10/25/2010 6:32pm, #21
- Join Date
- Oct 2010
- Metro Detroit
@daddykata the Police Academy, though that was rouhgly 15 years ago. There wasn't an intentionall distinction, and there are too many variables, but I can think of a few differences between LEO non LEO. In every situation you would indeed want to be on target as fast and effectively as possible. Of course we also trained with the assumption we may not have time to get the gun all the way to face level before firing.
10/25/2010 7:48pm, #22
I think you'll be hardpressed to find anyone who disagrees with turning the gun on its side, and observing where you are pointing.
Its jokingly referred to as the, "kill shot"
PROOF that I'm not a completely useless poster:
Originally Posted by Cy Q. Faunce
10/25/2010 7:55pm, #23
- Join Date
- Oct 2010
- Metro Detroit
10/25/2010 9:47pm, #24
10/25/2010 11:19pm, #25
Understood, it just seems that the well hashed gross motor-skills argument against teh de4dly ma techniques should apply here as well.
Drawing, aiming through the sights and firing a pistol is arguably much more complex of a task than poking an eye.
The same caveats that exertion and stress bring are magnified the more complex the task.
Which leads us to the literature.
Some pretty interesting #s and claims in that article i linked to.
Darrell Mulroy, who passed away in 2003, was a LE trainer and an owner of Plus P Technology Inc. in Minneapolis, MN.
He stated that he made a review of 900+ videos of real shootings, and found that Sight Shooting was not used in any of them. Here is what he said about Sight Shooting: "You still ASSUME you will look at the gun in a real shooting. Wish we could find it on REAL videos of such things. We are still looking 900+ videos later."
In 1969, the Firearms and Tactics Section of the New York City Police Department instituted a procedure for the in-depth documentation and study of police combat situations. It was designated Department Order SOP 9.
Data gathering began in January 1970, and over 6000 cases were studied during the 1970s. The study results and findings were released in 1981. (Click here for more info on the SOP 9.)
The following is from the SOP 9.
As to shooting distances:
The shooting distances where officers survived, remained almost the same during the SOP years (1970-1979), and for a random sampling of cases going back as far as 1929. 4,000 cases were reviewed. The shooting distance in 75% of those cases was less than 20 feet.
Contact to 10 feet ... 51%
10 feet to 20 feet .... 24%
As to sight alignment:
In 70% of the cases reviewed, sight alignment was not used. Officers reported that they used instinctive or point shooting.
Would it not make sense to train with that in mind?
10/25/2010 11:27pm, #26
10/26/2010 1:35am, #27
I was always taught that the body will point naturally, the eyes merely verify. If you practice your target acquisition and shooting basics regularly, all you'd really need to do is point and shoot...at least at close quarters.
Jeff Cooper taught that theory for years, so there must be some credibility to it..."Onward we stagger, and if the tanks come, may God help the tanks." - Col. William O. Darby
10/26/2010 8:56am, #28
1) it's a site that sells ebooks on point shooting
2) the author advocates point shooting as a close quarters technique only, not as a universal aiming method
3) I'd be interested to review the 900+ videos this guy claims to have studied, and the cases, too. On average, how many rounds were expended? How much collateral damage was done? How many people not involved in the gunfight were killed or injured?
4) To summarize the "science," of point shooting: stress situation means that you're unable to perform "complex motor skills," so you should train to rely on your instinctive ability to point your finger as a life-saving maneuver. Try this: go home, tape a piece of paper on the wall and tape a laser pointer to your index finger. Move around the room and suddenly point at the paper. Don't cheat. Did you hit it? How many misses? How long does it take you to get 3 hits? If you think you performed well enough at this unstressed exercise to make point shooting your primary self-defense aiming method, good on you. I'll stick to using my sights.
5) The author states that 80% of bullets fired in real scenarios do not hit their target while simultaneously claiming that you can be more effective by not using a gun's sights, as evidenced by all of the real scenarios (you know, the ones where 80% of bullets don't hit the target).
100% of the work you would do to properly point shoot is 99% of the work you would do to properly sight shoot. It takes a split second to look at your sights and adjust if necessary - if that's too much time, you 're probably dead or injured regardless of how you choose to aim (or no to aim) your gun. But, if you spend that time, you may prevent yourself from being dead or injured because you stopped your opponent with properly placed rounds.
10/26/2010 8:57am, #29
10/26/2010 10:34am, #30
While it doesn't mean it doesn't exist I have yet to find any actual evidence that point shooting is any more dangerous for bystanders than sight shooting. The test that Applegate did that showed point shooting to be more accurate would make me think the opposite is quite more likely true.