View Full Version : At what point should PSing be introduced to the student
Lets here others thoughts on this. Lets have everyone look at the possibilities and give their reasons why they feel their answers are valid for combative real world solutions on the street. The options will probably be the following:
For this exercise, lets all assume the student understands and has a solid foundation in handholds [ both two and one handed shooting ], trigger control, and stances so that we can then look at the question at hand from a representative base of knowledge for everyone.
1. Train the student in PSing first, then sighted fire and why?
2. Train the student in sighted fire, then PSing and why?
3. Train the student in sighted fire and forget PSing and why?
4. Train the student in PSing and forget sighted fire and why?
5. Train the student in when one should transition from sighted to PSing and PSing to sighted fire [ such as 7677 describes as the "sight continuum" and Gabe describes as the "see what you need to see" and why?
6. What PSing platform you have been introduced to or use presently and who taught you the system you use? Were you trained to use both eyes open or one eye open?
7. Should sighted fire techniques and point shooting techniques have a relationship with each other and work in concert or should the student be taught to keep them seperated and trained to know when each should be used to solve the problem presented at the time he needs to use his firearm?
8. What PSing platforms, if any, you feel might be valid to show others or that you would be interested in learning in the future if you have not been formerly trained in PSing in the past.
9. None of the above.
Lets keep the answers pertinent to what we are loooking for for this survey and remember the student does not need to be corrected in handhold, trigger control and body language under stress.
Robin Brown
David Armstrong
10-16-2004, 15:21
OOPS! Double posting error
David Armstrong
10-16-2004, 15:23
For "when" I'm going to ask first how much time we have. Swacje41 has had great success using only PS as a teaching method when time is very limited, and has had a number of clients who have been successful with only a half-day of training. Assuming we have plenty of training time, however, my view would be:
1. Train the student in PSing first, then sighted fire and why?
---Point shooting draws more upon natural body movements and reactions. This allows one to reduce the number of areas to address early in the shooting program. Sighted fire should be introduced as a more controlled option, available and preferable to use whenever possible. I wouldn't get into any "PS from this position, sighted fire from this position" or "PS at this distance, sighted fire at this distance" and similar issues, as I have found the shooter is far more likely to choose the technique best suited for them in a situtaion if they feel there are no restrictions.---
6. What PSing platform you have been introduced to or use presently and who taught you the system you use? Were you trained to use both eyes open or one eye open?
---I was taught originally by a British SAS trooper who used the Fairbairn-Sykes program from WW2. I still use a lot of it, but have incorporated a number of concepts and techniques from the Israeli Method. When point shooting I use both eyes open.---
7. Should sighted fire techniques and point shooting techniques have a relationship with each other and work in concert or should the student be taught to keep them seperated and trained to know when each should be used to solve the problem presented at the time he needs to use his firearm?
---I believe they work together in concert.---
Dandapani
10-16-2004, 17:08
I've heard of PMSing, but not PSing. How about a quicky intro for us ignorant unwashed masses?
Edit to add: Thanks for the explanation. Makes much more sense now!
Point shooting:
The act of not using a weapons sights to hit objects at various distances.
Usually performed from the hip or from just below eye level while standing. Used mainly when there may be no time to acquire the sights during an altercation and one or both of the you are moving and gunning.
PSing = point shooting
Robin Brown
I've spent most of this week experimenting with PS. I think a student would benefit greatly from learning PS early. The reasons for this are the following:
1. PS builds on a natural and instinctive human ability to point accurately, and given the existence of simple PS techniques that can be acquired, it becomes an intuitive and relatively simple skill to learn.
2. For the average civilian who does not get to spend considerable time training, or is not likely to have combat experience, it is a useful tool to have, given the statistical probability that most gunfights occur at close quarters, with limited visibility, and with split second reaction times that would preclude sighted aim.
I think PS and sighted aim can and should complement and reinforce each other. I haven't spent enough time PS'ing to see if this is the case in practice, but at least theoretically speaking I can't think of a reason that would preclude the possiblity. I have yet to study any PS technique from anyone personally (Brownie I hope to rectify that in January in TN), but have began applying the QK technique that Brownie uses.
clubsoda22
10-17-2004, 03:02
It's a skill that's easy to teach and easy to learn, but in my opinion the only time it should be used in combat is when your sights are damaged. I'm quite good at point shooting and could do it in a jam, but using the front sight method the shots are so much more precise.
Originally posted by brownie
Lets here others thoughts on this.
(2) New shooters need to master the sighted basics of marksmanship first, in my opinion. Once they are competent using the sights, they can be taught up-close point shooting for belly-to-belly emergencies.
(5) Transitioning from point shooting to sighted shooting (or vice versa) is dictated by the distances involved. Belly-to-belly = point shooting. Farther away = sights.
(6) I was taught the old FBI one-hand-crouch (and later, two hand crouch) at my PD. We were required to use it at 7 yards in qualification. Both eyes open, always, regardless of gun/sights/methods, etc. Now days I point shoot with little or no crouch, since a crouch position puts the pistol closer to the target, where it could be grabbed.
(7) I advocate point shooting up close, otherwise use the sights. Focus = front sight. Method = flash-front-sight. I use AS BIG Dot sights, or hog out the rear notch on standard sights, for faster sighted shooting.
(8) All the point shooting I do is with the pistol held well below line of sight. The pistol is not used as a visual point of reference. Shooting is by "feel" or "instinct" only.
I don't trust point shooting to be accurate enough at longer distances, and wouldn't want to try learning it at longer ranges because it could create bad shooting habits = fast but sloppy.
I found DR Middlebrooks Fistfire system to be a preaty common sense system. 3yds or so and closer, pistol is held close to you at lower chest level. Easy to master quick center hits yet very strong against grappling. stage 2, 3yd out to 7yrds or so, pistol comes up and slightly out so you look over the top of the slide. Good field vision and you can get enough vision of the along the top of the slide or of the sights to hit what you must. Stage 3 anything beyohnd 7yds, you extend the pistol on out and focus on the sights.
Great thing about this system is you can go from one stage up[ and back down or jump from 1 to 3 or what ever. it's quickly learned and very little practice is needed to keep it active in yur mind..
I let new shooters point shoot on siliette targets for a couple mags first. Gets the noise, recoil, presure and allthat crap out of the way. then teach em the sights work and give em a target to aim at and shoot then. then something to plink at some like pop cans or clay piegons. breaks up the presure gives em some fun and lets them learn.
Then I get into the defensive type shooting and that's when point shooting comes arround..
For experienced shooters we just get into the stage one and go from there.
gemeinschaft
10-18-2004, 00:59
Here is a great article:
http://www.combatshootingandtactics.com/published/Tactical_Shooting_Thoughts.pdf
I think Paul sums it up pretty well.
Yeah, Paul Howe sums it up pretty well. However, I shall just come right out and say it:
How about NEVER!!!
Those sights were put on those guns for a reason...
Thin The Herd
Should we put sights on hammers so we can hit nails? Do you look at the nail or the hammer when swinging?
Maybe we should put sights on our index fingers so we can make sure we are pointing at what we intend to as well.
Phil306: "Those sights were put on those guns for a reason..."
Spoken with such authority and vigor sir. Maybe some one should call Bill Jordan up from the grave and inform him those men he sent to hell from the hip were ALL accidents and what about those aspirin tabs he would hit regularly in demonstrations? or call Mr. Munden and let him know from now on, he better shoot from eye level and use the sights and not from the hip when he hits multiple objects out to 15 feet or else he'll make your statement look, well, you know.
Isn't it amazing that people who have not or can not actually grasp the reality, look at others who have used systems of PSing in the past for real in life and death encounters with great success have the ability to claim it as bunk and so adamantly as well?
Oh, almost forgot Applegate and Fairbairn as well teaching all those agents in ww2. They must have all been lucky all those years as well, is this about right Phil?
Hmmm-----lets see, the world was square until someone discovered it wasn't by circumnavigation. Even then, there were those who would not venture forth as they didn't believe all the stories from the adventurers.
Guess the shotgunners must be now told to put front and rear sights on their long guns as they could not possibly be actually shooting things out of the air, that are moving no less, without them dad gummed sights we all need.
Oh, BTW--sights were put on a handgun for when shots needed to be taken that needed to be very precise over greater distances than normal SD situations. As SD situations usually means up close and personal for the most part on targets of opportunity that are rather large, many are starting to figure out or have already figured out they do not have to be used in such instances.
Bill Jordan, Jelly Bryce, Fairbairn, Applegate, Munden--shame on all of you for proving Phil306 wrong.
One last question sir--have you ever been formerly instructed in a known PSing system like A/F or QK? And if not, how can you be so adamant and judgemental about something you haven't been trained to use properly. In conclusion, unless you have been formerly shown either of those systems of PSing mentioned, your post is an opinion only and at that, the opinion expressed is not based on fact but supposition on your part.
That might be like a person not trained in the proper use of sights then attempting to shoot with speed and accuracy using those sights and exclaiming to the world that sights on guns do not work.
Talk about a closed mind--What say ye?
Robin Brown
In a perfect world, I would prefer to teach point shooting first because it works with a person's natural instincts (for the doubting Thomas watch your kids with squirt guns). However, FLETC teaches marksmanship first and instintive shooting second. I have found that point shooting teaches two indexes, one off the center line of the body and the other is off the nose. If the weapon is kept either with the center line of the body or the nose the person will get hits. Next I would throw movement into the mix. The body is amazing as if you keep the weapon with the center line of the body or the nose the mind will determine when to take the shot. All you have to do is focus on the spot you intend to hit. Your subconscious mind will worry about the alignment of the gun and the spot your focusing on. This is especially useful while shooting and moving fast. When I attempt to move and use aimed shooting, I have found that if I attempt to aim to make the same shot it slows me down as I have to consciously think about the front sight, the target, and when to fire. While I'm in the process of trying to align my front sight on the target I tend to slow down my movement in order to keep the front sight from bouncing and begin to get tunnel vision on the front sight. Were as, my focus should be on the target with my surrounding in my peripheral vision not on my front sight. Furthermore, on the squared range, there are usually no obstructions to trip over but in the real world there are many hazards one can find themselves negotiating in the middle of a gun fight. Also included in point shooting should be point shooting from the hip and one handed and two handed techniques. Now the trainee has point shooting and point shooting and moving down. Next sighted shooting should be taught. Aimed shooting comes at the end of my sighting continuum. Why because I can start to draw my weapon and anywhere in the steps of my draw I can point shoot off of body index or I can continue to bring the weapon up to eye level and make a precision shot. The steps of the draw that I use are the same with point shooting as with sighted shooting. Time (the urgency of making the shot) combined with distance will determine which method I use in the Sight Continuum. Lastly, depending on the environment and my surrounding, I may step off line to my left or right and fire and then move in and fire, or move straight towards the target firing, or move behind cover and in limited circumstances hold my ground and put rounds in the target. There are too many circumstances to list but in most cases one wants to be mobile in a gun fight without cover and take the fight to the enemy.
