BlackwaterUSA Chimes in on Point vs Sight shooting

[threegun]

in learning from a couple Grand Masters back in the mid 90s tracking the sights during double taps adds zero time and insures better hits once mastered.

The difference between a double tap and hammer....unsighted second shot. If not for time savings why use it? I mean why risk a miss?

which is why Blackwater and many others are saying this is what is important to practice sighted fire. so that you try to find the sights.

Can you find your sights while RUNNING left, right, backwards, or any other angle for that matter? I can't. Front one yes both and align no way.

I have tried and the best I can do with sights and propulsion is the duck walk. Also the basic turret like movements and such. Once my shooting platform has broken down (running, dodging etc) I simply cannot find, align, and put on target. This is why I practice PS.

[mavracer]

If not for time savings why use it? I mean why risk a miss?

very very good questions.

Can you find your sights while RUNNING left, right, backwards, or any other angle for that matter?

yep they're always right on top of the gun and they point where the bullets going.front sight and flash sight picture are not point shooting.

This is why I practice PS.

and thats what you'll probably revert too under stress even at distances beyond your ability to get good hits point shooting.

[threegun]

Remember what I said about using one system that will do everything or handle all situations? It applies here. I believe that point shooting requires less mental discipline than does using your sights every time. So, when it comes to a high stress situation, which system will your mind revert to, the easy way or the disciplined way? Unfortunately, being human, I believe you will revert to the easy method, which is point shooting. I don’t think your mind will say, it is under 10 yards, it is time to point shoot or it is over 10 yards and it is time to use my sights.

I disagree with him. The time I almost shot a man who was pulling a gun on my coworker I didn't revert to my point shooting. It was high stress. I did, not only, realize the difficulty of the shot but repeated over and over in my head front sight front sight. I even remember thinking how skinny the guy was and hoped that my miss would not lead to my coworker getting shot. So many things going through my head, it was incredible. I had a slowing of time effect as my draw just didn't move. I got tunnel vision as well. All this in about 1/2 second. Coworker said my draw was fast as usual and shop video showed no signs of my draw slowing.

Given the choice between accurate sighted fire, along with attendant lower liability OR unsighted fire, I choose the former.

We all would or at least should IF GIVEN THE CHOICE. Many however (me included) just feel that there may be a time when you cannot access your sights. If you are ever surprised by close range gunfire you might reconsider.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

in learning from a couple Grand Masters back in the mid 90s tracking the sights during double taps adds zero time and insures better hits once mastered.

My splits with hammers are 0.19 to 0.23. My splits with a sighted second round are never lower than 0.33 and have been as high as 0.54. Admittedly, I don't think of myself as a master; but I think for most people this is not true.

[threegun]

yep they're always right on top of the gun and they point where the bullets going.front sight and flash sight picture are not point shooting

Very funny LOL.

Let me explain a drill. Draw and begin running in whatever direction simultaneously while gun is firing once it clears leather. Initial shot/shots are pure shooting as the gun is not at eye level yet. At some point I can see the sights in my view and try from then on to use them until the drill has ended or I am unsafely angled at the range.

Sorry I have such a difficult time putting on to paper my thoughts.

[Deaf Smith]

Can you find your sights while RUNNING left, right, backwards, or any other angle for that matter? I can't. Front one yes both and align no way

threegun,

Yes you can use the sights, unless you are talking about really running, like flat out, and in that case you are not gonna make many good hits at all.

But it's not 'finding your sights' if you are moving and shooting either. When you bring up the gun the sights should be roughly aligned. Even while standing still don't adjust the sights. Lean to bring them up alignend. Your grip of the weapon and how you present it should give you the alighment. The seeing of the sights, again in rough alighment, is all you need for verification to get hits at close range.

[mavracer]

Draw and begin running in whatever direction simultaneously while gun is firing once it clears leather.

sounds like a recipe for a Darwin award to me.
either run or shoot and move don't try to do both.

[threegun]

Yes you can use the sights, unless you are talking about really running, like flat out, and in that case you are not gonna make many good hits at all.

I have been working on this exact thing for a while now. You can make hits running. In thinking about it after mavracer's post I do pick up the front sight at some point but several shots are gone before this happens I'm sure. I will confirm after my next outing.

Like you Deaf, I thought it was not possible. Its uses could be invaluable if ever behind in the reactionary curve with an up close and personal bad guy. You use the bodies natural desire to flee the danger and incorporate return fire into it. Gives you movement and duress two key indigents in reducing the effectiveness of your adversaries fire. It wasn't my idea its part of the fluid threat response.

[threegun]

sounds like a recipe for a Darwin award to me.
either run or shoot and move don't try to do both.

The "Darwin" award usually goes to those who poo poo something without trying it. Here is a link to what I am working on.....http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnrId...om=PL&index=31

I haven't taken the course but moving quickly and hitting in any direction is possible.

[mavracer]

The "Darwin" award usually goes to those who poo poo something without trying it.

NO the "Darwin" award ALWAYS goes to people who get themselves killed doing something stupid.
and watch your video it is not what your portraying the only time he shoots from the hip is at near contact range otherwise he has the gun at eye level before he pulls the trigger.

