The troubles I see are: Skill level of point shooter and sight shooter, we may not learn much from 2 people well trained in their respective disciplines. and are we talking front sight shooter or straight up taking time to line up on the target? I can sight shoot and point shoot and I'm damn sure my grouping will be better sight shooting.
Also for n00bs: I don't endorse teaching point shooting to inexperienced shooters. Shooters with no experience should learn breathing and trigger control first, with the sights. I think before you can develope either point shooting or front sight push you need to know firearms basics. Anything less and you're telling a white belt to see how they do in a bb competition.
Even having a front sight push shooter go without sights and try point and have a point shooter try it with a front sight might give us some good info. I'm not going to hammer nails shooting from the draw with or without the front sight, but the key is to hit my target and only my target.
Wow! I turn away for a day...
Great comments and links.
I did not see this posted, although it is likely listed as a source somewhere in the links.
(Have not finished reading them yet.)
Biological Limits to Police Combat Handgun Shooting Accuracy; Vila, Bryan J.; Morrison, Gregory B.
I do not have a Heinonline subscription and could not find the entire article using a guest acct.,
if another bully has an account this might be worth reading in entirety..
I might be able to get the entire article through access to peer-reviewed libraries and such. Also, girlfriend is a librarian and PhD English student. So if one doesn't do it, I'm sure the other will.
Originally Posted by ChenPengFi
No luck on the article. I can get to the year after on the American Journal of Police, but not the year of the article in question.
here are the answers.
Originally Posted by mad_malk
Background-I spent almost 20 years as a police officer in a metropolitan area with a high level of both gun violence and crime. Part of my responsibilities included being assigned to a SWAT team as a firearms instructor, primary firearms instructor on multiple weapons systems, and assigned to a team that investigates officer involved shootings where my responsibility was as a subject matter expert in how firearms were used in these incidents. I was personally involved first hand (not hearing things from some war story) in over 75 officer involved shooting investigations. I am also recognized as a firearms and police tactics expert by the court of my state.
Aimed Fire vs. Point shooting- The first thing needed is to clearly define what we are talking about. I prefer to use the term visually verified shooting vs. non-visually verified shooting. This clearly defines that we are visually verifying that the firearm is directed where we want it to be. When I started in L/E work, we were not allowed to use our sights to verify our alignment until after the 7 yard line (essentially at 10 yards and beyond). The theory was that the use of sights were un-needed, and too slow for up close. What I found was that officers rarely hit anything at ranges past near contact during fast moving and dynamic shootings (which is normal). Early on in my career I was trained by one of the most elite L/E teams in the country, and I adopted their principles in training a group in my agency I was responsible for. They are very much Modern Technique of the pistol advocates and staunch advocates of sighted fire. We changed or training within this group to a system where all shots past the range where you could touch your opponent (retention shooting) were sighted. The key here is that the amount of focus on the sights and the precise alignment needed is wholly range and circumstance dependent. The entire back of the gun placed over the chest of an opponent will suffice at three yards. More precision is needed to make a head shot at the same range, and much more precision and focus on the front sight is needed at 25 yards. Another key is the requirement to shift focus from the target to the gun. Target focusing leads to shooting at things like the opponents gun hand, the key is that the firearm must be shifted to where you want to hit and visually verified as being there.
The results after a few years was staggering. We found that the officers who used sights and visually verified their shots were shooting at a 90% hit rate in the field, while officers who continued to use non verified fire was at about 15%. Several of those 90% shots were on demand head-shots. The officers who were trained in visual verifcation and use of sights for almost all but contact shots also fired very few rounds in gunfights and their shootings were all in policy and textbook for use of force. Those not using sighted fire tended to require high numbers of rounds to garner the hits they did get.
Another issue you brought up is targeting. We taught strict to accuracy on both the center of mass of the upper torso and the head. I have never seen multiple shots on top of each other in an actual shooting. What I have seen are shots that are close and at times you would see a good chest hit that missed the heart, or spine by a narrow margin, only to have the fight ended by the next shot that did hit in a better area. Head shots, even those that didn’t kill the suspects or hit the brain, were all instant fight enders. The notion of pelvic shots as a failure response is pure b.s. I have seen several suspects shot in the groin. The results at best is a grounded suspect who is even more determined to continue fighting, or in most cases, the suspects are fairly un fazed by pistol rounds to the pelvic region. Rifle shots in a combat arena/war zone in which a pelvic shot to ground a moving enemy to then finish him while he is stationary is very viable, but is apples to oranges on the encounters we are normally discussing.
Training is simple. If you train to not use your sights, use loose accuracy standards…often justified as “spreading trauma”, and think you can’t use your sights in a fight………..you won’t. If you train to use sights exclusively and learn how much focus and verification to use, keep tight accuracy and speed standards, and listen to people who have actually been in tip of the spear units and have extensive gunfight experience rather than those who were either lucky or are theorizing, you will be far better off. Some top folks are Scott Reitz at ITTS, Larry Vickers at Vickers Tactical, Ken Hackathorn, Paul Howe at CSAT, and others with similar backgrounds.
Last edited by mad_malk; 11/03/2010 11:04am at .
Reason: color of txt
Originally Posted by ChenPengFi
I was doing a little reading on Center Axis Relock. I was especially interested that CAR is a sighted firing method. This is particularly relevant to this conversation, because the author of pointshooting.com, the above website, lists CAR under the heading "OTHER POINT SHOOTING METHODS."
In fact, on pointshooting.com, you can find the following quote, in the midst of a diatribe about proper distance from your eyes to the sights, from the inventor of CAR:
Originally Posted by Paul Castle
Now, I haven't trained CAR, so anyone that has, please step up and correct me if wrong. Reading that quote from the founder of the system, combined with these quotes from people that have trained in the system:
Originally Posted by George Matheis
(from, you guessed it, pointshooting.com: http://www.pointshooting.com/1amercop.htm)
Originally Posted by Daniel Clermont
The pointshooting.com guy recognizes CAR as a point shooting method (and point shooting is better than sight shooting, according to him), thus there's no way to ever win this argument, because CAR is a sight shooting method. QED.
I believe all these to be valid sighting methods. It depends on the particular situation you find yourself in. There will always be people who espouse one way or another, and try try to fit their pet method into every type of circumstance. To put it in context, you don't see MMA fighters sticking to only one discipline anymore, because in order to compete nowadays, one needs to be well rounded. The same goes for those who train fight with guns. Keep in mind that quite a bit of what's been taught out there over the last 50 years or so, is based on gun games and marketing or LEO/military tactics, rather than the realities of a gunfight on the street. Your average Joe concealed carry guy is more likely to find himself in a reactive gunfight rather than a proactive gunfight. Proactive teaching methods dominate the gun training world right now. Think of all the military and LEO guys opening up shop right now. Your average Joe is not going to have back up coming, intel on the situation or a helo borne ammo drop along with a squad of spec ops types covering his flanks. More than likely he is facing a situation like a home invasion or a criminal assault on the street, hence the term reactive. Joe is going start out behind the curve and should seek training that can help him catch up and dominate the fight. Anyhow, think of different sighting methods as points in the continuum of a gunfight. Learn them all so that when you face your particular situation, you are prepared for however the fight plays out. Or you can just punch paper at your local range, shoot tight groups with a perfect grip ,perfect stance and perfect sight picture. Stand and deliver like John Wayne while proffessing your fanboy love for all things that come out of your favorite spec op trainer guy's mouth.
Originally Posted by zaohu
Last edited by jr urbina; 11/23/2010 7:25pm at .
Ya you know what could some people be thinking. Should they go with some one who has trained people who have survived and won gun fights as well has been in them them selfs. Perspective and point of reference matter. A Solid LEO instructor Like Pat Rogers from EAG will have far more that is relevant to JOE civilian then Say Cris Costa from Magpul. That does not dimishe or mean Cris Costa doesn't have skills that Joe Civilian couldn't use.
Originally Posted by jr urbina
a little point of reference.
Point shooting meaning not using any kind of sight picture is for contact range.
Flash front sight picture, flash frame picture, frame indexing and other forms of crude aiming are great for just out of contact to about 5-10 yards.
If you want to test your skill and shooting methods set up a bowling pin(s) for a target. Draw your weapon and shoot it down. do this 20 times on a timer then come back and tell me what worked consistently.
First off if your in a reactive gunfight then in most situations you missed something. With the exception of a robbery in a bank or equivalent i don't see how you let some one get that close. Home invasion why are you opening your doors to strangers with out a gun in your hand? why are you going down that dark street and not look to see who may be following you or watching for possible ambush locations were some one may pop out? Why are you parked down that dark street in the first place?
Originally Posted by jr urbina
You can't pick if the other guy is going to fight. You can pick how prepared and ready you are if they decide there is going to be a fight.
The other day, I did a dry-firing drill with what I was able to approximate of C.A.R. It's way cool. Both eyes open, aiming with the weak eye, your nose prevents your dominant eye from catching the sights. Target acquisition was surprisingly easy, natural almost. I want to try it at the range, but I'm going to shop around for a local instructor, first.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO