Justin
Moderator Emeritus
Joe, how well does your "technique" work at 25 yards?
Videos show you can repeatedly hit fast moving targets with a hangun.
- Thread starter okjoe
- Start date
- Status
Zak Smith
Member
The right answer is-- because he is a better pistol shooter than the officers, on average, in that study (if it can be cited at all).
If one wanted to generate valid data about hit ranges in "realistic" situations, all one has to do is set up some force on force scenarios using consistent and good role-players, and cycle shooters through it. Measure the hit rates and see who does well and who doesn't.
-z
Justin,
Check out the info by experts that is posted on my site, as well as the studies.
Just click on the link below, and do some exploring, I am not into bottle feeding.
..........
As to missing a 3 inch target at 8 - 10 feet with an airpistol that shoots sort of Ok most of the time, a man sized target will still get hit at gunfight range as the misses were not that far off. The same applies when a small paper target is missed. Verticle misses could be as much as a foot or more and still stop/kill a human sized threat.
PS may not be precise, but it works. The average Joe or Jane need not be a shootist, or practice much to achieve good hits with it at gunfight distances. They can check it out on their own to see if that is so. Their targets will let them know if it is for them or not.
..........
As to saying that Sight Shooting is better, by inference or whatever, got any proof that Sight Shooting has ever worked in a CQB situation?
Got any videos of it ever working in a CQB situation?
Just trot it/em on out.
There should be thousands of records and videos since it's been taught for use for about 100 years now.
Got dates? Got links?
I doubt it, as they don't exist.
Or folks like you, would have already stuffed them down my throat, and most likely gleefully as well, and we would not be having this "discussion".
I may be an idiot, but I am not so stupid that if I ran across some to lots of proof the SS did not fail most all of the time in CQB situations, and had my nose rubbed in that proof time after time, that I would not recognize that.
Got any proof that the hit rate in CQB situations using Sight Shooting is above 20%.
Just trot it on out as well.
I as well as millions of folks in the gun world would be interested in it.
In these days of merit pay, if some police/gov trainers/administrators/etc., had proof that their shooting method REALLY WORKED in CQB situations, they would be shouting that out from the tops of their HQ building and also demanding merit pay bonuses. I used to be a Civilian/Fed, so I know how such works.
Apparently you want people to trust in what you say, and use a shooting method in life or death CQB situations, for which there is no documented proof that it really works.
Sorry, but based on the data that has been around for years and is not refuted, I don't buy into that.
Lastly, as to a home/owner - appartment dweller applying deadly force with a handgun at a range of 25 yards, I don't think so, and don't plan to go there.
If you live where that happens ever so often, better to have a rifle hanging over the fireplace, and an attorney on retainer to defend you.
Thanks to all who have chimed in here. I shall again try and sit on my hands and be quite for awhile.
Check out the info by experts that is posted on my site, as well as the studies.
Just click on the link below, and do some exploring, I am not into bottle feeding.
..........
As to missing a 3 inch target at 8 - 10 feet with an airpistol that shoots sort of Ok most of the time, a man sized target will still get hit at gunfight range as the misses were not that far off. The same applies when a small paper target is missed. Verticle misses could be as much as a foot or more and still stop/kill a human sized threat.
PS may not be precise, but it works. The average Joe or Jane need not be a shootist, or practice much to achieve good hits with it at gunfight distances. They can check it out on their own to see if that is so. Their targets will let them know if it is for them or not.
..........
As to saying that Sight Shooting is better, by inference or whatever, got any proof that Sight Shooting has ever worked in a CQB situation?
Got any videos of it ever working in a CQB situation?
Just trot it/em on out.
There should be thousands of records and videos since it's been taught for use for about 100 years now.
Got dates? Got links?
I doubt it, as they don't exist.
Or folks like you, would have already stuffed them down my throat, and most likely gleefully as well, and we would not be having this "discussion".
I may be an idiot, but I am not so stupid that if I ran across some to lots of proof the SS did not fail most all of the time in CQB situations, and had my nose rubbed in that proof time after time, that I would not recognize that.
Got any proof that the hit rate in CQB situations using Sight Shooting is above 20%.
Just trot it on out as well.
I as well as millions of folks in the gun world would be interested in it.
In these days of merit pay, if some police/gov trainers/administrators/etc., had proof that their shooting method REALLY WORKED in CQB situations, they would be shouting that out from the tops of their HQ building and also demanding merit pay bonuses. I used to be a Civilian/Fed, so I know how such works.
