'Aimed Vs. Point Shooting' - Massad Ayoob - Page 2

coffeecup · January 8th, 2009, 09:43 AM

If I have the time and can safely do so, I would extract myself from the situation.(as in---feet, get me the hell out of here) If not, then the perp would most likely be within point and shoot range.

Remember guys, these writers and SD "teachers" are in the game for one reason only--to make money! You carry a weapon for one reason only--to protect yourself and those you love.

BAC · January 8th, 2009, 11:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by coffeecup

Remember guys, these writers and SD "teachers" are in the game for one reason only--to make money! You carry a weapon for one reason only--to protect yourself and those you love.

That's not true. Many (I can think of a few off the top of my head) truly enjoy teaching. Many also offer significant discounts (up to and including free classes) depending on the circumstances because they believe they have something to offer those they're teaching that could save their lives one day. Yeah, certain instructors are more inclined to profit from their instruction, but remember that they do get paid to teach; the better they do, the more they get paid.

Instructors, by and large, aren't out to rip off the layman, and most really do care about what they do.

Gun rag writers... my opinion of them isn't so glowing.

-B

AzQkr · January 8th, 2009, 12:04 PM

The dictionary states: aimed, aim·ing, aims----"To direct (a weapon) toward an intended target."

The thesaurus states: aim ----------"point or direct at a goal"

If you intentionally direct the muzzle at some object, you are aiming, hence the idea that it doesn't matter whether you are going to directly look at some part of the gun with direct vision [ sites, back of the slide, top of the barrel/slide ] or you a going to look directly at the threat and ignore the gun you are always "aiming" the gun.

Good post BAC!!!!!!!!!!

Brownie

Randy · January 8th, 2009, 01:08 PM

The author lost credibility with the suggestion that the odds were "astronomical" in reference to the shooters obtaining the same number of hits. I seriously question the validity of any other "findings" revealed here.

Randy

rachilders · January 8th, 2009, 06:36 PM

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. For me, it's actually fairly simple. When I aim a gun at a target I'm using the guns attached sight (be they iron or optical) to point the gun/bullet at a specific spot on that target. 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.

When it's aimed, I would expect the bullet to impact the target within an inch or so of where I had placed the guns sight. 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. In navigation we called that dead reckoning, where you are only trying to get close to something and are usually VERY surprised when you actually land at the exact spot you were aiming for.

kazzaerexys · January 8th, 2009, 07:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AzQkr

"Aimed Vs. Point Shooting' - Massad Ayoob"

The title is wrong to begin with, the rest of the results can't be relied on to prove anything.

Authors don't generally choose titles, editors do. The first paragraph of the article clearly states that the thesis is to test the 'argument over using gun sights versus merely pointing the handgun for defensive use.'

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Randy

The author lost credibility with the suggestion that the odds were "astronomical" in reference to the shooters obtaining the same number of hits. I seriously question the validity of any other "findings" revealed here.

'Astronomical' is a qualitative observation on a coincidental result, not a finding about the performance results. By my reckoning, 107 shooters. Chance that the same number of shooters made both head shots in each situation: 1 in 107. Chance that the same number made one headshot in both situations: 1 in 107. Chance of the same number missing in both situations: 1 in 107.

(1/107)^3 = 1/1,225,043

One in a million may or may not be astronomical to you, but it doesn't seem like an unfounded hyperbole to me.

AzQkr · January 8th, 2009, 07:30 PM

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.

Brownie

AzQkr · January 8th, 2009, 07:34 PM

kazzaerexys,

If, and that's a big IF, he didn't choose the title, he certainly acknowledged, approved and accepted it for publication. I doubt seriously the editor of the magazine edits/changes his material much if at all based on his reputation and long standing as a gun writer.

BOTH titles on articles written about my own training in national publications were chosen strictly by the author, not the editor, and with full prior approval of myself before they were submitted for publication. Neither title was changed by the editors of the magazine.

Brownie

rachilders · January 9th, 2009, 03:03 AM

To respond to the constructive criticism of my last post by AzQkr...

I actually am a much better shot than my use of generalities would indicate and my examples of a foot or an inch were the extreme ends of distance and accuracy I'd expect from myself. At the 12-15 feet range you mention, using my un-professional point method I can place 5 shots in the black of any target and will do the same with "aimed" fire at 50 feet with any handgun I own. My example of aimed fire at the head or point shots at the torso may have been too general. When I said head I meant at a specific point, like the forehead or the bridge of the nose. As for the torso, I should also be more specific by saying center of mass - which for me is an area of approx one square foot centered on the breast bone on an adult - not just somewhere between the groin and collar bone.