Well Mr Brownie, talking about a closed mind. I believe its you that has the closed mind. Instead of just debating your point, you take several subtle attacks at me. ASSUMING I have never been trained in the realm of point shooting.
For the record, and something I have posted SEVERAL times on this board, I have been THOROUGHLY trained in point shooting methods. I've read the books and listened to the all the sales pitches. I have even been to the great Paul Castle's 80 hour Instructor Level Course in the CAR System. Which was basically a joke and that is what I feel about "point shooting," as a whole.
I have read Brian Enos' book, I have heard all the theories and, TO A POINT, I subscribe to them. I see the amount of sights I need to see, to make my shots. With the target up close, I don't need much sight alignment/sight picture. However, with the target very far away, I need alot of sight alignment/sight picture.
Now, in so far as your "guru's" of the point shooting world. Any of those people still alive? How about still teaching? How many are willing and able to get on a stand, and testify as an expert to the "merits" of point shooting?
I don't know what you do for a living, however I am a police officer and the lead firearms instructor for a large agency in California. I have to get on a witness stand and testify in criminal and civil court, about what I teach my officers. Sorry Mr Brownie, POINT SHOOTING DOESN'T CUT THE MUSTARD.
Anyone who says they can justify NOT using their sights in a real life shooting, is lying or fooling themselves. In court, you will be TORN apart.
There are NO expert witnesses in this realm, which will come forward and defend you. You can't convince a jury of moron's those sights, which again, were put on the gun for a reason, really aren't needed. And again, anyone "guru" who comes forward and tries, would be torn apart in a court of law.
Now, understand, there is a HUGE difference training an officer to USE their sights and NOT seeing their sights. NOT seeing your sights, in an officer involved shootings, is COMMON. However, NOT TRAINING to see your sights IS NOT.
And god forbid you train someone to "point shoot" and they miss, killing an innocent bystander. At that point, just give me the keys to your house, your car, your kids college education fund, etc. And standby for a total and complete investigation criminally.
A simple question: If a suspect had a gun to your wife's head, 3 yards away from you, and you HAD to take the shot, would you point shoot or line up the sights? ENDEX.
Thin The Herd
Phil,
A gun man holding a gun to my wife's head is not a dynamic gun fight and would require a precision shot. I have been a firearms instructor both in Army and Police. I'm currently waiting for a opening at FLETC for the firearms instructor class so I too may have to get on a witness stand and testify in criminal and civil court, about what I teach my offiecrs. Regardless Phil, MISSING THE TARGET DOESN'T CUT THE MUSTARD REGARDLESS OF THE SHOOTING STYLE USED...PERIOD. And again, anyone "guru" who comes forward and tries, would be torn apart in a court of law. I have the whole firearms section at FLETC to use as experts witness which have already successfully defended the use of instinctive shooting for the past 20 years. I respect your position but it is not the only one. If I hadn't been taught how to point shoot with a carbine 15 years ago I might not be here today. The fact is LEO are losing CQC gun battles. I have spent a lot of time reviewing car videos and watching veteran officer/agents and recruits in simunitions training and I noticed a interesting tend those officers/agents that did as they were taught on the square range, stop draw and attempt to aim were the ones who were hit. I would rather go to a hundred civil trials before one funeral is how I look at it. I'm for giving my officer/agents whatever tools necessary to survive on the streets. I'm interested on what your take is on why we as LEO are losing the CQC gunfights?
Lets take that one step at a time Phil306:
I didn't assume you were not trained in any point shooting systems, nor did I inference that, I asked you if you had been, which is a question, not an assumption, okay?
As the the CAR system, I have not mentioned it in the thread on PSing as I do not feel it is a PSing system to begin with, nor have I ever mentioned it in the context of PSing. Your opinion on the CAR system being a PSing system that has been used in the past to win gun battles is noted however.
They may not be alive today, but good old Bill Jordan would have been one to testify anytime as he was well known in the federal circles as a point shooter. Would have been hard for him to not be testifying in his documented shootings of felons and the like as to how he dispatched them. I'm not sure if in his day he had to go through the PC courts but if he ever did testify it was surely as to how he shot them from the hip up close and personal.
PSIng may not cut the mustard in any court if you miss and maim or kill unintentionally, but neither does using sighted fire, however that is not the discussion here. Rather it is whether the systems of PSing are valid to use in staying alive on the streets. And again, there are many instances of Jordan, Bryce [ another Fed ], and a host of others who have used that type of shooting to stay alive on the streets around the world.
Do I have to justify using my sights, not using them? or should I be more concerned with justifying the hits and whether it was a good shoot? Am I compelled to testify as to how I used the firearm in a SD shooting if the shooting is considered justified? Have you as a trainer ever seen a prosector or defense councel ask that quesiton of a defendant or survivor to begin with? Please cite case law in Ca. or elsewhere if the answer is a yes.
You are mandated to train your officers to the states minimum requirments and as prescibed by your states and depts guidelines. These guidelines are PC and written by attys acting on the states behalf and who for the most part are not interested nor concerned in officers actually surviving street encounters but rather their bosses surviving to retire while diminishing their liabilities as much as possible. That has never bode well for the line officers you train, but your opinion of tha trainig could be different as we haven't discussed that, yet.
"And god forbid you train someone to "point shoot" and they miss, killing an innocent bystander."
Certainly you won't deny that officers have been invoved in that sort of circumstance across the country where they were of course trained in " sighted fire" correct? God forbid the training you yourself provide does the same thing one day or may have already? I see no difference in what system you are training them in, the results are certainly the same for the innocents and their families who have been shot, or killed by that type of action [ missing their intended target, the perp ].
How many cops have been trained to use sights and missed in the last 40 years using any training a police dept would have been giving?
In the hundreds maybe, thousands across the US, how about acros the the full spectrum of the globe using sighted fire only.
"If a suspect had a gun to your wife's head, 3 yards away from you, and you HAD to take the shot, would you point shoot or line up the sights?"
That scenario calls for a precise shot to be taken wherein the sights would, of course, be used if the opportunity presented itself, if at all with a pistol [ pretty unlikely at best ].
Thats when sights should be used. I haven't advocated not using sights at all when they are required, just that in most SD situations they are not necessary. Your above scenario is not a SD situation, as you know, it is a hostage situation sir. Different tactics come into play, and in fact I would be willing to bet your dept has policy on just that type of "hostage" taking problem [ as in not a SD problem ], the two being totally opposite in their required potentially successful resolution.
So, if one of the cops you train doesn't see his sights in a shooting situation as you yourself admit happens with officers, does that justify the officer then being charged with PSing and charged with negligence? malfeasance? misfeasance? as he admits he did not see his sights and therefore did not perform as he was trained by you?
More importantly perhaps, does that now become a burden you must bare for not having trained an officer to a level of proficiency that would have negated his failure to shoot as he had been instructed, always remembering that liability noose hanging over ones head when policy is not followed?
Interesting concept isn't it? Damned if you do and damned if you don't. Guess I'll continue to train in PSing when it's viable to my survival on the streets and stick to using sights when and if I have the time to use them and not as dictated by some porch swinging lawyer who figured out a way to get cops killed while saving the commisioners arse from being sued, fired or both.
I don't believe Bryce or Jordan had many, if any documented missed shots in their careers in multiples of shootings between them. Amazing isn't it when one thinks about the style they used.
Now I do understand where your reasoning is, but lets call it the way it is. You train others the way the dept wants them and demands them to be trained for the most part. Thats due to liability and not due to sighted fire training in SD situations being something that can actually be relied on [ by your own admission above that "NOT seeing your sights, in an officer involved shootings, is COMMON." ]
If it isn't working, hasn't ever worked well in the real world of SD, please explain to us how it comes to pass that officers are still being trained in sighted fire with so many missing intended shots and ""NOT seeing your sights, in an officer involved shootings, is COMMON."
Seems you make a great case for something other than sighted fire all on your own. No disrespect intended as I deeply sympathize with your position as an LEO trainer who has to live within a system that has not worked that well in the past and apparently is not about to change for the better where officers survival is concerned in the foreseeable future.
Edited to add this morning: You mentioned above that "I have been THOROUGHLY trained in point shooting methods. I've read the books and listened to the all the sales pitches"
I would appreciate some clarification if you would sir. You have been thoroughly trained in PSing methods. Which methods of point shooting were you trained in [ disregarding CAR which you mentioned and which I do not see as a pure point shooting system ]?
You mention the reading of books and listening to sales pitches in reference to PSing as well, but I don't believe that is how one "learns" to do something well to begin with in anything. In the same venue, do you believe one can learn to use their sights efficiently from reading a book, or would physical training be required from one who knows how to impart that knowledge to others on a physical plane as you do with your line officers?
Have you been physically trained in recognized PSing methods such as A/F or QK? If so, when and by whom? It is hard to discern from your post whether you were trained in A/F or QK PSing systems physically or have only read about them and listened to others speak of them.
Were you speaking of the CAR system when you stated you had been thoroughly trained in PSing? I understand your feelings on that system from your post but need some clarification on any other recognized PS platforms before I can go further in this discussion.
If you have been physically trained, we can agree to disagree and thats perfectly acceptable. If, on the other hand you have not been phyusically introduced and "thoroughly trained" in either A/F or the QK system, your remarks are at best a subjective opinion based on supposition like so many others who have not been formally introduced to one of those systems and who would then be in a position to make a valid assessment of those platforms.
I look forward to your answers to the above questions for clarification and edification sir.
Respectfully
Robin Brown
GoGoGophers
10-18-2004, 21:28
Answer a loaded question, and you'll regret the time you spent... the hours of frustration, while trying not to vent.
Some need a place to declare their views, to help them soothe the pain... because they're just selling burgers to road crews... in downtown Metro Ft. Wayne.
Mr Brownie has spoken, in this we can be sure... of his infinate wisdom, our ears have been broken, we shall all have to endure.
Enough already, this I implore... the BS about PS, we all should ignore.
You know what is said about two to the body and one to the head, (wether by PS, or AimS), or something even more rare... DEAD is still DEAD! and I really don't care.
7677, said, "I'm interested on what your take is on why we as LEO are losing the CQC gunfights? (not my opinion being requested)
Would these be some possibilities ?
