ratio. Problem is, unless those sights are lined up and you visually confirm prior to pulling that trigger, you just don't know for sure; pulling that trigger might introduce some error, but you'll get that regardless.

I want that first shot to work. I don't want a miss. If that target is still standing there, I don't want it to be a failure of appropriate shot placement.

 

[brownie0486]

Quote:
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.

And...they usually miss. Those that use the sights usually hit.

Agreed, it's called spray and pray and has nothing to do what-so-ever with threat focused skills. They are worlds apart in their effectiveness on threats.

If your sights are not on the target, YOU WON'T HIT IT. Without that positive visual feedback, you don't know where a lethal projectile is going!!!

I beg to differ, I use a 45 in training others, see the picture that has NO sights on it at all in my previous post?, and can call the shots on threat quite nicely, and the hit ratio is up near 98% from quite extended distances with that one gun with speed. How could that be possible with a gun with no sights if your statement was true?

Point shooting, as commonly understood, forgoes visual feedback confirming targeting.

Again, not correct. There are two kinds of potential visual input which we all possess. Direct and peripheral. Quick Killl uses peripheral visual feedback and is a threat focused skill [ commonly known as pointshooting by others ].

POINT SHOOTING VIOLATES RULES #3 AND #4: KEEP YOUR FINGER OFF THE TRIGGER UNTIL THE SIGHTS ARE ON THE TARGET, and KNOW YOUR TARGET AND WHAT IS BEYOND.

If I violate rule 3, does that mean I can't hit anything? I do so with that 45 shown all the time.

If I have direct focus on the threat and not 18 inches in front of my face, I CAN see what is beyond it much easier than direct fous on the sights. Try driving your car and looking at the front of the hood going 60, and then drive like you normally do looking out over the road in front of you. Which do you think has the better chance of "knowing" what is out beyond your arms length?

We'll grant that those who train enormously are indeed capable of great feats.

Having been trained to be one of what the world considers to be the sharpest sighted fire shooters known on this planet [ a U.S. Marine ], I picked up the threat focused skills in 5 minutes in 1981 and there was NO degradation of hit rate %'s at combat distances with a hangun or rifle using Quick Kill.

I just trained 12 people for two days in Knoxville, the thread is in this section on the HR, perhaps you missed the reviews of what people were doing in 15 minutes without looking at the gun? No enormous amount of training, just being shown HOW to use the skills they already possessed. Students of that class would seem to disagree with your statement here. They have the knowledge now and speak from their personal experiences within the threat focused realm.

So long as a very simple rule is remembered and observed when needed, I can impart comparable skill to a newbie much faster:

I beg to differ, and I train people in both sighted and threat focused skills, and have for a couple of decades now. Perception becomes reality, but no always the truth.

And at close enough ranges, the margins for error may add up to an acceptable hit ratio. Problem is, unless those sights are lined up and you visually confirm prior to pulling that trigger, you just don't know for sure

There is NO acceptable hit ratio on the streets except 100%. Errant rounds, whether they are from threat focused skills, sighted fire or spray and pray can not/must not be considered acceptable.

I want that first shot to work. I don't want a miss.

I want my first shot to work as well, but as we know there is no magic bullet and we are never guaranteed a first shot stop [ working ]. My own thoughts are that if someone deserves one, they are getting three. Spilts between them usually run around .21-.25 seconds. Thats 3 shots/hits in 3/4 of a second.

I don't want to miss on the streets or the range either, I think that goes for all of us if we are prudent, don't you?

Now take a close look at the 45 I use in my previous post, and attempt to magine how I can hit anything with no sights on the gun if what you have written is true about the sights having to be on the target?

Simply, if you have not been trained formally in threat focused methodologies, and you attempt to use the gun without verifying your sights as you have always done previously, you are not then using threat focused skills, you are using spray and pray. That's not what I train others in, and students hit what they intend to hit with Quick Kill in very short periods of time.

There is no right or wrong here, only facts based on personal knowledge and experiences, not from the lack thereof.