I will certainly agree that training is important and if possible, training with a professional skilled in the specifies you are interested in is ALWAYS advisable. Just be aware that the term "professional" doesn't mean someone is an expert (or even very good) in a particular area. It simply means you are doing something as a profession (that's where the name comes from you know) and/or are getting compensated for it. Personally, I've met many so called professionals in numerous areas of endeavor who actually knew less about their "profession" than many/most of the people who were paying them for their services. My advice when hiring a PROFESSIONAL of any kind is to ALWAYS make sure the person actually knows what they are doing and you are satisfied with his/her level of expertise. One man's expert is often another man's fool and as we all have observed at one time or another, you can easily ask ten "experts" a question and get ten different answers to that same question!

January 8th, 2009, 12:04 PM	#13
AzQkr Distinguished Member Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: In the Superstitions Posts: 1,771	The dictionary states: aimed, aim·ing, aims----"To direct (a weapon) toward an intended target." The thesaurus states: aim ----------"point or direct at a goal" If you intentionally direct the muzzle at some object, you are aiming, hence the idea that it doesn't matter whether you are going to directly look at some part of the gun with direct vision [ sites, back of the slide, top of the barrel/slide ] or you a going to look directly at the threat and ignore the gun you are always "aiming" the gun. Good post BAC!!!!!!!!!! Brownie __________________ The mind is the limiting factor http://www.threatfocused.com/forums/index.php

January 8th, 2009, 01:08 PM	#14
Randy Member Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Staunton, Va. Posts: 302	The author lost credibility with the suggestion that the odds were "astronomical" in reference to the shooters obtaining the same number of hits. I seriously question the validity of any other "findings" revealed here. Randy __________________ Defensive Training Concepts, Inc. Staunton, Va.

January 8th, 2009, 06:36 PM	#15
rachilders Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Longview, TX Posts: 801	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. For me, it's actually fairly simple. When I aim a gun at a target I'm using the guns attached sight (be they iron or optical) to point the gun/bullet at a specific spot on that target. 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. When it's aimed, I would expect the bullet to impact the target within an inch or so of where I had placed the guns sight. 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. In navigation we called that dead reckoning, where you are only trying to get close to something and are usually VERY surprised when you actually land at the exact spot you were aiming for. __________________ "... Americans... we want a safe home, to keep the money we make, and shoot bad guys." -- Denny Crane

January 8th, 2009, 07:30 PM	#17
AzQkr Distinguished Member Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: In the Superstitions Posts: 1,771	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. Brownie __________________ The mind is the limiting factor http://www.threatfocused.com/forums/index.php Last edited by AzQkr; January 8th, 2009 at 10:45 PM..

January 8th, 2009, 07:34 PM	#18
AzQkr Distinguished Member Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: In the Superstitions Posts: 1,771	kazzaerexys, If, and that's a big IF, he didn't choose the title, he certainly acknowledged, approved and accepted it for publication. I doubt seriously the editor of the magazine edits/changes his material much if at all based on his reputation and long standing as a gun writer. BOTH titles on articles written about my own training in national publications were chosen strictly by the author, not the editor, and with full prior approval of myself before they were submitted for publication. Neither title was changed by the editors of the magazine. Brownie __________________ The mind is the limiting factor http://www.threatfocused.com/forums/index.php

January 8th, 2009, 09:43 AM	#11
coffeecup Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Cadiz,Ky Posts: 780	If I have the time and can safely do so, I would extract myself from the situation.(as in---feet, get me the hell out of here) If not, then the perp would most likely be within point and shoot range. Remember guys, these writers and SD "teachers" are in the game for one reason only--to make money! You carry a weapon for one reason only--to protect yourself and those you love.

January 9th, 2009, 03:03 AM	#19
rachilders Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Longview, TX Posts: 801	To respond to the constructive criticism of my last post by AzQkr... I actually am a much better shot than my use of generalities would indicate and my examples of a foot or an inch were the extreme ends of distance and accuracy I'd expect from myself. At the 12-15 feet range you mention, using my un-professional point method I can place 5 shots in the black of any target and will do the same with "aimed" fire at 50 feet with any handgun I own. My example of aimed fire at the head or point shots at the torso may have been too general. When I said head I meant at a specific point, like the forehead or the bridge of the nose. As for the torso, I should also be more specific by saying center of mass - which for me is an area of approx one square foot centered on the breast bone on an adult - not just somewhere between the groin and collar bone. I will certainly agree that training is important and if possible, training with a professional skilled in the specifies you are interested in is ALWAYS advisable. Just be aware that the term "professional" doesn't mean someone is an expert (or even very good) in a particular area. It simply means you are doing something as a profession (that's where the name comes from you know) and/or are getting compensated for it. Personally, I've met many so called professionals in numerous areas of endeavor who actually knew less about their "profession" than many/most of the people who were paying them for their services. My advice when hiring a PROFESSIONAL of any kind is to ALWAYS make sure the person actually knows what they are doing and you are satisfied with his/her level of expertise. One man's expert is often another man's fool and as we all have observed at one time or another, you can easily ask ten "experts" a question and get ten different answers to that same question! __________________ "... Americans... we want a safe home, to keep the money we make, and shoot bad guys." -- Denny Crane

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode