The real reason for point shooting? *looking for opinions*

[Oleg Volk]

The two oft-sited reasons for point shooting are:

1)user won't be able to focus on the front sight -- that seems to have been disproved by reports of people who had done just that ina firefight

and

2)loss of eyeglasses, darkness combined with muzzle flash would make seeing the sights impossible -- those are possible but not necessary.

Here's why point shooting with handguns AND rifles (using the protective wings around the front sight or the heat shield as a rought guide) seems to be important: threats that require stopping are likely to move. Focus on the front sight might work well for a stationary or nearly stationary target but be less useful for anything that moves laterally or vertically (which would include COM of someone coming at you, even).

So, while using sights is useful in some cases (where precision is important, say firing at an aperture or around hostages), point shooting training would be as important.

As an experiment, release an air-filled baloon at a range where you can engage with safety even if it moves (might use an air gun) and see if shotgunning methods might work as well or better than using sights. Mind, I am knocking sights (upgrading mine to tritium or fiberoptic asap) but suggesting learning an alternate method.

Your thoughts on the logic or lack thereof?

[43Rob]

A good friend of mine returned from a LE course on building searches and they were using "blood bullets" in their prepared autos. Often the conditions were low light and firefights happened very rapidly. He said that he did not get to use his sights in a structured sence the entire time he was there. At best he got to use the front sight since he had night sights on his glock. I feel that rapid point shooting should be taught to LE for the reasons you already stated.

[beemerb]

Go out on a day when you have a light breeze.Get someone who will blow up all the ballons.Have someone release them upwind so the drift accros in front of you.They do everything but fly in a predictable pattern.Lots of fun and VERY good practice.If they are close point shoot and farther away catch front sight.
Point shooting in my opinion is a nessecity.Low light conditions or for down and dirty super fast close in shooting.
It surprising with practice how well you can do point shooting.

[C.R.Sam]

What Bob said plus.

Practice rapid acquisition of sight picture, after a while you will find that the gun is properly pointed even if you cant see one or both sights.

Ed McGivern was a hard man to beat, yet he taught his students to use the sights even when shooting thrown objects.

Shoot enough with the sights and point shooting will come naturally.

Sam...my navigation so good that we don't need fresh batteries for the GPS

[Elvis]

Oleg:

Referene point one in your post, where did you get your information about using front sights? Based upon what I know, sights are not a factor in the overwhelming majority of gunfights. Most cops react based upon their training. Remember, you play like you train.

When practicing at eight feet and closer, sights are never used. In fact, your gun should probably never reach shoulder level. Your first shot should come after clearing your holster! It's all point shooting, and speed with physical and mental faculties will determine outcome. Now I know a poster here advocates acquiring sight picture, and he wrote that a trainer told him this is the tactically correct response in a gunfight. However, to do so at such close range WILL cause your unnecessary exposure to danger.

There are too many variables in a gunfight to quantify them definitively. It is not so much to hit a moving target while remaining stationary; you must practice hitting a moving target while you're your moving away from a threat. Gunfights are not games. People who lose end up on pathologists' tables. Decisions have to be made immediately, and your life will depend on those decisions. Never forget this: THE ONLY PROVEN WAY TO SURVIVE A GUNFIGHT IS TO NOT GET IN ONE! If your decision is to engage, well, let me steal a portion of what has somehow become creed for some: PRAY! Pray not that you'll hit your target, but that the SOB trying to end your life doesn't hit his! This is the only praying I'll be doing while deploying advanced tactics that I have learned via hundreds, maybe thousands of hours of training and experience.


Until we meet you again,
E

[ctdonath]

I'm with Sam.

If your sights are not lined up on the target, whether by aiming or pointing or random happenstance, you won't hit the target. Period. The question then becomes: how do you ensure that the sights (and thus the barrel) are lined up on the target?

Sighted shooting

Sighted shooting lets you confirm that you are actually pointed at what you want to hit. Point, check, correct, fire. When practiced enough, you develop a "flash sight picture" where you have trained your body to point the gun at what you want and still have the benefit of a nearly instant visual check and have the option to make corrections as needed, and should for some reason you not be able to do the visual check you are still trained to hit what you want. The stresses of defensive shooting may very well induce errors in positioning, yet applying the visual check lets you correct those errors and hit the target.

Practicing sighted shooting can be done with dry firing: keep practicing the firing stroke, even without ammo, and you will learn to perform all necessary motions rapidly, even on moving targets (go hang a balloon in the back yard and go click away at it); obviously using full-power ammo is necessary for training, but you can make a lot of progress without it.

