Awesome post sweatn.
This is a discussion on Interesting read about sight shooting in self defense situations within the Defensive Carry Guns forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Aimed practice can degrade into acceptable point shooting. Point shooting practice will NEVER upgrade into good aimed fire. That would be an absolute myth perpetrated ...
That would be an absolute myth perpetrated by those that do not know what they do not know. I have taught countless student how to transition from point shooting to sighted fire, by doing nothing more than transitioning their focus. Eye/hand coordination is what puts the gun on target. The sights are nothing more than the final 2%-5% verification.Aimed practice can degrade into acceptable point shooting.
Point shooting practice will NEVER upgrade into good aimed fire.
If we use the historical definition of point shooting. (If your focus is on the threat, then you are point shooting) type one and type two focus, used by the very best shooters in the world, is point shooting. The top competitors in the world used to debate with the point shooters. Finally an open minded Grand Master competitor took the time to see what it is that point shooters taught. What he found was that we do many things the exact same way.
That debate, between those two groups of shooters, disappeared over night.
Ignorance and semantics has been the curse of this debate. There are people out there that do not have the knowledge or the skills, making up new terms for point shooting, that believe that their perception of point shooting does not work. It is their perception that is inaccurate......not the skill set.
When is comes to ignorance, Suarez International has trained thousands of student in properly structured Force on Force (FOF).
We have not had one "die hard sights guy" leave the course without understanding the importance of point shooting.
If you think that you are the king hombre with your sights......come on out to a FOF course and try to teach us that we are wrong. Many people have tried.......every one of them walked away knowing that they were ignorant before they had their epiphany. We had one very stubborn fellow who swore on the Holy Bible that he was using his sights in up close reactive FOF situations. We then showed him that the airsoft gun that he had borrowed did not have sights on it.
They had broken off the the gun months ago.
"You do not know what you do not know" is the curse of this debate. The answer is.......come on out and show us......prove it! If you do, you would be the first out of thousands. This debate has all but been wiped off the face of the earth due to the ability to call people out in FOF. It is no longer a bunch of keyboard commandos typing uninformed opinions.......it is mock gun fight, after mock gun fight, for two days straight.
Reality has a way of making uninformed people just go away.
BTW, point shooting is aimed fire just as it is with a three point shot, a pitch in baseball, and shooting a long bow. Niether have sights but we aim with eye/hand coordination and we make the shot/pitch/hit.
Last edited by Sweatnbullets; January 2nd, 2011 at 11:04 PM.
Awesome post sweatn.
"Just blame Sixto"
Which One First?
Now that Suarez International has two seperate offerings when it comes to entry level handgun courses, I keep being asked the same question, "which one first?"
"Do I start off with the fundamentals of marksmanship or do I start off with the fundamentals of point shooting?"
First things first! The most important thing to know, is that where ever you start you need to absolutely own both skill sets and you must learn to seamlessly integrate the two.
With that perfectly clear, which one you concentrate on first all depends on your situation. Conventional thinking is that you learn the fundamentals of marksmanship first. This is a very good way to go and is the path that I took. In the vast majority of cases, this is the best way to go.
But, there are no hard rules. The situation is always the dictating factor.
If you have a situation where your life went from a low threat level to a very high threat level, over night, you may want to break away from conventional thinking. If you are in such a situation and you need "the most likely" taken care of "right now," you may want to look at the fundamentals of point shooting first.
Over the last four years, I have been in a very unique position to see things that very few people will ever see. This position is where I have neewbies coming to me to learn point shooting first. I have been in the unique position to see an "apple to apple comparison" between the whole "which one first" question. This is an unique experience that very few people have ever had the chance to be part of. This gives me a perspective on the subject that very few will ever see.
If you "need" something that you can rely on "right now" learning point shooting first definitely has it's advantages. The "definitley" part of that would come from emperical data that I have collected over the last five years.
What is very cool about the SI curriculum is how consistant it is in application over different catagories. What we teach you in the marksmanship courses applies to your point shooting skill sets. And what we teach you in the point shooting courses applies to your marksmanship skill sets.