Brownie

 

[okjoe]

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=203291

This is the link to the threat focused training AAR.

..........

And to repeat part of my note of clarification, not discussion/argumentation, which is close to the top of this page:

A 9 inch pie pan "gong" hangs in the BB trap behind the newsprint. If you have your volume on and run the videos, you will hear 4 out of 4 hits or 5 out of 5 hits..... And since people are roughly 14-16 x 14-16 or so inches across and up and down, I doubt that a real person would not be hit.

..............

Just ran accross this link which address this "issue":

http://www.jamesakeating.com/maajak9.html

 

[ctdonath]

I've been through this argument before with others, and don't have time to carry it on again.

Suffice to say:
- If the sights are not lined up on the target (whether or not you check if they are), then the barrel is not pointing at the target, and you won't hit the target. Period.

- Anything less than a full visual sight picture before firing means you don't know for absolue certain that you're launching a deadly projectile at exactly what you intend to hit. It's irresponsible.

- The various forms of "point shooting" amount to fudging probabilities, overlapping standard deviations and trying to keep sloppy shooting within a "good enough" range. It's still sloppy shooting.

- Hand-eye coordination can indeed be trained to an exceptional degree. Without positive feedback, you still aren't exactly sure - there is no way to preemptively know "oops!"

- Yes, the fight may be close enough & fast enough that the precision of sighted fire may be excessive - a "can't miss" distance. Yet - people still miss because they don't sight then.

- No professional shooters use "point shooting" as policy. No serious competition shooters use "point shooting". Even shotgunners line up the barrel & bead on the target (then proceed to launch dozens of projectiles across an area of effect). Those who seriously count on results use sights.

- Every blurb I've read about point shooting sounds like snake oil, right down to the "instant", "superior", "magical" and other BS adjectives.

- The only time sighted fire fails is when the shooter fails to sight before firing - i.e.: switches to "point shooting" at the moment of truth.

Irresponsible :banghead: ...

 

[JMusic]

I recently participated in a Brownies Threat Focused course here in Knoxville. As I watch yet another thread go to hell discussing this topic I would like to make a few observations. We had a mix of people at our seminar from civilians with revolvers to LEO's who were looking for some tools to use in their every day work. To a single person not one was disappointed in the skills they aquired and what they were able to do with a firearm.

Some comments on this thread talk about fear of stray shots from using "point shooting". You are more likely to fire stray shots from inadequate training than any "point shooting" course you will take. Sighted fire under stress at close range is not usually used. Sighted fire under stress is not usually thought about. Shooting back is what is thought about, or running. Therefore you spray and pray whole backpeddeling, both bad things to do. Watch video's of LEO's who end up surprised in a traffic stop next time and see what happens.

Ladies and Gentleman I use sighted fire and unsighted fire. It is part of being a complete shooter. Take care.
Jim

 

[SkyGuy]

In the scheme of things, both sight shooting and pointshooting have their place.
But, sighted fire is near impossible in a close encounter and point shooting degrades exponentially as distances increase.

The highly practiced 'sight' shooter will go for the sights out of habit and the highly practiced 'point' shooter will point shoot out to relative ineffectiveness. Both techniques, when out of their realm, come up insufficient.

For example, and applicable to 'both' techniques, a mere 1/4" deviation of the gun barrel results in a 16" POI deviation on a 20' distant stationary target.

So, in a practiced, quick draw-point shoot situation....and excluding all other stress variables....at 20', if the barrel comes up a 1/4" to the right of dead center-com the POI will be 16" to the right. A very bad shot.
Now extrapolate that!

Worthwhile handgun self defense training should be uncomplicated and involve the smooth transit from arm's length distance to disengagement distance.
The training should include movement to cover and various stationary, moving, bobbing and shoot/no shoot targets.

The training is 'seriously deficient' if it does 'not' include shooting in low light, darkness, over/under/around cover and awkward positions.
A correctly trained SD shooter will relentlessly outperform both the sight shooter and the point shooter. That's a fact!