1. Not practicing
2. First time engagement
3. Starting behind the power curve.
gogo, You have an interesting posting style. :)
Is Phil306 aware of Lou Choido and his work with the California Highway Patrol?
They use a combination of point and aimed fire with deadly effect in real shootings, and with a 90% hit rate.
Would you care for his website?
Brownie, if you keep this up they will soon be accusing you of being Matt Temkin.
SUAREZ INTL
10-19-2004, 15:11
There are a lot of questions on this thread. I'll try to hit the highlights.
About the sights-pointing stuff. This is getting as old as the 9mm vs. .45 arguement. Progressive training has shown us that there is a Sighting Continuum of sorts. The Body aligns the pistol and the eye verifies that alignment. You can go from one extreme of no conscious attention to the sights all the way to the other extreme of perfect front sight focus as needed. The issue is to SEE WHAT YOU NEED TO SEE TO GET THE HITS.
Personally I like to teach the classical use of the sights first and then teach the student to settle for less as his physical alignment develops. In a few short weeks it should be possible to fire a three shot cloverleaf at 3 yards blindfolded (including a draw from holster). Some of you have seen this and know its possible.
As far as what is being taught to unmotivated liability-fearing concript cops, I find that marginally interesting. The state of the art is not at some academy or some in-service training session, its in the private industry.
We are focusing on raising the art and teaching to the highest common denominator not trying to get the LCD "qualified".
I haven't focused on pure Modern technique since 1999. Lot's of trad trainers have accused me of going over to the dark side and stick pins in their Gabe dolls every night. All I can say to them is to put their money where their mouth is. Now we have a venue to prove it one way or the other. Let's go do a force on force session and see what works. http://www.suarezinternational.com/igfdebriefing.html
Brownie, isn't it interesting how loudly some people try to defend their system without ever looking outside to see what can really be done. I'll see you at the Symposium.
Gabe Suarez
Suarez International USA
http://www.suarezinternational.com
Teaching To The Highest Common Denominator;z ;z ;z
Gabe,
I find it is interesting, indeed.
See you in Jan sir.
Robin
Yo Gabe ! I couldnt agree more. "See what you need to see." But I got that from Brian a few years ago. And when I brought up his name I was pigeonholded as a gamer by some. Perhaps if you say it it will have more credence with some.
Edited to add: I can relate to the blindfold shooting. It seems to me that is "index shooting". Am I off base on that ? I see where I want the bullet to go and my (body? subconscious ? consious ?) makes it happen. I am starting to feel the alignment and my eyes just verify it. Which brings me to "calling the shot". If I felt it but my eyes dont verify it I react accordingly.
Deleted after consideration on the last posts zen like remarks.
A case was made for PSing in that last post and thats good enough for me at this point.
Robin
Sorry brownie if being "in the moment" offended you. :) lol
Edited to add: Listen to Gabe, I do.
Oh, one more edit. It really is all about the mind. Mindset seems to be at the top of all lists of those who know.
I'll share a blast from the past a training class I put together on 03-28-2003
I believe that there is progression of training when teaching survival shooting. It starts with the steps of the draw and master grip, then to how to align the sights and the step of the trigger pull (slack out, front sight, press, release/reset) After the student has mastered the concept of drawing and aiming and hitting the target to the point it becomes a reaction and they do not have to think about it they are ready to start point shooting. Next add shooter movement and then both shooter and target movement. Then add tactical considerations such as cutting the pie, use of cover and cutting angles etc. Finally, the final test is to put the student against the trainer in a force on force simulation with simunitions and allow the students to try which tactics and shooting style works best for them. This part of the training is the most important because various scenarios should tests the students knowledge of when to shoot, when not to shoot and use of proper tactics such as when it is appropriate to use cover, point shoot, and sighted shooting.
Talon: "Listen to Gabe, I do."
If you did, you wouldn't have been arguing that sighted fire was the only way to shoot with your arms extended as you did on another thread of mine [ something to the effect that you read elsewhere to put the gun two inches below eye level and PS and you saw no reason not to use the sights or that this PSing was or could be as fast as your sighted fire [ mentioning splits, draw times in support of your opinion and alluding that your sighted fire was all that was necessary for SD ], or something to that effect ] and as negative about point shooting as you were as well.
If you like I can quote you if necessary about your preference for sights over any PS sytem as you felt it superior or faster the way you have been trained. Then the zen post after Gabes post, hmmmmmm-------;P
This isn't about hero worship, it's about what works on the streets Talon. In the end you went zen and thats just fine by me for whatever reason. :)
7677: good thought processes, clarity and focus on the essentials for staying alive back almost two years ago. Wonder if anyone picked up on the pearl of a post and paid attention?
BTW--Where's Phil, he was on earlier?:cool:
Robin Brown
Talon since you asked, I'll share with you another blast from the past. This post was made on June 7th, 2003.
I researched the reasons why LEO's are killed in the line of duty to prevent it from happening in the future. I do not do it to become famous or for the title of expert. I have written on the subject and those who have read it know I'm not blowing hot smoke. I'm the first to admit that gunfighting is the only event where a person can violated every tactical rule and still survive or use picture perfect tactics and end up dead. However, the data is pretty clear that officers are getting killed at a greater rate inside of 7 yards and as Matt Temkin has pointed out most officer die at 5 feet.
FBI statistical summaries reveal that of victim officers who managed to shoot back, only 15 percent managed to kill or even hit their assailants.
From the NYPD gunfight reports to the FBI’s annual “Officer Killed” summary, the statistics show that officers tend to die in close, not just at 7 yards but at 7 feet, and they tend to neutralize their attackers and survive unscathed as the distances increase.
(This is why I think that point shooting is useful for LEO's to have in their tool box)
Now we both know that the solution to the problem isn't as simple as teaching officers just to point shoot. While point shooting is useful for close quarters combat and evens up things when the shooting start, but lets go further and look at where the real problem starts? LEO's seem to violate age old rules such as:
1) Improper search and use of handcuffs,
2) Missing danger signs
FBI summaries report that of officers slain, almost 60 percent did not even have their guns unholstered.
(no shooting style works with the gun in the holster)
3) Taking a bad position – the improper use of cover and concealment
4) Failure to watch a suspect’s hands
Always remember “The eyes are the windows of the soul,” "but they kill you with their hands"
5) relaxing too soon and/or giving up cover prematurely.
Well you know all of those posts are what I think works best for me.
Can you show me one post where I have discounted PS'ing in general ?
If so I will be happy to go back and correct it. If giving credit where credit is due is hero worship to you then I will simply plead guilty. Yeah you need to show me the quote where I said something was all you need for SD.
Well lets see, I believe you "should see what you need to see", you should be able to call your shots, you should let yourself shoot etc.
And even though I am saying you here I really mean that is the path I have chosen. I think the mental apsects of shooting are very important. If you want to use the word zen here(and like its a bad thing) I don't have a problem with it.
I have yet to see one argument that would lead me to believe that PS'ing is right for me. But then again I'm still looking for one.
Back when Matt was leading this crusade here there were alot of problems with PS'ing and definitions so some might say I PS now but I don't do it in the manner of the QK article I believe you posted.
Are you aware of your attitude towards others who don't share your passion for PS'ing ?
No brownie, in the end I want to prevail.
Originally posted by brownie
Talon: "Listen to Gabe, I do."
If you did, you wouldn't have been arguing that sighted fire was the only way to shoot with your arms extended as you did on another thread of mine [ something to the effect that you read elsewhere to put the gun two inches below eye level and PS and you saw no reason not to use the sights or that this PSing was or could be as fast as your sighted fire [ mentioning splits, draw times in support of your opinion and alluding that your sighted fire was all that was necessary for SD ], or something to that effect ] and as negative about point shooting as you were as well.
If you like I can quote you if necessary about your preference for sights over any PS sytem as you felt it superior or faster the way you have been trained. Then the zen post after Gabes post, hmmmmmm-------;P
This isn't about hero worship, it's about what works on the streets Talon. In the end you went zen and thats just fine by me for whatever reason. :)
7677: good thought processes, clarity and focus on the essentials for staying alive back almost two years ago. Wonder if anyone picked up on the pearl of a post and paid attention?
BTW--Where's Phil, he was on earlier?:cool:
Robin Brown
Wow 60% with their gun still in the holster ! That would indicate sighted fire vs PS'ing isn't the main problem. Do these improper tactics(if you will) come about because of complacency ?
Originally posted by 7677
Talon since you asked, I'll share with you another blast from the past. This post was made on June 7th, 2003.
I researched the reasons why LEO's are killed in the line of duty to prevent it from happening in the future. I do not do it to become famous or for the title of expert. I have written on the subject and those who have read it know I'm not blowing hot smoke. I'm the first to admit that gunfighting is the only event where a person can violated every tactical rule and still survive or use picture perfect tactics and end up dead. However, the data is pretty clear that officers are getting killed at a greater rate inside of 7 yards and as Matt Temkin has pointed out most officer die at 5 feet.
(This is why I think that point shooting is useful for LEO's to have in their tool box)
Now we both know that the solution to the problem isn't as simple as teaching officers just to point shoot. While point shooting is useful for close quarters combat and evens up things when the shooting start, but lets go further and look at where the real problem starts? LEO's seem to violate age old rules such as:
1) Improper search and use of handcuffs,
2) Missing danger signs
(no shooting style works with the gun in the holster)
3) Taking a bad position – the improper use of cover and concealment
4) Failure to watch a suspect’s hands
5) relaxing too soon and/or giving up cover prematurely.
"Can you show me one post where I have discounted PS'ing in general?"
"If I can extend my arms then I can use sighted fire."
No mention of seeing what you need to see or that you understand you may not be able to have time to find the sights. Goes to lack of understanding whats needed in a SD scenario until Gabe brings it up and then you agree, see what you need to see as if you understand not using sights is viable.
"I read an article recently about lining the muzzle up 2 inches below the desired poi as a ps technique. I find putting the dot on the threat much easier"
Seems in this statement, your read the narrative I wrote on QK and then decided to make the comment -"I find putting the dot on the threat much easier" which is your stated preferred method after attempting a PSing system. The operative word here would be "easier" as if you have worked with both.
So I will PS when extending my arms will put me in harms way otherwise sighted fire for me.
Referencing the need to hip shoot when extending the arms may be dangerous but otherwise it's sighted fire for me. Doesn't indicate you believe PSing is as viable as your sighted fire, then you agree with Gabe when he mentions "see what you need to see" which isn't anything like your earlier stated position of but otherwise it's sighted fire for me.
