[frank4570]

This topic has been alluded to a couple of times on other topics, so here is its own thread.
Personally, I did lots of aimed shooting for a long time. Then I attended a force on force class. With the bad guys up close and moving using the sights went right out the window from the very start, just too slow. I also went to one handed shooting unless I had a fair amount of distance. Not a leap for me, I feel one handed has advantages.
And then I attended a point shooting class. I was immediately sold. For me, point shooting is accurate at close ranges. And much faster than aimed fire. It also is way better for moving and shooting.I don't want to stand there and get shot if I can avoid it. There wouldn't be time for me to use sights if I wanted to.
As far as I am concerned, point is the starting point for up close defensive shooting.

[Jeepnik]

Point shooting is like any other style, stance what have you. It is a tool. It's not applicable in every circumstance. But, its another trick in the bag. You may never need it. Then again, you might need it today. It takes quite a bit of practice. It helps to keep to one style of hand gun, if not one model. It works by muscle memory, and it takes many repetitions for it to become ingrained. It also takes practice to keep the skill up. Learn it, of course, rely on it for every encounter of course not. But having it available isn't a handicap.

[degoodman]

Situations dictate tactics, not the other way around.

Germaine to the use of the sights, use enough sight to make the shots you have to make. At contact distances, that may mean firing your shots as soon as the pistol is rotated towards the target out of the holster. As the range increases, that will move up to one handed point shooting, one handed sighted fire, culminating with two handed sighted fire for precision shots or shots beyond point shot range.

You want point shooting in the box, for sure, because a majority of the defensive shoots that occur each year occur at ranges where point shooting is definitely appropriate. You do need to exercise your point shooting skills enough to know what YOUR limits are, and at what point you need to be transitioning to sighted fire of some livery, shooting out of the notch, front sight index, full blown sight picture, or whatever works given what you need. For seasoned practicioners of point shooting, that may be up into double digit yards, for most prepared, but not dedicated super ninja civilians, the ranges where point shooting will start to fail them is somewhere between 15 and 25 feet, varying widely by the individual. But you need to determine where that point is for you, and be prepared to transition to other techniques when your engagement is outside that range.

Like all other shooting techniques, making hits on target is what counts. If you need the sights to do that, even if it takes another 1/2 a second, use them. A fast miss is still a miss, so use what you have to use to make your hits. If point shooting puts lead on target, use it. If you need more of a visual index, all the way up to a full up sight picture to make your hits, use that. Just make your hits, as quickly as you can.

[M2 Carbine]

I do a good bit of point shooting practice using lasers.

Bottom line, I'm as fast or faster and a WHOLE lot more accurate, even weak hand, when using the laser.

For instance,

[Patchman]

Originally Posted by frank4570

This topic has been alluded to a couple of times on other topics, so here is its own thread.
Personally, I did lots of aimed shooting for a long time. Then I attended a force on force class. With the bad guys up close and moving using the sights went right out the window from the very start, just too slow. I also went to one handed shooting unless I had a fair amount of distance. Not a leap for me, I feel one handed has advantages.
And then I attended a point shooting class. I was immediately sold. For me, point shooting is accurate at close ranges. And much faster than aimed fire. It also is way better for moving and shooting.I don't want to stand there and get shot if I can avoid it. There wouldn't be time for me to use sights if I wanted to.
As far as I am concerned, point is the starting point for up close defensive shooting.

Absolutely agree that when threat is "close" point shooting is the way to go. For me "close" is contact distance to about 5 yards max. After that I need sights.

M2 Carbine wrote that he does a good bit of point shooting practice using lasers. My questions is, should using a laser as an aiming device be considered "point shooting" or "aimed shooting"?

[degoodman]

Originally Posted by Patchman

Absolutely agree that when threat is "close" point shooting is the way to go. For me "close" is contact distance to about 5 yards max. After that I need sights.

M2 Carbine wrote that he does a good bit of point shooting practice using lasers. My questions is, should using a laser as an aiming device be considered "point shooting" or "aimed shooting"?

