In a "point" shoot I'd be happy if the bullet impacts in the general area (say about a foot or so) of where I HOPED the bullet would strike the target.
Taken from a students observation in his review of students ability with threat focused skills as well as my own in Knoxville, Tenn back in June of 06:
"The level of accuracy, i.e. how small the groups were, might not get the approval of people with lots of training and who expect groups equivalent of slow fire sight use, but we had folks that were producing groups of 1 and 2 inches at ranges of 12-15 feet using 2 hand QK shot at our own pace (not me, I grouped in the 4-6 in. range). Brownie showed us that he could make one ragged hole over and over again at that range and at further distances."
and this observation of my own shooting with threat focused Quick Kill with no sights:
"Brownie may be able to chew a ragged 2 inch hole out of a target with 2 handed QK at 30 feet, but I would still use my sights if I had to put bullets into a space that precise at that range."
rachilders------- thats the difference between being trained in point shooting skills and not being trained or trained properly in those skills by someone who is capable of imparting the knowledge correctly----------
I don't "dead reckon" when I point shoot, I hit as well as when I use the sights. Students 1"-2" groups at 4-5 yrds in a matter of hours in Tenn. under my guidance is not dead reckoning either.
"Point vs. aimed shooting is a difficult subject to objectively debate because there are a number of definitions and opinions of what "point" shooting is."
There are not a number of definitions as you suggest, there are the definitions that have been used for decades and everything else used by those who don't know what they don't know or understand.
It's pretty simple, the definitions have been recognized for 60+ years. There was no confusion between the sighted fire and point shooting definitions until people put their own opinions into the mix in some attempt to change that which has been recognized and accepted for a very long time.
"When I point, I'm not using any sort of sight mechanism other than possibly the sight plane of my arm and I'm not shooting at a specific point (like the head) but rather at a general area, like the torso."
There's the mistake you are making for lack of formal training. You should always be shooting at a specific area/point and not a general area. If you were to take formal training from a threat focused instructor, your ideas of the differences would change dramatically.
"If you disagree with the article, you might want to do so on its own merits, rather than a superficial tag that in all likelihood wasn't of the author's choosing."
I believe I did just that in my first post when I wrote:
Mr. Ayoob erroneously advances the idea that point shooting is not aimed fire by the very title of the article and demonstrates he either doesn't understand the difference between the two or simply made the mistake many make regarding what point shooting really is.
In keeping with the facts presented, I would believe most people had been formally trained in some form of sighted fire to some degree, while very few if any of the participants would have had any formal training in the various forms of threat focused [ point shooting ] skills thereby skewering the results and being as unscientific as one could get.