"I see threat and my body does things and sure enough the sights are right there"
Again, verification of your sighted fire, and no mention of "seeing what you need to see" until Gabe mentions it.
I am curious, if I can place my first shot with sighted fire in .9 sec and get splits under .2 how much faster or more accurate is PS ? w
Which tells us you are questioning if PSing is faster than your stated sighted fire in .9 sec.
I have no problem with that question, what I do have a problem with is your continued questioning of whether a PSing system is any more viable than your sigted fire position. That mindset isn't one of a person who has used point shooting to any extent, or one who has attempted to try it on their own and not met with much if any success andso then questions it as you do repeatedly.
No mention you have tried both and made any relative determinations on your own or have been able to come to your own conclusions based on your shooting both ways but instead need to question others.
"If you can extend your arms what is the reasoning for not using your sights ?"
"I don't find it unreasonable to believe that there are folks who can PS very very well. There have sure been some amazing "hip shooters" over the years."
No mention you have experienced these results yourself, only that you are aware others have been amazing hip shooters.
"Back when Matt was leading this crusade here there were alot of problems with PS'ing and definitions so some might say I PS now but I don't do it in the manner of the QK article I believe you posted."
There might have been misunderstandings of what everyone was talking about relatvie the terminology or how things we being performed back then, but there isn't now between you and I and this post as you stated you had read the QK narrative relative the "muzzle up 2 inches below the desired poi" and that is very specific as to how one CAN hit without sighted fire. You know perfectly well what the narrative says, having read it, and disagree with it here in this and another thread of mine.
Point shooting involves NOT looking at your weapons sights. Please see the above numerous comments you made relative using your sights in bold and why you feel they are the right option for you.
Don't at this time attempt to now portray yourself and have anyone thinking you MIGHT point shoot in any manner, as your continued responses in bold indicate you are a self professed SIGHTED shooter and dispell at every turn the notion point shooting of any kind is viable in a SD situation, questioning the very reason one would use unsighted fire when you times and splits are what they are to begin with [ like that has anything to do with actually surviving on thee streets ].
No, you are a sighted shooter, not a "see what you need to see", or in anyway a point shooter from every indication and statement you have made about sighted fire and your opinions on it's effectiveness relative SD.
FBI statistical summaries reveal that of victim officers who managed to shoot back, only 15 percent managed to kill or even hit their assailants-- [ these, of course are shooters trained in sighted fire though 7677 doesn't actually come out and say that ].
Seems sighted fire in a SD situation may not actually be working all these decades as well as others would like to have others believe.
So when you then make the statement to 7677 that "That would indicate sighted fire vs PS'ing isn't the main problem", you obviously have to still question the reason why officers are dying as if the stats shown reflect anything but sighted fire as one of the MAIN issues in the equation of officers dying.
Now, to your comment that "Are you aware of your attitude towards others who don't share your passion for PS'ing ?
Yes, I'm fully aware of my attitude toward people who discount PSing [ or anything for that matter ] that have not been formally trained in what they are discussing, and want to then discount it as inferior to their own training, in this case sighted fire.
That type of thinking is not with keeping an open mind toward something they have not previously experienced formally at the hands of one who can impart the knowledge properly.
It's time to come out of the darkness and into the light. Many others are finding their way gradually toward understanding the real dynamics of gun fights and what is required to be a survivor using a handgun.
Sighted fire under stress in close is not, and has not been the answer from the statistics and documented results to date.
Now, I'll give you the last word here and be done with replying to you on this subject any further as it is a waste of time to continue past what has already been stated, and as much as you would like to have others think you are a progressive fellow where PSing is concerned, I have serious doubts you have ever done anything other than read others books and watch videos to come to your stated conclusions in this and other threads where PSing is concerned.
If you have been formally trained by any recognized or unrecognized instructor such as Brian, Rob, or whoever who you seem to wantto emulate by your posts, let us know when you respond here. I would be interested in the actual physical training you have received at the hands of others and not just the information you have gleened from books, mags, and vids.
My only suggestion at this point is that you actually go get some training. Your destiny awaits you.
Robin Brown
Well I guess you miss the general theme there, I do this, I find this, this is what works for me.
Look at my post again, it really says.
I aspire to see what I need to see to make the shot. I read an article recently about lining the muzzle up 2 inches below the desired poi as a ps technique. I find putting the dot on the threat much easier....
I don't need time to "find the sights". Actually "seeing what you need to see" is a whole thread in its self. Kind of zen like too.
Are we having a problem with the definition of "sighted fire" ?
You know you really do quote me out of context. For example here is what I really posted.
If I can extend my arms then I can use sighted fire. Now what kind of sight picture I have does indeed depend on many factors.
Let's see you said. "I have no problem with that question, what I do have a problem with is your continued questioning of whether a PSing system is any more viable than your sigted fire position. "
Well shucks I'm here to learn why shouldnt I question if there are better ways.
So did you really just not read my sentence, "I aspire to see what I need to see to make the shot", or did you just choose to ignore it ?
I should probably stop here since most of your arguments are not based on what I actually posted.
I still didnt see where I discounted PS'ing for others so I guess I don't need to make any corrections.
David Armstrong
10-20-2004, 10:05
Wow 60% with their gun still in the holster ! That would indicate sighted fire vs PS'ing isn't the main problem. Do these improper tactics(if you will) come about because of complacency ?
Rarely. They come about because of the requirements of the job. IMO the PS versus aimed fire debate does not hinge on officers killed anyway, it hinges on officer success.
Originally posted by David Armstrong
Rarely. They come about because of the requirements of the job. IMO the PS versus aimed fire debate does not hinge on officers killed anyway, it hinges on officer success.
Well I'm certainly willing to admit that PS'ing might very well be the ticket for the average LEO. It is my understanding that the average LEO doesn't shoot alot.
Talon,
You asked and I gave you a break down of the reasons why officers are killed in the line of duty and the supporting stats that go along. I never said there was one easy problem to fix. The first order of business is to clear up;
FBI summaries report that of officers slain, almost 60 percent did not even have their guns unholstered.
Being the fastest draw and the deadliest shot in the west will not help you if you do not see the attack coming. A good combative should be able to identify threats and employ the appropriate tactics to their advantage and keep the enemy from getting in close undetected. The further out the threat is detected the more options one has available. One of the biggest killers of LEOs is the failure to recognized danger signs and a large number of LEOs killed in the line of duty have died with their weapons holstered and never saw it coming until it was too late. However, this is a training issue and it is also human nature issue that can never be completely eliminated because of too many unknowns in the LEO field. Furthermore, even if this number is reduced it does not address the following problems.
FBI statistical summaries reveal that of victim officers who managed to shoot back, only 15 percent managed to kill or even hit their assailants.
or
From the NYPD gunfight reports to the FBI’s annual “Officer Killed” summary, the statistics show that officers tend to die in close, not just at 7 yards but at 7 feet, and they tend to neutralize their attackers and survive unscathed as the distances increase.
Dave is correct that looking at the reasons behind officer's deaths are only one side of the coin but when you combine the reasons why officers are killed and what officers did to survive deadly force encounters a clear picture emerges which I explained here on GT on 03-02-2003.
Most firearms training both police and public tend to teach only aimed stationary firing positions that are fired at stationary targets. The problem of this is it does not teach the necessary tactics needed to survive an armed encounter. I have found that in the open movement is the key to survival. The use of cover is another important key of survival. The study I completed last year found that officers are getting killed close in and as the distance increases the officers chance of winning the gun fight increases. Why is this happening? During the gun fights the officer is doing what he is trained to do draw aim and fire. The bad guys are using point shooting and moving while firing and are winning. The other day during simunition training I put this to the test and it proved to be true that during close quarter combat the person who stops to aim loses. FLETC did a big study on this subject and reviewed the car mounted video tapes of various shootouts and found the most of the officers used point shooting within 10 yards and especially while on the move and engaging the bad guy. The exception to this is when the officer was behind cover they tended to use sighted fire. I find that the biggest advantage that point shooting has over sighted fire is when the chips are down and you are engaged in dynamic close quarters combat with a bad guy and without any cover. Also, most people who have spent the time mastering the steps of the draw are natural point shooters because at the end of your draw you should already be on target without having to use your sights.
In short, Talon these are subjects I’ve researched and have posted about several times here on GT and other forums. Where have you been the past two years?
In short, Talon these are subjects I’ve researched and have posted about several times here on GT and other forums. Where have you been the past two years?
Well I'm not an LEO. Sorry if I haven't been diligent about following all of your posts. LEO tactics are only somewhat of a value to me personally. We have very very different missions.
Talon,
A good combative should be able to identify threats and employ the appropriate tactics to their advantage and keep the enemy from getting in close undetected. The further out the threat is detected the more options one has available.
This applies to everyone, when I was a officer working the streets one of most heard comments from victims was "I never saw it coming". There are three types of people out there predators, sheepdogs and prey. Tactics employed in close quarters combat apples to all of us not just LEOs. Maybe it is time for you to take a serious look at point shooting. Matt Temkin and I are putting on a demo this Jan.
Phil306,
It looks like we have had this same discussion in the past,
If you had the justification to use deadly force, I do not see why you would have to have a expert defend point shooting? The courts look at rather or not you had justification to use deadly force or not, not what method you used unless that method was reckless or excessive.
http://glocktalk.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=183478&perpage=25&pagenumber=4
Talon,
A good combative should be able to identify threats and employ the appropriate tactics to their advantage and keep the enemy from getting in close undetected. The further out the threat is detected the more options one has available.
This applies to everyone, when I was a officer working the streets one of most heard comments from victims was "I never saw it coming". There are three types of people out there predators, sheepdogs and prey. Tactics employed in close quarters combat apples to all of us not just LEOs.
I mostly agree. My main tactic is to run away :) Not that appropiate for an LEO.
David Armstrong
10-21-2004, 12:01
Well I'm certainly willing to admit that PS'ing might very well be the ticket for the average LEO. It is my understanding that the average LEO doesn't shoot alot.
It doesn't seem to matter much whether one shoots a lot or not. IIRC, it was John Farnam, certainly one of the more prolific and long-lived instructors out there, said that one of the most important things he learned at his first NTI was that no matter how well trained and experienced people were with Weaver Position, Sighted Fire, etc. whenever they were surprised up close they all reverted to point shooting.
Originally posted by David Armstrong
It doesn't seem to matter much whether one shoots a lot or not. IIRC, it was John Farnam, certainly one of the more prolific and long-lived instructors out there, said that one of the most important things he learned at his first NTI was that no matter how well trained and experienced people were with Weaver Position, Sighted Fire, etc. whenever they were surprised up close they all reverted to point shooting.
When you say PS'ing in this context do you mean like the QK system brownie speaks of or do you mean like what I call spray and pray. Or do you simply mean they focused on the threat and not the sights.
I have only went from suprised to shoot once but I had a sight picture. From everything I have read the Weaver doesnt hold up well in the real world.
Originally posted by talon
I have only went from suprised to shoot once but I had a sight picture.
What range are we talking here and what were the circumstances? I believe what David is talking about occurs when the enemy is coming for you and the fire fight is very fast pace. Like I've said before if you have time to use your sights use it but don't die in order to use it.
Originally posted by 7677
What range are we talking here and what were the circumstances? I believe what David is talking about occurs when the enemy is coming for you and the fire fight is very fast pace. Like I've said before if you have time to use your sights use it but don't die in order to use it.
The range was less than 10 feet. The encounter was probably < 7 seconds. Home invasion.
When you say PS'ing in this context do you mean like the QK system brownie speaks of
Not if it was before I wrote the narrative "how to" [ with pistols ] in Feb of this year, which was the first time it had been seen in print anywhere.
I know a man who trains others in the QK rifle methods, and others who are proponents of the rifle QK system through their being exposed to it back then, who searched for over two decades for the pistol methods Lucky trained others in with no success.
It had never been in print anywhere. You were trained by the man [ Lucky ] or you didn't have it. Make no mistake, there are others who walk with the knowledge from the master himself, I know of one who connected with me after I wrote the "how to" who has the knowledge from Lucky. They are a rare few who have the pure form from him.
It is highly unlikely any NTI students were ever trained by Lucky himself to have been able to make use of it prior to this Feb.
Robin Brown
My question was meant to be a formal PS system where aiming is used other than by the sights. I'm still waiting for you to address all of those misquotes you made earlier.
Originally posted by brownie
When you say PS'ing in this context do you mean like the QK system brownie speaks of
Not if it was before I wrote the narrative "how to" [ with pistols ] in Feb of this year, which was the first time it had been seen in print anywhere.
I know a man who trains others in the QK rifle methods, and others who are proponents of the rifle QK system through their being exposed to it back then, who searched for over two decades for the pistol methods Lucky trained others in with no success.
It had never been in print anywhere. You were trained by the man [ Lucky ] or you didn't have it. Make no mistake, there are others who walk with the knowledge from the master himself, I know of one who connected with me after I wrote the "how to" who has the knowledge from Lucky. They are a rare few who have the pure form from him.
It is highly unlikely any NTI students were ever trained by Lucky himself to have been able to make use of it prior to this Feb.
Robin Brown
I've talked at length to several people privately about you and your postings on a few threads here lately.
They are in agreement with my observations based on your writings here on two things.
One of them is you are NOT in anyway a point shooter.
I'll not address the other on an open forum.
Remember, I mentioned I was giving you the last word. You gave your anticipated rebuttal as I knew you would, the forum members here can come to their own conclusions about the subject.
Remember, when I said your destiny awaits you?.
Robin Brown
Amusing I must say, then again I was sure when I pointed out your misquotes you really couldn't respond. No I'm not a point shooter, except up close an personal. I pefer the shooting methodology(gun skills) of Rob, Brian, etc. At least until I find a better way. If I had to define my shooting style I would say I was an index shooter with sight verifcation. Yes by all means let others decide who was more civil. I thank you for the last word. I also thank you for making me think. I wish you only the best. Perhaps someday we will meet at some FoF training. I have alot planned for the future.
Edited to add, whoops sorry I forgot to respond to your last statement, "Remember, when I said your destiny awaits you?."
No more me than you.
Originally posted by brownie
I've talked at length to several people privately about you and your postings on a few threads here lately.
They are in agreement with my observations based on your writings here on two things.
One of them is you are NOT in anyway a point shooter.
I'll not address the other on an open forum.
Remember, I mentioned I was giving you the last word. You gave your anticipated rebuttal as I knew you would, the forum members here can come to their own conclusions about the subject.
Remember, when I said your destiny awaits you?.
Robin Brown
David Armstrong
10-21-2004, 22:16
Or do you simply mean they focused on the threat and not the sights.
Recognizing this was long ago and I'm working from memory, yes, I believe that was the meaning. This strange redefinition of point shooting to mean anything other than shooting while visually focused on the threat, not the sights, is fairly recent.
mattburkett
10-21-2004, 22:40
Okay guys, what kind of pissing match do we have going on here? The classic PS versus SF?
Brownie, I believe that Talon has brought up some valid points. Is it faster and better under stress? It seems that you believe so, but, you have no proof or statistics to support your statements you just say to go find out for yourself.
You do say that there is a problem with SF as far as the current training solution. I don't nec. believe it is that as much as the training solution itself. IE non-realistic targets, no movement and square range training.
Apparently you have to be a member of the super secret Lucky club to figure out how it is supposed to work. If it is that incredible it should be preached to the world and have DVD's and books supporting it. It had never been in print anywhere. You were trained by the man [ Lucky ] or you didn't have it. Make no mistake, there are others who walk with the knowledge from the master himself, I know of one who connected with me after I wrote the "how to" who has the knowledge from Lucky. They are a rare few who have the pure form from him.
Can you please post me a link to your article that you published in Feb. so I can take a look at it?
BTW it takes a real gentleman to go talk behind his back to others. Why not trade phone numbers and actually have a conversation. You might be surprised and come out with a better understanding of each others situation.
Matt,
It's not super secret, but it had not been published as stated until I put it to writing as also stated. There are a few known systems of point shooting. A/F, QK that I'm aware of and probably more.
The USArmy adopted the QK long rifle from Lucky long ago [ though I don't think they are there now ], it's all very documentable and part of history.
I was setting the record straight on QK with pistol before someone wants to go and claim it had been available to them before that. I believe talking about another in private with someone else over anothers remarks/statements is certainly done all the time on the forums, I would imagine you know it happens all the time in general life as well. You aren't suggesting that a gentleman would never speak about another privately I would hope. It has been a part of man from the beginning of speach in humans.
I have nothing further to say to the young man openly on this forum and have moved on with it, hope he has as well.
And yes, it was a privledge to train with the man. More wished they had been able to in that time frame who didn't for whatever reason.
Nothing special about point shooting unless you take into consideration most others have been adverse to it's being anywhere valid for decades in general.
QK is a very specific set of techniques that are repeatable under stress for pistols and long arms.
I gave the link to the narrative in another thread on this forum recently. And so QK is not super secret as you so eloquently mention, but it was not available anywhere until I decided this year to bring it into the light of day, having been trained personally by Mr. McDaniels, no more or less.
For the record I do not believe that "flash sight picture", the "modern technique" or "stress fire" are point shooting systems. All of them make reference to the front sight being involved in some way to execute the technique.
QK does not rely on a front sight as I have demonstrated in the past and which the narrative I wrote on the QK system explains.
Before anyone now wants to entertain the idea of questioning my reasons for bringing QK's to others at this time in history as being some form of glory seeking, lets make things perfectly clear here.
I have used the QK system since 1981-82 when I was introduced to it. I have not in the past bothered to bring it to the general public for several reasons. One of biggest reasons is that it was what I have used all this time and I could care less what others used to get the job done. I did not seek to enlighten others over the years with the exception of those who were close friends and then some students, more recently, who were receptive to the idea being able to not rely on any sights on a pistol to make good hits.
Having come to the internet in the last few years and having to read and listen to many purportedly knowledgeable world renown trainers spewing forth that point shooting was never valid past bad breath distances or valid at all and seeing Matt Tempkin and a few others in various venues taking a beating for their stated views that yes PSing is very valid in the real world of SD, I had had about enough and decided to join in the "discussions".
These discussions have for the most part been with people who have no formal training in the systems of QK or A/F point shooting. As such, I thought it rather amusing that those same people who cried foul where PSing was mentioned and who had not "seen" a system properly demonstrated nor trained in that system would be given to expressing their opinions as factual when, in fact, without formally being trained and therfore capable of making an informed decision which could then be agreed or diagreed with, they were in fact stating an opinion without the full benefit of knowledge relative these systems behind their views.
You are certainly aware of the old adage that "opinions are like arse holes, everyone has one" I'm sure Matt. As long as the records are straight that those who are constantly denying the viability of PSing in a SD situation, and have been for what seems like forever now, have not been formally trained in these systems and are therfore stating opinions and not facts is maintained, everyone can make their own decisions based on the facts.
Now I understand that one does not need to be formally trained in any system to come to their own conclusions based on their own testing and research. My experience has been that those who attempt to use PS on their own and have found less than stellar results and returned to sighted fire systems are the many of the same people who tell the the rest of us that PSing is garbage or only viable for this that or some other thing they believe to be true when in fact the real situation is they have not sought one who could show them a known system that is viable.
PSing is now enjoying a revival of sorts as extremely effective in real world SD encounters. One of the foremost instructors here in the US, in his recent FoF training classes has brought to light the fact that PSing on the move, at other moving objects at comabt distances is actually the way to win these battles, stay alive, and that those who attempt to get their sights on a threat are taking hits and dying.
For years the cops and civilians have been trained in sighted fire "systems" on static lines. These types of taining have always proved to be sorely lacking in the real world as I'm sure a man of your reputation is painfully aware.
Lets call a spade a spade and embrace the real world for a change. I for one am really growing tired of those who state opinions as facts where PSing is concerned.
Now I've had my say as a nobody in the shooting world who has had the training and knowledge for nye on 23 years now, explained it as best as I can this early in the morning and I'm sure you will also reply.
Finally that Matt Tempkin deserves the recognition and support from others for his continued efforts to get people to embrace and recognize what works on the streets.
Edited to add later this morning: Now I've been talking about you to others as well Matt, as I'm sure others are talking about me. It has no bearing on whether one is a gentleman, in fact not bringing mine and others personal thoughts on the kid is quite the opposite.
I give you the last word as well on this.
Robin Brown
Originally posted by talon
I have yet to see one argument that would lead me to believe that PS'ing is right for me.
Talon,
If my above posts don't spell out a crystal clear picture of why point shooting is important to know then you won't see a argument that will lead you to think that point shooting is right for you. Yes, I was a front sight man, I gave up point shooting I had learned in the military because using my sights on the squared range always worked. However, one day you may be in the same place I was three years ago. IE: getting my butt shot off because I did what I was taught to do on the square range stopping, drawing and attempting to aim and whereas, the enemy moved and used point shooting and hit me before I got my front sight on him. I then went back to what I was taught and used in combat and I haven't been hit since. Furthermore, I do not advocate point shooting for every situation. There are times when you have the time to line up you sights and take careful aim and then there are times where 1/10 of a second may make the difference between life and death. I would think that someone who claims to take his personal safety seriously would at least attempt to learn the system before they claim it doesn't work or it isn't for them.
