Page 8 of 15 First ... 456789101112 ... Last
  1. #71
    submessenger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Delray Beach
    Posts
    1,611
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Well, I trudged my way through those two epic threads. I've learned a few things:

    1) Point vs. Sight is one of the holy wars in handgunnery, us bullies were just fortunate enough to step into it, much like you step into the surprise your neighbor's dog left in your lawn.

    2) People have difficulty agreeing what is and is not point shooting, and exactly under what circumstances to use any of the techniques that somebody classifies as point shooting. Any study we undertake in an attempt to answer this decades-old question may have to evaluate multiple methods, and any answering of the question will piss off a bunch of people (not that that's a reason to not try).

    3) Empirically, all discussed aiming systems have marksmen. Anecdotally, all discussed systems have been "combat proven." Some wisdom I'll paraphrase from one of the posts: pick your method and train it until you are deadly fast and accurate.

  2. #72
    IMightBeWrong's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    1,053
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Wow! I just started this thread the other day and came back to find a ton of good information from all sides to sift through. I'm really impressed with all of you guys for the thought being put into the topic and am looking forward to more, plus the article Scrapper comes up with.

    Where is Lord Skeletor to ring in on this?

  3. #73
    Rock Ape's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    10,134
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by mad_malk View Post
    ..//.. 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.
    How many times have you been involved in actual fire fights ?

    Training is only relative to its quality and, the frequency in which it's practiced. Just the action of presenting a CCW (for instance) requires specific training and repeated drills, not to mention a slight lifestyle change to accomodate the carrying and use of a concealed weapon.

    There are more factors at play (than just aiming) in achieving first round hits on a moving target which intends to shoot you, all of which are important but, none more so than first understanding what you're attempting to achieve through your training. Then training continuously, be that on the range or administratively in your own home.
    "To sin by silence when one should protest makes cowards out of men".

    ~Ella Wheeler

  4. #74
    submessenger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Delray Beach
    Posts
    1,611
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Here's a few more websites that have touched on the controversy:

    this thread references an Ogden, UT police dept circa 2006 concluded that aimed is better - need to find this data
    http://www.northeastshooters.com/vbu...s-Aim-shooting

    it also references this thread which reads like an attempt at an objective test, also 2006
    Point Shooting Test On GT - Threat Focused Forums

    Another thread:
    http://www.defensivecarry.com/vbulle...VS-Aimed-Fire&

    Another article:
    http://www.ammoland.com/2010/07/08/p...imed-gun-fire/

  5. #75
    submessenger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Delray Beach
    Posts
    1,611
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Scrapper - it's occurred to me that at least one of the tests needs to be training point-shooters from scratch, e.g. people with no prior shooting experience, and I mean none. Knowing that guns have sights may be too much exposure for an accurate test.

  6. #76
    Lord Skeletor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Snake Mountain, Eternia
    Posts
    632
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Depends on what you're doing....whether it's combat shooting or target shooting. Combat shooting (most of the time under 8 yards), catch the front sight on center mass and start ripping rounds. Target shooting, you're going to take more time on your posture, stance, sight alignment, breathing, and trigger control.

  7. #77
    IMightBeWrong's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    1,053
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    So get at least a decent sight picture as opposed to point shooting? What exactly is your take on point shooting for defensive situations?

  8. #78
    Robstafarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Chesterfield, VA
    Posts
    1,822
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by wetware View Post
    Sure. Give me a little while and I'll post a jpeg or two. Might as well throw in the math, too. You're exactly right as to what I mean by 'off', by the way.

    This also feeds into sight alignment on shorter firearms being more sensitive. A longer firearm having its sight misaligned by the some distance will affect your point of aim less because it will be a small angle.
    Mind figuring this for a full size 1911, or showing your work so I can do it, just to make Lord Skeletor happy? :icon_clow:5help:

  9. #79

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Lafayette, IN
    Posts
    1,138
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    He's not even talking about good sight picture, if I read correctly. At close range you raise the gun parallel to the ground to the target, getting the front sight on target.

    I felt the need to do some maths. I can post the work if you want. It's just some low-end trig. If you have 3 inches between your front and rear sights here's how it breaks down depending on how far off your sight picture is. I figure the average chest width at the bottom of the sternum is about 16 inches so anything off to the left or right more than 8" is probably not a stop, down is a maybe and up is still kosher for snap shooting.

    Off by 1/16th of an inch:
    5 feet 10 feet 20 feet
    1.25" 2.49" 4.98"

    Off by 1/8th of an inch:
    5 feet 10 feet 20 feet
    2.50" 5.00" 10.01"

    Off by 1/4 of an inch:
    5 feet 10 feet 20 feet
    4.98" 9.97" 19.93"

    Off by 1/2 an inch:
    5 feet 10 feet 20 feet
    9.86" 19.73" 39.46"

  10. #80
    Lord Skeletor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Snake Mountain, Eternia
    Posts
    632
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    The math's not perfect and the target's aren't 100% anatomically correct...but you get the idea. Here's an example of how a small mistake or user error in shooting at close range...gets magnified with distance. Sort of like a flashlight's beam...up close, it's tight---add distance...and it gets wider and wider.

    As for the target shooting versus combat shooting---the viability in target shooting simply isn't there. In target shooting, you're taking your time with the ultimate goal of putting a bullet directly on top of another bullet hole...in the center of a target. In combat shooting, you're trying to disrupt vital body systems as quickly as possible. Putting bullet on top of bullet (target style) is a waste of ammo---I mean, why would you try to destroy tissue that you've already destroyed? You want to affect MULTIPLE body systems as rapidly as possible, hoping to shut down their nervous system or make them bleed out. Here's the short and dirty of it:


Page 8 of 15 First ... 456789101112 ... Last

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Log in

Log in
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO