Point Shooting: A Viable Concept?

[Charles L. Cotton]

In another thread dealing with tactical books, yerasimos posting an interesting comment about Col. Cooper's views on unsighted fire. Here is the portion of his post on this subject:

I obtained a copy of Jeff Cooper's To Ride, Shoot Straight and Speak the Truth, and I found the first two sections (The Present and The Pistolero)useful. Interesting and useful philosophical commentary, ideas on mindset, and much more. Cooper called things as he saw them, straight up/neat, holding nothing back, uncowed by liability concerns, and it is very refreshing to read, particularly in these times. There is a lot of material toward the end that is not applicable to CCW, but it can be interesting reading. It is a book worth buying new, particularly if you do not have an prior experience with the Modern Technique or are not interested in the schools that promote it.

Cooper was never a big fan of unsighted gunfire (or point shooting), insisting upon, at minimum, a rough flash sight picture (or blitzblick, as it is sometimes called). Someone correct me if I am wrong, but the derivative Modern Technique/Gunsite crowd are even less enthusiastic about unsighted fire. However, the NRA's PPOH doctrine covers some "point-shooting", and I know there are other trainers out there that address this type of shooting.

I too am not fond of what some refer to as "point shooting." While taking a shot from the retention position may well be necessary and should be practiced, a retention shot is not what most instructors consider point shooting.

So what is the difference between "point shooting" and a "retention shot?" Point shooting typically refers to shooting with the arms fully or almost fully extended, but looking over the sights. Bill Jordan is spinning in his grave as I type this, as he certainly would not agree with this statement. He was the master at "point shooting" and his technique is what the NRA terms "instinctive shooting" a/k/a "speed rock." I share Mr. Jordon's opinion, except that I personally practice a retention shot that is much different from a "speed rock." This is primarily because the draw stroke I use and teach (other than in the NRA PPOH Course) does not lend itself to using the "speed rock" technique.

The problem I have with what most books, including the NRA Guide to the Basis of Personal Protection Outside the Home ("PPOH") is that the point-shooting technique taught has the arms fully or near fully extended and the pistol raised almost to eye level. If I have to room to extend the gun without essentially handing it to my attacker, I'm going to use the sights. I know the theory is that I don't have time to do so, but I respectfully disagree. It takes a split second to take a flash sight picture and I cannot think of a realistic scenario where fully extending the gun does not pose a threat, but there is insufficient time to take a flash sight picture.

As I said earlier, I don't use the traditional "speed rock" or what the NRA terms "instinctive shooting" techniques, but I do believe it is the easiest to master for many if not most shooters. While it does put the gun a bit further out in front of the shooter than does my technique, it is nevertheless easier, faster and more comfortable to learn.

Here is a link to a few photos from the NRA PPOH book. I think they make it easier for folks new to tactical shooting to understand the difference between "point shooting" and a "retention shot."

Chas.

Point-Shooting v. Retention shots

[LedJedi]

In another thread dealing with tactical books...

that is Grade A material man, thank you very much for taking the time to share it. :)

[jimlongley]

If I have to room to extend the gun without essentially handing it to my attacker, I'm going to use the sights. I know the theory is that I don't have time to do so, but I respectfully disagree. It takes a split second to take a flash sight picture and I cannot think of a realistic scenario where fully extending the gun does not pose a threat, but there is insufficient time to take a flash sight picture.

Amen.

I have kind of wondered if some of my fellow IDPA shooters, among others, have experienced a similar epiphany.

Most of my (drawing from concealment) handgun training and practice of the last few years has been drawing and bringing the gun into alignment with my eyes, which has the effect of producing a sight picture at the instant the gun reaches the firing position.

Of course that's the theory, I have yet to perfect the practice, but it gives me a goal.

I was firing a stage, that I designed, in IDPA a couple of years ago, and point shot the first shot, the stage was actually designed to emphasize that option, and I MISSED and had to make it up with an aimed shot. The split time on the timer was less than what would normally be expected at longer ranges so I would suggest that my "aimed" shot was actually flash sighted.

[AV8R]

A position not mentioned that falls into the general category is a fundamental position used by the Air Marshals Service, a two-hand hold close to the body with forearms level, or nearly so. This hold is used seated or standing. In a civilian situation, it could be useful in a theater, restaurant, or transportation setting. Since it is a muscle-memory technique, it requires a lot of practice.

