Weaver: Well Entrenched, but Perhaps Detrimental?

[Mad Magyar]

It’s been shown for the last few decades the N.Y.C. police officers average in “hits in firefights” somewhere between 14 and 16%.* Probably little variance elsewhere depending upon the number of incidents. Of course, paper targets aren’t trying to put holes in you and there are other factors entering into firefight scenarios; movement, mind-set, tactics, setting, etc.
I’m suggesting that since most of these firefights takes place less than 15 feet under conditions in which there is little light, no time to use their sights properly; that perhaps they lack training in point shooting techniques.
We all know we can shoot better with 2 hands when given an opportunity to sight & aim, like in target shooting. Police authorities concede that w/o the Weaver & reducing caliber size many officers would not meet qualification. Again, range shooting. However, this does not apply most of the time to the LEO that has the adrenaline pumping, is in a dark alley, under a lot of combat stress, or a life threatening situation at close range.
Is it instinctive to revert to one-handed shooting at close quarters when “all Hell breaks loose?” Some proponents of point shooting seem to think so.
In the civilian sector, to my knowledge many instructors of well-known training schools have never been in a firefight, seen no military action, instruct heavily on Weaver techniques by insisting on 2-hands and use of sights for all types of close-quarters shooting. Actually, they are active or retired LEO’s who themselves were taught with the same methods they are promoting: that is Weaver target shooting.
Am I knocking these schools of instruction, of course not? I think some training is better than none at all. But, are they so centric in their views not to accept others? Are Weaver trained officers not receiving enough instruction in un-sighted fire?

*Source: NYC police statistical data.

 

[Pilgrim]

I think for point shooting to work, you have to get a consistent grip on your pistol every single time you draw.

You can practice this in front of a mirror. With an empty holstered pistol, close your eyes and draw to a firing position. Open your eyes. Where are your sights?

Practice makes perfect.

Pilgrim

 

[junyo]

The real question is do the police really care about hit percentage? People tend to train on what's effective, and 'effective' for most LEO's probably includes "enabled me to survive the incident" but not real world accuracy (except were it effects liability). Therefore there's no real incentive to change, unless it can be demonstrated that some other technique would enhance officer safety/survivability.

 

[Jenrick]

Might check out Paul Howe's websight on his thoughts on point vs. sites. http://www.combatshootingandtactics.com/published/Tactical_Shooting_Thoughts.pdf
Paul's a former memeber of the military with real world combat experience and a very impressive resume. He's also a very nice guy and a great instructor.

My take on the whole point v. site:

In the academy we are taught sited fire from 0-max range. However we had a grand total of: 40 hrs of range time in 32 weeks, with approximately 1500 rounds down the pipe. I think we can all agree that for a new shooter, that's not all that much trigger time. On top of that we did very little time on "basics". We actually spent most of our time shooting the qual course over and over again, rather then focusing on the basics. Meaning people were able to shoot adaquete scores without actually knowing what they were doing to shoot those scores, by pure muscle memory. I agree that if a LE shooting invovled hitting a non moving paper target on a lighted range at 7 yards, LE percentages would be close to 100%.

I personally came into the acamdey with a whole lot of trigger time, experience with FoF training, and a lot of time working in the tactical mindset. I had no trouble staying on my sights during or FoF drills in the academy or our scenarios where we used blanks.

I feel that the current level and intensity of firearms training in LE is not sufficent. Training is still based off the old FBI standards of distance, and does not reflect modern engagement ranges or positions. I would much rather have other officers who can hit a target understress, after having to dive to cover and unholster, at 7 yards, then someone who can hit a target in the normal flat range manner at 25 or 50 yards.

Firearms training in LE needs to be about shooting in dynamic and stressful situations. The basics need to be stressed and repeated, then stressed and repeated some more. When the only stress on the range for most people is trying to shoot a qualifying score there's a problem.

-Jenrick

 

[Jeff White]

The very idea that one should stop training on effective methods and train to do things in a panic is stupid.

What is the source of this NYPD statistical data? The ancient SOP 9 which was only partially released to the public?

