Defensive Carry banner

1 - 20 of 24 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,134 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
This is a Rant :

Not specifically against point shooting more against posting habits , I suggest you go back now because some may offend you since I am talking about all of us .

Recently we have had a large influx of new members. Among them are some folks who espouse Un aimed fire in a confrontation. As a matter of fact as near as I can tell some of the brightest lights of this line of thought existent today ( as near as I can tell ) have joined the forum and are beginning to post .

I wish to Welcome them .

now the rant ( if you got this far your were saying when is he getting to the good/bad part weren't you LOL )

I am not a proponent of un aimed fire ( hereinafter referred to by point shooting , or PS ) myself but I will give the devil his due ( or try to ) .

first off let me quote Matthew Temkin
Let’s get off to a good start and define our terms.
Point Shooting means firing the weapon with total focus upon the threat/target without any reference to the gun/sights WHATSOEVER.
Let me also state that point shooting is a COMPLEMENT--not a REPLACEMENT--for sighted shooting.
I commend this for the honesty and forthrightness of the statement and it does some what address the point of my rant .

I have read almost all the PS threads I have seen online and too many times they turn into a pos thread deteriating to " gun foo " oO( my gun fu is better than your gun foo grasshopper ) . The sighted guys keep talking out at 20 yards or so , the ps guys keep talking at 2 ft or so and no one clears this up . That would be issue one to me now smoothly onto issue two the speed camps , one camp is that " speed is fine but accuracy is final " the other camp is if I can get even a small hit in him, or even miss him fast it will disorient him long enough to put multiple hits on him . Who is right ?? Well for my self I pretty much lean towards the shot placement side . I have discovered you can miss fast enough to kill someone but it will be the uninvolved someone down the street . I will in fairness point out I have NEVER seen pickpocket Matt ( if I may be that familiar ) Brownie , or 7 advocate just spraying rounds or firing when in any way YOU were not confident of a hit .
PS is a somewhat antiqued technique that may or may not be coming into its own now days ( just as jack weaver picked up an antiqued and obscure stance and basically founded modern pistol shooting way back when ) .
For myself I am a sceptic but not closed mind on the subject until wild claims of hitting targets at 75 yards with PS etc come up LOL
This rant is saying imho ( for what its worth because it and a buck will get ya a cup of coffee if ya shop carefully ) as a member of this forum I will welcome the PS guys , read carefully , question when I see the need or simply don't understand . and accept that on this issue we may have to agree to disagree .
I ask the same of the PS proponents , including actually describe some techniques or put up pics / vids of what your talking about . Back up statements with something to see . I wont call it evidence because that isn't what is needed , understanding is so show me what it is and why it works , do it with clear images and or vid .

Personally I wont let this become a gun-foo issue weather I agree with a technique or not, and I hope all forum members on both sides will do the same .

I have seen these guys insulted and ridiculed on virtually every board they have posted on so far ( and I have been guilty of this too on occasion ), I feel that we can get this out in the open and as adults discuss it without pre conceived notions of what is " right or wrong " without hearing the song so to speak ..

How about it Members of both camps what do you think , can we have a rational discussion without insults and inuendo on both sides ?

oO( i know it wont solve anything and prob wont convert anyone but hey it might be fun lol )
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,588 Posts
For the record I am not Pickpocket...I post under my actual name.
#2) To me it is not a point shooting VS. aimed fire, but the need for both.
I do not consider myself a point shooter, but rather someone who is willing to use anything that will give me an edge for survival.
In other words, I own quite a few handguns, and they all have sights.
Yes, rational debate is fine with me, but after 4 years of posting I am more inclined to provide the information and allow others to decide for themselves.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,134 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
Matthew Temkin if i created confusion let me apologise right now , I know you and pickpocket are not the same person and if i gave anyone the impression i thought different its untrue ... i quoted you Matthew Temkin as a compliment in my mind . you stated ground rules for it up front .. and i respect your opinion even tho i may well not allways agree with you , if quoting you offended you again i apologise
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,588 Posts
Redneck Repairs said:
Matthew Temkin if i created confusion let me apologise right now , I know you and pickpocket are not the same person and if i gave anyone the impression i thought different its untrue ... i quoted you Matthew Temkin as a compliment in my mind . you stated ground rules for it up front .. and i respect your opinion even tho i may well not allways agree with you , if quoting you offended you again i apologise
I have been teaching armed and unarmed WW2 combatives...usually free of charge...to law enforcement officers, military men and civilians for the past 16 years in England, Sweden, Poland and the USA.
Many are gunfight survivors/SWAT personnel and they are thrilled with the method.
My dad was in Darby's Rangers and used rifle/subgun point shooting extensively in 14 months of heavy combat from N Africa to Anzio, Italy.
So..I am not inclined to debate.
Those who are interested can view my free information, obtain my free outlines and take my free classes.
If you do not agree with the method then that is fine and dandy with me.
PS..no need to for an apology since no offense taken.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,134 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
Matthew Temkin i had hoped to make a gesture with this post to show that possibly the two defined camps were not far apart . sad to say appairently this has not been well recived so all i can say at this point is to quote
I have been teaching armed and unarmed WW2 combatives...usually free of charge...to law enforcement officers, military men and civilians for the past 16 years in England, Sweden, Poland and the USA.
Many are gunfight survivors/SWAT personnel and they are thrilled with the method.
My dad was in Darby's Rangers and used rifle/subgun point shooting extensively in 14 months of heavy combat from N Africa to Anzio, Italy.
So..I am not inclined to debate.
in closing i am profoundly sorry i understated or misunderstood this issue .. be well and best of luck to you and yours
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,112 Posts
How about it Members of both camps what do you think , can we have a rational discussion without insults and inuendo on both sides ?
I am all for an open minded discussion on Threat focused-inconjuction with-sighted fire.

