P&S is brain dead simple, can be learned with little or no training, and maintained with no or minimal practice.

The target showing the result of my first string of the day after a year away from the range, attests to that. Also, when I shoot I shoot as fast as I can point and pull the trigger.

Here's a link to YouTube video - shooting one handed
Point Shooting - One Handed - YouTube

........

The finger rest is not required to use P&S.

It makes correct index finger placement mechanical and automatic. And it helps to keep the index finger away from the slide when shooting rapidly and the gun is bucking and jumping in your hand. It also helps in supporting the gun, as it rests on top of the index finger.

According to the literature, in a life threat situation you will have a crush grip on your gun, and that will play havoc with a traditional grip.

With a crush grip, your index finger won't be held aloof from the gun for squeezing the trigger smoothly back until each shot breaks. And your thumb won't be positioned along the side of the gun but not pressing against it.

Your thumb, which is higher up in the hand, will press against the gun and push it over to the right. And the index, middle, ring, and little fingers, which are lower in the hand, will pull the gun down and around to the left. As such, shots will go low and left unless a counter measure is employed.

With P&S, you get a strong and level shooting platform. It is made up of the natural pincer of the thumb, web of the hand, and the index finger, and the ring and little fingers add tenacity to it.

The result is a strong four fingered grip, not your weak three fingered marksmanship/range grip.

You can squeeze the bejeebers out of the gun, and all you will do, is strengthen your grip. Front punches can be made, and the gun and forearm can be used as a crude battle-axe.

Also, when the index finger is extended along the side of the gun, it will help "lock" the wrist and strengthen the grip, and improve recoil control.

Actually if you never train and you can hit consistently in center mass without retaining any skills, I'd say that's a pretty awesome technique, although I am probably in agreement, for me, I will never put a piece of trim on my gun and shoot with my ring finger. I can demonstrate with my guns why this would not be good and even unsafe "for me". At the same time if someone can stand on their head and shoot flies off a water tower, more power to them. It's not a contest, you just have to kill the bad guy. I just practiced point shoot again today and MAN it is deadly effective and fast as lightning, with or without lighting, and it's not fast, it's INSTANT results. Unless some X Navy Seal commando ranger berets come rob me at the ATM or convenience store, I'm going to be almost impossible to defeat. Recently watched about a 100 close shootings on videos caught on tape. Not one of them so far used sights or advanced techniques. I'm also learning I can be mobile with PS and stay locked on target like a tractor beam, freagin magic if you ask me.

If I carried a gun for self defense I would NEVER admit not going to the range for a year!

I don't agree with your method, if it works for you then more power to ya.

The draw stroke and grip should be the same as aimed fire each and every time. The presentation may or may not be the same.

Your targets illustrate the difference in accuracy between point shooting and aimed fire. Anyone that claims pin point accuracy while point shooting is either grossly exagerating or should be on TV with Bob Munden or Howard Darby.

The idea of point shooting is to put shots on targets fast because you don't have time for aimed fire. It was never meant to replace aimed fire nor was it meant to be as accurate.

I wasn't going to get involved in this thread but felt the need to put my 2-cents in.

I have been shooting guns since I was 5 years old (1963) and a proponent of Point, or Instinctive, Shooting since 1976 so I've been around a lot of shooters in my time.

Because we have a pistol range in the back-yard I've been teaching quite a few family & friends how to shoot, especially since Michigan became a "shall issue" state back in 2001.

In all my time being around shooters, and teaching people how to shoot I've seen them do some unorthodox things but have never seen anybody try to pull the trigger with their middle finger.

To me Point Shooting's strong point is that it's easily learned & retained and uses the body's natural instincts when under pressure. It would seem that at this point in time that if pulling the trigger with the middle finger was in any way "natural" I would have seen someone try it by now. Especially when teaching those who had never fired a gun in their life, heck some had never even touched a gun before the day they showed up here.