I belive that there is a moral aspect here as well. If you're going to shoot in defense, you have a moral obligation to do what you reasonably can to ensure you do hit the target and don't hit anyone else instead.

There are plenty of cases of defensive shooters saying they aimed, fired, problem over. If it didn't work, the problem was likely that the shot - usually well-placed - simply didn't work, which is an issue of biology and not of firing techniques.

There are times when sighted fire is pretty plainly not necessary, such as at contact distance or just a few feet beyond. Sighted shooting, however, does not much degrade one's performance in this case, except perhaps when doing so is an attempt to push the gun through the target. Such no-sighting-necessary cases are obvious; I presume you will not take these cases to absurd lengths.

Point shooting

Point shooting is more trial-and-error. Whatever technique used (whether Applegate's skeletal alignment, or even the preposterous "point with index finger and pull with middle finger" method) you won't know whether you hit until you examine the target. With practice, one can still get good at this and be quite confident of hit probability (extreme case: the guy who point-shoots tossed quarters). The problem is that ultimately you won't know if/how you hit the target until you assess the situation, and under the extreme stress of defensive shooting I would expect exaggerated errors in positioning which you won't recognize until post-firing assessment.

Practicing point shooting requires ammo. If you're not visually checking the sights as the firing pin drops, you won't know if you've hit until you check afterwards. Dry-firing practice of point shooting is a non-sequitor.

Under the stress of defensive shooting, are you really morally comfortable with sending flying death downrange, especially in a populated area, without some kind of feedback confirmation that the bullet will hit the intended target?

A point-shooting advocate makes a big deal (appropriately) about the target moving and the shooter moving. This fact of gunfights greatly enhances the downside of point shooting: lack of feedback. On top of the errors induced by not accurately knowing where the gun is actually pointing, both the shooter and target induce greater error by their movements, severely degrading the ability to point accurately at the target. In such a case, visual feedback becomes vital to correct the errors and ensure a hit; firing a second shot to cover for a missed shot takes far longer than ensuring that the first shot will hit.

At very close distances, point shooting is quite applicable as hand-eye coordination is ingrained and the chance of missing is very low. Problem is beyond more than a few feet one cannot reliably hit a target, particluarly the notably smaller vital areas.

Spray-and-pray

Don't confuse point shooting with spray-and-pray, the latter being a largely untrained process of just sending lots of lead in a general direction in the hopes that something might hit the target. While it occasionally works, it mostly just wastes lead and quickly disarms the shooter.

Hybrids

There are hybrids of sighted and point shooting, the key being awareness of the front sight. Knowing where the front sight is is certainly better than not knowing, and can extend some point-shooting techniques to farther distances and improve accuracy at close range.

Issues

All that said, consider a few points.
- The more you know about the position of your sights, the more accurate your shot will be, and thus more effective.
- Visual feedback permits correction and ensures confidence before firing; without visual feedback you will rely more on the target's reaction for shot confidence, which is a bit late.
- Sighted fire does take longer than point shooting per shot, but firing a second shot takes much longer than assuring the first one will go where you want.
- Increased distance rapidly magnifies errors; minimize the error as much as possible.

Training

Whatever technique you choose, TRAIN. There are a lot of videos showing cops, trained in sighted fire, badly missing targets at all distances - saying that this demonstrates a failing of sighted fire and a reason for point shooting is silly as the problem is a lack of training and practice; doesn't matter what your technique, if you don't train adequately, you won't apply it right when needed.

Conclusion

The mantra "front sight, press" works. At extremely close ranges it may not be necessary, but beyond a few feet it becomes increasingly vital.

Obviously, do what you can to get away.

If you're shooting, you're doing so because it's the only way to stop an attack. You want to make sure you hit that target, and taking a couple milliseconds to ensure you're actually going to will ensure you will. Without visual feedback you greatly increase your chance of missing, and in turn give the assailant much more time to kill you.

(I could be completely wrong. I'd love to hear rational explainations why, plus concrete examples. In previous point-vs-aim discussions I've been dismayed by the personal attacks and lack of rational discourse from the point-shooting camp; please show me better.)

[VictorLouis]

I am a former LE firearms instructor. My training, and that which I passed on was sights, Sights, SIGHTS. Before I left 5yrs. ago, the 'Speed Rock', or some manifestation of exteme close-quarters body indexing was being explored in my advanced classes. But, if the distance allowed for the extension of your arm(s) into your preferred stance, you were encouraged to do so.

Remember, we all recite the mantra of "You will fight as you train". Yet, we also know that it takes literally thousands of repetitive motions to totally absord a technique. We also know that the VAST majority of LEOs will not undertake this on their own, nor is there any training budget so large as to allow for it. The cop's that are winning their fights are firearms instructors, or the hard-core, dedicated 'gunny' types.