Apparently you want people to trust in what you say, and use a shooting method in life or death CQB situations, for which there is no documented proof that it really works.
Sorry, but based on the data that has been around for years and is not refuted, I don't buy into that.
Lastly, as to a home/owner - appartment dweller applying deadly force with a handgun at a range of 25 yards, I don't think so, and don't plan to go there.
If you live where that happens ever so often, better to have a rifle hanging over the fireplace, and an attorney on retainer to defend you.
Thanks to all who have chimed in here. I shall again try and sit on my hands and be quite for awhile.
crofrog
Member
Reductio ad absurdum
Make it stop my head hurts.
Sighted shooting works ask a swap cop who's seen his sights in a gun fight, ask any trained shooter who's seen his sights in a gun fight for that matter.
You steadfastly refuse to do any FOF work with it, and continue to do bull**** games with the gun that do nothing more than prove your technique can't even come close to equaling what's already available. With out the draw backs associated with your asinine middle finger pulling the trigger crap.
Seriously just go away. You not only piss off everyone on the boards be repeatedly spewing your crap, you make all the real people trying to point shoot look bad.
Because I associated you with Brownie and Matt Tempkin, I basically completely dismissed them and point shooting as a waist of time, and assumed they where *******s because of you.
If it wasn’t for the AAR of Brownie’s class by Gomez and HSO and the level headed discussion at Brownie's forum. I’d continue to completely dismiss it. Instead I'd like to attend one of Brownie's classes now, because he appears to have good skills to offer than blend seamlessly into my existing framework.
Also note, I said said skills, not tactics. Just because he doesn't utlize shooting around cover, or low light etc etc in his class doesn't mean it's a worthless class.
It appears to me he's teaching a _skill_. It's a tool in the toolbox not a one shop stop.
Chris
Make it stop my head hurts.
Sighted shooting works ask a swap cop who's seen his sights in a gun fight, ask any trained shooter who's seen his sights in a gun fight for that matter.
You steadfastly refuse to do any FOF work with it, and continue to do bull**** games with the gun that do nothing more than prove your technique can't even come close to equaling what's already available. With out the draw backs associated with your asinine middle finger pulling the trigger crap.
Seriously just go away. You not only piss off everyone on the boards be repeatedly spewing your crap, you make all the real people trying to point shoot look bad.
Because I associated you with Brownie and Matt Tempkin, I basically completely dismissed them and point shooting as a waist of time, and assumed they where *******s because of you.
If it wasn’t for the AAR of Brownie’s class by Gomez and HSO and the level headed discussion at Brownie's forum. I’d continue to completely dismiss it. Instead I'd like to attend one of Brownie's classes now, because he appears to have good skills to offer than blend seamlessly into my existing framework.
Also note, I said said skills, not tactics. Just because he doesn't utlize shooting around cover, or low light etc etc in his class doesn't mean it's a worthless class.
It appears to me he's teaching a _skill_. It's a tool in the toolbox not a one shop stop.
Chris
Justin
Moderator Emeritus
Joe, by the basic rules of debate, if you make a supposedly factual claim, then the onus is on you to produce a citation when requested.
Where did I ever assert this? I'm criticizing your "technique." I've made no assertions other than to point out that your technique has even less to do with combat than most competition shooting, and is exceedingly poor to boot.
But, since you asked:
http://www.hosercam.com/video.html
Specifically, any of the videos with the word "Limited" in the title, which are iron-sites only.
Given that I've never heard a high-level IPSC/IDPA competitor ever advocate point shooting, I'd say those should suffice.
And you can prove, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that your "technique" will result in hit rates above 20% in a CQB situation?
Ok, prove it. How many of your disciples have used your "technique" under the stress of a life or death situation?
So you readily admit that your "technique" has absolutely zero merit outside of gutshot distances, and evidently only within the confines of a home constructed so that it contains all of the rounds that go zinging past the threat, through the wall and into the neighbor's place?
Wow, now that's versatility for you.
Don't plan to go there, or can't?
Right, I forgot, because nobody ever has the need to carry a handgun on their person on the street.
Sweatnbullets
Member
Thank you Chris, for checking the links and not stereotyping us.
Here is a new AAR from a private course I put on in Vegas last weekend. Hopefully I will be able to release a little video clip of some of the stuff we did.
http://www.threatfocused.com/forums/showthread.php?t=404
Pickpocket
Member
- Joined
- May 7, 2006
- Messages
- 26
That's a very nice distinction. Seems that point gets lost in all of the controversy sometimes.