The eye/hand coordination to focus on a targeted point and draw your gun directly to that point, in a linear fashion, will put you 95%-98% there. The sights are nothing more than the final 2%-5% verification.
Eye/hand coordination is the King!
Whether you keep your focus on the targeted point, or you bring the focus back to the point that you drawing your front sight out to, is a very minor part of the equation inside of seven yards.
But, as we come full circle, outside of seven yards you should have the time and the distance to allow you to get the focus off of the threat and back to the point where you are drawing your front sight out to. Any situation where we have the time (distance = time) we should be striving to get to our sights.
As we do this, it is still the eye/hand cordination that puts the aim 95% -98% on the targeted point. So even if you have the time to get to the sights, lock onto a point to facilitate starting your eye/hand coordination. Once you have initiated the eye/hand coordination, begin to bring that focus back to the point that you will be drawing the front sight out to.
This consistancy allows us to be better at each skill set, even when we are working on the other skill set.
Back to the "Which one first" question, if you are in a position where the logistics force you to take point shooting before the fundamentals of marksmanship...........no problem! If you learn point shoting first, just keep an open mind. Realize that you still need sighted fire. If the two are taught correctly, you will see a ton of overlap and how well they integrate into one "just shoot the dirtbag!" concept.
If you can, go fundamentals of marksmanship first.
This is all a very personal decision that no one but you is in the position to judge. Nobody knows your situation as well as you do. Think it through, make your decision, and do not look back.
I'm here to tell you, either way it will be just fine.
I never thought of it this way. Cool.BTW, point shooting is aimed fire just as it is with a three point shot, a pitch in baseball, and shooting a long bow. Niether have sights but we aim with eye/hand coordination and we make the shot/pitch/hit.
"For the Lord your God will bless you in all your harvest and in all the work of your hands." Deuteronomy 16:15
Thanks for making a reference to an article on my site. Ran across it when reviewing site reference links for 11/1/11.
I am a proponent of what I call AIMED Point Shooting or P&S. No need for a URL here as one can find it via Google.
That you have made pro and con comments on the subject is good.
I just finished an updated and revised extended brief on the P&S method of shooting.
It is a work in progress and addresses the following:
- what it is,
- how to do it,
- why it gets you automatic and correct sight alignment and an automatic and correct sight picture,
- why it requires little or no training or practice for use when still or moving, and against moving targets, even aerials - though that does require some practice,
- what the US Army says about or instinctive ability to rapidly and accurately point at targets,
- why you can't use the sights in a real life threat situation,
- what the NRA says about shot groups and that Sight Shooting is not the best option for use in real life threat situations,
- why shooting with the middle finger on the trigger is the fact driven way to shoot,
- why you will have a crush grip on your gun in combat, which will make your sissy three fingered range/marksmanship grip moot,
- why the P&S 4 fingered grip provides you with a better and strong and level shooting platform,
- info on the design flaw of the much beloved and treasured 1911, which bears heavily on the way folks shoot in the USA,
- plus a general comment.
The method also works great with and is not a bar to Sight Shooting and most all other Point Shooting methods.
Most all of the articles, stats, and info on my sight on self defense and CQB can be used and shared as you see fit.
My name is John Veit.
Thanks for your interest and stay safe.
I pretty much agree BUT, there are some possible scenarios that I can envision where a "dead on POI" laser would be incredibly helpful/useful. Admittedly rare and atypical instances (for civilians) but remember that there is no such thing as a typical self-defense situation. Things will never be exactly as you believe or imagine they will be.
So...if folks can afford a laser system and it won't affect the operation of the firearm it would be prudent to add one for that "just in case" possible event.
Also folks with certain vision related problems should absolutely invest is an accessory laser sight system.
Point shooting debates are just like zombies........they're really hard to kill and they require "bbbbrrrains."
Great set of postings Sweatnbullets, and I don't think anyone could have presented the concept with better wording or in a more comprehensive manner. While I'm not any type of qualified instructor (nor do I have patience or desire for such), I am a military combat veteran and LEO from times past who learned the skill and extreme merit of point-shooting many years ago before getting into those critical situations. While I've stopped a few bullets in both past careers, I'm only here today because the skill of accurate point-shooting put my bullet in a fatal and/or knock-down spot fast enough to either interrupt or forcefully turn the "aiming process" of the opposition enough for his bullet to miss or hit a non-fatal spot.