The problem with police firearms training (and in the military except for units at the top of the food chain) is that there isn't enough of it. Shooting is a perishable skill. You, the taxpayer don't fund the police and the military well enough to train everyone to a decent standard. Until last year, a police officer in Illinois did not have to have any firearms training over and above the 40 hours (up from 24 when I started) mandated in the basic academy course. there was no statutory requirement even to qualify. Many agencies did have further training and qualification shoots to reduce their civil liability, but it was never mandated. And since it wasn't mandated, guess what got cut when it became time to cut the budget.

It isn't the tactics, techniques and procedures that are flawed, it isn't the training methodology, it's the lack of good sustainment training. if you train your officers and soldiers to a high standard and give them enough sustainment training so they develop muscle memory and react instinctively, they will shoot weaver, modified weaver or whatever method they have been taught in a fight and prevail. You don't rise to the occasion under stress, you will default to your level of training. No system, sighted fire, point shooting, instinctive shooting, whatever you want to call it, will work without enough sustainment training to make the officers/soldiers proficient in it.

Marksmanship and manipulation skills begin deteriorating about 8 days after a good range session. So we really should hit the range about once a week to keep our hand in. I'd bet that not many of the hobbyists here at THR actually train (not plink, train) on the range weekly. Not many police departments or military units have the budget to train that often.

It's money not TTPs that is the problem.

Jeff

 

[sturmruger]

Just what we need another person preaching about point shooting! I wish poeple would quit trying to change the rest of our minds on this topic.

I do use point shooting under 5 yards, but rarely train that way. PS is instictive and is not something I need to practice. If I am ever in a gun fight I am going to do everying I can to grip the gun with both hands and use the sights as much as possible.

 

[SomeKid]

As with many things, the fix isn't that tough.

Get a few .22 pistols. Training just got a lot cheaper. (Of course you still occaisionally train with the bigger stuff, but this enables you to get basics ingrained good and cheap.)

 

[1911 guy]

Proper sighted fire

With a two hand hold is as fast and more accurate than so called "point shooting". Proper sighted fire is getting the front sight over the target and squeezing. I can do it very fast, as can many here. Point shooting, on the other hand, seems to advocate missing beyond ten feet.

 

[Tim Burke]

As a counter example, you may want to consider the statistics of the LA Metro Division. They seem to do very well with the Weaver stance and sighted fire.
Handguns have been one of the preferred weapons in close range violent encounters in this country for 150 years. There have only been a few gunfighters that were known as accomplished point shooters. In fact, most of the accomplished point shooters are known for their exhibitions.

 

[Jeff White]

Somekid,
While ammunition is a substantial cost when it comes to training, the biggest cost is the overtime involved. When you take officers off the street to train, someone still has to work the street and provide police services.

Jeff

 

[Trebor]

Jeff White,

Those are very interesting and spot-on comments on the lack of time devoted to training, how rapidly handgun skills deteriorate without practice, and how that is reflected in police shootings.

For me though, it begs this question: Is there a training methodology, a shooting technique, or a combination of both, that imparts skills that do NOT deteriorate as quickly when they are not constantly refreshed?

Or, to put it another way: Although the Weaver stance may produce good results, is there another way to train or shoot that produces results essentially as good, without having the shooter's ability degrade if the technique is not refreshed.

It just seems to be that if the reality is "there is never enough time or money" for firearms training, then relying on a technique that requires that expenditure of time and money to achieve consistent, acceptable, results may not be the best course of action.

I don't claim to know the answer to this question and I'm not advocating one technique over another. I think it is an interesing question though.

 

[Mad Magyar]

"I'd bet that not many of the hobbyists here at THR actually train (not plink, train) on the range weekly. Not many police departments or military units have the budget to train that often."
Real good point....Some of my buddies feel that a few times a year are sufficient...Besides the shooting practice, a great stress reliever; almost as good as #@%.
Sturmruger, no one is trying to convert anyone...Just some ideas about dismal shooting percentages....If we stop exploring for answers; it's time to "start shoveling the dirt".
Trebor, I like your take on things about training.
Personally, I was trained exclusively with the Weaver techniques until I was ready to accept other methods....There is something to the "mind & the index finger". It's a shame that the notion of "limp wristing" & control are so heavily ingrained in the psyche that some shooters are basically using a convulsive 2-hand grip thinking this is a cure for some of their FTF's.....
It boils down to this: competitive shooting has little validation for combat "firefights".

