TexasCHLforum.com

For those who don't know, 5Shot has been trying to sell this concept on another forum (http://www.warriortalk.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;) for quite some time and the discussions are very similar. The logic equally flawed. That's not saying the point/instinctive shooting doesn't have it's place. We use the concept all the time in most close range gunfighting classes.

No instructor I know believes it is necessary to get a sight picture to engage someone at arm's length. And as we get out from 3-10 yards, depending on how much of the target is exposed and how much time is availabel to make the shot, one might only need a gross sight picture that allows him/her to see just a front sight or the silhouette of the gun against the target. Of course, if you need a brain-stem shot at the same distance, only a fine/perfect sight picture and sight alignment will do. I don't think any competent shooter can argue they haven't made similar observations. But this whole business of recommending a weak grip and pointing out flawed manuals from the early twentieth century or regurgitating your own garbage to prove your point is just dumb.

Jim, you are a better man than me for continuing this debate. 5Shot came to this board acting as if he was some humble messenger who'd been shown the light by a great master. Instead, he's one the closest things I've seen to a Walter Mitty on the web in some time. The theories he puts forth have been discussed and tested more times than anyone cares to remember. Each time, his system has been weighed, measured and found lacking. Sure, it contains some truths but it is also not the final solution to all problems any more than sighted fire alone is a reasonable response when simply using the Braille method of sight alignment is a better, faster solution.

I'll be the first to say the 1911 has it's flaws...Some more serious than others. I don't think the one indicated by the author is on my list. I do think the slide stop can be an issue for left-handed shooters but, the grip he's suggesting creates a problem that doesn't otherwise exist for 80-90% of shooters.

Point shooting itself is fairly natural. But the idea of using the middle, rather than the index finger to manipulate the trigger is not a natural grip for most people. The grip is weak and compromises the shooter's control of the firearm. Further, the grip makes weapon retention and muzzle strikes more difficult and prone to cause injury to the shooter.

On point shooting; I think point shooting is a necessary skill for close range, fast moving fights inside seven yards. The problem I have is the idea of eschewing all sighted fire in favor of P&S for all defensive shooting. I think this is just as wrong as being completely dependant on a perfect sight picture. It's my belief that shooters need to understand how to transition from point shooting at extremely close ranges to gross sight alignment or fine sight alignment as dictated by the situation.

I agree with Austin, that FOF shows us that it takes too long to acquire sights and engage threats at close range. But FOF also shows us the need to transition back to at least some form of gross sight alignment or fine/perfect sight alignment in when our background makes missing a criminal and civil liability or we create significant distance between us and the threat. A prime example is the Metro PD shooting in Houston on Tuesday. An innocent bystander was shot by the officer as engaged a man with a knife. The officer MIGHT avoid criminal charges but, I will not be surprised if the woman who was shot sues the officer and the department.

YMMV.