It bugs me to see the way both techniques are touted as the end-all, be-all solution.....when all it takes is a bit of common sense to understand that both techniques are just pieces of the greater SD puzzle. Neither being absolutes, both being complimentary opposites.

Bottom line is, unless you're hooked on training, learn to basically sight shoot, point shoot and incorporate 21st century technology into your real life training regimen.
.

 

[sacp81170a]

It bugs me to see the way both techniques are touted as the end-all, be-all solution.....when all it takes is a bit of common sense to understand that both techniques are just pieces of the greater SD puzzle. Neither being absolutes, both being complimentary opposites.

LOL. This reminds me of the endless arguments in the martial arts world between the styles that emphasize kicking versus the styles that emphasize hand technique or any "us vs. them" controversy.

SkyGuy, you have *so* hit the nail on the head. My department practices both sighted shooting from 25 yards all the way in to shooting from the hip (retention position) at 3 yards. I can put all my shots in the "A" zone at 25 yards in not much more time than it takes me to put all my shots in the "A" zone at 3 yards. Both skills are necessary, and anyone who neglects one because he considers the other to be superior is depriving him or herself of a useful tool.

We shoot strong hand, weak hand, draw with strong hand and weak hand, shoot from awkward positions, around and through obstacles to learn projectile behavior, etc. All necessary skill sets for survival. To all you point shooters, have you ever set a target up 12 inches from a flat cinder block wall and shot at a slight angle to the wall from 25 yards? Try it, you'll be amazed at how magically your bullets find the target when they glance off the wall a few feet in front of the target. It'll also teach you to stay the hell away from flat walls. Same thing with the flat surfaces of vehicles.

Just my $.02 worth, YMMV, DTTAH, etc.

 

[brownie0486]

Skyguy,

The highly practiced 'sight' shooter will go for the sights out of habit and the highly practiced 'point' shooter will point shoot out to relative ineffectiveness

Absolutely incorrect. The "highly practiced" pointshooter knows exactly when he needs to use his sights and does so for the very simple reason he is highly practiced. Not one threat focused shooter thats ever posted on the net or written narrative in a book, has ever indicated they would not be thinking sights, nor would not use their sights when time and distance dictate they can do so within the parameters of a SD situation.

Not one threat focused shooter who posts around the error-net has ever indicated they are strictly a "pointshooter" as well, suggesting that they do know how to use their sights, recommed using them when necessary. Your assumption/stated opinion in the above italics is simply another form of misinformation put forth through lack of understanding that side of the equation.

For example, and applicable to 'both' techniques, a mere 1/4" deviation of the gun barrel results in a 16" POI deviation on a 20' distant stationary target.

"So, in a practiced, quick draw-point shoot situation....and excluding all other stress variables....at 20', if the barrel comes up a 1/4" to the right of dead center-com the POI will be 16" to the right. A very bad shot.
Now extrapolate that!

A 1/4" deviation from the intended mark at one foot from the muzzle would extrapolate to being 5" at 20 feet. Better re-extrapolate your calculations there.

1 inch off at 300 feet would only be off another inch at 600 feet, commonly known as minute of angle.

A correctly trained SD shooter will relentlessly outperform both the sight shooter and the point shooter. That's a fact!

A "correctly" trained SD shooter? My own thought is that it is not a matter of "correctly" trained, but more a matter of well trained SD shooter, and a well trained shooter is both a sighted fire and threat focused shooter.

It bugs me to see the way both techniques are touted as the end-all, be-all solution.....when all it takes is a bit of common sense to understand that both techniques are just pieces of the greater SD puzzle.

Every threat focused advocate has alwasy stated both sighted and unsighted skills are necesaary based on a time/distance equation in SD. There is no end-all, be-all to the threat focused world, but there is plenty of evidence to the contrary where sighted fire proponents are concerned.