Sweatnbullets
Member
Well, we are not just teaching a skill, we are teaching much more. Quick Kill is only part of the curriculum, but it is a very important part.
We tend to customize the coures to what the students want. We have four or five days worth of material, but usually only have two days to run the course. The student or the host tells us what they want and we deliver that. Some are big into learning as much as they can about Quick kill. Some want that plus FAS PSing and Quick Fire. Some are most interested in our dynamic movement portion. Now we are offering the "Fighting at Night" course. Some of our students are extremely advanced, some have very little experience, and everything in between.
So far the course that I have put on have covered this,
Threat focused methodologies, including Quick Kill, Quick Fire, and FAS PSing. I also throw in some other alternative sighting methods.
Being able to make solid hits all the way through your drawstroke, one handed and two.
Being able to make solid hits from any positon and from any angle. If you can see it, you can hit it.
Zippers, hammers, and multiples.
Controlled movement drills.
"Get out of the kill zone drawstroke"
Dynamic movement drills, in all directions.
The private and semi-private course that I have run put the round count around 1600 to 1800 rounds.
I have heard that we are giving out whole new tool boxes not just one tool.
Here is a quote from this thread http://www.threatfocused.com/forums/showthread.php?t=226,
crofrog
Member
I try not to sterotype normally, but I have to admit I did in this case.
You should vocally disassociate yourself with "point and shoot" because it really does make you look bad saddly. More than a few people I know dismissed you because of his online persona and all the other downsides of his "system."
Chris
brownie0486
Member
crofrog;
Because I associated you with Brownie and Matt Tempkin, I basically completely dismissed them and point shooting as a waist of time, and assumed they where *******s because of you.
I'm glad to hear you are now clear on any association threat focused instructors have with okjoe sir.
I'd like to attend one of Brownie's classes now, because he appears to have good skills to offer than blend seamlessly into my existing framework.
7677 and I should be back in Easton, Pa this fall and would enjoy having you up there for that class if you can make it after dates have been set. We will also be back in Knoxville in the fall sometime as dates are established and the weather gets a little cooler there.
Thanks as well for stopping by at http://www.threatfocused.com/forums/index.php and your comments regarding the levels of discussion we have there.
Brownie
Because I associated you with Brownie and Matt Tempkin, I basically completely dismissed them and point shooting as a waist of time, and assumed they where *******s because of you.
I'm glad to hear you are now clear on any association threat focused instructors have with okjoe sir.
I'd like to attend one of Brownie's classes now, because he appears to have good skills to offer than blend seamlessly into my existing framework.
7677 and I should be back in Easton, Pa this fall and would enjoy having you up there for that class if you can make it after dates have been set. We will also be back in Knoxville in the fall sometime as dates are established and the weather gets a little cooler there.
Thanks as well for stopping by at http://www.threatfocused.com/forums/index.php and your comments regarding the levels of discussion we have there.
Brownie
from crofrog:
"You steadfastly refuse to do any FOF work with it, and continue to do bull**** games with the gun that do nothing more than prove your technique can't even come close to equaling what's already available. With out the draw backs associated with your asinine middle finger pulling the trigger crap."
Well frog,
You got any proof that the hit rate in CQB situations using Sight Shooting is above 20%.
Or any proof that most people trained to Sight Shoot, will use it in a CQB situation?
I as well as millions of folks in the gun world would be interested in such.
Apparently you like Justin, want people to just trust in what you say, and use a shooting method in life or death CQB situations, for which there is no documented proof that it really works even most of the time.
Per the NYPD SOP 9 study of 4000+ police combat cases:
In 70% of the cases reviewed, sight alignment was not used. Officers reported that they used instinctive or point shooting.
As the distance between the officer and his opponent increased, some type of aiming was reported in 20% of the cases. This aiming or sighting ran from using the barrel as an aiming reference to picking up the front sight and utilizing fine sight alignment.
The remaining 10% could not remember whether they had aimed or pointed and fired the weapon instinctively.
And the NYPD officers were trained in traditional sight shooting as I understand that situation.
..........
Sorry frog, but based on the data that has been around for years and is not refuted, I don't buy into your thinking.
..........
And I don't want to brag, but my dull and boring and mainly text site on PS methods, usually comes up as the top site on Google, and is rated #1 on another site ranking site. And I don't advertise.
