# Point Shooting vs Aimed Fire



## JeffWard (Aug 24, 2007)

Watched an interesting show on the Outdoor Channel (I love my DVR) yesterday on point-shooting. The basis was techniques taught to GIs heading for Europe and the South Pacific during WWII, where total training time with the Government Model 1911 was about 8-12 hours. And that included cleaning!

The concept was simple, as it had to be. Starting in a low-ready, the pistol was raised straight in front of the shooter, one-handed, and as soon as the gun hit eye-level, the trigger was double-tapped.

For combat-distance shooting (inside 7M), a raw draftee could reliably hit a man-sized target well enough to take him out (with a 45ACP) with a high percentage of shots.

Both eyes open... lift, point, double-tap. With the theory that a man-target is vertically "forgiving", with anything from belly-button to forehead considered a good hit, and horizontally challenging.

With the barrel level to the ground, a chest high squeeze would result in a stomach-chest hit, and an eye-level squeeze resulting in a chest-head hit.

I'm interested in trying this short-range this week...

The targets at my range are either half-scale man targets, or bullseyes. I'm going to go get a few full-size targets, and try it.

Like the instructors at Gun Sight say... Students at Gun Sight who shoot small groups, are shooting too slow! Slow and accuarate = dead. Quick and in the "boiler-room" = victory.


I'm a precision shooter at the range, but I practice point-shooting for defense.


Do you spend more time shooting little groups, or more time point-shooting at 5-7M?

Jeff


----------



## tony pasley (May 6, 2006)

About even, I built a set of drill targets 72" tall and 36" wide start at 10' draw and fire point shooting, move back at 5' intervals. At 21' I front site back to 35' then both sites after that. Next is slow fire bullseye.


----------



## Baldy (Jun 21, 2006)

I slow sight fire to warm up a little at 15'. We can't draw from the holster at the range so I just lay it in front of me and pick it up. Practice double taps at 15' then back to 20'. At 25' to 30' I start to shoot slow fire single shots.


----------



## Mike Barham (Mar 30, 2006)

It's not really an either-or. You should be able to fluidly combine them into one integrated fighting system.

There are lots of myths about using the sights for defense. Experienced shooters of the Gunsite "Modern Technique" school don't actually use the sights to _aim_, per se. Rather, they are using the sights to _confirm_ an alignment that the practiced body has _already_ performed - "point shooting" in a sense. This is why Modern Technique guys use the same Weaver stance for shooting in the dark, and usually with very with good results. There will be some point shooters who heavily criticize the Gunsite methods, but the record of success of Gunsite grads in real fights speaks for itself.

"Post-modern technique" teaches something a bit different from the Gunsite "hard focus" school. This school says to _see what you need to see_ to get the hits. This is a distance-dependent technique. At touching distance, no visual index is needed, at least for someone reasonably conversant with his weapon. At a few steps, a "metal over meat" index is sufficient, with the gun at eye level. Outside that, sights might be required. At shorter range, only a soft focus on the sights is needed. As distance increases, a true hard focus comes into play.

The general consensus seems to be that a group you can cover with your hand is good enough for defense. I'll add that it should be centered on the upper chest, rather than true "center of mass," assuming you are lucky enough to fire at an unobstructed target. Unfortunately, I have seen some (not all) "point shooters" shrug off very wide group dispersion - hits all over the torso, with no concentration of hits anywhere. This is not good, since pistols are very puny weapons that require good shot placement to end a fight.

A draftee shooting another draftee in WWII is somewhat of a different scenario than we have in modern American society. Misses didn't matter much on the battlefields of yesteryear, unlike in civil society. And the opponent back then was likely to be a small, undernourished Asian or a young German conscript who wasn't necessarily committed to the Nazi cause. Either was probably much more likely to stop with a peripheral hit than a 280 pound ex-con who has been working out at taxpayer expense for the five years, or some tweaker driven into a frenzy by his need for the next hit of meth.

Since I am only interested in handguns as defensive tools, I spend relatively little time shooting tiny groups - just enough to keep me sharp on the fundamentals. Rather, most of my shooting time is spent training with some standard exercises that reinforce the "see what you need to see" philosophy, and some defensive scenarios.


----------



## Dave James (May 15, 2007)

"PS" like the "MS" from gunsite causes more dis-arguments then the old 45 vs 9mm,

Let me say I'm a "PS" was trained by Mr.Bryce and Col.Askins as well as a few most have never heard of.

It like any other style has a place and time, and is IMO worth every bit of training one chooses to do.

It seems here of late its the "new" rediscovered way to shoot, do a search of a few other boards and you will see the all of the pros and cons listed .

Plain and simple it works, and as I'm very fond of posting "Its just another tool for the box"


----------



## TOF (Sep 7, 2006)

Well Jeff, my shooting partners and I set up various scenarios with IPSC standard targets at varying distances from 3 to 20 yards interspersed with 8" steel plates plus larger steel at up to 40 yards. Our shooting style has to vary according to proximity to target if we are to get our hits and do it in a timely manner. That is probably the wrong way to do it but it is "Our Way". :anim_lol: :anim_lol: :anim_lol:

As an aside, I bet the few hundred thousand GI's that were hit during WW1 and WW2 would be happy to hear that their oponents were puny Asians or German grade school conscripts that would faint if you said Boo. They must have died happier because of that fact. :numbchuck:

:smt1099


----------



## Mike Barham (Mar 30, 2006)

TOF said:


> Well Jeff, my shooting partners and I set up various scenarios with IPSC standard targets at varying distances from 3 to 20 yards interspersed with 8" steel plates plus larger steel at up to 40 yards. Our shooting style has to vary according to proximity to target if we are to get our hits and do it in a timely manner. That is probably the wrong way to do it but it is "Our Way". :anim_lol: :anim_lol: :anim_lol:


"Seeing what you need to see" to get the hits. Sounds perfect to me.



> As an aside, I bet the few hundred thousand GI's that were hit during WW1 and WW2 would be happy to hear that their oponents were puny Asians or German grade school conscripts that would faint if you said Boo. They must have died happier because of that fact. :numbchuck:


I'll just point out that the WWII-era legends about the .45 hardball's tremendous "stopping power" didn't really hold up once the 1960s rolled around and the .45 became more common in civilian and police hands. The main variables seemed to be the size, strength, motivation, and chemical consumption of the shootees. Do you have an alternate explanation, or do you think they still "all fall to hardball?"