 

[Lonestar]

It’s been shown for the last few decades the N.Y.C. police officers average in “hits in firefights” somewhere between 14 and 16%.*

Is this Bad??? What are you comparing it to?? Do you have this stat for other departments, or stats from previous years?? Sure 14% to 16% sounds bad, but show me who is doing significantly better.

 

[mete]

One problem is that when NYPD carried revolvers the hit probability was about 20 % !! In recent years with autos it's about 10 % not the 14-16 % mentioned . It's all about TRAINING !!! But the department would rather spend their money on being PC and other nonsense. Give the typical young cop a 15 round auto without proper training and it's spray and pray ! As for 'point shooting ' why is this nonsense being brought up again ???...There was ,some years back , a study that showed that when you use your eyes and sights you DOUBLE your hit probability.In addition there have been reviews of shootouts which clearly show that the cops that hit the BGs distinctly remember seeing the sights.

 

[Mad Magyar]

"There was ,some years back , a study that showed that when you use your eyes and sights you DOUBLE your hit probability.In addition there have been reviews of shootouts which clearly show that the cops that hit the BGs distinctly remember seeing the sights."
You kind of reinforced the point, pardon the pun, I was making...Of course, if you have the "time" to use both hands & sight the target you are better off.
However, it just doesn't happen in most firefight confrontations...
As far as bringing up this topic "again", didn't know it was off-limits?

 

[DesertShooter]

"Weaver"? "Isocylese"? The "Quell" method (for aiming with dominant eye)? "Point shooting"?

They ALL have their benefits AND shortcomings! What needs to be done is PRACTISE!

Back in the early 1970's, I saw a comparison of officer-involved shootings between the LAPD and the NYPD. Both agencies were issuing revolvers at the time. The NYPD reported a dismal 7% "hit" ratio in all officer-involved shootings, but the LAPD had a 71% "hit" ratio. The difference? It was in the training/qualification shoots required. NYPD only require officers to qualify once per year. The LAPD required all officers to qualify once per MONTH!

I don't think that "point shooting" is "instinctive", but it is close to it. There are several basics of point shooting that should be addressed....and even practised. The main one is the locking of the wrist. While it might be impossible to lock the elbow during point shooting, the locked wrist will at least give you a semblance of WHERE the muzzle of your firearm is being pointed. Proper breathing is another basic of point shooting. Training to "squeeze" the trigger might be somewhat detrimental in point shooting, and I can attest to the fact that, in a true combat situation, trigger "squeeze" is thrown out the window. That brings up something that is "forbidden" when practising Weaver or Isocylese... the rapid-fire "panic" trigger action. Most point shooting incidents take place at VERY close range, when you WANT to fill the air between you and your intended "target" with lead! I often practise point shooting, and firing as fast as I can WITH a locked wrist and proper breathing. You don't want to be my "target" out to as far as 10 yards, but that sort of accuracy is NOT "instinctive". Practise DOES make "perfect"!

 

[shooter503]

Or, to put it another way: Although the Weaver stance may produce good results, is there another way to train or shoot that produces results essentially as good, without having the shooter's ability degrade if the technique is not refreshed.

It just seems to be that if the reality is "there is never enough time or money" for firearms training, then relying on a technique that requires that expenditure of time and money to achieve consistent, acceptable, results may not be the best course of action.

Nice thought Trebor but if you think about it there is no other athletic, or even intellectual, human skill that does not deteriorate without practice.

I was at a range recently where someone was undergoing periodic re-qualification. After the shoot the re-qual. individual asked the instructor if he could re-shoot the qual. to try to get a better score. You can imagine the instructor's comment. The polite version was that if you can't be bothered to practice between quals. then I am not going to help you at qual. time.