Hits are running over 4000 per DAY, and they come in from all over the world.
..........
Here's a chilling thought for you, as PS becomes more and more accepted for CQB situations (they are now teaching it as S&W and Sig as I understand things), people will surely gravitate towards P&S as the day follows the night.
And not because of pleasant old me.
Because P&S is simplier and more intuitive and automatic than the other PS methods.
That's all, and that's fact.
It also can be used to enhance other PS methods and SS as well. It is not a bar to any of them.
I'll leave it to those who think that anything that can give them an edge in a life and death gunfight, is a good thing, to reach the inevitable conclusion that P&S can give them just that, an edge.
To not use it is to "surrender" that edge to an opponent who is tryiing to kill you.
And that doesn't make sense to me.
..........
Thank you for your continuing jibes, that keep me trucking along.
"You steadfastly refuse to do any FOF work with it, and continue to do bull**** games with the gun that do nothing more than prove your technique can't even come close to equaling what's already available. With out the draw backs associated with your asinine middle finger pulling the trigger crap."
Well frog,
You got any proof that the hit rate in CQB situations using Sight Shooting is above 20%.
Or any proof that most people trained to Sight Shoot, will use it in a CQB situation?
I as well as millions of folks in the gun world would be interested in such.
Apparently you like Justin, want people to just trust in what you say, and use a shooting method in life or death CQB situations, for which there is no documented proof that it really works even most of the time.
Per the NYPD SOP 9 study of 4000+ police combat cases:
In 70% of the cases reviewed, sight alignment was not used. Officers reported that they used instinctive or point shooting.
As the distance between the officer and his opponent increased, some type of aiming was reported in 20% of the cases. This aiming or sighting ran from using the barrel as an aiming reference to picking up the front sight and utilizing fine sight alignment.
The remaining 10% could not remember whether they had aimed or pointed and fired the weapon instinctively.
And the NYPD officers were trained in traditional sight shooting as I understand that situation.
..........
Sorry frog, but based on the data that has been around for years and is not refuted, I don't buy into your thinking.
..........
And I don't want to brag, but my dull and boring and mainly text site on PS methods, usually comes up as the top site on Google, and is rated #1 on another site ranking site. And I don't advertise.
Hits are running over 4000 per DAY, and they come in from all over the world.
..........
Here's a chilling thought for you, as PS becomes more and more accepted for CQB situations (they are now teaching it as S&W and Sig as I understand things), people will surely gravitate towards P&S as the day follows the night.
And not because of pleasant old me.
Because P&S is simplier and more intuitive and automatic than the other PS methods.
That's all, and that's fact.
It also can be used to enhance other PS methods and SS as well. It is not a bar to any of them.
I'll leave it to those who think that anything that can give them an edge in a life and death gunfight, is a good thing, to reach the inevitable conclusion that P&S can give them just that, an edge.
To not use it is to "surrender" that edge to an opponent who is tryiing to kill you.
And that doesn't make sense to me.
..........
Thank you for your continuing jibes, that keep me trucking along.
crofrog
Member
This is the last post in response to anything okjoe has to say by me, in fact don't bother responding okjoe cause you are going on my ignore list.
Your "facts" are meaningless at best, intentionally misleading at the worst.
I've done FOF, I've seen my sights. People that have seen the elephant that I know, have seen there sights. Want to know one thing about each of these cases I find particularly odd, when I saw my sights I didn't miss.
I know that's not proof for you, and frankly I don't care.
You are drawing facts from the lowest common denominator of training. I'm not the LCD (I hope) and I have no intention of being the LCD. I train weekly. I shoot more rounds down range in one day of training than you do in 2-3 years.
Here are some other cool things about my guns. Because I don't have that thing stuck on my gun I can use a holster. Cause I'm not firing with my middle finger, I've got a more complete grip on the gun ergo my follow up shots are faster and more accurate. It's also more robust to attempted disarms and the muzzle getting hung up on something why moving. I can also lay my gun down on the right side. Further more, if I need to shoot left handed I don't suddenly not have my little thinging my finger needs to rest up against. I'm sure these are all concerns of real shooters everywhere that you continue to steadfastly ignore.
You shoot 250rd's a year? You're hits are both slow and inaccurate. You don't even train on a monthly basis. You've never tested you system other in pointless games.
I think I've about summed it up.