I agree that sighted marksmanship is a basic skill that should be available for seamless incorporation with point-shooting when immediate circumstances of the moment allows enough time to aim (whether that extra time is present before the first shot or comes as a result of the first shot). However, when times are highly critical and your very life may be contingent upon the difference of 1/4 second, there is simply NO time to take a proper stance, get a sight-picture, and/or look around for a lazer spot on a target who's only 5-degrees away in active swing from having the muzzle of his weapon aligned to make that shot you'll never hear.
While it's of lesser importance than saving your life in a critical self-defense situation, there is a very important potential legal aspect of point-shooting vs. slower aimed/sighted shooting (which military combat people don't usually have to worry about) that can be of major significance to LE or civilians - the civil court system. Even though a shooting situation (either fatal or non-fatal) may be fully justified and non-prosecutable under criminal law statutes for self-defense, you can bet there will be a virtual army of hungry lawyers ready to sue you (on behalf of the family) for everything you have in civil court because your actions violated Freddie's civil rights and terminated his ability to father another 12 illegitimate children and/or continue earning an income for his dependents (even though it is via selling crack, mugging innocent victims, or knocking off a liquor store once a week).
I have witnessed far too many sad events where a self-defense shooting was deemed fully justified by criminal statutes but ended up costing the shooter thousands of dollars in legal expenses to defend him/herself in civil court. A key factor in either criminal or civil court will always be the question of "how much time did you have to react to the alledged threat to your life?" If time was so critical that you point-shot Freddie to stop an instant threat to your life, you are legally blessed. If you had enough time to raise and sight-aim your weapon (or plant a laser spot), then questions will arise regarding (1) why didn't you use that time to duck or run instead of aiming and willfully "assassinating" Freddie? or (2) If you had time to sight and aim at Freddie, why didn't you simply aim to wound him and stop the threat instead of purposely aiming to end his income-producing career with a bullet between his eyes or prevent him from fathering more offspring by an aimed shot placed somewhere else?
This guys view...
But this guy shows how effective point shooting can be...
Last edited by twc; November 3rd, 2011 at 05:27 AM.
Thank you, Even though I am qualified to teach nearly 24 Suarez International courses, this is my specialty. Here is something that you may find interesting on this topic.Great set of postings Sweatnbullets, and I don't think anyone could have presented the concept with better wording or in a more comprehensive manner.
Questions From a LEO Trainer
I received this E-mail from a WT member and respected LEO trainer just recently and felt that many of us might learn something from it. As a WT member and due to the quality of the questions, I will warn against any bashing whatsoever.
My responses are going to be in bold.
Thank you for your prompt response. I currently teach point shooting as a part of my training program. I have a couple of questions/beliefs as to where point shooting fits into a training program. As I read Warrior Talk, at times it seems that some (I have never seen you indicate this) believe that all gunfight training is/should be point shooting.
There is a phenomenon out there where students take what they were taught and take it way too far, for ease let's call it "The Too Far Phenomenon" (TTFP.) Many students have a horrible habit of taking something that they have learned, presented within the proper context, then forget all about the proper context that they were taught and isolate the technique only. They then try to apply the technique outside of proper context that the technique was presented. TTFP runs rampant throughout self defense training and has for centuries. Current firearm training is no different. No matter how hard the Instructor tries to present the correct contextual/conceptual approach, the lazy student, the closed minded student, the over the top KISS student, and the student that was not paying attention becomes a perpetuator of the TTFP. It becomes a constant fight for the Instructor to keep these students from bastardizing what they were actually taught. This bastardization leaves the offending student in a very dangerous place due to their intentional or unintentional ignorance and closed mindedness. My Point Shooting Progression (PSP) covers eight different methods to aim the gun. Every single one has their place where they reign supreme over the remaining options. I can confidently say that there is not one PSP student that believes that point shooting is all that they need. It may be "the most likely" thing that they need, but far from being all that they need. The PSP course covers from one inch out to 25 yards and any point shooter worth is salt knows that point shooting is not going to get it done out past 7-10 yards. "See what you need to see" has been a staple of shooting since Brian Enos book in the 1980's. The very best shooters in the world use the "types" of focus laid down in that book. "Type one" and "type two" focus are both point shooting under the historical definition of point shooting.