I don't say this to disparage WWII vets at all. They fought and won a much tougher war than the current one. But does anyone really dispute that the average Japanese soldier in WWII was physically smaller and weaker than a typical American ex-con in 2007, or that a young German conscript likely wouldn't fight as hard as a member of the Hell's Angels?


----------



## Baldy (Jun 21, 2006)

According to the Shooting Times writer enbeded with the 3/7 Cavalry in Irqa the men there sure would like to have the .45ACP instead of the 9mm. They say the 9mm doesn't put them down fast enough and the mags are junk. These guys are in a fire fight on a daily bases. Makes me wonder about things.


----------



## Mike Barham (Mar 30, 2006)

Baldy said:


> According to the Shooting Times writer enbeded with the 3/7 Cavalry in Irqa the men there sure would like to have the .45ACP instead of the 9mm. They say the 9mm doesn't put them down fast enough and the mags are junk. These guys are in a fire fight on a daily bases. Makes me wonder about things.


I keep reading this on the 'Net and in the gun rags (which I read only because of my civilian job). It must be different in Iraq, because here in Afghanistan, I have never heard even one guy say he wants a .45. One of my jobs is as an armorer, and I talk to guys about weapons all the time. We have almost 700 guys in our battalion. Lots of them are based in FOBs where they get shot at every single time they go outside the wire. Yet not one guy has shot anyone, or even _at_ anyone, with a pistol. And yes, our guys kick in doors and clear houses, but they prefer M4s, shorty M249s, and the occasional shotgun for that.

I have to wonder what 3/7 Cav is doing to be using their pistols so much. No one I know here has much use for a pistol except to satisfy the requirement of being armed when on a base or FOB, and a rifle is inconvenient to carry around. I have also talked extensively with combat-experienced guys from 82nd ABN, 173rd ABN, and 10th Mountain. Again, none of them even mentioned pistols, never minded complained about the Beretta.

Maybe I am wrong, but I suspect this is just a case of a gunwriter telling his audience what they want to hear. 1911s, of course, are hot cool-guy uber-tactical guns that people want to read about...and Beretta 92s are not.

I agree that the low-bidder Check-Mate mags for the M9 suck.


----------



## JeffWard (Aug 24, 2007)

Range test:

I went yesterday, with my XD45 and my XD9SC. The XD45, I shot nice precise, slowfire ragged holes at 7M, and nice hand-size groups at 15M. Then, after 50 w/ the 45, I went to the 9SC. The first 20 where slow precision fire from 7M. Then... double taps.

We also are not allowed to draw from the holster, so I went from the bench top, one handed, lifting to eye-level as I engaged the second hand, and fired, both eyes open.

The first 20 (2 at a time), with a no-pause-no-sight-picture, point and shoot, grouped into center of mass, the size of a basketball, at 7M. 

The next 20 rounds (2 at a time) double-taps, I paused just for maybe 2 tenths of a second to get a "sense" of the front sight, not a focus, but an awareness. The double-taps dropped to a 5" group!!! At 7M!

This tells me that at least at my ability level, going from an aproximate 1.5 second lift-tap-tap, to a 1.7 second lift-aquire-tap-tap gains a 50% reduction in group size. And 5" groups at 20 ft is better than most guys SLOW fire...

More work/play this week...

Try it next time you're shooting... 100% target-focus double-taps, vs. sight-aware double-taps...

Granted, like they say at Gunsite and elsewhere... It's hard to be aware of ANYTHING other than the guy shooting at YOU if it's not paper you're shooting at.

Jeff


----------



## Baldy (Jun 21, 2006)

Mike Barham said:


> Maybe I am wrong, but I suspect this is just a case of a gunwriter telling his audience what they want to hear. 1911s, of course, are hot cool-guy uber-tactical guns that people want to read about...and Beretta 92s are not.
> 
> I agree that the low-bidder Check-Mate mags for the M9 suck.


Now why would the man lie about a thing like that. His story is on what the enemy and our guys are using. Of corse he got feed back from our guys on all their weapons and none from the bad guys. He said they don't have nothing against the gun except the cheap mags. The troops said they wanted the .45 as they have to shoot Hajji two and three times to put him down with the 9mm. These guys are in a major city and do this every day. He told all about the rifles and shotguns too. The rifle is the #1 weapon of the troops and always will. I don't know all the answers but I don't know why you don't want to beleive Mr Fortier.


----------



## Mike Barham (Mar 30, 2006)

Baldy said:


> Now why would the man lie about a thing like that. His story is on what the enemy and our guys are using. Of corse he got feed back from our guys on all their weapons and none from the bad guys. He said they don't have nothing against the gun except the cheap mags. The troops said they wanted the .45 as they have to shoot Hajji two and three times to put him down with the 9mm. These guys are in a major city and do this every day. He told all about the rifles and shotguns too. The rifle is the #1 weapon of the troops and always will. I don't know all the answers but I don't know why you don't want to beleive Mr Fortier.


Well, to be perfectly honest, there are very, very few gunwriters I believe about _anything_. I know how their business works, and most of them will say whatever sells magazines and advertising. _That_ is their business.

I suspect Mr. Fortier sought out the opinions of "gun guys" for his article (makes sense if you're writing an article on guns). "Gun guys" in the Army are just as apt to fall victim to "new gun-itis" as everyone else, and they read gun magazines with 1911s on the cover, too. I wouldn't say Mr. Fortier is necessarily making things up, but that maybe his perspective isn't all that wide, and he latched onto a piece of (what I think is) propaganda that has become widely-accepted in the gun community, and just repeated it.

Again, I am just reporting what I see here, with a sample size of perhaps 1,000 soldiers from four different divisions. A few are "gun guys," but most are not. There just is no great hue and cry for .45s here, regardless of what is said in gun magazines and on the internet. I've not been to Iraq, and maybe it is different there, but I've talked to a few dozen guys from the AZ Guard who were there in 2005-2006, all of whom saw heavy combat in Baghdad and Ramadi. Every one of them carried a Beretta, and none of them mentioned .45s to me at all. As you can imagine with the frequency of deployments, we also have quite a number of Iraq war vets on this mission here in Afghanistan. Once again, not a single one has breathed a word to me about .45s, and I am known as one of the resident "gun guys" in the battalion in addition to being an armorer.

I have no ego invested in the 1911 or the M9, and couldn't care less which one the Army tells me to put in my holster. I just hate to see this supposed lust for .45s pass into gun mythology when nothing I have seen here in theater supports it.

As far as shooting haji 2-3 times, well, I hate break the news to anyone, but that happens all the time with rifles too - and the M16/M4 is a good bit more potent than any .45.

****************

Regarding Jeff's test, I like it! Seldom do we see an objective test like this. I think that's the general idea of "seeing what you need to see" to get good hits. What you're describing sounds like a "soft focus" on the front sight. Keep working on it...speed will come.


----------



## TOF (Sep 7, 2006)

Gee I have learned a bunch on this thread.

1. All Gun Publications are managed and written by liars that have no knowledge about what they speak.
2. The US Army in Iraq is all f'd up cause they use their service pistol from time to time.
3. Any post regarding point shooting vs. aimed fire is bound to be asking for return of the .45 ACP to Army use rather than opinions regarding point shooting vs. aimed fire.
4. Our Army during WW2 was made up of misfits that could barely handle starving Asians or German schoolchildren.

I know I must have learned more but I just can't quite absorb it all yet. I am just too overwhelmed.


----------



## tony pasley (May 6, 2006)

The big difference is slow, aimed rounds should always hit where you are aiming, point shooting quick shots you are more likely to jerk the trigger and send your shot wild. point shooting can be very good with practice but care to stay on target has to be taken. Kind of like some threads go off topic.


----------



## JeffWard (Aug 24, 2007)

hahaha... agreed...

:watching:... my own post.

1) So, do you think point shooting works better with a striker-fired polymer pistol, or a 1911 variant?

2) While we're at it... is 9mm even sufficient for point-shooting, or should you use a massive 45 ACP for less-aimed fire?

3) Next question... So do you think the Yankees will ever make it back to the World Series?

Figured I'd start WWIII, WWIV, and WWV within the forum at once!

Just kidding people...

Jeff


----------



## TOF (Sep 7, 2006)

Dang Jeff, I can only handle one at a time with my arthritis and all. Sorry about the hijacks but I'm an onry old fart and just can't help it. :mrgreen:

:smt1099


----------



## Baldy (Jun 21, 2006)

Well you didn't ask that 1,000 guys what they would prefer and they wouldn't be to apt to bring it up. Why don't you start a servey with the guys that have used their pistols in combat and see what they say. It would be interesting I think. Now tire changers and company clerks don't count. It has to be someone who has engaged the enemy with a pistol. I thought we already agreed that the rifle is the Army's #1 weapon and who cares how many times you shoot Hajji with one as long as you get him.:smt1099


----------



## Mike Barham (Mar 30, 2006)

Baldy said:


> Well you didn't ask that 1,000 guys what they would prefer and they wouldn't be to apt to bring it up. Why don't you start a servey with the guys that have used their pistols in combat and see what they say. It would be interesting I think.


That's really the point. No one I have talked to has done more than wave a pistol at anyone. Pistols are used very infrequently, while the majority of enemy casualties from small arms are inflicted by rifles and mainly crew-served weapons. As I said, it may be different for 3/7 Cav, for some reason I don't understand. Maybe they prefer the pistols (which they correctly think are weak) to their rifles for clearing buildings? I don't know. When I went through the MOUT courses at Fort Bragg and Fort Benning, however, pistols weren't even mentioned.



> I thought we already agreed that the rifle is the Army's #1 weapon and who cares how many times you shoot Hajji with one as long as you get him.:smt1099


Well, apparently the subjects of the article care, since their complaint is that they shoot haji 2-3 times with the M9 before he goes down. My point was just that going to the .45 wouldn't solve the 2-3 hits problem, no matter what gunwriters _or_ soldiers think. If it takes 2-3 hits to drop a haji with a _rifle_, why would using the .45 magically change that?

*****************



> 3. Any post regarding point shooting vs. aimed fire is bound to be asking for return of the .45 ACP to Army use rather than opinions regarding point shooting vs. aimed fire.


TOF is right here. Let's try to get this back on track, though I don't think anyone's mind will be changed about aimed fire versus point shooting. Weaver guys get good results with their methods, post-modern guys see what they need to see and get the hits, and true no-sights point shooters seem satisfied with their methods for reasons that are germane to them.


----------



## Mike Barham (Mar 30, 2006)

TOF said:


> Gee I have learned a bunch on this thread.


Good. Reading comprehension is fundamental, however, and you are deliberately misinterpreting what I have written.



> 1. All Gun Publications are managed and written by liars that have no knowledge about what they speak.


I actually wrote that gun magazines are in business to make money. They make money primarily by selling advertising, and secondarily by selling subscriptions. I will let you judge how that affects what appears in their pages, but if anyone thinks some writers don't write things that are untrue because of pressure from advertisers, I wish them well with any purchases based on that writing.



> 2. The US Army in Iraq is all f'd up cause they use their service pistol from time to time.


Never said that, either. I said that here in Afghanistan, pistols are seldom used. I also said that in conversations with lots of Iraq vets, none of them reported using their pistols. I acknowledged that 3/7 Cav may be different. I would never say another unit is "all f'd up" because they have occasion to use their pistols. But based on my military experience, pistols are not terribly consequential weapons of war, and the overwhelming majority of soldiers don't pay much attention to gun guy debates about 9mm versus .45. They just shoot haji until he falls over, no matter what weapon is in their hands.



> 4. Our Army during WW2 was made up of misfits that could barely handle starving Asians or German schoolchildren.


Do not characterize me, a third generation service member, as being insulting to those who went before me in the military. I merely pointed out that the average Japanese soldier was physically smaller than an average American ex-con, and that a German conscript might not be as willing to stay in the fight after taking a hit as would be an outlaw biker or tweaker.

This is all relative to shot placement with point shooting, because Jeff's post detailed rather lax marksmanship standards in the point shooting instruction he described. If you are unable to see the relationship, let me make it clear for you: _physically stronger or more motivated opponents require better hits to take them out of the fight._ If you want to debate this assertion, have at it. But it has nothing to do with the quality of the American soldier, which has always been exceptionally high, in WWII or any other time.