Because of this experience, the middle finger method, which may work for some, kind of defeats the whole "natural, instinctive" aspect of Point Shooting........

Mention of using the middle finger on the trigger can be found in books dated: 1804, 1810, 1816, 1829, 1835, 1870, 1885, 1898, 1900, 1903, and many military manuals published in the 1900's. Many of the books in the 1800's deal with rifles.

This language is from the first manual on the 1911 that was published in 1912.

..."(3) The trigger should be pulled with the forefinger. If the trigger is pulled with the second finger, the forefinger extending along the side of the receiver is apt to press against the projecting pin of the slide stop and cause a jam when the slide recoils."

That exact or similar language, is found in manuals published in 1915, 1917, 1918, 1920, 1921, 1922, 1925, 1926, 1927, 1929, and 1941. And I am sure there are others that I am unaware of.

If the technique was unknown and not used, there would be no reason for the US Military to caution against it's use with the 1911 in different military manuals published during 28+ years.

The technique has been known of, and used for 200 or so years now.

The following is from a review of the Mauser C-96 "Broomhandle" Machine Pistol by David M. Fortier. In it, he said that the C-96 was extremely popular in china from the early 1900's up through the 1940's and beyond.

"....Special commando units were armed entirely with the C-96, and later the selective fire variants, as well as a large beheading sword carried in a leather scabbard on their back. Recognizing the Mauser's weak and strong points, the Chinese developed the following technique for using the C-96 and later the 712. They would hold it sideways (what we would today refer to as "Gangbanger style"), with the index finger lying on the magazine well pointing at the target, and pull the trigger with the middle finger.

IMHO, that many do not know about it in the US and/or think it is weird, is very reasonable since the 1911 was the only standard issue sidearm of US forces.

And for 70+ years our military forces were instructed to NOT use it with 1911.

The Soviets used a simple two pronged clip to keep the slide stop pin of the Tokarev TT-33 in place. The TT-33 was similar in design to the Browning model 1903, and 1.7 million TT-33's were produced.



The 1911's slide stop was not modified. And as such, our military forces never had the option of using P&S which is a deadly technique for shooting in CQB situations where we now know that in most all cases, the sights are not or can not be used.

..........

Here's a pic of Ruby Ruby whose is off to the left of and in front of Oswald and the cop who has Oswald's left arm.



Here's one just after Ruby shoots Oswald who was killed. Note the unorthodox middle finger sticking thru the trigger guard.



The following is from John Minnery's 1973 book: Kill Without Joy, which is not a read for the weak of heart or squeamish.

"One of the best visual representations of an assassination that I've ever seen is the shooting of Lee Harvey Oswald by Jack Ruby.... He's using his middle finger to squeeze the trigger and his index finger, the normal shooter's trigger finger, is pointed right at his target. He shoots where he points. This method is not too well known in the States but the method was SOP with wartime SOE and SIS agents in Britain...."

That's a nice way to burn the flesh off your finger there with a revolver. I've seen that injury more than once. It's not pretty. Ruby must have had the 1st finger down on the frame or he would have gotten it toasted a little bit. The bird finger is the longest, heaviest and strongest finger for sure, and not surprised someone would use it. But it's also equally strong at reenforcing your grip.

Here's my issue with the middle as a trigger finger, when I hold any gun this way I'm forced to put the middle bird finger into the trigger guard to get a stable grip. If I run the index down the side of the gun and I can't effectively hold my trigger middle finger outside of the trigger guard without feeling like I have a half-assed grip on the gun in general. I can never feel totally safe with this method.

Maybe it's just my hand but this also rides my flesh up higher on the rear of the gun to a point I'm much more likely to loose some flesh with an automatic. I also noted on a website how they illustrate a S&W bodyguard as an ideal gun for this technique but when I use this method the gun is actually so thin profile the index does not actually ride down the right side of the gun naturally, it bends inward then up the side of the gun due to the wider hand compared to the thinner grip. Not all that natural at all...

This is a more detailed reason why I tried but then abandoned the middle trigger finger method. Back to my standard way of using the index finger for the trigger is very natural, safe and works on every gun I own consistently. I mean this respectfully of course, I don't have enough knowledge to comment other than stating what works best for me, but that is why.

You might should, before you comment, read some of the material he references.

There are also lots of pictures of old dueling pistols being held using the forefinger to point.

There are many more than he mentioned with photos.

By the way, I tried it. Worked OK with a S&W 9mm and a Colt Commander, but even though I own them, I don't care for them.

I am a revolver person.

On my model 10 and my Redhawk, my finger is too long and those powder burns hurt.

I have not yet tried it with my Blackhawks as I am getting along fairly well with a convention hold.

By the way, there are also photos of shooters using the technique shooting birds with shotguns and military personnel using it with automatic weapons.

Note I said photos, not third handed hearsay.

By the way, one fault I found with the method is that the second finger is not as sensitive on the trigger as the forefinger and I got a couple of shots off before the gun was correctly on target. I am sure that one could learn to control that but I went back to standard so it did not matter.

I believe the reason for this is that in a normal hold, we try to grip as tight as we can with all fingers except the index finger so it is natural to grip with that finger even though it is on the trigger. I am sure if one worked on it one could change his grip, but I went back to the revolvers.

Never ridicule. One can always learn.

Thank you for your response old curmudgeon.

Would appreciate a link/s to some of those other old books and photos if available.

Walter J. Dorfner SSgtVSP, the long time lead firearms instructor for the Vermont SP, experimented with and wrote a paper on his experience with P&S when he was Vice Chair of the Use of Force Committee of the Vermont Criminal Justice Training Council, at the Vermont Police Academy in Pittsford, VT. Walter died in 2001.

He thought P&S would be the next step in the evolution of survival shooting.

I made a digest of it, which he approved of, and we both had it published in Police publications.

The digest gives a detailed description of what AIMED Point Shooting or P&S is, how and why it works, and it gives his experience with it.

Though the shooting method is not new, it is not widely known or accepted in the gun community as a survival shooting method.

The shooting method was not taught at the academy. However, it was presented by Walter to new VSP members.

Walter used the term Point Shooting in his paper to identify the method of shooting. I have taken the liberty to add the word AIMED in front of it, as the method employs the index finger to aim the gun, which is more than just Point Shooting. Point Shooting is normally understood to be shooting sans sights, or unaimed shooting.

A couple of years ago I got interested in it and found many links but did not save any of them.

I did see the ones posted here. I also saw some old dueling photos, so the idea does go back many many years.

Regardless of method, one needs to think about what the conditions will be in a close encounter. Usually at night, usually in very poor light, maybe with your glasses still on the night stand and your eyes blurred from sleep....so sights are not going to be of much help.

So I would suggest trying several methods and use the one that works with you and your weapon.

Frankly, I don't care one bit how competitive shooters shoot other than to figure out if their methods will work for me.

Competitive shooters go to a meet all keyed up. They are definitely wide awake and sharp as a tack.

They are doing something they have done a thousand times even though the course will be different in the current event, the general scheme of things is the same.

I will be awakened, I hope, by a noise at the window or the door. Maybe even later than that after the BG is in the house.

Or in a parking lot at night it will be someone who looked OK until that instant when he is really close.

Not planned, adrenalin not up. Thinking about something else,

If in the house, glasses on the nightstand, vision blurred, starting from deep sleep...

It will be a one time experience like never before.

Entirely different from a shoot meet.

I am not, but a really good shooter who is much younger than I should be really good at all types of shooting, whether aimed fire or point blank instinct acts of desperation.

As to the grip M1911,

P&S uses the natural pincer of opposing thumb and index finger to grasp the gun, along with the ring and little fingers that add tenacity to it.

Ergo, it a four fingered grip that provides the shooter will a strong and level shooting platform as described above.