A man who knows his limits. Exactly what we're going for. Your answer may be different than his, but you need to eplore the answer.

And lasers are aimed fire as far as I'm concerned. The distinction between "sighted" or "aimed" fire, and point shooting is the use of a visual index to reinforce the physiological index and make fine adjustments to it. All shooting is point shooting. Aimed or Sighted fire is a refinement of point shooting, adding a visual index to refine the quality of the "point". Sights are only one method of developing that index. Lasers are another, and other visual indexes such as the slide or barrel without sights are also very effective.

CT's or lasermax units are excellent additions to a defensive firearm, and I'm becoming a bigger and bigger fan of them the more I see them in action. But they're still battery powered electronic devices, and you may not have the time or wherewithall to deploy them in a fight, or they may be broken or dead. Better have backup tools in the bag...

[blownhemi]

Both work, but one works every every time

[PhoneCop]

This man's opinion is that the need for sighted fire is proportioinal to the distance to the target: little distance- little need for sights; great distance- great need for sights.

The value of point (indexed, un-aimed, un-sighted, instinctive... whatever) shooting is inversely related to the distance from the threat: little distance, great value; great distance, little value.

Both need for sights and value in point shooting are related to the time one has to engage the threat as dictated by the distance to the threat. Close threats generally require little consumption in time, little use of sights and imposes more value on point shooting. More distant threats allow for more use of sights and time:

Very Close target (say about 0 - 5 yards)- sighted fire likely not needed at all, little time available, point shooting likely very valuable.

Somewhat close (say 4 - 10 yards)- sighted fire may have some value or may help a little with the threat, more time available (but not much) therefor point shooting still valuable, maybe even advisable, but introduces some small but increasing risk of missing.

Somewhat distance (say 7 - 15 yards)- sighted fire takes on value. Threatened person has more time to acquire and use sights. Indexed shooting introduces more risk of missing or placing poorly a shot on the threat.

Distant (14 - 20 yards)- sighted fire definiately has value. Generally the threatened person has more time to use sights and more need to use sights. Un-aimed fire brings significant risk of missing.

Over 20 yards- best be using dem sights.



[These distances choosen by this poster based on his arrogant assumption of his skill. Others may find they can point shoot at greater or lesser distances in more or less time. But, I suggest one actually finds out, through trial and error, training and practice, his or her actual capabilities. I won't debate distance or split hairs- the point sought to communicate is that as the distance increases both the need and advisability of indexed fire decreases. If you choose to observe the obvious (5 yard head shoot obscured by hostage's head requires some aimed fire), you've not truly identified some wonderous reality to which others were oblivious.]

[M2 Carbine]

M2 Carbine wrote that he does a good bit of point shooting practice using lasers. My questions is, should using a laser as an aiming device be considered "point shooting" or "aimed shooting"?

Good question.

I suppose since you are using a device to "aim" the gun it should be called aimed fire.

Personally, I call it "point shooting" whenever I'm holding the gun some distance from where it would be, at eye level, if I were using the iron sights.
But I'd agree with anyone that said when using a laser it is still aimed shooting, especially when considering such as those right and left hand targets that are shot from the hip. Without the lazer I would be lucky to hit the paper, much less hit the bull or get close.

[PhoneCop]

Maybe y'all prefer this one better:

[Sweatnbullets]

I see three things as being the very core of the reactionary gunfight, the draw stroke/movement (simultaneous) and point shooting.

[brownie]

Threat focused skills [ what some call point shooting ] is aimed fire. Aimed fire is just pointing the weapons muzzle toward the threat. That can be from the hip as soon as the gun muzzle is rotated toward the threat or at full line of sight. It doesn't matter where the gun muzzle is in relation to height.

Threat focused skills don't require the use of the sights in any manner and in fact can be used with no sights on the gun at all. Even with a lack of any sights on the gun, you are aiming it's muzzle toward the threat, you're just not using visual ques of the sights in anyway to make your hits.