After much research and experimentation, I now advocate both methods. "Front sight" will allow most of them to get qualified. But, the Non-dedicated personnel should be provided the fighting chance that they need under the grip of primal fear. For the 'dedicated' types who are as yet, untested, they will also benefit should they also succumb. Remember, you never really, truly know until it happens to you.

[Oleg Volk]

I get neater groups when using sights. However, I am under impression that people who revert to point shooting after being trained to use sights and then miss are doing so in part because they don't know how to point shoot either. IOW, being trained in both gives you a choice, defaulting to an unpracticed technique for lack of training is the worst of both choices.

My guess is that most of a defensive shooting is shoot-don't shoot decision which requires figuring out what's going on and thus a focus on the target.

[ctdonath]

Oleg,
Being trained in both certainly gives you a choice IF you know both well enough to apply either AND can think clearly enough to choose which one. Those who don't know one method well enough to apply it at the right time won't do any better if their training time has been divided into two techniques, each of which gets roughly half the training time that wasn't even good enough for one technique.

The prime example is cops trained to aim yet are videotaped not using that technique. Information on how much training these particular cops had, and their frequency of practice, is critical to the discussion yet is suspiciously not forthcoming.

People will use what they learned IF they spend enough time learning and practicing for it to stick. If they don't, they won't use it regardless of the technique. Ultimately, the responsibility for learning falls on the student, and no technique an no amount of resources will help if the student simply doesn't study and practice. Teach the student the right way and give resources to practice; the rest is up to him.

[dvc]

I only use 'point shooting' from contact distances out to arms length. And that's from a retention position.

Beyond that, you want to get out of the 'hole' and increase the distance between you and your assailant. As you are moving, you will be using the sights and firing on the move.

You will react as you have trained. It *is* automatic. If you do not train, you should.

Lets not forget that point shooting beyond arms length opens the 'liability' issue. You are responsible for all shots fired. All shots must be and will be accounted for.

I believe that people who favor point shooting beyond arms length are people who are generally unable to shoot with both eyes open. Which is a disability (and liability) that must be overcome through training.

[Elvis]

Victor:

Help me out here. Your comment about the cops who are winning gunfights are firearms instructors or "hardcore gunny types," leaves me confused. Approaching this conversely, cops lose unless they are in the aforementioned categories. Can you point me in the direction of your research that confirms your hypothesis? Your position, if determined to be true, begets the following two questions: If gunfights are won mostly by those in your aforementioned two categories, and that cops not in one of the two categories mostly lose, why have cops in the field who are not in one of your categories? Following, if law enforcement agencies know to be factual that which you write, would there be moral and liability reasons associated with not correcting said problem? I know there would!

I, too, have worked training where we had to keep abreast of up-to-date profiles of law enforcement shootings. As you're probably well aware, and I think you touched on it in your post, training went though a radical transition period circa 1988. It became more scientifc, emphasizing actual physiological processes that are predicted to occur duing use of deadly force situations. Where cops were once trained to stand in combat crouch with handgun in both hands at the end of isosceles triangle while attempting to deliver accurate shots to their adversaries, research proved this detrimental to surviving gunfights. Criminals shoot back, and in the aforementioned stance, cops were too vulnerable. As a result tactics evolved based upon science.

Additionally, up until recently, firearms was taught mostly by cops with military backgrounds. It was assumed that what was good for Uncle Sam had to be good for street cops. Unfortunately, this philosophy is not in conformity with the mission of law enforcement. The military accepts casualties. I trained MP's, and I disheartened to watch them willingly trade their lives with suspects. It was a hard habit to break. Cops, on the other hand, do not accept casualties. When they occur, to either good or bad guys, it is not accepted as a part of doing business. Use of deadly force incidents are reviewed at considerable time and expense in effort to determine why what happened the way did and to determine if there is a better way of doing business. As a result, in many of the recent training courses I have attended, ex-military personnel are nowhere near as represented as they once were. Now, most of the instructors attend POST and FBI firearms instructor schools. These instructors are likely to possess advanced college degrees, and they have keen insight into scientific facts. It is business as usual no more, and apparently for the better, as officer fatalities due to gunfights has plunged since the introduction of current training methods. In short, advanced tactics is critical to survival, and the methods now taught are proven to work!


Joe, Joe, where's my rhinestone studded jumpsuit?
E

[Oleg Volk]

I keep both eyes open whether using sights or not.

