Handgunners: Preferred Aiming Method?

[toyamabarnard]

Massad Ayoob did a test for a 2001 article http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...5/ai_67886010/

Very interesting results.

[submessenger]

Circumstantial ad hominem, the research quoted was unaffiliated with the site.

Hey, you asked for my thoughts. The research is quoted for the purpose of selling ebooks. I think it's noteworthy, you think it's ad hominem.

Absolutely. The point of using sights during proactive measures was also mentioned.

You misunderstood - I see this as a redeeming quality, not a fault. Certainly for LEO / military, the best method for each type of engagement should be used. For self defense scenarios, I think having to choose when to use what technique is overly complex training, especially considering that the SD scenarios will never get trained as often by civilians as other engagements will get trained in LEO/military.

You are missing the point big time. Anything more complex is simply that, more complex.

Training multiple aiming methods is more complex than training one. This is where I was going with the universal point, above. That being said, if you're standing only 5 feet from me and I need to shoot you, I might even shoot from the hip if I determine that it's tactically a better approach at that point in time. Anything closer than that is point blank and requires no aim; anything farther, there is enough time to sight the target if you train properly.

Shooting a gun at somebody is never *not* a complex task. As mentioned, it occurs in a stress environment which may include people, furniture, store aisles, corners, dark, light, animals, spiders, blinky lights, height differences, and a million sundry aggravations physical and physiological.

Point shooting is not less complex than sight shooting according to the instructionals provided. Some point shooting works using unconventional methods of holding the firearm and operating the trigger that in some cases are not compatible with all firearms.

So, it follows that weapon selection is more complex (no 1911s, e.g.). Custom weapon modifications are recommended, and may require concessions in concealability and portability.

Are you disputing the findings?

No, but I have questions about what factors from these studies aren't in the findings, some of which I already mentioned. A lot of the research into point shooting has been done with the military (back then) being the target audience, and I don't see any major research in the last 20 years. I did find this article (dammit, toyamabarnard beat me to it), which seems to read as if there was no discernible advantage to either method - I haven't finished reading it, yet. I would reconsider my current position if there was convincing recent research into the use of point shooting in urban self defense scenarios, but it's going to be difficult to convince me that an instinct is better than a built-in physical aiming aide.

The tally of anecdotes and third-party observation via video showed that people do not use their sights under stress.

Fixed.

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?

Yes. I hope that I never have to shoot somebody. I do rely on methods similar to / shared with point shooting to approximate my target. I'm pretty sure I said that, before. Yep, here it is:

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

Do you have anything to add other than opinion and unsupported assertions?

Nope. This is all just my opinion. I don't claim to teach firearms, and I don't pretend to any title or official recognition of my marksmanship. If you get killed because you use sight shooting, it's not my fault. If you get killed because you use point shooting, at least I tried to warn you.

[ChenPengFi]

Hey, you asked for my thoughts. The research is quoted for the purpose of selling ebooks. I think it's noteworthy, you think it's ad hominem.

It is by definition an ad hominem, so while you may feel it noteworthy it does not invalidate the research, especially since the research precedes and is indeed independent of the marketing site.

You misunderstood - I see this as a redeeming quality, not a fault. Certainly for LEO / military, the best method for each type of engagement should be used. For self defense scenarios, I think having to choose when to use what technique is overly complex training, especially considering that the SD scenarios will never get trained as often by civilians as other engagements will get trained in LEO/military.

It's not about choosing necessarily, you can just fire with more a crude sight picture at close range is what i take from it.
Point gun at bad guy and fire.
You are precluding using the sights entirely, no one is advocating that here.

Training multiple aiming methods is more complex than training one. This is where I was going with the universal point, above. That being said, if you're standing only 5 feet from me and I need to shoot you, I might even shoot from the hip if I determine that it's tactically a better approach at that point in time. Anything closer than that is point blank and requires no aim; anything farther, there is enough time to sight the target if you train properly.

You are contradicting yourself. Shooting from the hip is point shooting.

Shooting a gun at somebody is never *not* a complex task. As mentioned, it occurs in a stress environment which may include people, furniture, store aisles, corners, dark, light, animals, spiders, blinky lights, height differences, and a million sundry aggravations physical and physiological.

None of these affects the logic at hand and are all red herrings.

Point shooting is not less complex than sight shooting according to the instructionals provided. Some point shooting works using unconventional methods of holding the firearm and operating the trigger that in some cases are not compatible with all firearms.

Emphasis on some...
All things equal, getting a precise sight picture IS more complex, period.

So, it follows that weapon selection is more complex (no 1911s, e.g.). Custom weapon modifications are recommended, and may require concessions in concealability and portability.

None of that is relevant here imo.

No, but I have questions about what factors from these studies aren't in the findings, some of which I already mentioned. A lot of the research into point shooting has been done with the military (back then) being the target audience, and I don't see any major research in the last 20 years. I did find this article (dammit, toyamabarnard beat me to it), which seems to read as if there was no discernible advantage to either method - I haven't finished reading it, yet. I would reconsider my current position if there was convincing recent research into the use of point shooting in urban self defense scenarios, but it's going to be difficult to convince me that an instinct is better than a built-in physical aiming aide.

You really should finish reading that article then...
In particular:

Conventional wisdom may be in need of review in some elements of this controversy. The conventional wisdom said everyone should be faster but less accurate when they weren't using sights. In fact, while this was the single most common result, a very significant number of the shooters did better with the unsighted pistol.
This test clearly shows that within five yards, if the gun is at eye level and can crudely be seen to be superimposed on the target, it can hit as well if not better than a pistol aligned with a conventional "sight picture."