[lrb111]

makes me want to go back to the range and shoot another couple hundred rounds.

[AV8R]

makes me want to go back to the range and shoot another couple hundred rounds. :lol:

That's why I'm so fond of 9mm.

[Liberty]

makes me want to go back to the range and shoot another couple hundred rounds.

That's why I'm so fond of 9mm.

uh ohh, now you did it!!

[GlockenHammer]

If I have to room to extend the gun without essentially handing it to my attacker, I'm going to use the sights. I know the theory is that I don't have time to do so, but I respectfully disagree. It takes a split second to take a flash sight picture and I cannot think of a realistic scenario where fully extending the gun does not pose a threat, but there is insufficient time to take a flash sight picture.

I had an interesting experience relevant here. I had an opportunity to use a video-based firearms training simulator where the threats did what they did until you fired an adequate shot to stop them. The scenario of relevance had a near threat at about 4 yards with a gun that I shot to the ground with about 5 shots. After he's down, his accomplice appears about 25-30 distant and starts shooting. Being in a two-handed hold already on the downed suspect, I brough the firearm up to roughly eye level and began firing immediately as I detected the threat. I was not using the sights as I was clearly focused on the threat and not my pistol and I was not hitting my target. Seeing that the unsighted fire was not working, I focused on the sights and made the shots to neutralize the threat.

This was a surprise to me.

I'm an avid IDPA shooter and this is NOT how I would shoot an IDPA stage. In IDPA, I would have taken the extra split second to align the sights as necessary to make the first shot(s) scoring hits as it is a waste of time to do otherwise.

But this wasn't IDPA. Mentally, I was being shot at and my body reacted differently. (Different even from all of my training for those of you that think you'll react like you've trained.) My basic instincts kicked in and I decided that I needed to get lead flying ASAP. Only after I had lead flying in the response did could I focus now on hitting the threat. I didn't have a timer going, but I suspect I had at least two or three unsighted shots before I got on my sights for the two or three more that scored. At my speed, that was probably 0.5 sec of unsighted fire.

I learned a few really imprtant things from the 5 minutes I spent with this simulator.
1. Force on Force cannot be over emphasized in your training. You will likely react differently when your threat doesn't just sit there paitiently waiting to be neutralized.
2. Having a firearm with significant initial ammunition capacity is of vital importance to me. If I'd had one of those georgeous 1911's (even with spare mags), I'd have been in a world of hurt, and this was just two threats.

As for unsighted fire, while the distance here was inappropriate for unsighted fire, if that threat had appeared closer, I suspect the results would have been the same--immmediate return fire regardless of sight picture with a graduation to more sight refinement if I wasn't being effective. Now I just wonder if I practice this unsighted fire if I would have a more effective range for these initial shots.

[txinvestigator]

If I have to room to extend the gun without essentially handing it to my attacker, I'm going to use the sights. I know the theory is that I don't have time to do so, but I respectfully disagree. It takes a split second to take a flash sight picture and I cannot think of a realistic scenario where fully extending the gun does not pose a threat, but there is insufficient time to take a flash sight picture.

I had an interesting experience relevant here. I had an opportunity to use a video-based firearms training simulator where the threats did what they did until you fired an adequate shot to stop them. The scenario of relevance had a near threat at about 4 yards with a gun that I shot to the ground with about 5 shots. After he's down, his accomplice appears about 25-30 distant and starts shooting. Being in a two-handed hold already on the downed suspect, I brough the firearm up to roughly eye level and began firing immediately as I detected the threat. I was not using the sights as I was clearly focused on the threat and not my pistol and I was not hitting my target. Seeing that the unsighted fire was not working, I focused on the sights and made the shots to neutralize the threat.

This was a surprise to me.

I'm an avid IDPA shooter and this is NOT how I would shoot an IDPA stage. In IDPA, I would have taken the extra split second to align the sights as necessary to make the first shot(s) scoring hits as it is a waste of time to do otherwise.

But this wasn't IDPA. Mentally, I was being shot at and my body reacted differently. (Different even from all of my training for those of you that think you'll react like you've trained.)

This is where I disagree. You had NEVER trained in a situation where shots were coming inbound. Your instincts DID control you, as you had no training in such a situation. ;)

2. Having a firearm with significant initial ammunition capacity is of vital importance to me. If I'd had one of those georgeous 1911's (even with spare mags), I'd have been in a world of hurt, and this was just two threats.

Only bad thing about these simulators is there is never an option to move to cover before or while engaging either target. Was BG two 30 feet or yards?

As for unsighted fire, while the distance here was inappropriate for unsighted fire, if that threat had appeared closer, I suspect the results would have been the same--immmediate return fire regardless of sight picture with a graduation to more sight refinement if I wasn't being effective. Now I just wonder if I practice this unsighted fire if I would have a more effective range for these initial shots.

Good points, and great post. We need to keep in mind that besides the danger to yourself with missed rounds, those missed rounds would have impacted somewhere. Possibly in an innocent.

[LedJedi]

Having a firearm with significant initial ammunition capacity is of vital importance to me. If I'd had one of those georgeous 1911's (even with spare mags), I'd have been in a world of hurt, and this was just two threats.

well said man.

i've been thinking more and more on this as time goes on. I'm about to make the switch from my 12+1 rd .45 to a 9mm I think for that very reason.

[TX Rancher]

Fortunately, as a civilian I’ve never had to respond to incoming rounds…it’s one of the things I’ve liked about being a civilian

But in the military, I did…

When I initiated the shooting, it didn’t matter the distance or the position I was in (prone, sitting, standing, etc), I always used the sites.

When they initiated the engagement, distance did play a part. If the shots came from a respectable distance, say outside 50 yards (lets assume a single sniper, an ambush that was prematurely tripped is different), I didn’t return fire until I had an idea of where the shots came from (I was carrying a CAR and was the team lead, so suppressive fire was not my job in those situations). When I had something to shoot at, I would use the sites (but then that’s really me initiating).

For ambush situations, which in my case were inside 50 yards, it was everyone’s responsibility to put out rounds (suppressive fire), and I never used the sites during the initial engagement.

Now the situation was considerably different since it was a free fire zone, so you didn’t care about innocent civilians. Also, the weapons were long guns, not pistols, and you weren’t by yourself. Also, and this is a big point, during the initial seconds of the engagement, I don’t remember actually “seeing� the other guys so it’s debatable what benefits there would have been to using sites. But it still tends to show what my instincts are when caught off guard and not in the initiator role.

Later in my career, when I was working as military attached to civilian agencies, the weapon was often a pistol (9mm or 45acp) and some of the engagements were more along the lines of what a civilian would face (inside 30 ft). I can’t think of a single time that I used my sites during the initial shots.

When training on the range, I would always use my sites, but on the range it was different. By that I mean I’m not caught off guard by the movement of the target or the suspect suddenly going for a weapon, or charging…on the range, the buzzer sounds, I draw and shoot the silhouette target…the two, for me, are inherently different.

On the range, my ego and a desire to beat the clock, my buddies time, my last time, or something similar are what’s driving me, I know my survival is not at risk. But in the field, I was scared, not excited as in competition/training, and that elicited a different response. Higher brain level functions seemed to shut down and I just “responded�, and that didn’t include looking for the sites.

I’ve noticed I have the same tendencies when doing FoF with airsoft. If the “opponent� is an average Joe, I sometimes use the sites, sometimes not, but it’s always a conscious decision to try one or the other and see how it works. But if it’s an aggressive, fast moving opponent that catches me off guard with an exceptionally fast or unexpected attack, I fail to use the sites.

Based on my own personal reactions to stress, it seems wise for me to practice what I call instinct shooting. After all, it’s probably what I’m going to do.

Of course I still practice sited shooting. The logical part of my brain knows sited shots are better…the problem is when I’m in combat, the logical part isn’t in charge.

When I practice what I call instinct shooting, I can consistently hit COM at close distances, so it’s not really just throwing lead downrange and hoping I hit the right thing (I believe some call it “spray and pray�).

Now to be clear, I am not advocating un-sited over sited shooting for anyone else. What I am saying is that for me, I have to accept the probability it’s what I will resort to, no matter how much I train myself to use the sites, and by practicing I increase my chance of survival, and those of bystanders…for me it’s right.

I think each person needs to look at this from their anticipated reactions, and train accordingly. If you think you’ll fall into the group that will naturally resort to un-sited fire, then practice it. The learning curve is not really that steep assuming you are comfortable with your weapon and are already good at sited shooting, and your survivability will be increased.