----------



## DJ Niner (Oct 3, 2006)

My experience with true non-eye-aligned point-shooting is that it works fairly well for well-practiced folks, in sterile range settings, out to about 3-5 yards. Beyond that, misses become more regular, especially if there is any situational variation from the practice sessions. Things like the target being uphill/downhill from the shooter (top or bottom of a staircase); uneven ground forcing different foot placement (hillsides, being on stairs yourself); firing from an awkward or twisted body position (leaning forward/backward, laying on ground, shooting around obstacles/cover); or even wearing gloves can cause point-fired shots to fly wild. Using silhouette targets "dressed" in a dark/patterned shirt and not using outdoor ranges with a close-to-the-target backstop (both items which will prevent immediate visual feedback on hits/misses) can also provide some eye-opening changes in results. I recommend practicing wide variations and being honest with yourself and your results before betting something important (like your life) on point-shooting.

Having the sights up high enough to get SOME kind of index, or as said above, "Seeing as much as you need to see" to get the hits, makes much more sense to me. It also reflects how I use my handguns in defensive practice scenarios.


----------



## Mike Barham (Mar 30, 2006)

Excellent post, *DJ Niner*. Getting out in the Arizona desert and really "moving and grooving" with a pistol opened my eyes, as well. We do box drills, snakes, scenarios and various other exercises that require movement on broken terrain, replicating as best we can a real-life fight. We also put t-shirts (and sometimes sideways baseball caps :mrgreen on the cardboard targets to break up a good sight picture and add realism.

Under these conditions, a strict interpretation of the Modern Technique doesn't work well for me, though it may work for others. In some cases I fire with only a single hand rather than my favored Modern Isosceles. "Stance" doesn't really come into play when you're moving, though I see John Farnam has lately come out against shooting on the move, advocating instead rapid movement and a pause to fire. Paul Howe also advocates this, based on his Delta experience.

But beyond all that, maintaining a perfect sight alignment while moving is basically impossible. I still use a visual index at anything beyond arm's length, but not necessarily a hard focus on the sights. It may be as simple as seeing the slide surrounded by the target. I grant that making hits under these conditions takes practice, and I think one is best off to start with a solid grounding in sighted fire, whether Modern Technique or otherwise.

The other thing is...just because your visual index is crude does not mean you can use crude trigger control technique. Jerking or mashing the trigger will still cause errant shots, no matter how you are indexing the pistol on the target. I know this from experience!


----------



## Dave James (May 15, 2007)

Well I would beg to differ "PS" has worked in all the above listed scenario's in real time and FOF, it like any thing else is a learned style or technique,

And like any thing else can be valued or not based on one man/woman experience . have to agree on the short range of its used for most people just do to the fact most if any whom try it will not practice it.

As I tell others if its such a waste of time, why is it my betters and elders used it in a time of conflict,,why is it being taught again to some units of Military, and why other then selling magazines are so called writers re-discovering it , Because it works.

But like I have said before those who follow Cooper and his teachings will not waver, much as those who follow Applegate and such.


----------



## Liko81 (Nov 21, 2007)

Well, I guess I need to learn a good bit more about pistol technique. Weaver stance, Modern Technique,  My main pistol stance is I guess what's called Chapman stance: 2-hand grip, looking down the straight gun arm through the sights, shoulders somewhere between 30 degrees off line with my right foot to the rear (interview stance, wide open confrontation of a BG) to side on to the target with gun arm crossing the chest (shooting from behind a tree, door frame, or other tall vertical cover). I have seen and tried Isoceles, but it just doesn't work for me; I go cross-eyed sighting in and have to aim BETWEEN the targets to hit the bulls-eye. That doesn't happen as much in my main stance as my eyes are vertical, and I can ignore the misaligned sight picture of the other eye. In case you were wondering, my dominant eye shifts and sometimes they're equally dominant; most of the time it's my left eye, which even though i'm right-handed seems to work perfectly as long as I can separate sight pictures.

Anyway, back on topic, I've tried double-taps and rapid acquisition-type techniques and it simply does not put the lead on target. I have to sight in, though i can do so very quickly after just a few hundred rounds. I guess I need more practice.


----------



## Mike Barham (Mar 30, 2006)

Dave James said:


> Well I would beg to differ "PS" has worked in all the above listed scenario's in real time and FOF, it like any thing else is a learned style or technique


And of course other techniques also work in FOF, not just point shooting. I have seen FOF participants use variations of Weaver and Mod Iso with success. NYPD taught point shooting for years and had an abysmal record in real shootings. That record improved somewhat when they went to eye-level shooting, though perhaps there are other variables, and it's correlation instead of causation.



> And like any thing else can be valued or not based on one man/woman experience . have to agree on the short range of its used for most people just do to the fact most if any whom try it will not practice it.


Most gunfights are at close range, so PS may work in the majority of encounters. I remain unconvinced that some situations - even at close range - do not require somewhat more precision than most people can muster with pure point shooting. However, I do think that the "metal over meat" technique, which is sort of a new name for a technique that the late Jim Cirillo was teaching at least a dozen years ago, is accurate enough for most pistol fights.



> As I tell others if its such a waste of time, why is it my betters and elders used it in a time of conflict


Well, our elders also used 1911s with practically non-existent sights that were virtually impossible to pick up at speed. Today's sights are far better, and can be seen and aligned at high speed. And so what if our elders used a given technique? It's not like fighting skills haven't changed since Cain slew Abel.

My grandfather carried an M1 Carbine in Korea, and did a creditable job with it. But in a firefight, I'd much rather have the optically-sighted M4 that is sitting next to me as I type this. Just as I'd not choose his weapons, I might not choose his fighting style. The world moves on.



> why is it being taught again to some units of Military


What units are those?



> and why other then selling magazines are so called writers re-discovering it , Because it works.


Maybe, but I remember Brad Steiner extolling the virtues of point shooting in _Combat Handguns_ when I was a teen, 20+ years ago. Ralph Mroz has been advocating it for at least a decade. I am not sure it ever disappeared. It's just been generating new interest, at least in some circles, I think because of the internet and the PS enthusiasts who post regularly on many shooting sites.



> But like I have said before those who follow Cooper and his teachings will not waver, much as those who follow Applegate and such.


Not sure that's true. I started as a Modern Technique shooter, originally trained by Chuck Taylor. I no longer shoot from Weaver (generally) and have moved on to a lot of other "non-MT" methods, as noted above, though I remain unconvinced about point shooting as a primary technique. As Bruce Lee said, _absorb what is useful_.


----------



## TOF (Sep 7, 2006)

I just have to chime in here one more time. :mrgreen:
I consider Point Shooting comparable to throwing a baseball, Traditional Archery (no sights), soccer and similar activities. Those individuals that are willing and able to practice, practice, practice can become very good at these activities. Those that don't practice much can achieve a level of success but at shorter ranges. The ability to point at what you see or hear is a natural capability of man. Point shooting is a technique that will allow you to address a threat in slightly less time than aimed fire. Slightly faster can win on occasion. Many individuals refer to establishing muscle memory through practice. I have always considered it as training the subconcious mind to send an object in hand or foot to the point in space you are looking at without concious thought. A well practiced individual is only confirming his point with the sights anyway. If the gun comes up pointing somewhere other than at your target you need a bunch more practice while I am somewhere else. :anim_lol:

A rifleman has a number of shooting positions available. Prone, squatting standing on his head etc. If strapped into an overturned car with Haji charging, upside down sounds like a good position to shoot from.

Pistolero's need more than one condition under which they can hit their target also.

Enjoy while you learn.

:smt1099


----------



## mvslay (May 6, 2007)

To a degree I believe point shooting is the dark side. However I believe if you know your limits it can be effectively incorporated into your shooting style.

Once you've achieved a certain level of competence PS seems to be a quick simple way to improve speed in a game like IPSC. I've been observing the shooters at matches and prodding them with a few questions. All of the Master and A level shooters I've talked with are aimed fire guys. Most of the B shooters are aimed fire guys. The one guy that is a point shooter is fast on short range targets and beats many of the B shooters and once in a while he'll take a stage from an A shooter. He's still a C shooter because the classifiers usually do not favor point shooting.

I would not recommend any novice shooter even think of point shooting. Aimed fire is the only way to learn in my opinion. After thousands of rounds and practicing fundamental grip and trigger squeeze then you can test the PS waters. I do PS myself (very sparingly), but I recognize the trade off in accuracy vs. speed. That trade off limits my effective range greatly. I can make head shots at 15 yds easily with aimed fire, but I can barely hit a torso(much less Center of Mass) at 10 yds if I'm point shooting.

In summary, I believe aimed fire is the best. It is the only technique I'd recommend to a new shooter. Also, those I've seen really practice quick aimed fire seem to progress to higher levels (better than myself or any Point Shooter I know). Point Shooting in my opinion is a specialized technique that can be usefully at very short range to increase speed. If you decide to add it to your repertoire you must practice and know your limits. And you must also be able to switch back to aimed fire seamlessly.


----------



## Mike Barham (Mar 30, 2006)

*mvslay*, what you say is true to a point. However, when you read the works of shooters like Brian Enos and Mike Plaxco, they advocated something somewhat different when it came to iron sights. In their books (_Practical Shooting: Beyond Fundamentals_ and _Shooting from Within_), which I think are by far the best books on practical pistol shooting I've ever read, both say very similar things about "seeing what you need to see" rather than maintaining a hard focus on the front sight regardless of distance.

Many shooters may say they are using the sights, and they are, but not in the way a novice shooter might think. Rather, a very fast shooter might only be looking over the slide at short range, have a soft focus at a few yards, and a true hard focus only at a more extended distance. This isn't always "aimed fire" per se, since the shooter isn't really even aligning the sights except at longer range. Instead he is relying on his hands and arms to align the pistol, and his eyes are merely roughly confirming that alignment before (or while) the shot is fired. Thus, in a broad sense, really fast "aimed fire" is actually point shooting. This is part of the reason I prefer the term "eye level firing" to "aimed fire."

We may be saying similar things in different ways.

I do agree that one should use aimed fire as the basis for training, and move on to more advanced things like soft focus once the basics are fully ingrained. You have to crawl before you walk, and walk before you run.


----------



## mvslay (May 6, 2007)

Mike Barham said:


> *mvslay*, what you say is true to a point. However, when you read the works of shooters like Brian Enos and Mike Plaxco, they advocated something somewhat different when it came to iron sights.
> 
> We may be saying similar things in different ways.
> 
> I do agree that one should use aimed fire as the basis for training, and move on to more advanced things like soft focus once the basics are fully ingrained. You have to crawl before you walk, and walk before you run.


I have not had the time to read either one of those authors, but they are on my list.

I guess the most important thing is to practice, learn your limits, and practice some more to expand on those limits.


----------



## Mike Barham (Mar 30, 2006)

mvslay said:


> I guess the most important thing is to practice, learn your limits, and practice some more to expand on those limits.


Agreed, but we need to know _what to practice_, so I think good training from a reputable instructor comes before anything else.


----------



## JeffWard (Aug 24, 2007)

To close the thread from my end...

Practice, practice, practice...

Learn your weapon of choice. Then practice with it.

My father grew up pretty "lower middle class". His recreation, in Upstate NY as a child included a lot of time rambling in the woods behind his house, usually carrying his prized possesion, a 22LR bolt action rifle. His odd jobs bought ammo.

There was a small town dump a mile or so from his house, and he and his brother would take a box of 22s, and the rifle, and go shoot rats. 48 rats with 50 bullets was a pretty good day. When the 22s ran out, he'd grab his lemonwood recurve bow... and shoot rats.

When I turned 13, one year before I could legally hunt with a bow in NY, my dad got me a compound bow. He got himself a slightly more "exotic" bow, much faster, flatter, and more accurate than his old recurve...

To make a VERY long post short... With a 70lb peak weight compound bow, my dad could regularly impale a tennis ball on the grass at 15-30 yards with NO SIGHTS, with an arrow!!! He never had fancy peep sights, pins, or bow scopes shooting rats in the dump. He just KNEW the flight of the arrow with YEARS of trial and error, and practice. The new trajectory of his new compound bow was a LOT flatter, and even more consistant. So after about 3-4 DAYS of shooting hay bales, he could hit a tennis ball at ANY reasonable yardage. After all tennis balls don't move. Rats do.

The same priciple goes for a pistol. There are hundreds of guys who point-shoot with amazing accuracy with a pistol. Quarters, clay pigeons, etc. It's all just familiarity, practice, and natural ability if you have it.

I practice every week, with either an XD45 4", or an XD9SC 3", or both, which both shoot to the same exact point off a rest. My personal goal is to wear out both barrels with practice ammo and get to the point where I can point shoot 6 inch circles at ranges as far as 20ft. I'm getting closer every week, and I've only been doing it for 2 months.

I can shoot close to 90% from the free-throw line. I can throw a football through a swinging tire pretty darn well. I can hit a paper-plate with a compound bow without sights from 40+ yards. I can run 23-25 birds pretty often shooting trap wih my 870. Why can't an athlete point-shoot 6" groups with a familiar gun at 20ft??? 

Like it was said earlier, it'll be in the repertoire. If I get the chance to use the sights, hell yeah. If it comes down to who's shooting first? I'm nailing him "good enough" with the first two. THEN I'll aim the head-shot.

Jeff


----------



## Mike Barham (Mar 30, 2006)

JeffWard said:


> To make a VERY long post short... With a 70lb peak weight compound bow, my dad could regularly impale a tennis ball on the grass at 15-30 yards with NO SIGHTS, with an arrow!!! He never had fancy peep sights, pins, or bow scopes shooting rats in the dump....


I've often thought about archery in relation to point shooting, and I have seen some fantastic archers. Do you think there is an advantage with the bow, because you can watch the arrow in flight, versus a projectile that is generally too fast to see?



> I can shoot close to 90% from the free-throw line. I can throw a football through a swinging tire pretty darn well. I can hit a paper-plate with a compound bow without sights from 40+ yards. I can run 23-25 birds pretty often shooting trap wih my 870. Why can't an athlete point-shoot 6" groups with a familiar gun at 20ft???


He certainly can. Natural athletes have the advantage in all forms of shooting, not just point shooting. But of course I will point out that defensive shooting, by definition, happens under extreme stress. Look what happens to NBA players doing free throws in a championship game. Watch Peyton Manning throw interceptions when four guys are trying to break his bones.

Even a natural athlete's skills will degrade severely under stress, and the stress of someone trying to kill you is the highest level of all. I have read from several respectable sources that skill degradation under lethal stress runs somewhere between 50% and 80%. That means your 6" groups at 20 feet will turn into 12" groups (or worse) when someone is really trying to hurt you.



> Like it was said earlier, it'll be in the repertoire. If I get the chance to use the sights, hell yeah. If it comes down to who's shooting first? I'm nailing him "good enough" with the first two. THEN I'll aim the head-shot.


Fair enough. But what if you face more than one guy? Then your initial hits need to be better, since you may not have time to transition to the head on all of them.


----------



## TOF (Sep 7, 2006)

If there are multiple perps you need to get their heads down fast so point shooting can be an advantage then.

Jeff the Bow is a prime example of point or as its called in archery "Instinctive" shooting. I was very good with a sightless recurve for a number of years, able to put 12 arrows in the bottom of a coke can at 30 yards or into a pie plate at 100yds. All you do is look at the spot you wish to hit. You don't even look at the arrow. I could hit pretty well under pressure also having won the Arizona Bowhunters Field Archery Association Traditional championship in 1990

Keep point shooting in your repertoire with all the other methods.

:smt1099


----------



## Mike Barham (Mar 30, 2006)

TOF said:


> If there are multiple perps you need to get their heads down fast so point shooting can be an advantage then.


Can you clarify that, TOF? Are you advocating some kind of suppressive fire, or something else?


----------



## TOF (Sep 7, 2006)

Mike Barham said:


> Can you clarify that, TOF? Are you advocating some kind of suppressive fire, or something else?


Yes, I would put one in a tree or something solid if it would give me an opportunity to better my position by making a perp fear for his own life. I might even try richocheting one off a hard surface. I know the argument about hitting things you ought not hit but there could well be situations where that is not a problem. I don't leave any tactic out of the thought process. The tactics I would use in a real situation would depend on that situation.

You and your compadres should be quite familiar with suppressive fire. It is not always usefull but at times can be.

:smt1099


----------



## DJ Niner (Oct 3, 2006)

JeffWard said:


> (snip)
> 
> I practice every week, with either an XD45 4", or an XD9SC 3", or both, which both shoot to the same exact point off a rest. My personal goal is to wear out both barrels with practice ammo and get to the point where I can point shoot 6 inch circles at ranges as far as 20ft. I'm getting closer every week, and I've only been doing it for 2 months.
> 
> ...


All under calm, controlled conditions. Level surface, plenty of time to place your feet/body perfectly, grip the ball/gun consistently and firmly, target is always predictable (even if in motion), no distractions, no stress, little or no consequences for a miss, and as Mike said, no one trying to hurt/kill you. Fine for sport, but completely unrealistic to expect these circumstances in real life, or depend on them being there to successfully DEFEND your life.


----------



## JeffWard (Aug 24, 2007)

In a life or death situation, the first guy to hit the other guy some place solid has the best chance of walking away. I agree that "metal-over-meat" is a great description of the proper "sight picture" for "normal defensive distances", inside 5-7yds.

I'm NOT talking about shooting from the hip. I'm talking about chest to eye level, slide-aware, both eyes open center of mass shooting.

I think we're "splitting hairs", and in violent agreement. 

There is a happy medium between centering the front sight in the rear notch, while leveling the front sight height with the rear, focusing hard on the front blade, with a fuzzy target picture, followed by a deliberate squeeze of the trigger, whilst maintaining sight picture until the sear releases, and you are "suprised" by the shot...... and clearing leather and hosing ammo (or denim in my case... sorry) hoping for a hit.

Metal over meat IS a "sight picture". NOBODY will be focusing on a front sight, if there is a muzzle pointed your way. EVERYBODY, including the most seasoned gun-fighter in history will be looking at the bad guy.

If you blot his chest out with the slide, and let-er go. You win. If you focus on a perfect picture... He might get "lucky" and point-shoot you to death.

Jeff


----------



## Mike Barham (Mar 30, 2006)

TOF said:


> You and your compadres should be quite familiar with suppressive fire. It is not always usefull but at times can be.


Very familiar with the tactic, just don't recall ever seeing it advocated for use by armed citizens. If one is out in the woods or open desert alone, it might be a viable tactic. However, if one is that far from safety and engaged in a fight, one should probably give some serious thought to conserving ammo rather than letting bullets fly without stopping hits.