(my bold)

Fixed.

Findings of the NYPD and the likes of Masaad Ayoob etc. are now anecdotes, um yeaaahhh...

Yes. I hope that I never have to shoot somebody. I do rely on methods similar to / shared with point shooting to approximate my target. I'm pretty sure I said that, before.

Did i really need to add, "should the need arise.."?

Nope. This is all just my opinion. I don't claim to teach firearms, and I don't pretend to any title or official recognition of my marksmanship. If you get killed because you use sight shooting, it's not my fault. If you get killed because you use point shooting, at least I tried to warn you.

So this is just a pedantic rant and an argument from ignorance?
I'm glad we cleared that up...
What exactly did you try to warn me about?
Where did i say i don't ever use sights?
Strawmen, red herrings and ad homs...
Back to the Bullshidoka Arguments sticky with you, knave....

[submessenger]

You are precluding using the sights entirely, no one is advocating that here.

If you are point shooting, are you not ignoring the sights? Please explain the contradiction or my misunderstanding.

None of these affects the logic at hand and are all red herrings.

Emphasis on some...
All things equal, getting a precise sight picture IS more complex, period.

None of that is relevant here imo.

All of that is relevant because it builds the case that point shooting is not the simple, don't need to know anything but your animal instinct aiming method that its proponents are claiming. Or, maybe we're discussing different methods that share the name "point shooting?"

You really should finish reading that article then...

Like the part where it says

The conventional wisdom said everyone should be faster but less accurate when they weren't using sights. In fact, while this was the single most common result

Please work on your reading comprehension.

[mad_malk]

I am going to make two points. One you are responsible for every round you fire. there for if you miss and kill a bystander you will have to explain and justify the round. I don't see the jury buying how point shooting gives more hits that one was an accident.

Second for those who have ever raised a weapon on the two way range they will all tell you. Unless you panic your training will kick in. You will find your sights aligned on the threat with out concisely thinking about it.

[ChenPengFi]

If you are point shooting, are you not ignoring the sights? Please explain the contradiction or my misunderstanding.

One option does not preclude the other, you are trying to have your cake and eat it.
The same reasoning applies in your example of shooting off of the hip, however if you NEVER practice point shooting you will be the one excluding a skillset.

All of that is relevant because it builds the case that point shooting is not the simple, don't need to know anything but your animal instinct aiming method that its proponents are claiming. Or, maybe we're discussing different methods that share the name "point shooting?"

Yes, you are trying to build another strawman.
I am advocating training, your bs is getting tiresome.

Like the part where it says...
...Please work on your reading comprehension.

Nice cherry pick...
Note the "while.." that segues the relevant information and conclusion that i quoted and you see fit to ignore because of your pedantry.

[goodlun]

that right there is what we call bad science. Once they had already been in the range with all it's horrors they had been introduced to the stimuli. Then they were taught point shooting and rentered the enviroment with the only change being the location of targets.

to do the test right you need two groups of equal skill trained to the different skill sets and put in said environment for the first time. those results would be far more accurate.

They did have 2 groups as pointed out by this statement right here

Further shooters trained only in point shooting, including those who had never fired a handgun before receiving point shooting training, (it goes on to say had the same higher averages but I accidentally cut it off). The 2nd group that was only trained in point shooting did better both times through.

[wetware]

It is by definition an ad hominem, so while you may feel it noteworthy it does not invalidate the research, especially since the research precedes and is indeed independent of the marketing site.

Umm... no. This is identifying bias in a source. He's not making the assertion that the information is invalid, so it is not ad hominem. Using Latin doesn't make it true.

Findings of the NYPD and the likes of Masaad Ayoob etc. are now anecdotes, um yeaaahhh...

The findings of the NYPD are exactly that: a collection of anecdotes. Masaad Ayoob's study is pretty good, except for the fact that most of the shooters used parts of their firearms as sights. This invalidates it as a study of aimed shooting vs. point shooting and the author acknowledges this.

[goodlun]

Umm... no. This is identifying bias in a source. He's not making the assertion that the information is invalid, so it is not ad hominem. Using Latin doesn't make it true.

I am afraid that it is classic Ad Hominem attacking the source based on who.
Of course someone trying to sell something is going to point to a study that supports their cause off hand though that in it self does not invalidate the study.

[ChenPengFi]

Umm... no. This is identifying bias in a source. He's not making the assertion that the information is invalid, so it is not ad hominem. Using Latin doesn't make it true.

The site is not the source, as i pointed out.
From: http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/attack.htm

ad hominem (circumstantial): instead of attacking an assertion the author points to the relationship between the person making the assertion and the person's circumstances.

..is exactly what he was trying to do.

Assuming bias IS the fallacy, which is absurd in it's own right chronologically.
How can there be bias if the findings precede the site in time?
Bias would be say RJ Reynolds funding tobacco and cancer research.
They could still provide factual results, thus the fallacy...
I am nonetheless confused how the NYPD could have been biased preemptively, to sell e-books that they do not profit from... lol..
Back to the stickies with you too...

The findings of the NYPD are exactly that: a collection of anecdotes.

You are confusing data and findings/conclusions.

Masaad Ayoob's study is pretty good, except for the fact that most of the shooters used parts of their firearms as sights. This invalidates it as a study of aimed shooting vs. point shooting and the author acknowledges this.

Not exactly, the relevant quote is:

Depending on your definition of "point shooting," this may not have been a test of pointed versus aimed fire at all. It's a question of semantics. Many would define "point shooting" as any technique that uses a body position index to align the gun with the target, a technique in which the gun cannot be actually seen to be indexed with that which is to be shot.

(my bold)