I've shot with no sights on a 1911 45 out to 60 yds with every hit on torso for three full mags [ 21 rds ] just to see how far I could make reliable hits. This was using the below line of sight Quick Kill threat focused reference point from the end of the muzzle to the spot I was trying to hit in my peripheral vision.

There are numerous techniques within the threat focused skills that utilize body indexing through a full range of peripheral vision references.

1/2 hip; 3/4 hip; point shoulder; quick kill hip; quick fire; zipper; hammer; bump; quick kill one and two handed; and a couple more touted by others as threat focused that I'm not familiar with.

Each has it's strengths within it's optimum range, which will vary from person to person, but everyone in the Integrated Threat Focused Training System course I run through can all make hits at the skills optimum range. As well, the skills can be learned in a matter of hours by most.

If someone tells you it takes time and practice to own these skills, they don't own them themselves or were taught incorrectly to begin with.

Aimed fire or point shooting? Both is the correct answer.

Brownie

[PhoneCop]

Originally Posted by Patchman

Absolutely agree that when threat is "close" point shooting is the way to go. For me "close" is contact distance to about 5 yards max. After that I need sights.

I submit that you will find that you only need some small use of sights after 5 yards, and that need increases with the distance.

At just over 5 yards you may only need some confirmation that the gun is pointed in the right direction.

A little further and you will need to check that the front sight is someplace between the rear sights.

Further still and a general centering will be appropriate.

Finally you'll be at the place where more pointed centering and level of both front and rear sights is demanded.

A sliding scale of sight use dictated by distance.

[Sam Spade]

Allow me to channel 7677, who I hope swings by to post, and give my interpretation of Brownie and Matt Tempkin, both of whom did their best to teach me:

It ain't an either/or thing. It's a continuum, where you see what you need to see. The apparent angular size of the target is what's driving the train (along with things like time and movement, but set those aside for a moment)

Target >> sight picture leads to body index of some variety.
Target > sight picture supports a meat on metal alignment such as Cirillo taught, or QK
Target ~ sight picture we tend towards the MT's standard "flash sight picture"
Target < sight picture calls for front sight focus; the smaller the target, the harder the focus (and attention to trigger press).

[Glolt20-91]

I never was good at using sights while on the move, but I do use them from time to time while stationary. There may be times when your weapon will be on #1 Tango as you make eye contact with #2T and #3T, all the time scanning for a weapon. In real life this only takes a fraction of a second to accomplish. In my case, the above situation involved five Tangos and a little change in my position lined up #1T and #4T with my duty S&W M28. Nothing like the night light glint of an N-frame pointed at ones skull to bring about a peaceful conclusion.

To me, the major advantage of point or focused shooting is the ability to use multiple platforms w/o the need to know its sight picture. Living in this part of the country, one needs to be able to engage fast movers (predators) if the situation arises, as it did last winter for me. No time for sights (platform I had not practiced with) shot was 3" right of heart taking out left shoulder/lung downward into ground at 21 feet.

Sometimes you can't focus on the target by using the front sight; G17, five rounds full run 12yds to 5yds on this bottle:


Full run changing direction 90* to the left; G17 from the hip close to 10yds bottle in air (didn't know we were getting ours pics taken) - partner hit bottle on ground as I transitioned left:


The motto is to train at the speed of a gunfight. There's more pics with 1911s, Steyr M40-A1, S&W M686+, S&W M629 Classic, S&W M29 Mountain and so forth - then there's the 5.56

Nothing like a live fire team exercise to get one's heart beating, especially when you are also looking out for rattlers.

I typically get to train women who have never fired a handgun or firearm in their life; every woman has been able to walk and consistantly hit the two liter bottle labels at 5yds and do so in under 100 rounds. Every woman has also chosen the Steyr over its Glock counter part.

Life has taught me that one may not get a second training session; so, full immersion and they do much better than the typical male.