To me it is completely incredible that someone whose life may depend on a skill does not practice when an excellent range is available for his use at almost any time.

We face a lot of problems in maintaining proficiency, range availability and cost, ammunition cost and free time. But if you choose, or are required, to carry a firearm then maintaining and improving proficiency makes as much sense as keeping the brakes on your car in good condition. This is your life saver. The dramatic old canard is still in effect "There is no second place in a gunfight".

It does not matter how many high power training courses you have completed, how fancy your firearm is, how much you shout about one technique being better than another - if you can't beat the other fellow by a fraction of a second then it's all wasted.

A really bad situation may only happen to you once in a lifetime but who knows when that will be? Are you going to say the chances of that situation happening are so remote that you will take your chances without practice (as the fellow mentioned above did)? Or are you going to be the best that you can be, both for your survival and your personal satisfaction?

As far as the Weaver stance goes. You need a fixed reference for initial training, a stance. At some point, as soon as you are comfortable with your shooting, de-emphasize it. There are not many situations where you will be able to adopt a classic stance in practice so practice from a variety of standing positions. I suspect the NYPD versus LAPD hit numbers bear no true relation to what sort of stance is used in training.

 

[SkyGuy]

Under the severe stress of close-up shooting to survive....most everyone 'will' default to instinctive shooting. That's a given!

They'll go basic. They'll crouch, move, face/push out at the threat with one or both arms, focus exclusively on the threat with binocular vision, tightly squeeze the gun and pull the trigger, usually in multiples.

Just as in H2H fighting, it's all in the basic, instinctive actions and not the fancy black belt moves.
For self-defense shooting, I say......train the instinctive responses because you 'will' fight that way.

....or don't.
.

 

[Jeff White]

And what do you guys call your new system, Train to Panic?

I must once again disagree with the premise that we are such emotional creatures that we will panic and forget all our training under stress. The experience of thousands of soldiers and cops and my own personal experience tells me that it's not true. You train on proven, effective TTPs in a realistic manner so that when you default to your training you will be effective.

If you have enough repetitions in training, you will not panic and shoot one handed. You will fight the way you trained. Your mind will pick up the visual, audible or other cue and you will react just the way you trained. In many cases you won't consiously think about what your doing, you'll do it. Later you'll sit back and analyze the action and realize that you did things just as you were trained to do without conscious thought. The first time this happens to you, you'll realize that training works.

If your training involves watching Heat and Way of the Gun annually, and going to the range once a year on your birthday, yes, there is a good chance you'll default to your level of training, which is none.

Training in effective TTPs works.

Jeff

 

[Vern Humphrey]

For me though, it begs this question: Is there a training methodology, a shooting technique, or a combination of both, that imparts skills that do NOT deteriorate as quickly when they are not constantly refreshed?

Or, to put it another way: Although the Weaver stance may produce good results, is there another way to train or shoot that produces results essentially as good, without having the shooter's ability degrade if the technique is not refreshed.

The Weaver method is the method that imparts skills that do not deteriorate as quickly as other methods.

The reason is simple -- other methods rely on very precise muscle memory. If you don't continuously practice, that muscle memory degrades quickly. The Weaver method relies on the sights -- you don't need so much muscle memory if you use the sights.

 

[shooter503]

Jeff,

As you know shock and fear cause different reactions in different people. I think the researchers that provide the statistics often quoted on the site do not take this into account. To say "everyone" has a certain shock reaction is clearly not credible. Reaction to shock and fear can be modified by training and it can be modified by experience. It is unlikely that members of the general population will have sufficient opportunity to learn to control panic by experience. That leaves good training as the only way the average person will learn to overcome panic.

I've known people who went ice-cold in a stressful situation and I've known others who got so hyper they shrieked. Both got the job done due to sound basic training.

I will agree with Skyguy on one point. There is a reversion to previously learned techniques, or no technique at all (panic), unless the latest training regime is deep enough to erase all previous learned techniques. It is not unheard of for people to revert to ideas they learned in their mid-20s in the face of shock, rather than to use the training they received 6 months ago in their 50s. Fact of life I suppose.