Charles:

Excellent topic and one I hope generates a lot of responses…both pro and con. I’m never too old to learn...despite what my wife says

[Jungle Work]

A Very Intresting Topic.

Wheter using sights or a flash sight or no sights for me has always be determined by distance. The distance to the bad guy.

When the distance is O to 3 yards, I never extend the pistol I'm holding. I hold it close to the body so that it is protected from slaps or grabs. I pratice with the Ol' Three Pound Coffee Can Target (I cut both ends out of a three pound can of coffee and use it as a stencil with white spray paint to get a circle center of mass on the target). I pratice drawing the weapon, holding close to the body and instenctively shooting. I've been doing this for so long there is no problem keeping them in the circle.

From 3 to 10 yards I always use a flash front sight picture with the arms extend in a point shoulder stance. I figure that I have the time to atleast get a good flash sight of the front sight at this distance and range. The is the range I preach, "Front Sight, Front Sight, Front Sight, Cover, Cover, Cover"

After 10 yards, I try to use a normal sighting stance, always aided by cover.

Cover can not be underrated, distance and cover are your friends. Things that keep bullets from your body are as important is accurate shooting. I have found from LEO Involved Shootings and Military Combat that you have three basic things to do in a gunfight, Move, Shoot and Communicate.
Its one thing to shoot at a target, but another with the rounds start comming at you.

This is just what works for me. I'm really intrested to see what other use and do.

Jungle Work

[stevie_d_64]

One of the more enjoyable things I have ever seen a shooter do is watching Charles draw, come up to a full extention and stance, take a real good step back away from the "threat/target" and stitch it!

The smoothest thing I've seen in a long time...I could never be that smooth...

Its like watching Fred Astaire without Ginger Rodgers!

His "Ginger" fires .45's!!!

Hey Charles...Just figured out a new name for your Les Baer!!!

I really believe if you practice smoothness, and combine that with a controlled, aggressive, well-balanced presentation...Your ability to effectively deal with any situation is something to really strive for...And it becomes second nature...

When you don't have to think too much about "how"...And can consciously, but with out hesitation figure out "why"...I think thats half the battle...

But thats just my 2 centavos...

[BobCat]

As someone who *always* focuses on the front sight, and is indeed convinced that 10-ring hits depend on front sight focus, I have no business responding to this thread. I've never been shot at and have no idea how I'd respond. All my shooting is simply competition, with nothing at stake but a score. Just to make it clear, I have no practical expertise in defensive shooting or gun fighting so I'm not taking sides on the issue at hand.

However, at http://www.threatfocused.com/forums/for ... y.php?f=23 there is a pretty interesting post about the fundamentals of what they call handgun Quick-Kill shooting. Be aware that the people on that forum are avid about this kind of "point" shooting, and several make their living teaching it, so they may be biased in favor of it.

I tried the instructions in that first post, at very short range (3 and 7 yard lines) with my CZ75. Target was a 3" black bull on a sheet of notebook paper, on a piece of cardboard about 20" tall and 12" wide. Focussing on the black ball, bringing the pistol up to below eye level, arm extended but not locked, one hand, most shots hit within a couple inches of the black, many in it. Totally amazed! All shots were on the notebook paper, none just on the cardboard.

I was very uncomfortable shooting without looking at the sights - even knowing the impact berm is there, it "feels" irresponsible. Still, it is worth trying - if only to see whether or not you can get good hits looking at the target instead of the sights. I found it really illuminating at very short ranges. Need to try again.

Regards,
Andrew

[LedJedi]

Reach out with your feelings. Trust your feelings.

Sorry, I had been holding that in too long.

Seriously. This is something I plan on playing with. I read something a while back that was talking about how indians riding at full speed on horseback would raise a rifle and shoot and supposedly were highly accurate without using the sights. There's got to be something to this. I doubt accuracy would compare to sighted shots overall though.

Its sounding like it would be a good idea to be proficient in this type of shooting, especially for the first round or two in a defensive situation and then revert back to sight shooting when time allows.

I've always been a sight shooter and probably always will be, but it sounds like there's enough here to warrant some trials. Next time I go to the range I'll give it a shot and post the results.

Great posts here guys. I really appreciate you fine folks taking the time to chime in.