[threegun]

MAV,

either run or shoot and move don't try to do both

Why? Why not run and shoot?

[threegun]

NO the "Darwin" award ALWAYS goes to people who get themselves killed doing something stupid.
and watch your video it is not what your portraying the only time he shoots from the hip is at near contact range otherwise he has the gun at eye level before he pulls the trigger.

Look again a good view is at the 34 second mark. Clearly the gun is below eye level. Anyway that isn't relevant since you look at those who wish to run and shoot at the same time as Darwin award winners.

The system does use alot of point shooting.

[KellyTTE]

Awesome skillset

...so long as precision isn't needed.

Here's the problem with a shooting like that. Statistically, you're most likely to be assaulted in a WalMart parking lot, you start throwing lead around like that you're going to put a round into something or someone that you don't want to. If look at the target in the video, easily 25% or more are misses, and about 40% or more are questionable at best (pass thru on the target edges, arms, etc.

God forbid that a critical incident happen in a mall, or on school grounds where there are far more innocents than shooters.

[NRAhab]

Regarding the video threegun posted @ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnrIdpo9odA

1. That's not really "running". That's a fast walk.
2. Magazine dumps into the berm at 5 feet look pretty cool on YouTube, especially when set to really bad rock music.
3. You can't actually see where the bullets are hitting, and that's a problem. The whole system ascribes to the theory that a fast hit outside of COM is better than a slower hit inside COM. That's a debatable theory.
4. Moving at that speed hosing bullets into a target at extremely close ranges isn't really impressive. The most complex skill demonstrated in that video is the footwork involved, the gunhandling skills he demonstrates are something that any half-decent USPSA or IDPA shooter could pull off.

The biggest issue I have with what's being "taught" by classes such as demonstrated in the video is thus: everyone agrees that skills degrade under actual stress. One of the biggest arguments of the point shooters is that under stress, a Modern Technique shooter will not acquire or use the sights on their pistol. By that exact same logic, it also then follows that the skills of a point shooter will similarly degrade under stress, meaning that a shot that on the square range was a peripheral hit on the target to begin with becomes a miss "on the street", as it were. I would be greatly concerned about potential liability issues for someone that's trained in a school of thought where a low hit outside of the COM is considered acceptable on a square range in a non-stressed environment.

On the flip side, people also like to feel like they're getting something for their money when they go to gunschool, so I can see the appeal in doing high round counts at close ranges.

[KellyTTE]

NRAhab makes a good point.

Here's something else that I'll add. I've trained once or twice where the ammo count was way over 1k rounds. One of the things that I found is that there is a lot of 'here are some cool techniques and drills' but we're not going to hold you to any quantifiable standard at the end of all this.

I put 1600rds down range at CSAT, about 1300 of them was to reach a quantifiable standard under difficult time constraints. Given that we all seem to agree that skillsets degrade under stress, which skillset is the one that we would prefer degrade?

A skill set based on slightly quicker fire, but a lesser degree of accuracy?

or

A skill set based on quick fire with higher degree of accuracy?

All things being equal, I acknowledge that it is possible for someone to become an accurate shooter using un-aimed fire. There are many many exhibition shooters that prove this point. However, the round count, physical prowess and dedication make this a near impossible goal for the vast majority of shooters to reach.

I believe that if you took two otherwise equal shooters and gave them equal rounds, training time and one was a unsighted fire shooter and one sighted, that at the end of the experiment, the sighted fire shooter would be as fast, more accurate and therefore more dangerous overall.

[Tuttle8]

My stance is there's a time for point shooting and there's a time for sighted fire. Threegun, I reserved my opinion for quite some time, well before I was even a Staff member, if I agree with you or not. I must say if you are trying to make your point by using the example in the video, I must respectfully disagree.

Along with NRAhab's reasonings, I will add the distance the person was from the assailant was sufficient to use sighted fire while on the move. I think the rare occasion where point shooting would be viable is in retention or if your firearm is within reach to overtake it from you. Other than that, I believe sighted fire is in order. We all have to remember we will have to answer for EVERY bullet fired out of our gun. Why it placed in the stomach. Why didn't it hit COM. Why fire to hit the shoulder. The legal battle commencing after the battle. I'll take my chances to spend the extra tenth of a second to assure I used every confirmed known variable available to me to place the shot where I want. Relying on muscle memory alone in the heat of the moment may not be enough for the jury of my peers. History has led me to believe being faster to get the bullet out alone isn't advantageous.

Another point to make in that video is it appears the person's shots on one string looked entirely too low. We're talking below the groin area and he worked his way up to COM. Not good. IMO, he was merely spray and praying to say the least.

To be clear, my intent isn't to demean you. I think you've provided some great posts here over the years. But the bar placement of when to use sighted fire and when to point-shoot is quite different for us.

[smince]

Regarding the video posted by threegun:

That's not really "running". That's a fast walk.

3. You can't actually see where the bullets are hitting, and that's a problem. The whole system ascribes to the theory that a fast hit outside of COM is better than a slower hit inside COM. That's a debatable theory.

I posted this on the "Shooting and Moving" thread:

While I've not personally trained with Roger (yet), I have trained with 11-12 guys who have. They (and he, I've been told) can keep their shots in a paper plate size group while moving (at whatever speed you consider that on the video to be).

Agree or not, a lot of the focus of Roger's PSP and the SI curriculum is to return fire while getting out of the line of fire of the BG. If I can run off line and not get hit, while causing the BG some pain, then I say I win.

What's more important in a gunfight: shooting or not getting shot yourself?

Another point to make in that video is it appears the person's shots on one string looked entirely too low. We're talking below the groin area and he worked his way up to COM. Not good. IMO, he was merely spray and praying to say the least.

Zipper technique: getting a few shots into the BG quickly and working your way up, causing his loop to be reset. More holes in=more blood out.

[smince]

Originally Posted by KellyTTE

In the big scheme of things, no one knows how they're going to react when someone acts to take their life. To comment or postulate otherwise is pure 100% weapons grade baloneyium.

So, you might possibly point-shoot in a life-or-death situation?

[KellyTTE]

What's more important in a gunfight: shooting or not getting shot yourself?

The equation is bigger than that. If you define situations in overly simplistic terms, you paint yourself into tactical corners.

Shooting? Not getting shot? Not shooting an innocent? Etc. Etc. Etc.

[smince]

Perhaps controversial, but when it hits the fan, you are not going to be concerned with misses and hitting some bystander. If you are the focus of the attacker...meaning he is specifically shooting at you or at a family member, forget the legal situation, background, everything else. If you do not react immediately, you will die.

In a fight for your life, thoughts of legal entanglements should be at the bottom of the list. If you are dead, legal stuff is meaningless.

[threegun]

You guys make some very valid points many of which I agree whole heartedly with. I shoot with sights whenever possible. The difference is I am under no delusion that I will be able to stand and deliver in the face of gunfire from an attacker at close ranges. I feel that my natural reaction is going to be to similar that of others I have seen on shootout videos and that is to run away from the threat then respond. Since I know that my shooting ability degrades while under duress it also degrades for the bad guy. Hence if I shoot while running away I increase my odds of survival. Movement and distance also makes hitting more difficult.

My goal is to win.....a win is staying uninjured. If my skills degrade and I miss every shot but walk away uninjured I win. Sure I could stand pat like you guys insist and exchange gunfire of which mine hopefully is more accurate. The reality is handgun bullets don't instantly stop except in rare cases and standing pat insures that I give my adversary the easiest target possible. Should my COM hits not instantly stop I am in immediate danger of death until the bad guy succumbs.

Yes it carrys a greater risk to bystanders but so does a shoot out period. Just because you are disciplined doesn't mean your adversary is. Your decision to fight back increases risks to all....should you guys throw away your permits? First duty is to stay alive, keeping bystanders safe is a close second.

[threegun]

Perhaps controversial, but when it hits the fan, you are not going to be concerned with misses and hitting some bystander. If you are the focus of the attacker...meaning he is specifically shooting at you or at a family member, forget the legal situation, background, everything else. If you do not react immediately, you will die.

In a fight for your life, thoughts of legal entanglements should be at the bottom of the list. If you are dead, legal stuff is meaningless.

Thank you!!!! Everybody wants a perfect world. Problem is it doesn't exist. Neither does a perfect single shooting system. Fights are dynamic and require many different responses in order to maximize survivability. The more you have the better. I feel that you will fight as you train. I don't believe that you will revert to point shooting during a long distance affair. I also don't believe that my friends who push standing pat and using the sights will do so while a bad guy is shooting at them from 3 yards away. It just goes against everything I have seen from actual footage.

[KellyTTE]

In a fight for your life, thoughts of legal entanglements should be at the bottom of the list. If you are dead, legal stuff is meaningless.

If you prevail and kill a innocent, your victory is pyrrhic. All of these are double edged swords.

[NRAhab]

I think the argument about shooting bystanders and legal ramifications applies moreso to training than the actual shooting. It's a pretty simple logic tree, actually:

1. Prior to any sort of fight, you decide that you don't want to shoot an innocent bystander.
2. You know that under stress, your accuracy will degrade significantly regardless of whether you point shoot or use the Modern Technique.
3. Point shooting places a higher emphasis on speed than accuracy. Zipper shooting, "any hit", etc are all techniques in which "poor" hits are considered acceptible.
4. Knowing again that accuracy degrades under stress, it stands to reason that "training" in a system that encourages poor accuracy means that in a stress environment, your hits will turn into misses.

It then follows quite logically to spend your time in training with techniques that focus on accuracy.

Also, as an aside: you don't win gunfights. You survive gunfights.

[smince]

3. Point shooting places a higher emphasis on speed than accuracy. Zipper shooting, "any hit", etc are all techniques in which "poor" hits are considered acceptible.

As I said in an above post: The 'inaccurate point-shooting' instructors I know can and do train people to keep their shots in a paper-plate sized group. I think that compares quite nicely to a scoring zones on most all paper training and LE targets.