This I believe is wrong. I have currently teach and will continue to teach (Until something shows different) that point shooting is a means to an end. That end being the eventual acquisition and use of the sights.
I tell everyone of my students that my priority is to get to my sights. My exact quote is this;
"Inside of a gunfight, there is nothing more than I want to see than a perfect sight picture. If I can get a perfect sight picture, that means that I am in a dominant position and that is where I want to be. But the reality is that within the civilian context I will most likely not be in a dominant position. Most likely I will be behind in the reactionary curve, inside of a retention problem, in low light, with both me and the adversary moving dynamically, while deep inside of the activation of the sympathetic nervous system, which will most likely dilate my pupils and make it impossible to focus on anything small and up close. While my priority is to get on my sights, I will not die trying to get to something that just may not be possible. What I am about to teach you is not a replacement for sighted fire, it is a supplement to sighted fire. We will look at the tools that will allow you to be as deadly as you can possible in the very worse of situations......the most likely of situations."
If students choose to disregard the context that is set out, that is at their own peril. I make it very clear that I love my sights, that they are my priority, and that I can make consistent hits with them out to 100 yards (and we have courses for that and I do teach them.)
That end being the eventual acquisition and use of the sights.
We look at things differently. My "ends" is all about winning the fight. I do not care how that happens. I do not have to concern myself with Departmental liability. All I have to concern myself with is teaching my students to be as deadly as they can possibly be in a legal manner. Whether they see the sights or not, it is all about doing what you need to do to be as efficient and effective as possible. I do not favor one technique over another. I favor what is the most efficient and effective skill set dictated by the situation. "See what you need to see" is a very fluid concept and lends itself very well to transitioning to the sights when the situation actually does allow it.
"Situations dictate strategy, strategy dictate tactics, and tactics dictate techniques.......techniques should not dictate anything."
I read and followed a thread briefly after a video of Kyle Lamb talking negatively about point shooting. I was put back it seemed he was being trashed by the masses.
A classic case of TTFP. He was taught to hate point shooting, so he does.......with an over the top passion. If he could break away from his TTFP and actually looked at the skill sets with an unbiased mind, he would see the astronomical errors of his closed minded ways. This is why he got jumped on by the masses. The masses (civilians) do not have to follow orders, are allowed to question everything, are not held back by policy or tradition, have the ability to test everything to their hearts content, and are only looking to be as deadly as they can possibly be within the constraints of a busy and full life outside of being paid to train or having the full resources of the American Government at their disposal.
His mistakes were in his wording. The statements were so designed to make anyone considering point shooting to be made to look stupid. The phrasing was crafted in a manner to discourage anyone from even experimenting with the concept. His problem comes because there is a very large group of highly trained people that know for a fact how ludicrous his words were. Not only were they ludicrous but they were designed to insult. So, as in anything one insult leads to the next. It does not matter what kind of "expert" people think they are, if they are not an expert on the topic being discussed it is best to not comment, because the experts and the people that they have taught will point out how little knowledge is actually being displayed. It is not about a silly little debate or about marketing......it is about "life or death." The people that have actually put in the time on a certain topic will understand the significance of the "life or death" aspect of it and will not sit back and allow ignorance to be perpetuated. Their knowledge and experience was hard earned and does not deserved to be portrayed as stupid like it was. Since those videoed comments were extremely condescending towards those that had obviously put in a lot more time and effort than he had put in (which was clear from the numerous ignorant statements and the parroting of things that had obviously been heard but never tested) there is not too much surprise in the masses jumping on him like they did. It really turned out to be a bad marketing ploy in my eyes. His context is very different from a civilian context, if he had added some context to his remarks it would not have turned out so badly for him. But like many other trainers, the civilian context is never even considered. Most trainers only look at the context from where they are teaching from. I've trained hundreds of LEO's who have paid their own way into my courses and they often angrily comment on one thing to me after the course....and I will quote the general anguish.