Now when can we expect your contact information as requested, so that I and others can make arrangements to get some of your own considerable training knowledge under our belts? You did state you trained people in shooting pistols, I'd like to make arrangements to get this training.

Has anyone actually written an after action review of your training stating the time, the specific techniques they learned, place of venue and how they thought the course of instruction went? Please provide this information for us.

Brownie

 

[brownie0486]

To all you point shooters, have you ever set a target up 12 inches from a flat cinder block wall and shot at a slight angle to the wall from 25 yards?

sacp81170a:

Why yes, I have . The training was in 1981, some 25 years ago at Powder Springs, Ga. They were called "rabbit rounds" when we learned that skill.

Can you tell us the largest degree of angle the gun can be from those walls to reliably make the hit? Can you tell us how the bullet acts upon making contact with the wall from the widest to the narrowest angles? Can you tell me how far along the wall the bullet will travel after touching it before it moves off the wall again at various angles?

Can you tell us how the bullets will act based on velocities on impact? The differences between an 870fps 45 ball and a 9mm at 1050fps. The differences of the angles experienced between the two?

Have you ever tried the same thing on brick walls, wood walls? We had that training as well back then, but what does that have to do with this discussion?

Brownie

 

[LawDog]

A 1/4" deviation from the intended mark at one foot from the muzzle would extrapolate to being 5" at 20 feet. Better re-extrapolate your calculations there.

Re-read his quote:

if the barrel comes up a 1/4" to the right of dead center-com

He is quite clearly referring to a quarter-inch deviation of the muzzle. Not a quarter-inch deviation on the target.

LawDog

 

[brownie0486]

LawDog:

He is quite clearly referring to a quarter-inch deviation of the muzzle. Not a quarter-inch deviation on the target.

That still extrapolates to 5 inches, not 16 as he stated. Placing the muzzle on the target, moving it 1/4 inch to either side and then holding that deviation moving back 20 feet will not produce 16" off center, but 5".

Brownie

 

[SkyGuy]

He is quite clearly referring to a quarter-inch deviation of the muzzle. Not a quarter-inch deviation on the target.

LawDog

That's right. A 1/4" deviation at the muzzle angles out to about 16" POI off the intended dead center at 20'.
Or is it 20" at 20'.

LOL Gettin that damn oldtimers disease.
Whichever it is, it just ain't a good thing when point shooting.
.

 

[Dr.Rob]

"Took me minutes to learn it in 81, and over time it has ONLY gotten faster to use, NOT anymore accurate than the day I was shown how to use it."

Shouldn't you get faster AND more accurate over time?

Learned in just FIVE minutes? That's why it sounds like snake oil when you try to sell it. I've seen point shooting, don't deny it's effective.

Don't know how I'd teach anyone to 'snap shoot' with a rifle or shotgun or handgun in just 5 minutes if they weren't already very well versed in the use of arms.

 

[Justin]

A 9 inch pie pan "gong" hangs in the BB trap behind the newsprint. If you have your volume on and run the videos, you will hear 4 out of 4 hits or 5 out of 5 hits..... And since people are roughly 14-16 x 14-16 or so inches across and up and down, I doubt that a real person would not be hit.

Joe, correct me if I'm wrong, but you have posted pictures of static targets that you've shot at the range that had misses on them.

Not misses as in shots that were outside of the scoring rings, but that missed the paper altogether.

How you qualify that as satisfactory shooting is utterly beyond me, and your posturing as someone with a valid technique, despite his utter lack of practice, sets my teeth on edge.

I'm sorry, but your "technique" is as sloppy as it is dangerous. Even with your little assistive device, the accuracy of your shots is utterly beyond acceptability for shooting on a static range under ideal conditions, especially for someone who continuously toutes themselves as having a valid technique to teach. Maybe it just makes me a big ego freak, but, quite frankly, I expect people who claim to be teachers to actually have skills above and beyond those that I, a potential student, possess.

Your shooting is innacurate even at close ranges, and, quite frankly, the other point-shooting advocates on this board would do well to distance themselves from you.