Rule Four tells us "Be sure of your target." While I realize sometimes the Rules have to be bent in a fight, I remain uncertain that even a gunfight in a remote area calls for suppressive fire. Still, armed citizen Harry Beckwith used the technique to some effect seventeen years ago...but he was armed with an AR, and 9mm submachinegun (!!!) and a handgun. He was in an offensive, rather than defensive, mode. But it has happened at least once, so I can't say I disagree completely about suppressive fire's viability for a citizen.

Just as an aside, I have to say that this has been one of the most civil discussion of point shooting versus aimed fire I have ever seen on the internet.


----------



## Mike Barham (Mar 30, 2006)

JeffWard said:


> Metal over meat IS a "sight picture". NOBODY will be focusing on a front sight, if there is a muzzle pointed your way. EVERYBODY, including the most seasoned gun-fighter in history will be looking at the bad guy.


I think we are mainly in agreement. While I hesitate to call "metal over meat" a sight picture - I call it an "index" - that's just semantics. The technique is the same.

I do disagree with the second part of your statement, though. The late, great Jim Cirillo, probably the most experienced domestic gunfighter of the last century, reported using his sights in _many_ encounters. In one fight, he put down three armed robbers with three aimed shots from his .38 revolver, loaded with relatively puny solid bullets. And I believe it was his partner Bill Allard who was once asked in a class how he managed to survive somewhere around a dozen shootouts. According to the story, he stood and said, "My front sight has twelve striations on it." Then he sat back down.

Gunsite can produce dozens of graduates who have "seen the elephant" and reported using their sights. So can LAPD, particularly LAPD SWAT, which for many years had a 100% hit rate in fights.

So can other Modern Technique schools like ASAA. Chuck Taylor once told me of one of his students, a DEA agent if I recall, who faced four armed drug dealers in a small apartment. He put one sighted round of .45 hardball into each of them with his Commander. Fight over. The agent walked away. The dopers did not. So it can and has been done, and will be done again, regardless of what committed point shooters may say you can and can't do in a fight.



> If you blot his chest out with the slide, and let-er go. You win. If you focus on a perfect picture... He might get "lucky" and point-shoot you to death.


I still think you're misunderstanding how well-practiced shooters use "aimed fire." They are not lining up the sights to make a shot. Rather, they are merely verifying the alignment the body has already made, simply confirming alignment. It is no slower than "point shooting" where the sights are completely disregarded, and it offers the advantage of letting you know you've made a good shot before moving on to the next.


----------



## TOF (Sep 7, 2006)

Mike Barham said:


> Very familiar with the tactic, just don't recall ever seeing it advocated for use by armed citizens. If one is out in the woods or open desert alone, it might be a viable tactic. However, if one is that far from safety and engaged in a fight, one should probably give some serious thought to conserving ammo rather than letting bullets fly without stopping hits.
> 
> Rule Four tells us "Be sure of your target." While I realize sometimes the Rules have to be bent in a fight, I remain uncertain that even a gunfight in a remote area calls for suppressive fire. Still, armed citizen Harry Beckwith used the technique to some effect seventeen years ago...but he was armed with an AR, and 9mm submachinegun (!!!) and a handgun. He was in an offensive, rather than defensive, mode. But it has happened at least once, so I can't say I disagree completely about suppressive fire's viability for a citizen.
> 
> Just as an aside, I have to say that this has been one of the most civil discussion of point shooting versus aimed fire I have ever seen on the internet.


Living 40 miles from the nearest town, I am in the woods/open desert situation most of the time. I can't afford to only consider "City Tactics" although they are part of my overall thought and practice process.

You may or may not have heard of Robert Fisher. The fellow that slit his kid's throat, killed his wife and burned down his house in Scottsdale 5 or 6 years back. I didn't realize it at the time but encountered him in the woods a couple of years back. He was upset because a friend and I were gathering firewood and happened to pick up some just outside his hidden camp site. After the fact and reviewing pictures on Americas Most Wanted I came to the realization of what danger we had been in. That plus the multimillion dollar MJ farms in the area guarded by AK toting Invaders is what caused me to began thinking of dangers outside of the City.

We can always do away with the civility and mix it up if desired. :mrgreen:

If I am carrying a 6 shot revolver I will not throw away any shots but if carrying my M&P40 or M&P9 (15 and 17 +1) with an extra mag or 2, I just might lower their heads for a moment.

I see you quoting a lot of other people's opinions and techniques but am curious what your personal experience is in the realm of gunfighting civilian style. I am certain you have practiced "El Presidente" and other scenarios, as have I, but they are not what I am talking about.

If I get in a life and death struggle the rules go out. They provide a good base for speculation and practice but I intend to think on my feet should a situation ever develop.

By the way, what would you call an underhand shot behind your back point or aimed? :smt071

:smt1099


----------



## Mike Barham (Mar 30, 2006)

I am glad you made it through your encounter with the killer.



TOF said:


> If I am carrying a 6 shot revolver I will not throw away any shots but if carrying my M&P40 or M&P9 (15 and 17 +1) with an extra mag or 2, I just might lower their heads for a moment.


That makes some sense, though it is obvious. It might work; it might not. Nothing is a sure thing in a fight, of course. It might be that a better tactic would be to attempt good hits with an initial volley, to prevent them from gaining cover and time. But you're right, it's very much a situational judgment call that can't really be decided ahead of time.



> I see you quoting a lot of other people's opinions and techniques but am curious what your personal experience is in the realm of gunfighting civilian style. I am certain you have practiced "El Presidente" and other scenarios, as have I, but they are not what I am talking about.


I have never claimed to be an authority, only a serious student. I have zero first-hand civilian gunfighting experience, and I earnestly hope to keep it that way. I do think that there are many resources from which to learn, including those I've quoted in this thread, and those resources are not confined to shooting in the forest with some buddies or most local-level USPSA matches.

I do not practice El Presidente and haven't for many, many years. My practice back home mainly consists of some standard exercises, some movement exercises (box drills, snakes, etc.) and some scenario work. I am sure you know that El Presidente was never meant as a tactical training exercise, but rather as a quick test of general pistol skill.

While we're on the topic, what's _your_ civilian gunfighting experience? What training have you taken and from whom? I am happy to compare shooting resumes, if you like. Perhaps you can teach me something, for I am ever the student.