Some organisations do carry out very effective training in avoiding the shock reaction in an unexpected high stress situation but I do not think many people would volunteer for those courses.

 

[shooter503]

Vern,

The Weaver method relies on the sights -- you don't need so much muscle memory if you use the sights.

There is no connection between stance and sight usage. The Weaver Stance is just that, a way of standing. Any style of aiming can be carried out from the Weaver Stance, or any other stance. That is why I say I doubt if the "hit" performance of the NYPD and LAPD has anything to do with the stance they teach.

My main point is that it is highly unlikely that you will have any choice about your stance when you take a shot - whatever aiming technique you are using. Analyse what happens as you walk through a building and imagine you have to draw and fire at short notice. In what situations would it make sense to use a Weaver stance? Can you use a true Weaver stance on stairs? Can you use a Weaver stance hiding behind low cover? Can you use a Weaver stance behind a slim barracade? Can you adopt a Weaver stance lying on the floor? As they say "T'aint gonna happen". In fact, any attempt to adopt a Weaver stance in some situations only makes you a better target.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

There is no connection between stance and sight usage. The Weaver Stance is just that, a way of standing. Any style of aiming can be carried out from the Weaver Stance, or any other stance. That is why I say I doubt if the "hit" performance of the NYPD and LAPD has anything to do with the stance they teach.

Actually, there is. The old FBI crouch method of point shooting, for example, precluded using the sights.

The point method replaces the sights with the visual clues of the hands and gun.

My main point is that it is highly unlikely that you will have any choice about your stance when you take a shot - whatever aiming technique you are using. Analyse what happens as you walk through a building and imagine you have to draw and fire at short notice.

You will draw and present as you have practiced -- if you have practiced enough. If you are relying on muscle memory to get a hit, you may well be disappointed.

In what situations would it make sense to use a Weaver stance? Can you use a true Weaver stance on stairs? Can you use a Weaver stance hiding being low cover? Can you use a Weaver stance behind a slim barracade? Can you adopt a Weaver stance lying on the floor? As they say "T'aint gonna happen". In fact, any attempt to adopt a Weaver stance in some situations only makes you a better target.

In fact, a slightly modified Weaver works well in most of those situations.

Now, can you give me a stance that works perfectly in all those situations?

 

[redneckrepairs]

Now i have a fair amount of trigger time behind me , not as much as some , more than others . When i instructed LE we focused on aimed fire , and for a reason imho . The proponents of " point shooting " all seem to state that it is instinctual . If that is the case then why do we need training in it ? ( that is not a slam or tease its an honest question ) Now i shoot what i consider fair at point shooting , i can break thrown bottles ect.. more times than i miss them , but IMHO this is due to muscle memory learned using the sights . Do i need a sight picture to hit a close target nope. Do i hip shoot .. nope. If i can see my hand (s) i can most likely hit a 3lb coffee can inside 20 yards or so, or a hand thrown beer bottle . Howeaver that does not make it a skill i want to stake my life on ... I still want to see the sights . I most likely will never front the $$ on a point shooting class , but i would enjoy taking one or more of the proponents of it out to my ranch and shooting a bit .. I might well learn something , or then again i might not ( you know old dogs and new tricks lol ) oh and for thread relevance i shoot from a modified weaver , close to a champman .

 

[David N]

I'm hearing a lot of misconceptions. Point shooting as taught by Col. Rex Applegate ( U. S. Army, ret. ) does NOT require that you only use one hand. In fact, in his book "Bullseyes Don't Shoot Back: The Complete Text of Point Shooting for Close Quarters Combat" he specifically states you can use two hands and the sights when time, distance, and the urgency of the threat permit.
At the other end of the spectrum, every time I practice PS as if in a close range, immediate threat situation, using only one hand and keeping my focus on the target, following the the three simple steps outlined, I'm still amazed to find the front sight is automatically dead on target.
What I find the most regretful is that for so many "point vs. sighted" seems to be an emotional argument, not a rational one.