Bob

[David Armstrong]

I suppose since you are using a device to "aim" the gun it should be called aimed fire.

Perhaps not, as you are focusing on the target when using the device. Which is why I prefer the term brownie used, "threat focused", as it is more accurate, IMO.

[Deaf Smith]

It all depends on what you consider as 'using the sights'.

Back in 'pre MT' days virtualy all aimed fire techniques taught had the front sight in perfect alignment with the rear, plus you had to shift the weapon as needed to get the aligned sights on the target.

The REAL 'MT', that is Modern Technique, as per Jeff Cooper, used a combination of 'flash sight picture', presentation (draw that is) to where the weapon indexed on the target at the end of the stroke using the Weaver Stance, and a trigger control method called 'compressed supprise break'. When that was accomplished the shot was virtualy instaneous at the end of the draw stroke. The sights were verified, not aligned, not shifted to the target, not adjusted, just VERIFIED. It's extremely fast and quite accurate from almost zero yards to about as far as one shoots in any defensive use. The 'MT' method also had the 'speed rock' for extreme close range as a form of hip shooting. That is their combination of long and short range defensive fire.

Later, as more was learned and experimented on in IPSC and IDPA, other forms of sighted fire were used and things like the Weaver Stance were supplanted. Brian Enos codifed such as 'Type 1', 'Type 2', 'Type 3', and 'Type 4' focus where one went from just looking at the target and having a very blurry set of sights on to exact focus on the sights with fine alighment (Type 4.) Still others taught the use of the front sight focus. Going with the set of sight focus was a change in grip and stance to!

Isosceles style stances became popular as well as totaly changing the grip from the 60/40 push-pull to a totaly neutral grip where the pressure is the same all around. Ray Chapman called his stance the 'Chapman' stance or Modifid Weaver. There are others like Modern Isosceles stance. And Dr. Middlebrooks has his 'Reverse Weaver' or Fistfire method. And then others like CAR (Central Axis Relock.) What is more this is just two handed methods.

There is also the world of one handed fire! And here we get to Fairbairn and Applegate!

But the thing is, for those who say sighted fire is slower than not using the sights, well it just depends on how you use the sights!

Deaf

[brownie]

But the thing is, for those who say sighted fire is slower than not using the sights, well it just depends on how you use the sights!

Is that why I beat several master class shooters using race guns with a stock glock last Tuesday on a few stages with threat focused skills? I guess your statement could also include not using them at all huh?

1st stage, bettered 9 master class shooters and three of those were shooting open class
2nd stage, bettered 4 master class shooters and one was shooting open class
3rd stage, bettered 4 master class shooters and two were shooting open class

All the above fell to Quick Kill threat focused [ point shooting ] skills with a stock glock. Guess that dispels some of the myths you perpetuate on the net like for those who say sighted fire is slower than not using the sights, well it just depends on how you use the sights.

Unless, and until you have a full comprehension of threat focused skills [ which you don't ] yourself, you're not in any position to make such a claim. You know what they say, ignorance is bliss.

Brownie

[Deaf Smith]

brownie, when you show ignorance, you really show it. Still miistake all sighted fire as 'MT'. You need to get your money back from that guy who gave you '8 hrs' of MT training.

Deaf

[brownie]

brownie, when you show ignorance, you really show it. Still miistake all sighted fire as 'MT'

I didn't mention anything about MT in the last post Deaf.

Which goes to show your penchant for responding to subjects that haven't been stated/spoken [ thereby further demonstrating your apparent lack of reading/comprehension skills ]. Try to keep your comprehension of the written word more in line with whats been said, it will go a long way toward your credibility here.

I specifically responded to refute your statement and demonstrate your statement was wrong when you stated that "for those who say sighted fire is slower than not using the sights, well it just depends on how you use the sights!"

Brownie

[degoodman]

Originally Posted by brownie

But the thing is, for those who say sighted fire is slower than not using the sights, well it just depends on how you use the sights!