One argument is for using sights and larger calibers even if that means slower firing rate. I just wonder if sighted fire can be applied to a rapidly moving target or if shotgunning techniques ought to be considered.

[Elvis]

dvc:

Do you know of a justified use of deadly force incident where shots were fired and an ensuing suit found the justified party legally responsible for shots that missed? Think about that for a minute. If you knew that in a justified use of deadly force incident where your life was on the line, would you be reluctant to shoot back if you knew a shot fired in good faith but misses its target might financially ruin you? Can you point me in the direction of training you have had that teaches this? Are you aware of law or legal theory that buttresses your position?

How can you be sure your target is not going to move when you fire? Using your logic, should one not expect an adversary to move? Therefore, should you not shoot where he is going to be, as opposed to where he is? If you shoot where he was but missed because he is no loger there, are you legally responsible for that round? What about shots that strike their target, but result in through-and-through wounds and the projectile hits something unintended? Why, under your theory, would you not be responsible for that round, since such wounds are quite common in humans?

God forbid, in a use of deadly force situation, the suspect is responsible under the felony murder rule for the murder of an innocent person as a result of a gunfight. The suspect has the duty to submit, not vice versa; nor must a cop unnecessarily place himself in danger because a suspect wants to kill him.

However, I do not know how this squares with one not protected by the law pursuant to effecting justice. I will admit I have no training in non-sworn use of deadly force.



I'll remember you, long after this...,
E

[Elvis]

By the way, I have tried but I cannot recall a shootout where an innocent person was injured or killed. I know it can happen, and it probably has, but it is rare, and it's the exception, not the rule. People are really pretty smart: Once shooting starts, they get out of the way. The FBI Miami shootout is illustrative of this point.

Get the "Lisa Marie" ready, I want a fried peanut butter sandwich,
E

[ctdonath]

E-
You seem unaware that current sighted-fire training includes doing so while moving, behind cover, at moving targets, etc. Squatting out in the open in an unmoving position while expecting your target to not move is of course preposterous and of course will get you killed - just as point-shooting will if you do the same thing.

[Doug 29]

Oleg, practice point shooting. Your own experience will then guide you. If someone is not sure HOW they'll react with a gun, under stress, then they should leave the durn thing home!

[Oleg Volk]

If you ever switch guns (i.e. carry a G17 one day and an NAA mini another). If the distance if great.

My test was a shopping bag (about the side of a human COM) flailing in the wind. By point shooting I meant "arms extended in Weaver-half Weaver-isoceles and looking right over the sights". I'd save real point-shooting (from the chest out or from retention) for real close range IF that). What I was contrasting was using my outstretched arms as pointers and taking the time to re-forus onthe front sight, not always even possible with guns like the Makarov.

[Art Eatman]

I've never understood the "either-or" nature of this argument. To me, the particular set of circumstances determines how one uses any weapon of whatever sort.

I grant this example is from a game, but anyway: Starting with the left hand on the shoulder of an IPSC target, draw and fire until you run dry, backing away as you do so. For me, the first shot was from the hip. The second and third (and sometimes fourth) were fired with my hand moving up toward a Weaver stance. Usually, by the fourth or fifth shot I was three steps back and into the Weaver stance and thus aiming for the final shots. I was usually "dry" by the fifth step. I found it very easy to put all eight or nine rounds into the center of the admittedly stationary target.

The point is that the first three or four shots were fired without using the sights, yet I hit every time. Heck, I sure ought to, that close. I was also moving while shooting. Then, I wound up with clearance away from the "Bad Guy", and in full control of the weapon for aimed fire--if necessary, at other targets.

It is thus my personal opinion that one should train in more than one style of shooting, and I believe that circumstances dictate the style with which you begin "the party". There just ain't no "one size fits all".

My $0.02, Art

[Elvis]

ct:

My man, we're just going to have to disagree. If you can run, line up your sights and fire at your adbversary, you're a better man than me. There is no way I can run, track my adversary, line up my handgun's sights and fire. I wonder if it is possoible to do so, afterall I know of no one can run w/o jarring their upper body. But I will ad that if you're not compromised by taking the time to line up your sights, that is, if your adversary is that far away that you can do so w/o risk, by all means do so. I know I would take every advantage afforded me. But when your adversary is that far away, you must first resolve whether you should even engage. A tactical retreat might be the better way to go, and thus live.

Good luck, and use what works bets for you.

Art, you seem to be well trained. Did you come across this method on your own, or did someone teach it to you?


Football's on,
E

[4V50 Gary]

How about old eyes and trifocal glasses?