Now remember, you are being ignored. So please save yourself the time of cutting and pasting the same thing that doesn't address any of these concerns that you've used to reply to everyone else.
Chris
PS
SOP9 is bull ****.
Your "facts" are meaningless at best, intentionally misleading at the worst.
I've done FOF, I've seen my sights. People that have seen the elephant that I know, have seen there sights. Want to know one thing about each of these cases I find particularly odd, when I saw my sights I didn't miss.
I know that's not proof for you, and frankly I don't care.
You are drawing facts from the lowest common denominator of training. I'm not the LCD (I hope) and I have no intention of being the LCD. I train weekly. I shoot more rounds down range in one day of training than you do in 2-3 years.
Here are some other cool things about my guns. Because I don't have that thing stuck on my gun I can use a holster. Cause I'm not firing with my middle finger, I've got a more complete grip on the gun ergo my follow up shots are faster and more accurate. It's also more robust to attempted disarms and the muzzle getting hung up on something why moving. I can also lay my gun down on the right side. Further more, if I need to shoot left handed I don't suddenly not have my little thinging my finger needs to rest up against. I'm sure these are all concerns of real shooters everywhere that you continue to steadfastly ignore.
You shoot 250rd's a year? You're hits are both slow and inaccurate. You don't even train on a monthly basis. You've never tested you system other in pointless games.
I think I've about summed it up.
Now remember, you are being ignored. So please save yourself the time of cutting and pasting the same thing that doesn't address any of these concerns that you've used to reply to everyone else.
Chris
PS
SOP9 is bull ****.
crofrog
Member
I'll hopefully be able to make it please do a course annoncement here and at S'Narc's house.
We've been moderators at the same board before. I'm glad to see you guys created your own forum, and you run it in a manner that doesn't allow BS flame wars to go on. I appericate that.
Chris
Justin
Moderator Emeritus
You got any proof that gluing a plastic doo-dad on the side of your pistol and pulling the trigger with your middle finger results in a higher hit ratio?
You sure do like to pummel the straw man of a study that shows that NY cops can't hit anything, but guess what? I'm neither a resident of NY, nor a cop. It can be demonstrably proven that I put more rounds down range in a month than most cops do all year, so your claims of only a 20% hit rate in a lethal force situation absolutely, positively, do not apply to me, nor any shooter who practices with any sort of regularity.
So let's see it, joe. Why don't you produce some evidence to show that your "method" results in a higher hit percentage. You talk a lot of smack about sighted fire, but I see no evidence that your unorthodox "technique" is anything but a liability.
asiparks
Member
I'm sold !
those videos do indeed prove that you can hit a generous leisurely penduluming target from a few feet away with a non recoiling plastic airsoft.
Whilst strolling.
Except for the odd miss.
Lets hope this valuable information doesn't fall into the wrong possibly terroristic hands !
those videos do indeed prove that you can hit a generous leisurely penduluming target from a few feet away with a non recoiling plastic airsoft.
Whilst strolling.
Except for the odd miss.
Lets hope this valuable information doesn't fall into the wrong possibly terroristic hands !
ctdonath
Member
Oh brother, is this that dohicky-on-the-side and middle-finger-on-trigger thing? We debunked the effectiveness of that years ago.
Too tired to dig into it again right now, I just feel compelled to observe:
- At any appreciable distance to target, if you haven't visually checked the sighting before pulling the trigger (even a "flash sight picture" will do), you don't know where that bullet is going.
- Those who use their sights hit their targets; deliberately not using your sights is not going to help.
- Not following your training leads to failure, regardless of system.
- Those who fail to train enough, and fail to use their training, do not prove the training system wrong.
- Again, if you're pulling the trigger without confirming sighting - unless the target truly is at a can't-miss distance - you are dangerously, if not criminally, irresponsible.
- Pros use sights for a reason.
Goin' to bed.
Too tired to dig into it again right now, I just feel compelled to observe:
- At any appreciable distance to target, if you haven't visually checked the sighting before pulling the trigger (even a "flash sight picture" will do), you don't know where that bullet is going.
- Those who use their sights hit their targets; deliberately not using your sights is not going to help.
- Not following your training leads to failure, regardless of system.
- Those who fail to train enough, and fail to use their training, do not prove the training system wrong.
- Again, if you're pulling the trigger without confirming sighting - unless the target truly is at a can't-miss distance - you are dangerously, if not criminally, irresponsible.
- Pros use sights for a reason.