Is that why I beat several master class shooters using race guns with a stock glock last Tuesday on a few stages with threat focused skills? I guess your statement could also include not using them at all huh?

1st stage, bettered 9 master class shooters and three of those were shooting open class
2nd stage, bettered 4 master class shooters and one was shooting open class
3rd stage, bettered 4 master class shooters and two were shooting open class

All the above fell to Quick Kill threat focused [ point shooting ] skills with a stock glock. Guess that dispels some of the myths you perpetuate on the net like for those who say sighted fire is slower than not using the sights, well it just depends on how you use the sights.

Unless, and until you have a full comprehension of threat focused skills [ which you don't ] yourself, you're not in any position to make such a claim. You know what they say, ignorance is bliss.

Brownie

Originally Posted by Deaf Smith

brownie, when you show ignorance, you really show it. Still miistake all sighted fire as 'MT'. You need to get your money back from that guy who gave you '8 hrs' of MT training.

Deaf

Originally Posted by brownie

brownie, when you show ignorance, you really show it. Still miistake all sighted fire as 'MT'

I didn't mention anything about MT in the last post Deaf.

Which goes to show your penchant for responding to subjects that haven't been stated/spoken [ thereby further demonstrating your apparent lack of reading/comprehension skills ]. Try to keep your comprehension of the written word more in line with whats been said, it will go a long way toward your credibility here.

I specifically responded to refute your statement and demonstrate your statement was wrong when you stated that "for those who say sighted fire is slower than not using the sights, well it just depends on how you use the sights!"

Brownie

Guys, and I mean this in the kindest most christian way possible, KNOCk THIS ****** OFF!

This has gotten very personal at this point, it's spilling across threads, and it needs to stop. I don't have a dog in this fight for the most part. You both need to cool it on this crap for a minute or two.

There are elements of this where you're both right, and there are elements where you're both wrong, or at least taking things out of context to prove your own points.

You guys both have good points to make, and there is value in both your contributions. But when you jump at each others throats, it diminished the value of the positive contributions either of you make, and make you look like dumb*****es. Time to disagree, shake hands, and move on.

Brownie: The "master class shooters" you beat...who were they? What did the stages in question look like? Do you know for certain that they weren't using threat focused techniques when you beat them? How? Remember, ASSumption is the mother of all F*&kups, no matter who's doing the ASSuming.

Deaf: He didn't mention a thing about modern technique, simply sighted fire, and the fact that he beat some guys that he ASSUMED to be using sighted technique.

And this whole "modern technique" thing, for BOTH of you, unless you studied under Cooper himself when I was still an itch in my daddy's pants, or still sucking my thumb and playing with star wars action figures that DIDN'T include the ewoks, next to noone is teaching the pure modern technique any more. I've read about it, and I've NEVER EVER seen it taught in its pure form. Everyone has moved on. The "MT" is a philosophy, but we've moved past its rigid adherence to the weaver stance and the flash sight picure. It was the great leap forward, The "Enlightenment" of shooting techniques. But it was not perfect, and much has been done since the time it was created to corret its deficiencies and fill in the gaps in its techniques.

Bury the hatchet, and soon. The lurkers and n00b's that read the stuff here have something to learn from both of you. But they aren't going to learn a damn thing if all they have is things like this exchange as evidence of what you have to contribute.

[brownie]

degoodman,

Deaf Smith has followed myself, Matt Temkin and 7677 around the net, starting on this forum some 5 years ago with me and long before that with the other two mentioned, spouting off about whats not possible, whats not needed, and on and on with no factual basis in his position other than an uneducated opinion stated as fact [ which the noobs who might not know better may take as truths ].

I've tired of his chasing myself on issues where he has no basis in knowledge and interjecting himself at every opportunity, I don't presume to speak for the other two. I've made it a point in recent times to take him to task at every opportunity for his past and continued actions and attacks which were not only unwarranted but without merit.