The -vs- debates are a thing of the past. This is not an either/or issue....it is both. It is also up to the individule user to decide their own parameters of the sight continuum. Some people will only use threat focus skills for retention and some are good to go out to 21-30 feet. Ones decision on what is best for them, does not mean that it is best for someone else. These decisions are often made on prior training (ie: closed minded) or lack of training.

That is why "open minded" would have to be a basic ground rule to have this discussion and for it to remain "rational."

No insults to anyone intended....I'm just calling it the way that it has gone down in the past. Every threat focus advocate that is worth their salt uses their sights. Most have sighted fire as their "default." But some how everyone ignores these facts and some how put us in the closed minded catagory......which simply is not true.

"See what you need to see is" is the open minded position that we take, just like the worlds best competitors.

There would also have to be an agreement on the definition. There are two types of shooting, there is the shooting where you are focused on the sights and the shooting where you are focused on the threat/target. If we can not abide by these simple guidelines then this thread will spiral downward very quickly.

Since I am not big on trying to prove something as simple as "see what you need to see" (the worlds best competitors have already proved that) I will not be taking a bunch of my time to make or post videos.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,588 Posts
Roger that.
Redneck Repairs statement that the two "defined camps" are not that far apart suggests that some believe that there exists a "sighted only" camp and a "point shooting only" camp.
Since I know of no "point shooters" who claim it to be the only way then I fail to see exactly where the debate is.
Unless, of course, there still exists those who believe that every shot--from 0 feet to infinity--should be done with the sights.
To them I say good luck and good training.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
19,639 Posts
Redneck;

The sighted guys keep talking out at 20 yards or so , the ps guys keep talking at 2 ft or so and no one clears this up

In lieu of debate on distances achieved with threat focused methodologies, please read the following student reviews where this subject [ distances ] is concerned.

http://www.threatfocused.com/forums/showthread.php?t=223

http://www.threatfocused.com/forums/showthread.php?t=226

http://www.threatfocused.com/forums/showthread.php?t=27

http://www.threatfocused.com/forums/showthread.php?t=374

I only included those reviews which mentioned distances in the training. I don't train anyone at 2 feet with threat focused, we start at 6 feet and move out to 30 feet.

People are hitting what they intend to hit with the skills we are imparting to others. Different techniques for varying distances, but none make use of looking at the gun whatsoever.

In fact, one of the reviews mentions that I was observed shooting a ragged 2 inch hole at 30 feet in Knoxville, without the use of sights. If I can do that, which I can as has been written in a review recently, missing is not an option. I stand no more risk in using QK than most do using their sights where hitting a bystander is concerned.

I've been demonstrating and showing people QK since the mid 80's and just recently have gone into the commercial training of others in this regard.

There is no either or where sights or no sighted shooting is concerned. It's both of their uses as distances and times dictate are necessary. Thing is, if you do not have threat focused skills through training, when you try to use them, they end up more like spray and pray, which is where a lot of the dissention comes from.

Again, the reviews show differently in the links after they have been shown the door, it's been opened and they have walked through. As Roger mentions often, use your sights when you can but don't die trying to get to them, it's not necessary.

Brownie
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
932 Posts
Personally, I don't see why there was a debate in the first place and most of the people here, at least from the posts I've seen, seem to agree. Both ways of shooting have their place in any training program and should be practiced by everyone serious about using a gun for self-defense purposes.

I practice point shooting, but usually at targets 20 ft away or less. I feel if a potential threat happens at ranges that close, I probably won't have time to take precise aim with a guns sights anyway. My personal opinion is I will take the shot if the target is close enough that I can be reasonably assured of hitting a spot pretty close to where I'm pointing. On the other hand, if I DO have time to take careful aim, I'll do so. Also, I won't shoot beyond a range where I can't reasonably expect to hit somewhere close (less than a foot radius) of where I'm aiming/pointing, just for safety's sake. For me, that's usually 20 ft for PS and 50-75 ft with an aimed shot, depending on the gun. Depending on your own level of experience and training, these distances may - and probably will - vary. You have to decide what your own limits are

Anyway, I don't see it as an either/or situation when it comes to PS vs. aimed fire. They should compliment one another. If there's time, taking careful aim is always my first choice. However, if I don't have that time and/or the target is close enough that I feel I can hit it with reasonable accuracy (ALWAYS considering the safety of any bystanders and anyone who may be in the line of fire beyond the intended target), PS is a valid and reasonable option.