[VictorLouis]

Elvis, as usual I failed to adequately expound on my statement. Nearly every LEO instructor trainer that I have ever encountered, or read about has been in at least one, or more than one gunfight. Col.Cooper, Gabe Suarez, Jim Cirillo, John Farnam, Clint Smith etc.. The three gents heading up my own academy training in S. Florida were all multi-fight survivor's. All of them were, and remain, 'gun guys' today. I've yet to encounter any line trainer that is not a firearms enthusiast of some sort.

The dismal failure of today's training continues to be documented repeatedly. The FBI analyses OISs, and NYPD issues their annual SOP-9 report. The 'hit ratio', to total shots fired, is still under 30%, IIRC. Yet, most LEOs have no trouble 'qualifying' at 70%-75% minimum standard. What we see in videotape documention of OIS does not reflect what is still the stalwart core of the training community. IOW, there is little, if any effort shown towards a firing stance, or bringing the weapon up to line-of-sight level, which would reflect some attempt at using the sights. What we do see is the gun thrust forward in an iscoceles style, an 'instintive' crouch, and looking OVER the gun at the source of the threat. This is in our physical make-up.

Yes, it can, and is, overcome through intense training. The kind that 'gun-guys' put themselves through. The kind that the Spec Ops community puts themselves through. The kind that instructors do. They all share some things, like committment, interest in what they are doing, and time/effort.
The line cop in this country is just NOT in that league. Yes, some of them do come out on top in fights. I would, however, contend that it is not so much as a result of their 'training', as it is to the lack of any on the part of the BG, as well as pure luck.

As a trainer, we owe it to those personnel to incorporate some methods which can give them an extra edge. Exercises which build on the body's inherent reaction to fright. For example, why are we still insisting on a rigid upright stance when it is quite likey they'll revert to a crouched geometric point? Why do we still shoot 1/2 of a course of fire or more at 15yds. or greater, when most OIS occur at under 10yds. Why is most of our training in daylight, when most of it hits-the-fan in darkness, or under streetlight. Why do we continue to enforce a 'double-tap', when two may not be enough. Why not have some lateral and rearward movement be put into the mix, at the short targets? Why not have simulate cover available
at all but contact distance, and chastise them as needed when they are oblivious to it?

All I can say is, I use to be one of the point-fire naysayers UNTIL I actually got out and experimented. And I don't mean with the rest of one box of ammo you have left over after a tiring day at the range. I mean starting fresh, leaving my biases at home. Staying close, where it works, and where most fights go down. Give it a couple of honest effort afternoons, and maybe it will change your mind too.

[Oleg Volk]

One reason why I dislike point shooting is the cost of gettin ggood at it and the embarrassment of missing much at first. So, my suggestion is to start with a .22

[ninenot]

I can't claim to be overly practiced in the method, but I read Applegate's book and it seemed to make sense--so I tried it out a couple of times. Besides skeletal alignment and the crouch, which A. considers critical, he recommends that one use the index finger alongside the framerail (to establish a valid "point") UNTIL you'e halfway from the beginning of your motion (arm fully extended at about 45 degrees) to pointing dead at the target--then move the index finger to the trigger. It works. Only times it has failed for me is when I forget the FIRST rule, which is: concentrate your vision UTTERLY on the targeted area of your opponent. That's why the shot is 'sighted,' even if it's called "point shoot"--you pull the trigger when your front sight breaks your line of vision. The fact that the front sight and the weapon are all of a piece is germane. It is really 'non-sighted' sighted shooting.

[ctdonath]

There is no way I can run, track my adversary, line up my handgun's sights and fire.

To hit the target, the sights still have to be lined up on the target, whether you are visually checking them or they coincidentally happen to be that way when you pull the trigger. You can either hope to God that you're on target when you pull the trigger, or you can visually check & correct. If the former, you'll probably miss, which means you've just given the BG more time to kill you.

If you have some data demonstrating the effectiveness of spray-and-pray, I'd love to see it.

[Dr.Rob]

Art be careful not to shoot yourself in your off hand.

I learned to do a retention shot to keep your off hand close to your body, FBI style over your heart, etc.. mainly to keep from sweeping your off hand with the muzzle.

Hip shooting, ala retention shooting/siderock etc is not "point shooting" in the standard sense but TRY this while dry firing.

Stick your elbow into yor hip and lock your wrist. As you move around your envioronment think of your gun like pointing your finger, but don't move your wrist and elbow. You'll find that as you move your elevation with the weapon changes very little. Try it.

As for engaging moving targets, i train to shoot on the move, that's something I didn't do before IDPA. Any training with moving targets is good, wheter its live game or clay pigeons. The real point is train train train.