"Why hasn't anyone ever taught me this before?!"
I am sure that you know the answer to that question.
Unfortunately most Departments will not allow the teaching of solid, combat proven, life saving concepts due to fear of Departmental Liability. Officer survival takes a back seat to Departmental Liability. That is an example of the context that you have to deal with and I can not begrudge you for that. I know you want the best for your guys. But the reality is that you may not be able to teach some of the things that you would like to.
I have never met the man, but I have listened to his views as I have listened to many others views, on the subjects of shooting and fighting with firearms. I went back and watched and LISTENED to his statement several times. In it he states that at if someone is right on top of us pointing the weapon and eliminating the threat. So I think that he also believes that point shooting has a place. Once again I cannot say what his motivation was or is in his training as I have never met him.I bring this up because I was very happy to see you start a thread about attacking an other's war bag.
Context is everything, without the correct context of the training being established up front, everything that follows means less. I've discussed a lot with you about the civilian context, but is it really that much different from what your patrol cops might have to deal with? Sure you want to teach them to dominate the action, to take the initiative, and to keep it. That stuff is essential and relatively easy to teach.........but what about when they are behind in the reactionary curve, when they have lost the initiative? You know when the fight is the type of the very worse of situations. Do you hope that their sighted fire skills will lead to good hits even when they cannot get to their sights..........or do you just teach them how to point shoot using the very best of combat proven methodologies? Fights like this are all about confidence. Do you want them semi confident that their sighted fire skills will allow them to point shoot? Or do you want them to absolutely own the eye/hand coordination of point shooting and know for a fact that they can get the hits no matter what the situation is? I tend to follow the second manner of thinking. If I can teach a man to point shoot out to 10 yards at a full sprint, then I know that this man knows what he is really capable of. I know that he has it down cold and that his confidence will soar inside of logical gunfighting distances. The PSP course is designed to instill this level of confidence in two days and has been amazingly successful. But, the closed mindedness, the dogma, the policies, the traditions, etc, etc have to be cleared off of the table. The failed idea that the students are inept and can only be as good as you teach them to be has to be removed. The instructor must understand how amazing the human machine really is and allow the student to reach his true ability through natural, instinctive, and reflexive concepts.
I have seen point shooting used as an excuse for missing, I would not at all be surprised if you had experienced this as well before someone has received training on point shooting. Basically they were seeking to assigned blame for their lack of ability.
This is an easy one! If one does not have solid training in point shooting......they are not point shooting to even close to its full potential! Solid point shooting training is not all that common or easily available. The traditional stationary point shooting is entry level at best and is not something that I consider solid.......not solid at all. It is just scratching the surface to what the amazing human machine is really capable of.
I will say that many make point shooting out to be simple but in fact I tend to think of it as an advanced skill that takes a great deal of understanding in how to "aim" for point shooting.
It is an entry level skill set and an extremely advanced skill set. Fairbairn and Sykes trained their officers with 36 rounds. I taught my 16 year old daughter how to drill the thoracic cavity at seven yards with point shooting in five minutes.
It also reigns supreme in night fighting, engaging while clearing, behind in the reactionary curve, when both you and the adversary are moving dynamically, during the activation of the sympathetic nervous system, inside of the retention concept, during the integration of H2H, and while sprinting to every direction on the clock.
All too many don't understand or know how their sights really work or know what level of accuracy they can obtain using their body to index their handguns or parts of their handgun that can be used as aiming points.
Agreed! Most do not know!
Last I would ask if I understand your view is if possible sights should be used, however understanding that close range attacks may make this almost impossible, and point shooting techniques help solve this problem.
Absolutely! Here is what I say in every course.
"Get as much visual input on that gun as the situation will allow."
Thank you again for your time and I look forward to hearing back from you.
Even better, If you can secure me a range in your neck of the woods I would love to come out and show you the things that I am talking about. Get me a range where I can put twenty bodies (with three of those spots being yours for no charge) and I would be honored to show you some things that may help you take care of your guys to the best of your ability. Your open mind is good to see, but I think I would surprise you on the reality of just how far you can go on this topic.