7677, I just can't relate to the phrases you keep using for instance. "Taking time to aim", "taking time to line up the sights", "hunting for your sights" and things of that nature. None of that sounds good to me and I don't believe I do it.
Now I'm having some trouble with the word focus too. I focus on the threat and the sights at the same time. By focus I mean resolve. Now it very hard for me to talk about how much of my attention is directed at one or the other at different times. I know I have shot some stages where my attention wasnt on either one. :)
I am not in a position to say if there isnt some value in looking over the gun and getting the hits but I will look into that aspect more. However I can personally put the dot on the target faster than I can make a muzzle alignment some arbitrary distance from my intended poa which is the context I have used for ps in all my posts except for the shoot from the hip type. Just because I don't see how someone could make me a faster more accurate shooter by ps'ing doesn't mean it can't be done. I really do have an open mind and will go see for myself. I just have a few other things I need to do first.
Talon,
If you truly want to learn how to point shoot, when you are ready pm me. To clear up some of your questions, when I'm speaking of time, I'm referring to a close quarters combat situation. These incidents happen at nose to nose distance and out to 7 yards. If we both are equal in our draw speed and first round on target times and I allow you to point shoot you are going to win because with point shooting you can put rounds on target the second the weapon leaves your holster and can continue to fire until the gun reaches eye level. However, when the weapon reaches eye level is when sighted shooting starts. When I'm speaking of "hunting for your sights", I'm speaking of what one does while on the move and attempting to shoot with sights at another person who is also on the move and is shooting a you. The next time you are at the range try moving (not the duck walk) just a brisk forward movement and shooting with sights at a target that doesn't move and you will see what I'm talking about. Focus means the spot on the target you intend the bullets to hit; I do not have to look at my sights. You are underestimating your bodies ability. I was once like you, I believed that sights was the only way to go and hopefully the first time you learn the errors of your thinking will be just like it was with me in simunition training not in a gunfight. I'm not saying that sights don't work nor that point shooting replaces sighted shooting but there is continuum to which method is appropriate for the circumstances at hand. It is impossible for me to make it any clearer without showing you.
7677 said, "If we both are equal in our draw speed and first round on target times and I allow you to point shoot you are going to win because with point shooting you can put rounds on target the second the weapon leaves your holster and can continue to fire until the gun reaches eye level"
Yes as I mentioned long ago if you are shooting from the time the gun leaves the holster, logically that would be faster. I'm gonna play with that at the range. I think its supposed to rain all week though.
You don't have to convince me what the body can do(sub-conscious?). I've been trying to "step outside" and let my body shoot for a while now. I spend alot of time working on the natural point of aim exercises that Brian discusses.
Thank your very much for the offer I hope I can take you up on it.
Talon,
If you didn't know this but I use to work for DPD until Bolton took over so I'm very familar with the DFW area and visit there often.
Why are you and Brownie spending soo much time trying to convince Talon to try something that he believes will not work, nor is needed?
He is a big boy and free to do as he pleases.
paulkoko
10-22-2004, 20:14
I spoke with Steve Moses and he suggested I begin to weigh in on some of the discussions on these chat rooms. I'm Paul Howe of CSAT and after reading the above post and comments, I have a few thoughts.
Currently I run 25-30 LE classes a year and I am able to get the real deal stories on shootings, what works and what does not. I was able to serve our country in the military and attend some training not usually seen by most.
With that, I was taught sighted fire while in special operations from day one. It is the only way to ensure a hit and to hold someone accountable for their rounds. I still preach this today.
Yes, from time to time we run into someone who is above the norm and takes/makes the time to extensively practice their trade or profession. With the numerous tasks that are required of LE officers and special operations soldiers, training in two systems of shooting is not efficient nor what I consider safe.
I kept track of SWAT shootings for a couple of years and found a 20% hit rate to be about average. Why? I contribute it to point shooting. I had a team leader write on a course critique that shooting was not important. That same week, a tactical team from the state I reside was in was involved in a shooting where they fired 31 rounds. Three (3) connected, 28 missed. The bad guy had to kill himself to get the job done. This is not uncommon. 28 rounds went down range into the community. This is unacceptable.
I have worked with agencies who were point shooters and switched to sighted fire with dramatic results. They went from multiple shooting with numerous misses to one shot stops. The most recent was with an AR at 50 yards with open sights.
In short, when you train to use the sights, they will be there when you need them.
Thanks,
Paul
Originally posted by 9millie
Why are you and Brownie spending soo much time trying to convince Talon to try something that he believes will not work, nor is needed?
He is a big boy and free to do as he pleases.
Well I have never said ps'ing doesnt work, nor is needed, my whole involvement was to see if it was right for me and to understand the logic and reason behind it. 7677 has been gracious enough to try and provide answers to my questions. Lots of discussions revolve around, most people but I am very self centered and simply want to find whats works best for me. Not everyone can focus on the threat and the sights at the same time. Not everyone is willing to practice a couple of hours a day. Not everyone is willing to put 2000 rounds or so down range every month.
Hi Paul, I appreciate your post. The not train in two systems part stuck out at me. Please correct me if I'm wrong but don't you have to have at least 2 shooting systems. One for where the threat is so close you can't use your normal shooting system ? I havent made it to a interactive gun fighting class yet(hope to soon) so if I can't extend my arms my confidence level is not what I wish it to be yet.
mattburkett
10-22-2004, 21:00
Brownie,
Thank you for the extremely well thought out post - even early in the morning. I think what happens on the internet (generally) is that people get defensive instead of logical sometimes and take the conversation out of the bounds that were intended.
I read your post - "I've talked at length to several people privately about you and your postings on a few threads here lately.
They are in agreement with my observations based on your writings here on two things.
One of them is you are NOT in anyway a point shooter.
I'll not address the other on an open forum."
This sounds to me like talking behind someone's back. Especially the "I'll not address the other" one.
I have always tried to bring up issues I have with someone - with them - directly. Doesn't have to happen in the public eye. Maybe he does point shoot at 5 yards and less - most competition shooters do after they have developed a repeatable index.
I do think we have a disconnect between someone coming from a competition background and someone coming from an SD background. I would like to see some cross-over by both parties, I think it would be fascinating for everyone involved and we would have a great discussion ensue from the experience.
I personally teach a variable sight picture dependent on the the target difficulty (which doesn't nec. mean "sights"). What I have noticed is that PS can come out of sighted fire on close range targets but doesn't seem to get trained the other way. In other words if the target is muzzle burn distance till about 5 or 7 yards who cares, shoot it. Now I don't know if the PS'ing I have seen is similar to the way you were trained or not. I can say that the shooter would have a total target focus and the gun may or may not be up in front of them. I want my shooters students to be able to engage at any distance at any time. BTW my first article on the concept goes back to 1992 and Eno's has a version in his book from around 1990. I think the ability to do anything on demand and handle the situation effectively is the answer.
BTW If you wouldn't mind, can you please either PM that link with your article or email it too me? I would really appreciate that.
Thanks!
7677 and Talon, That is a great offer, take it up if you have the chance Talon. I bet you both have a great time. I still want together over there and do some FOF stuff.
9millie, I don't think talon believes one way or the other about PS'ing. Perhaps he hasn't been introduced to it properly and isn't able to discuss it. Perhaps through the competition end of things he is actually doing it sometimes and doesn't even know it. He says he has an open mind. Well let him try it out and find out on his own.
Paul,
I have wanted to meet you when I have been over in TX, just haven't had the time. We have quite a few people in common . Give me a call if you have a chance at 866-GunDVDS.
•••••
I have to go get some food, just finished up training over in CA for the day.
Take care,
Matt
Paul, why not check with Mike Conti of the Mass. State Police and Lou Choido of the California Highway Patrol about the virtues of teaching both aimed fire and point shooting.
As to the SWAT men with the 20% hit rate:
Were they actually trained in point shooting, or did they just not use the sights in an untrained manner when the feces hit the fan?
Have you read Inside Delta Force by Haney?
Are you aware that the NRA L.E.Division now teaches Stance Directed Fire/A/K/A point shooting?
Are you aware that the British SAS still teaches the Fairbairn/Sykes system of point shooting along with aimed fire?
PM 7677 about his combat experience in the first Gulf War.
Do you think that two hand aimed fire is the way to go if the bad guy is 5 yards away and rapidly closing in?
I could go on, but this will do for now.
Originally posted by talon
Well I have never said ps'ing doesnt work, nor is needed, my whole involvement was to see if it was right for me and to understand the logic and reason behind it. 7677 has been gracious enough to try and provide answers to my questions. Lots of discussions revolve around, most people but I am very self centered and simply want to find whats works best for me. Not everyone can focus on the threat and the sights at the same time. Not everyone is willing to practice a couple of hours a day. Not everyone is willing to put 2000 rounds or so down range every month.
www.americancombatives.com
They have several Applegate trained point shooting instructors available nationwide.
Do what I eventually did and get some training in the system from someone who knows what they are talking about.
BTW, the system can be learned in a matter of hours.
Or: You can continue to ask the same questions over and over again.
Paul,
I thank you for your input and were you ever formally trained in point shooting and by who? I'm not trying to be a jerk but I have never heard of you. Especially, since I've trained with a lot of LEO trainers in Texas. Furthermore, I do not understand why people use SWAT shootings as a benchmark for police shootings. Yet they are always brought up. Lets be honest here, SWAT shootings do not represent any useful information or insight on why the average patrol officer is killed in the line of duty. In short, keeping track of SWAT shootings will not explain the reasons why patrol level officers are losing gun fights. Next, every PD I ever worked for taught sights, not point shooting, yet the majority of the officers who were involved in a deadly force confrontations used pray and spray. Pray and spray is not point shooting. If I had a penny for every incident I have been in or car videos I've watched where officers open up and spay and pray I'd be a millionaire. Now, I've been in my share of fire fights, bunker/building clearing in 1991 to know what works and what doesn't and when I need to point shoot and when I need to use aimed fire. Btw, soldiers are more to prone to prey and spray then LEO's are. I have seen it with my own eyes as a soldier and a LEO. Now, as I've said it in the past, I used both point shooting and aimed fire in combat with great success. I have also said that distance and the urgency of making the shot dictated which method I used. I agree with you that 28 rounds going down range into the community is unacceptable but is the cause of this point shooting or pray and spray. From my experience, I would say it was caused by spray and pray not point shooting. Case in point, this last summer I demonstrated point shooting with a carbine out to 25 yards and I didn't miss a single time and I also did this while I was on the move and with multiple targets too. In closing, I think we both agree that hitting the target is what counts we just go about in two different ways.
