10/26/2010 11:50am, #31
- Join Date
- May 2007
- Lafayette, IN
10/26/2010 1:05pm, #32
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?
If you have some sources you'd like to share i'd be happy to take a read.
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.
Anything more complex is simply that, more complex.
The more complex task will be affected in a greater way by stress and exertion.
We used both in class and the point shooting has much merit in cq imo.
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).
The evidence showed that people do not use their sights under stress.
Do you think it makes sense to train a technique you will likely never use, and further to ignore one you are almost guaranteed to rely on?
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.
The authors quoted asserted that despite your training you will point shoot in cq when it comes down to the wire.
Makes sense to me to train this way then...
You also fail to address the smaller profile afforded by certain point-shooting styles.
This was touted as a weapon retention and flow benefit in the class i took.
Do you have anything to add other than opinion and unsupported assertions?
10/26/2010 1:15pm, #33
10/26/2010 1:19pm, #34
10/26/2010 1:27pm, #35
Yes, in class the topic was only advocated for cq interior work.
I'm obviously still gonna use the sights at a distance.
The author even advocated the sights when proactive rather than defensive, ie i'm gonna shoot you and you don't know it or don't see me etc.
edit: The other point made is that if you are gonna get shot, it is much more likely to be at close range and therefore most of your training should reflect that.
10/26/2010 1:32pm, #36
What I would like to see is some evidence to the fact that sight shooting is better as opposed to just statements. Show us a study lets debate this with facts and a methodology I would really like to know in the end what actually does work better.
10/26/2010 1:35pm, #37
10/26/2010 1:36pm, #38
10/26/2010 1:49pm, #39
I smell an article.
I may need help sifting through training manuals and incident reports though. there is a lot of data to go through here.
I need to devise an experiment, too.
I'll write it if you guys help with the legwork.And lo, Kano looked down upon the field and saw the multitudes. Amongst them were the disciples of Uesheba who were greatly vexed at his sayings. And Kano spake: "Do not be concerned with the mote in thy neighbor's eye, when verily thou hast a massive stick in thine ass".
--Scrolls of Bujutsu: Chapter 5 vs 10-14.
10/26/2010 1:52pm, #40