As is quite obvious from his posts, he twists and turns things around to suit his needs as well as attempt to discredit that which is not his own doctrine and training beliefs. I've started threads where he has come in and started with his crap, and I'm at the point I'll take a stab at his mis-statements at every possible opportunity. It's time to call the spade a spade and take him to task on his bulls88t posts. I've had quite enough of his antics here for years. One only takes so much antagonism and attack on credibility before one takes the fight to them. That's where I stand on Deaf, and he knows it. Now everyone knows it and I don't really care who knows it at this point. It's a long history, some of which has been deleted on this forum through upgrades and lost posts, and not just with myself but others.

He doesn't take every opportunity to make the same attacks on another forum when the same subjects come up by threat focused shooters because on that forum, he'd be spanked and run off. He picks and chooses his fights where he knows he is safe and can continue without as much as a warning like here. He obviously has an agenda based on this fact alone, and that agenda comes from the past posts in threads long deleted when the threat focused shooters/advocates were a minority of 3 or 4 people and he had the rest of the forum members who fell in line with that thinking.

The hard fought advances brought forth by the few of us who persevered through ridicule and worse has been worth it as others recognize we weren't snake oil salesmen and many people having discovered the threat focused skills have value in the world of SD with firearms.

He stops badgering me here and elsewhere needlessly, I'll do the same. Until then, he gets what he gets and takes his lumps for the misstatements he makes in the future. The gloves are off with him where I'm concerned.

As to your question about the competitors, they had custom tuned race guns with high profile fixed and adjustable sights and the others [ open class listed ] were using red dots of various flavors. I directly shot against 1/2 of them in the stages of fire and they were all line of sight [those with the high profile sights ], the red dots of open class are certainly not used in any manner of threat focused skills as well. I didn't assume anything about their shooting style when I posted. In fact, it was part and parcel of attending that I watch closely how they were running the guns while I used below line of sight skills I've used for years.

This week it was all steel. From 7-8" round plates on racks combined with torso size plates to all IDPA -1 sized steel plates with a 5 point wheel with rack plates at the ends that swung faster the more off balanced it got from taking plates off the wheel. Two weeks ago, it was similar but with a few swingers utilizing IPSC cardboard targets thrown in behind 55 gallon plastic barrels and some hostages/hostage takers thrown in as well.

Do I look like an ass for this "play"? Probably, but it's not the first time I have looked like an ass in life nor do I really give a flying ****** what people think. It's never been my personality to be politically correct, and my Marine Bat has come out more than once here when I've been attacked needlessly with outright lies about myself and/or the skills I impart to others, and it will continue to swing hard and fast as that continues. If that means making Deaf look like the ass he is for his comments, let the party continue.

You're right, it's personal at this point. I'm not about to back off on him unless I see the same from him. I've tired of trying to be nice, and if that hasn't been quite obvious in the recent past, it's out on the table now. The next move is up to him. I don't like him, I don't like his snide interjecting at every opportunity, and I don't like his continued attempts to discredit my experiences or knowledge at every turn.

Brownie

[OperatorX]

If I remember correctly, Paul Howe (combat shooting and tactics) advocates always using aimed fire and practicing such.

I'll shoot from the second I break leather until the gun is extended and I'm using the sights...so both What I'll do under stress...hopefully repetition will dictate

[brownie]

I'll shoot from the second I break leather until the gun is extended and I'm using the sights...so both What I'll do under stress...hopefully repetition will dictate



It's a time/distance equation that needs to be solved. No one skills set solves them all most efficiently and having both sighted and threat focused skills to call on will serve you well. Good thought process sir.

Brownie

[SoonerBJJ]

Originally Posted by OperatorX

If I remember correctly, Paul Howe (combat shooting and tactics) advocates always using aimed fire and practicing such.

But could Paul beat these "master class shooters" in a shooting game?

You remember correctly. Obviously distance dictates site picture but there is a good reason that professional, BTDT instructors like Paul advocate for aimed fire.