:hand10:
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,405 Posts
Redneck Repairs I am one of the new members you are talking about. I have posted a few times on things I'm curious about what others think and have found out that most here think different than me and I enjoy this because it helps me learn. I really like your post this is the stuff I want to know. After recieving my CCW permit I sign up for an urban tactical course. It was taught by an LEO that also trained other LEO's. We trained at 7 yards which we were told is combat range and if we had to take a shot farther than that, that a jury might decide that our lives were not being threaten and that we might be able to escape the threat. We were taught point shooting and told if you needed to aim at combat range you are dead.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
25,483 Posts
Anyway, I don't see it as an either/or situation when it come to PS vs. aimed fire. They should compliment one another.
Totally agree Bob - exactly :smilez:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
47 Posts
I employ point shooting, and train in it extensively during my practice sessions at the range.

HOWEVER, I only actually USE it for the first two rounds I fire immediately after drawing, and only use it at distances of 10 meters or less.

My drill is this: I draw, and as soon as the gun clears the holster, I immediately point the muzzle at my target and fire, then as the gun is in mid-rise, I fire a second round...then a third when the gun is at full draw. All additional rounds fired at either the same target or different targets are made using the sights, although when practicing for an actual situation, I do not take the time to be needle-fine exact. I'm interested in 3-4 inch groups at 20 yards, even though both my gun and myself are capable of much, much better. I feel that should the need arise, you will react the way you have trained. I train to get the sights on my target, line them just good enough to ensure a hit, then fire. I don't think that you would have the time to carefully line up the sights....throw the gun up, line em up as best you can and burn some powder. I'm not interested in plucking the buttons off the guy's shirt, I'm trying to stop a threat, not shoot out the 10 ring on a sheet of paper.

I am accurate out to about 20 yards with this method, but restrict myself to 10 as a measure of safety for any bystanders.

I am heading to the range this weekend, and I will see if I can talk my wife into taking a few short video clips of this in action.

A miss won't do anything for you....you have to HIT your target.

I have practiced this for approximately 6 or 7 years now on a regular basis, and you would be amazed at how accurate you can be with relatively little time spent.

It works on the principle of hand/eye coordination. If you pointed at something, even something relatively far away, then moved your head in line with your finger as if it were a gun without moving your hand, you would see that you are pretty much dead-on. Your brain has had your entire lifetime to refine your hand-eye coordination, and does a pretty darn good job of it.

Point shooting uses this principle to make accurate, yet non-sighted, shots at relatively close range. After a period of time, the gun will pretty much point wherever you are looking within an inch or two.

Since I use point shooting only for a fast COM hit, an inch or two doesn't make a world of difference, especially considering the fact that two more will be on the way in a fraction of a second.

I PREFER sighted-fire.....but being able to score a hit ASAP is something that can possibly save your life...and in MY opinion, is something worth practicing.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
25,483 Posts
Crash - this sounds to me like about the ideal combination - logical and potentially effective.

If you manage some vid that'd be great!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
47 Posts
I'm gonna try....since we have a kid now, it's not easy to get the wife to want to leave him at her mom's house so we can go to the range together.

It's really simple, which is the best part. Pull, tap...start bringing the gun up, tap, gun at full draw, tap.

I prefer this method after trying many because its the fastest way I've personally found to get a round in the target reliably.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,588 Posts
Yes..we need both.
But since the vast majority of altercations happen within a few feet I prefer to spend about 80% of my self defense shooting practice with one handed point shooting up to about 7 yards.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
138 Posts
A good book just out that talks about combat shooting i'm reading. The name of the book is "Police Pistolcraft" By Michael E. Conti. You can find the book at www.sabergroup.com If you do a search on Michael Conti you will see he is very well qualified on the subject of combat shooting
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,087 Posts
i do some (lots) point shooting everytime i go to the range starting at the 7 yards line and then i work in. i know if things go bad during a raids i will not have time to line up the sights. i even do some at the 10 yard line. you need to work with both.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,588 Posts
lostone1413 said:
A good book just out that talks about combat shooting i'm reading. The name of the book is "Police Pistolcraft" By Michael E. Conti. You can find the book at www.sabergroup.com If you do a search on Michael Conti you will see he is very well qualified on the subject of combat shooting
I have shared some range time with Mike in Mass a few years back and I have been waiting for this book for quite some time.
Already placed my order.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
138 Posts
Matthew Temkin said:
I have shared some range time with Mike in Mass a few years back and I have been waiting for this book for quite some time.
Already placed my order.
Just know about Mike what i've read. What i've read he is every bit as qualified as Jeff Cooper is. It's a good book what i've read so far. Read the chapter on gun sights and see what he has to say about the HexSites. I've wrote on a few forums how good they work and for the most part people have said they won't work. They work for me and I know Mike had them put on his guns
 
1 - 20 of 24 Posts
Top