It's also a natural and good way to pick up and hold a mug of coffee or beer.

It is not your weak three fingere competition marksmanship range grip where the thumb is held along side the gun but not pressing on it, and the index finger is held aloof from the gun so it can independently and smoothly squeeze the trigger back until the shot breaks.

And which, with all due respect, according to the literature is not used in combat.

In combat, per the literature, you will have a crush grip on the gun, so your competition/range grip will become moot.

The rub in terms of life or death defensive shooting, is that much of modern Police self defense shooting techniques flow from competition shooting techniques. And they are not like two peas in a pod. And thinking or saying so, won't make it so.

If they were the same, all the crooks would be dead, in hospital, or in jail. Police casualty rates would be going down. And the over 80 per cent miss rate in armed encounters, would not be proof that they are not the same. That is, unless hits don't matter in competition.

And who's to blame for this kettle of fish? The proven-in-competition shooting techniques which also are proven-to-fail-in-armed encounters, or the trainers, or both?

If you have any pics or videos of the grip and techinique used by super shooters being used in combat and stopping/killing threats to police or others, trot em on out.

I would be happy to post them on a page on my web site that is waiting for one or more to be posted there. The page is empty and has been for several years now.

Also, I don't dislike the 1911.

I think the design is great except for the slide stop. A single stack design is superior to current hi-cap guns as it makes the gun easier to grasp and shoot. Of course, the caliber could be reduced to 9mm for easier shooting by most average folks.

Big fat grips and 40 cal guns are harder to hold and shoot accurately IMO.

That they are popular with the police doesn't make sense, because if you can't hit the target, it doesn't matter what gun your using.

If I were in charge of stuff, things might be different.

But I'm not in charge of much, except taking the garbage out, and adding TP to the TP holder when its empty or near empty.

Stay safe and relax.

I wish, instead of snide remarks, you would explain the photos and the other examples given.

An analysis would be helpful.

I am not taking sides. I just feel that adding to the knowledge pool is beneficial. Posts like that don't add anything.

I have already provided a bit of information, but I will go into a little more detail if you'd like.

First and foremost, the "grip" that this poster advocates is inherently weak and places the index finger in a hyper-extended position, meaning that the user is vulnerable to even a poorly executed disarm attempt. As soon as the gun is moved laterally, the brain will sympathetically force the hand to release it's grip.

Secondly, due to the inherent weakness of gripping the gun with only two fingers (because the finger along the frame is not complimenting the grip in any way), recoil management is diminished making quick follow up shots less accurate and, subsequently, less controlled. Not exactly conducive to good muzzle control.

Third, the method is absolutely NOT conducive to being used in an ambidextrous manner. It requires fine motor control, that of which is simply absent in the non-dominant hand, especially under stress. To top it all off, a person would have to install a "shelf thingy" on both sides of his/her gun in order to even attempt to make the skill crossover well from one hand to another, not to mention that the "shelf thingy" interferes with taking a proper two-handed grip on the gun for longer shots that might require precisely aimed fire.

Fourth, the very poor quality video shows a person who is supposedly using a BB gun or Airsoft gun to plink the cans that are being thrown into the air, though we never see any kind of video where a handgun of adequate defensive caliber is used. Just some randomly posted pictures of targets that were (supposedly) shot using this method with a centerfire handgun. Of course, there is no substantiation.

Fifth, this person has made the rounds on various gun forums INTENTIONALLY misrepresenting the syllabus of the NRA Personal Protection In The Home course in an attempt to try to prop up his unorthodox and unsafe shooting "grip". This propensity for being dishonest in his representations, IMHO, is enough to make the credibility of everything he says questionable.

Thank you.

But then there are those pesky old photos and dueling books.

Oh...and most men's hands are so large that their little finger is not even gripping with the conventional hold.

As I said, I tried it and quit it because I do not like semi-autos and the revolvers I had at the time burned my finger.

So I am not speaking defensively but only in the interest of learning whether those old guys really shot that way and if so how good were they?

The definition I've seen most often is: point shooting is when you focus on the target, not the sights.

There are many different methods of "aimed" point shooting, as you call it, that have been taught and promoted by many different people over the years. Some, like Jim Cirillo, I highly respect.

The main thing to remember about point shooting is that there is a continuum between aimed fire and unaimed/target focus/point shooting. Which method you use is largely dependent upon the distance between you and the threat.

__________________
Centennial Every Day

I can show you photos and books of all kinds of odd things, still, that doesn't make the things they espouse anymore valid or legitimate.

Really? On a full size Glock (such as what this person posted a picture of) or on the Makarov or 1911 sized pistols? Guys with hands so big that their little finger doesn't wrap around the grips of these guns is QUITE RARE, I would contend.

But the poster in question here is advocating this as a valid DEFENSIVE pistol manipulation method. So it isn't about some gimmick being used by a group of funsters at the range for the sake of competition, we are talking (possibly) life or death here.

Good replies, but they don't answer the question.

The continuum quoted above is exactly the reason why I’ll stick with the index finger as my trigger finger.

Here’s a hypothetical: Let’s say I have an immediate threat I have to deal with at very close range so I go for my gun drawing it with my middle finger as my trigger finger. While I’m clearing leather the bad guy (BG) moves off to cover further away. Now I’m currently in a situation where it’s not safe to leave the area and my threat, who is not taking steps to engage me, is at a distance where my sights would be my best option. Do I now switch to my index finger?

Let’s say I now switch over to my index finger because I feel the greater control (for me) would be to my advantage and I’m holding my fire because the BG isn’t posing an immediate threat at that moment. Now I realize why the threat has been biding his time. I hear a noise and realize I’m being “bum-rushed” by my BG’s partner, a partner I didn’t know he had. This other BG is coming at me fast and my shot will have to be taken at close range. Do I now switch back to my middle finger to engage??

One other thing I would like to comment on.
I went through a phase in my life back in the 70’s, thanks to a friend, where I shot the old Flintlock pistols & rifles on a regular basis. If I would have known about using the middle finger as my trigger finger back then I would have surely tried it due to the fact that I could never get a natural feeling grip on those old, curved type stocks. If I held it naturally (for me) using my index finger as my trigger finger the barrel was always pointed at an awkward angle so I had to cant my wrist in order to compensate. By using my middle finger I would have moved my wrist & arm upwards a little, which would have put it more in line with the barrel.

For dueling using a handgun with those old, curved stocks, knowing that I was in a “one shot” game with set rules that both sides had to abide by, I could easily see myself using the middle finger method.

Because I never know where I may find myself on, “that continuum,” I’m sticking with the finger that gives me the most options with the least amount of thought & motion. However, if I’m ever challenged to a duel with the old style dueling pistols as the weapon of choice I’ll most definitely consider the middle finger method. In that environment & with that weapon it would probably be my best bet………

Why can't you look at the sights with the three finger grip?

Gentlemen,

Keep the critiques and criticisms focused on the subject and not at each other.

As I menioned in my last post, using my index finger when firing a sighted shot would give me better control, as in trigger control, due to the fact that I've been using my index finger for that purpose for almost 50 years now.

I am not about to adopt a method that would require me to re-learn a technique, especially a technique that sounds as if it was developed back when firearm designs were decidedly different so may not apply as well to our newer firearms.
Times & tools change and many times the methods for using those tools have to change right along with them.

I've tried to explain why the middle finger style of shooting is a method I would'nt adopt and why, with the exception being for older style dueling pistols. For that purpose I would seriously consider it in order to overcome my aiming issue with older, curved styled pistol stocks. In a previous post I've also said that it may work well for others, so, with that said, I'm done.......

You sir, have a fine day!

I added some quoted material in a prior post. One of the admin's deleted it as my action did not comply with the forum rules.