> If I get in a life and death struggle the rules go out. They provide a good base for speculation and practice but I intend to think on my feet should a situation ever develop.


Agreed, though it is generally accepted that part of the reason we train is to eliminate the need to think about certain things in a fight, thus enabling us to give them over to the subconscious. Shooting technique is one of the things that should be ingrained enough that you don't have to think about _how_ to make the shot. This allows the conscious mind to observe and react to other things as the fight progresses.



> By the way, what would you call an underhand shot behind your back point or aimed?


Depends on how it's indexed. :mrgreen:


----------



## neophyte (Aug 13, 2007)

*scratch*

"Mike" in the Middle:smt023 This thread has some fun in it. Poor "Mike"
Training for all anticipated 'outings' believing each article, knowing exactly what will happen in a fight. 
Drill Instructor Claskie had a training method; this happened 35+years ago.
Being one of the last to go; I asked him 'if we really had to do this'
He smiled; I kicked him in the groin; left for the mess hall. Who won?
Did some FOB; General Jones wanted a certain hill set up for strafing.
He didn't like me. Go to 77-22 mk. my orders. F4's came from that way. Not to good. Like I said General Jones didn't like me to good. I kinda changed it about a little. Called in; hauled ass. General Jones wasn't too happy with me.
We had rules of engagement. "improvise" survive; get home with your a$$intact. 
I was there with every one of 'your' projected happenings; each episode, when they assaulted the beaches. Yeah right. I know the writer of all the Magazines. Yeah right. I believe everything they write. Yeah right. entertainment with a little truth thrown in "just in case"
Sgt. Buddy Cooke; sent me on a little outing. Had some hands following along, as clean-up. At 0800 we were to set up a little diversion my specialty. So the platoon leader wanted the letter of said rules to apply.
He told me to get on with my assignment. General Jones didn't like me.
Long story shortened: order said go left. I go right. Order said set up at 102 yeah right. position secured; Sarge shows up and said I was a coward for taken my position from the back. We all went home without a scratch. who won? Something was talked about with General Jones about my cowardice; he and Sarge entertained each other for awhile. I thought how stupid. General Jones had same conversation with me. Sir; they never saw me coming. not a scratch. General never did find it in his heart to like me. Velcro was developed for folks like me. got too expensive to continually replace ripped shirts.Returned with only a couple holes the lord didn't send me there with.
Point to my story. As "Mike in the " middle suggest. In any altercation; rules are subjective. Practicing gives you mentally an edge.
Accepting at face value; "always" doesn't always apply. When I load this tired old carcus after a fracas; My only concern. I Left without a scratch.:smt023


----------



## TOF (Sep 7, 2006)

neophyte said:


> "Mike" in the Middle:smt023 This thread has some fun in it. Poor "Mike"
> Training for all anticipated 'outings' believing each article, knowing exactly what will happen in a fight.
> Drill Instructor Claskie had a training method; this happened 35+years ago.
> Being one of the last to go; I asked him 'if we really had to do this'
> ...


:smt023 Way to go Craig.

While I am typing: Mike, My resume is 67 years of life. I quit updating the written version when I retired from the chaos and moved north. I no longer explain myself to anybody except when it might be educational. Paper credentials are no better in the bathroom than the roll kind.

:smt1099


----------



## RightTurnClyde (Oct 24, 2007)

neophyte said:


> "Mike" in the Middle:smt023 This thread has some fun in it. Poor "Mike"
> Training for all anticipated 'outings' believing each article, knowing exactly what will happen in a fight.
> Drill Instructor Claskie had a training method; this happened 35+years ago.
> Being one of the last to go; I asked him 'if we really had to do this'
> ...


:anim_lol: Neophyte, I love you man, but sometimes I can't understand what the foxtrot you are talking about! I get the gist though. :smt033


----------



## neophyte (Aug 13, 2007)

*thanks*

Thank you: for the kind thoughts;
And the "Mike" in the Middle". He has a tough job. While his practical life experiences are above reproach; the 'TOF' explained it best.
I don't know how the "quote thing works" My take of the 'TOF', sometimes explaining just doesn't matter.
Accept at face value the written thought. Inviting my or your history doesn't compute. You aint never walked a mile in my shoes. Know why? Cause I got em on. 
Give credence to the KISMIF rule. Keep it Simple Make it Fun.
Forget about adding additional pieces to any puzzle after establishing the thought, or criteria. "Mike" in the Middle is giving good to great advice while trying to always be nice. When parameters are changed; Lordy Lordy
I enjoy following along with these longer threads. I enjoy all of your thinking; I actually enjoy the banter. What gets lost; defending post positions.
Accepting the right to agree to disagree is okay.:smt023


----------



## Mike Barham (Mar 30, 2006)

TOF said:


> Paper credentials are no better in the bathroom than the roll kind.


Well, now that we've established that some people think hundreds of hours of professional training (what those "paper credentials" represent) are worthless, and not even as good as plinking in the woods, maybe we can finally get back to the thread. Sadly, there are always one or two people who are willing to take the civility out of a civilized debate and derail it with tiresome personal attacks.


----------



## TOF (Sep 7, 2006)

Mike Barham said:


> Well, now that we've established that some people think hundreds of hours of professional training (what those "paper credentials" represent) are worthless, and not even as good as plinking in the woods, maybe we can finally get back to the thread. Sadly, there are always one or two people who are willing to take the civility out of a civilized debate and derail it with tiresome personal attacks.


I thought you of all people would agree with that comment. After all it was you that trashed the education and careers of our nations gun writers with your "Gun Rags" commentary in this thread. I only remove civility from my comments when I firmly believe it should be removed. I some time back came to the conclusion you needed a taste of your own medicine and as expected you don't like it. You constantly trash others opinions on this Forum but cry wolf when someone trashes yours. You might try reading your own writings once in a while.

Have a nice day.

:smt1099


----------



## Mike Barham (Mar 30, 2006)

The difference, TOF, is that I challenge other forum member's _statements and opinions_. That is the entire point of discussion forums. If you do not like my writing style, you are certainly free to scroll right past my posts.

If you have a problem with me personally, and it is quite apparent that you do, we can take it up in PMs rather than diverting what was an enjoyable thread.

As much as I hate to do it, I am closing this thread since it has devolved beyond recovery. Too bad. It was interesting while the civility lasted.


----------