Matt B,
We will all have plenty of time to drink beer and talk tactics in Memphis on Saturday night.
I certainly need to do more research on draft vs bottle. :)
Hi Matt,
I agree with your idea that it may be about time for some discussion on cross-over between the two camps. As 7677 stated, we could start this in Tenn in Jan after dinner that Sat. night. I'm certainly always willing to discuss potential various methods we all strive for in resolving SD issues on the streets. The disconnect you mention can and should be broken down, it has been a barrier for too long. Perhaps Jan 05 would be a good place to start where so many with different backgrounds will all be under one roof.
I've provided the links to two articles relative QK/PS that were posted on a website with my permission per your request. My original posting and the first time the pistol QK was in black and white was posted on WT back in Feb of this year. The first link provided here is a duplicate of the original narrative posted over on WT.
I've been able to use QK PSing, below eye level, two handed rapid fire as I was taught, using a 1911 with the milspec front sight taped off and keep all shots on a reduced silhouette target [ b-27 ] for 46 rds in two strings of three mags each at a measured 20 yrds [ 60 feet shown on the tape ] from my position to the target.
Granted I've been at it for 23 years but until Sept. of this year, I had not pushed QK that far with a pistol, nor would I be prone to do so defensively on the streets. I did this on tape in real time, no breaks from firing to counting the holes on target as an exercise to dispell the myths that continue to crop up by some that PSing can not be relied at anything past bad breath distances. Needless to say, I was happy at the results of 100% hit ratio, but at that distance I would have settled for 70% as acceptable in a gun battle if one had to use a handgun with no sights for whatever reason at that distance.
Here are the links.
http://pointshooting.com/qk.htm
http://pointshooting.com/whyqk.htm
__________________________________________________________
PaulK-- intersting post. Having been trained at HK in Virginia by John Mayers, ex DoD; and Phil Singleton, ex SAS roughly ten years ago in SWAT tactics using subguns [ HK's of course ], we were taught sighted fire looking through the ghost ring at all distances one encountered in the shoot houses [ which were actual homes under emminent domain by the state and which HK had secured for practice ]. No mention of unsighted fire in a solid week with these instructors back then.
I'm not aware of many, if any civilian special ops teams that train to use anything but subguns as their first line defense when entering. I'm also aware that pistols are used and trained with for such clearings/ops but not as the main battle implement for their assignments normally.
From my training, it is customary for the entry teams to be offensive and not defensive in nature when entering, and as such the wwapons are at the ready and raised as targets of opportunity present themselves.
That by it's very nature is totally opposite the discussion here of one having to act defensively using a pistol, usually from behind the curve, in a personal SD scenario [ vs a team setting ] from startle mode. The two are not anywhere near each other in their requirements to resolve the problem in a successful manner.
Teams acting offensively in concert with one another aggressively attacking targets as they present themselves with weapons drawn and at the ready are not correlative to a single individual on the street attempting to stay alive under attack.
I would agree with your assessment that the tactics and needs of an entry teams members using subguns offensively can be sighted fire, as I was trained that way when working offensively as well, though I cheated and used the QK method at times and my hits were no more or less on target and the instructors never knew the difference. That, of course, may and probably is not representative of the norm either.
As others have mentioned, if the teams, by your own observations, who are seeing a high rate of misses under stress are not using aimed fire, are they actually using a known method of PSing affter formally being trained in such systems available or are your observations that they are not aiming automatically leading you to believe if they are not using their sights they must therefore be PSing. The two are worlds apart.
Not all unaimed fire is automatically PSing as others suggest. Rather it is unaimed fire without any basis in formal training of unsighted fire techniques, which is not PSing but spray and pray as others have suggested before this post to your comments and observations.
To be clear here, if one does not use the sights and has not been introduced into one of the known PSing systems like A/F or QK, they are not apt to be expected to be proficient in their firing anymore than one who attempts to use the sights who has not been trained to use them would be proficient under duress as well.
Having been trained as a US Marine [ old corps ]way back in the day, I'm certainly capable of using my sights to full advantage when necessary. Since 82, I've used QK PSing and have never had to use the sights at combative pistol distances to remain as accurate as necesary to survive on the streets. That last statement has been proven by shooting against others who were using their sights in plate competitions locally and taking the money or trophies which are now dust collectors about the home [ should have taken the money at all times ].
7677, good post.
9millie, good information
Robin Brown
Tenn. in Jan. ? Can I come ? I promise not to talk but to just listen.
Very nice post !
Originally posted by brownie
Hi Matt,
I agree with your idea that it may be about time for some discussion on cross-over between the two camps. As 7677 stated, we could start this in Tenn in Jan after dinner that Sat. night. I'm certainly always willing to discuss potential various methods we all strive for in resolving SD issues on the streets. The disconnect you mention can and should be broken down, it has been a barrier for too long. Perhaps Jan 05 would be a good place to start where so many with different backgrounds will all be under one roof.
I've provided the links to two articles relative QK/PS that were posted on a website with my permission per your request. My original posting and the first time the pistol QK was in black and white was posted on WT back in Feb of this year. The first link provided here is a duplicate of the original narrative posted over on WT.
I've been able to use QK PSing, below eye level, two handed rapid fire as I was taught, using a 1911 with the milspec front sight taped off and keep all shots on a reduced silhouette target [ b-27 ] for 46 rds in two strings of three mags each at a measured 20 yrds [ 60 feet shown on the tape ] from my position to the target.
Granted I've been at it for 23 years but until Sept. of this year, I had not pushed QK that far with a pistol, nor would I be prone to do so defensively on the streets. I did this on tape in real time, no breaks from firing to counting the holes on target as an exercise to dispell the myths that continue to crop up by some that PSing can not be relied at anything past bad breath distances. Needless to say, I was happy at the results of 100% hit ratio, but at that distance I would have settled for 70% as acceptable in a gun battle if one had to use a handgun with no sights for whatever reason at that distance.
Here are the links.
http://pointshooting.com/qk.htm
http://pointshooting.com/whyqk.htm
__________________________________________________________
PaulK-- intersting post. Having been trained at HK in Virginia by John Mayers, ex DoD; and Phil Singleton, ex SAS roughly ten years ago in SWAT tactics using subguns [ HK's of course ], we were taught sighted fire looking through the ghost ring at all distances one encountered in the shoot houses [ which were actual homes under emminent domain by the state and which HK had secured for practice ]. No mention of unsighted fire in a solid week with these instructors back then.
I'm not aware of many, if any civilian special ops teams that train to use anything but subguns as their first line defense when entering. I'm also aware that pistols are used and trained with for such clearings/ops but not as the main battle implement for their assignments normally.
From my training, it is customary for the entry teams to be offensive and not defensive in nature when entering, and as such the wwapons are at the ready and raised as targets of opportunity present themselves.
That by it's very nature is totally opposite the discussion here of one having to act defensively using a pistol, usually from behind the curve, in a personal SD scenario [ vs a team setting ] from startle mode. The two are not anywhere near each other in their requirements to resolve the problem in a successful manner.
Teams acting offensively in concert with one another aggressively attacking targets as they present themselves with weapons drawn and at the ready are not correlative to a single individual on the street attempting to stay alive under attack.
I would agree with your assessment that the tactics and needs of an entry teams members using subguns offensively can be sighted fire, as I was trained that way when working offensively as well, though I cheated and used the QK method at times and my hits were no more or less on target and the instructors never knew the difference. That, of course, may and probably is not representative of the norm either.
As others have mentioned, if the teams, by your own observations, who are seeing a high rate of misses under stress are not using aimed fire, are they actually using a known method of PSing affter formally being trained in such systems available or are your observations that they are not aiming automatically leading you to believe if they are not using their sights they must therefore be PSing. The two are worlds apart.
Not all unaimed fire is automatically PSing as others suggest. Rather it is unaimed fire without any basis in formal training of unsighted fire techniques which is PSing.
To be clear here, if one does not use the sights and has not been introduced into one of the known PSing systems like A/F or QK, they are not apt to be expected to be proficient in their firing anymore than one who attempts to use the sights who has not been trained to use them would be proficient under duress as well.
Having been trained as a US Marine [ old corps ]way back in the day, I'm certainly capable of using my sights to full advantage when necessary. Since 82, I've used QK PSing and have never had to use the sights at combative pistol distances to remain as accurate as necesary to survive on the streets. That last statement has been proven by shooting against others who were using their sights in plate competitions locally and taking the money or trophies which are now dust collectors about the home [ should have taken the money at all times ].
7677, good post.
9millie, good information
Robin Brown
paulkoko
10-23-2004, 21:40
Thanks for the feedback, Talon, 9millie, 7677.
As for not hearing of me, I have tried to avoid being a chest thumper in the training arena and have been using word of mouth versus overt advertising. You can find out more about me at www.combatshootingandtactics.com
Talon, as for one sytem, I try to keep it simple. Even if it is just the front sight over the rear, I attempt to use it unless it is a contact wound (which I have never had to do. I try not to let them get that close). Also, I try to use two hands and if possible, even using the weapon as an impact weapon and drive through my opponent instead of letting him drive through me. I believe in controlled aggression.
9millie, I have read Haney's book. He talks a bit too much for the wrong reasons. As for the NRA and the SAS using a certain system here are my thoughts. We owe our allies the British a great deal as they had a great deal of influence on the formation of our special operations forces. I am thankful and respectful of that. I also feel that we have surpassed them in the shooting arena. As Americans, we have been smart and fortunate to see shooting techniques and systems all over the world and take the best of each system and employ what works. This includes developing our systems and techniques We are the shooters of the world. Period.
Our special operations forces, one in particular dominate the world CT olympics which is, or was held every couple of years. During my service, the nearest team in points was way behind. Much of this was due to our superior shooting. To my knowledge, they did not point shoot their way to the top.
As for the NRA, I am life member. Also, during my time in special operations, I never saw anyone sent to an NRA school to learn shooting. They might send them now, but I don't know.
Finally, reference some of the folks I have worked with in the LE arena, they did a good deal of point shooting and had problems making hits during multiple encounters.
7677, I have not heard of many of the folks in this site but will give them the utmost courtesy and respect until their actions dictate otherwise.
I do use SWAT as a benchmark of sorts because I hold them to a higher standard. Generally they are volunteers, they attend advanced shooting and tactical schools, yet they still have problems. I personally beleive we should put more focus on the average patrol person as they are going to be the first responder. Their actions will make or break many a critical situation.
Finally, really. I respect a point shooters decision to use the system. I will simply offer my opinion on the subject and as I tell students, if it works for you use it. Hits count.
I will let this rest or open a can of worms by saying that if I had to teach a family member that was going to serve in Iraq and I had one week to train them, it would be in the use of the sights, both pistol and rifle. From what ranges, 0-300 meters.
Thanks for your time.
Paul
Paul,
I thank you for your post.
I personally believe we should put more focus on the average patrol person as they are going to be the first responder. Their actions will make or break many a critical situation.
I couldn't agree with you there more. I'm constantly faced with agency BS from Washington as they are being constantly sold on designing elite teams to save the day and they do not spend enough time in preparing the "grass roots" the first responders. The first responders will make and or break a critical incident before any other teams arrive on scene. Both are equally important and both require training. I understand your reasoning behind using SWAT as an example and I also understand why you used it. I've researched the reasons why LEO's are killed in the line of duty, what LEO's are doing to survive deadly force encounters and what can be done to increase the odds on surviving a gun battle. It comes down to the reasons I have already listed in one of my prior posts. I believe in point shooting however, I do not think it is the end all technique. As the first rule in my sight continuum is if you have time to use your sights use them but don't die in order to use them. Distance and the urgency of making the shot with dictate which method you need to use. Also, movement of the shooter and/or the enemy and the availability of cover will play a role in what shooting style is going to be employed. Every gun fight has its own unique set of circumstances this is why some remember seeing their sights and other did not.
if I had to teach a family member that was going to serve in Iraq and I had one week to train them, it would be in the use of the sights, both pistol and rifle. From what ranges, 0-300 meters.
I respect your position on this issue and if one of my family member were going to Iraq I would spend the first four and half days on sighted shooting and less then a half day on point shooting. My main goal with teaching point shooting would be to line up their point of sight with their point of aim. In short, the point on the target they focus on is the same point where the bullet strikes the target. Once they have this hand eye coordination point shooting is a piece of cake. The one time I used point shooting, I was sent into clear a fighting position and we went into a underground room and on the far side of the room there was another entrance and just about the same time my partner and I entered the bunker and the Iraqi soldier entered the bunker from the other side. Because of the lighting, he saw us first and he immediately decided we were not friendly and started to raise his weapon to take a shot at us. I did not look at my sights as there was no time; I just pointed my rifle at him and let off a three or four round burst and all of my rounds found their mark just like I had been trained to do. Lastly, Paul I value your input as we all see things from a different point of view and with writing on forums it is easy for me write something and I know what I'm intended to say however when the other person reads it they think something completely different. I do not mind discussing tactics and training with you and if we disagree that is fine because we are both entitled to our opinion.
paulkoko
10-24-2004, 06:44
Thanks, 7677.
I appreciate your reponse and views. As for what is considered "strict" point shooting and what is not, I am not sure of the finer details of this debate. Shooters know what they can get away with when making a rapid shot with a rifle or pistol. I have shot movers using my front sight riding over my rear when the pace was too fast to get everything centered with both front and rear. I use a few techniques like this in special circumstances, but still always try to have at a minimum, the front sight on the target. This can be accomplished easier with the rifle if one uses the same cheek weld.
As for patrol and first responders, I whole heartedly concur. Much aggressiveness has been lost with the growth of SWAT and tactical teams. It is too easy for agencies/administrations to tell first responders to hold and wait for the tac team if it looks too dangerous. This is a two-edged sword and will hurt us in the Columbine type scenarios. The good news is that more and more folks are doing the active shooter training.
Thanks again and I look forward to hearing from you.
Paul
Paul,
I went back and read my first post and realized that I was rude you and I didn't welcome you to GT. I'm sorry and welcome to GT. I understand were you are coming from and I was of the same thinking until recently. However, very early in shooting my father made sure that my point of sight was aligned with my point of aim. Back then this was called instinctive shooting. His reasoning was this is a skill one needed in close quarters combat. However, this method was taught away from me in various academies and schools I attended as they taught sights. Three years ago at FLETC, I was reawakened to point shooting with simunitions training.
As far as officer/SWAT/military teams missing in shootout is concerned. I think that one of murphy's laws applies here. Units tend to have a very quick learning curve when it come to gun battles. During the units first contact with the enemy the majority of the soldiers panic and resort to spray and pray and in some a little Drill SGT start screaming in their head to breath, slack out, front sight, press, release, reset, breath, scan, scan, pick up the next target, slack out, front sight, press, release, reset, scan, scan pick up the next target, until it was over and since then this Drill Sgt goes off in my head every time I have gotten into something. Some that first resort to prey and spray they realize that the last 15 to 30 bullets they have send down range have not been effective and then the DI goes off in their head. Some never get it and continue to spray and prey.
I also agree that active shooter training is a good thing.
Paul said, "Talon, as for one sytem, I try to keep it simple. Even if it is just the front sight over the rear, I attempt to use it unless it is a contact wound (which I have never had to do. I try not to let them get that close). Also, I try to use two hands and if possible, even using the weapon as an impact weapon and drive through my opponent instead of letting him drive through me. I believe in controlled aggression."
I'm beginning to believe that two hands on the pistol at bad breath distance is not the way to go thus I have added that type of training to my agenda.
I go to reasonble lengths to not let them get that close too. :)
I believe in trained response, controlled aggression, and all out attack when necessary.
Brownie,
I apologize for getting back to your points so late, I've been extremely busy. In so far as being taught Quick Kill, et all. Yes, I have been. At the SigArms Academy, Blackwater Lodge, and several other places. Don't ask me what the instructors names are, for I really don't know. I understand the concepts of point shooting, instinctive shooting, sense of direction shooting, Quick Kill, etc. As I have said, I've read the books, the articles, etc.
Having said all of that, point shooting is a system, which cannot be defended in court. I'm going to try and write this simply, so it is not misunderstood.
Walk into a court of law, be it criminal or civil, after someone has "point shooted" at a threat, missed, and hit an innocnt bystander. If you or others can't understand how badly you will be torn apart, I don't know what to tell you. All the attorney has to say is, "You didn't use your sights?"
You asked for case law, there is NO CASE LAW saying not using your sights was a cause for winning the lawsuit. There isn't. However, in every police officer involved shooting I have been involved in (three) I was asked specifically if I remember seeing my sights (two I had perfect sight picture, one I just don't remember). In every expert testimony case I have done, the issue has come up and come up hard. It is just one more thing the attorney's can hang their hats on.
You said I made my own case, because officers didn't see their sights in shootings. Poor choice of words on my part. The didn't remember seeing their sights, which is totally different and easily explainable. It doesn't mean you don't train, 100% of the time, on sighted fire.
I live and work in California. THERE IS NO STATE STANDARD or QUALIFICATION for firearms training. As I said, I am the Lead Firearms Instructor for my agency. I have no attorney's to answer too, no anyone to answer too. I answer to me. I can train my officers in the use of their sights or not to use them. That is TOTALLY up to me. I can train them to shoot upside down, in full SCUBA Gear; as long as I can justify it. I have the complete confidence of my admin, in this area, because of the amount of training and experience I have.
The bottom line is, I can't go into a court of law, after a shooting, and tell a jury I train officers not to use those little stubby things on the top of the gun. It just doesn't work. As I said, show me ONE recognized expert in the area of point shooting, one Scott Reitz, one Louis Awerbuck, one Paul Howe, who can go into a court of law and back someone up on it. You can't; they are just not there.
And there Mr Brown, is the problem, as I see it, with point shooting.
Now on to another issue: Paul, wonderful to see you here. For those of you who do not know Paul, he is one of THE best instructors out there. His methods are simple, easy to follow, and more importantly, they work. Not to mention, he isn't into chest thumping and self ego gratification.
As a person, he is one of the best all around people I know. Friendly, easy to get along with, etc. And no, he didn't pay me to say all of that (hey, Paul, mail me that six pack quick).
Phil306:
Well written and understood.
As to being defended in court by experts, lets start with bringing in the head instructors for the US Army who have returned to a point shooting system they are callling "reflexive shooting", where they are training our soldiers in a system that does not utilize sights which are on their weapons. I would think any layperson on a jury would have to listen to what the military has been trained in, in the past and has come full circle back to now, even though they are reinventing the name they call it.
As I understand it, brought back in large part out of necessity as the soldiers in Iraq are taking a beating in up close and personal street fighting in the cities over there.
It has been the testimony for years from officers across the country that they do not remember using their sights under fire after having been trained in sighted fire repeatedly in qualification and requalifications year in and year out. If one is not prone to use their sights when there isn't the time to do so under a fast moving gun battle on the streets, shouldn't the powers that be look to other ways to get the hit %'s up on officer involved shootings?
Though point shooting training has not been recognized as valid by the civilian world of law enforcement yet, and may not have been tested in the US courts as of yet, it has been recognized for decades by our own military where the action is fast, up close and of an urgent survival nature.
I submit there are experts who can testify under oath who work for our government and are charged with saving soldiers lives. They only need be subpoened into the courts by a smart aggressive attorney and asked the right questions. Because they ahve not been asked to do so before now does not mean these people do not exist in the world.
I submit the military is an entity unto itself that has determined that point shooting is a valid form of self defense training, having trained thousands of troops in the past and presently training the troops today as we discuss the issues here.
That may not be enough for a jury to equit or it may stand on it's own merits once the experts have been heard who are charged with teaching the young men and women in our armed forces with survival skills that are going to be tested in a real world environment.
I would not question your having trained in a point shooting system of some kind but would ask where and when you were taught pistol QK as it has never been published anywhere nor mentioned by anyone at SigArms in the past, whether that be instructors or students. The year of your training with these folks at various locations may help to identify the instructors for us. Blackwater perhaps through their military affiliations in long gun QK but the pistol material, having never been published by the originator anywhere, though possible,is doubtful.
A/F point shooting has been well documented on the other hand in writings and reprintings. It is far more likely that you were trained in this or something similiar, than QK which was never published in black and white so could not have been read by anyone.
I understand your position, your views and background sir. I respect all your views and opinions as well and appreciate your reply to the questions asked.
Point shooting will not simply go away or die a slow death for many reasons. It has remained a viable shooting platform for years in the military, mainly with long arms but nonetheless, it is a solid system of training soldiers to hit what they can see under stress in combat. It is easily learned as it is a natural function of our being human that we are able to naturally point a things.
As stated earlier realisitic FoF training with airsofts is proving that if you do not move quickly off the line of the attack and attempt to find the sights under fire you are more likely to take damage in doing so because one must slo