Goin' to bed.
ctdonath
Member
Credibility completely thrown out the window.
That question is so out there I am completely flabbergasted.
I'll set it alongside "NASA faked the Moon landings."
brownie0486
Member
Deleted voluntarily with the exception of this:
- Again, if you're pulling the trigger without confirming sighting - unless the target truly is at a can't-miss distance - you are dangerously, if not criminally, irresponsible.
Jordan, Bryce and Askins are but a few who were "pros" and well known gunfighters who used threat focused skills to great effect all their working lives and put many a man in the ground.
No one thought them irresponsible. In fact, documented if you care to look for it, their considerable skills in threat focused methodoligies which means they didn't bother to look at the gun at all is why they lived to be very old men. They are life saving skills in the real world, and you too can learn how to use them if you are open and objective. Your mind is the limiting factor to what you are capable of, no more or less.
Brownie
- Again, if you're pulling the trigger without confirming sighting - unless the target truly is at a can't-miss distance - you are dangerously, if not criminally, irresponsible.
Jordan, Bryce and Askins are but a few who were "pros" and well known gunfighters who used threat focused skills to great effect all their working lives and put many a man in the ground.
No one thought them irresponsible. In fact, documented if you care to look for it, their considerable skills in threat focused methodoligies which means they didn't bother to look at the gun at all is why they lived to be very old men. They are life saving skills in the real world, and you too can learn how to use them if you are open and objective. Your mind is the limiting factor to what you are capable of, no more or less.
Brownie
Last edited:
Actually, I have presented proof that traditional SS doesn't work when it should.
..........
Call me anything you like, but why not bring on your quiver of facts that prove what I say is not fact, and just blow me away.
What you may not know is that I am on your side and regardless of what you say, and/or your opinion, if it is on the side of saving police and home defenders from being shot and/or killed by BG's.
You might gain some insite on your posting content behavior by visiting the TFL forum and check out what they consider is proper discourse.
Even I was been banned from there for whatever reason fit their bill at that time - I say for touting PS - They probably say, my bad behavior/s - Whatever.
Just be sure that when it comes to a life/death situation that you are comfortable with your chosen method of SD.
If you want to give an enemy the edge, you are free to, but unless you have a death wish, why do that?
I am agreeable to disagreeing on this topic, and thank you for your inputs.
..........
Call me anything you like, but why not bring on your quiver of facts that prove what I say is not fact, and just blow me away.
What you may not know is that I am on your side and regardless of what you say, and/or your opinion, if it is on the side of saving police and home defenders from being shot and/or killed by BG's.
You might gain some insite on your posting content behavior by visiting the TFL forum and check out what they consider is proper discourse.
Even I was been banned from there for whatever reason fit their bill at that time - I say for touting PS - They probably say, my bad behavior/s - Whatever.
Just be sure that when it comes to a life/death situation that you are comfortable with your chosen method of SD.
If you want to give an enemy the edge, you are free to, but unless you have a death wish, why do that?
I am agreeable to disagreeing on this topic, and thank you for your inputs.
brownie0486
Member
deleted and thoughts brought back into the above post.
Brownie
Brownie
Last edited:
bogie
Member
Campers, if you don't know how to shoot using sights, you're in trouble.
And if you don't know how to "point shoot," well, you're also in trouble.
There's a place for everything. And I _do_ believe that it possible to hit fast moving targets point shooting. Heck, I know a fellow who swings a 9mm subgun like a shotgun, and using single shots, he does better on clay pigeons than I do with a 12 gauge and #8...
I also think that when someone starts claiming that they "invented and perfected" the whole concept that they've got their cranial unit firmly embedded in their oversized point of contact.
And if you don't know how to "point shoot," well, you're also in trouble.
There's a place for everything. And I _do_ believe that it possible to hit fast moving targets point shooting. Heck, I know a fellow who swings a 9mm subgun like a shotgun, and using single shots, he does better on clay pigeons than I do with a 12 gauge and #8...
I also think that when someone starts claiming that they "invented and perfected" the whole concept that they've got their cranial unit firmly embedded in their oversized point of contact.
brownie0486
Member
bogie:
Could not have said it better myself.
Both sighted and threat focus are necessary skills to have in your possibles bag.
Brownie
Could not have said it better myself.
Both sighted and threat focus are necessary skills to have in your possibles bag.
Brownie
We'll close this one on that positive note.....
Jeff
Jeff
- Status