Sorry for that, and for taking up the admin's time.

...........

As to the middle finger on the trigger.

The middle finger can be used on the trigger for both close and far shots.

Being in the middle of the hand, it pulls back straighter in the hand than does the index finger which makes for better accuracy.

It can be extended and flexed as can the index finger.

It receives nerve inputs from both sides of the hand while the index finger does not.

It is longer than the index finger which can make for easier placement of the finger on the trigger of larger guns.

It is stronger than the index finger which makes firing of double action guns easier than is the case with the index finger.

When it is used, the gun will be lower in the hand for increased gun and recoil control.

There may be a problem with keeping it out of the trigger guard, but that is a problem with the index finger as well, in high stress situations.

In a combat situation, you will have a crush grip on the gun, so it would be good to have the middle finger on the trigger, as the thumb and index finger will be pressing against the gun in a pincer which will give you a strong and level shooting platform.

If the index finger is on the trigger, the thumb which is higher up in the hand will push the gun over to the right, and the middle and ring and little fingers, being lower in the hand, will pull it down and around to the left. And your shots will go low unless countered by some measure like a two handed grip, which according to the stats is seldom if ever used in CQB situations.

Also if you are going to be shot and/or killed, there is an 80% chance it will happen at less than 21 feet. So to train for reality, train most all of the time on close shooting.

And if you plan to use a handgun for self defense at beyond 21 feet, hopefully you also have a good attorney on retainer.

If it works for you, good. I won't change the way I've been shooting for 40 years.

Personally I think it's baloney. If it were all that good, everybody would be doing it and they're not.

I don't think you'll get too many converts here.

If it ain't broke.....................

There are so many different situations that could create a self-defense scenerio that it seems that point shooting should be part of your training. Actually I would think that if you are in such a situation more often than not you will not have time to get into a weaver stance and must rely on point shooting. I include point shooting in my training simply because you just never know.

Kanew...,

Thanks for your comment.

I certainly agree with your "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" sentiment.

And I'm not looking for converts.

For the past ten years or so, I have been looking into PS vs SS, and have settled on "my" way of Point Shooting, after experimenting with "The Applegate" method, Quick Kill, Threat Focused Shooting, etc.. as it fits in best with the stats, studies, and info on CQB situations to my way of thinking.

That it may be unorthodox to some or many, is certainly the case.

As to orthodoxy, you would think that after 100 years or so, the military, the gov, gun makers, and the police would have figured out what CQB shooting method/s really work, and provided that info. to the millions of gun owners who probably purchased their gun/s with the idea in mind that it could used in their self defense, or to protect family members.

But that's not the case.

Much of modern shooting techniques and training, flow from competition shooting techniques.  And the rub is that competition shooting and combat shooting are not like two peas in a pod.

If they were the same, the CQB hit rate would emulate that of competition shoots, and all the crooks would be dead, in hospital, or in jail,

The reality is that Police casualty rates are not going down, and the hit rate in CQB situations is less than 20%.

The hit rate certainly is not my idea an acceptable standard for anything, and particularly so, given that the issue being dealt with is life or death.

I think it's also important to read and research actual cases of robberies, police shooting that are caught on tape by security cameras, there are hundreds on youtube alone and other sites too. One thing you will almost always see, single strong hand shooting, more natural aiming instead of sighting, and firing almost instantly. In many cases the robbers are killed or stopped by the store owners, clerks and a couple of cases cops, on tape.

From what I can see this only bears weight to the fact people in real situations have (1) no time (2) no sighting (3) single strong hand (4) 5-10 feet maximum range.

In most cases although the entire incident LIVED in the realm of point shooting as taught by applegate method but these people were obviously never actually trained or practiced in the crouch, pump handle, square to the body, pivoting all the things that make the point shooting method suddenly become accurate and deadly. These incidents don't detract from point shooting effectiveness. If anything they prove why we all, average citizens, need to understand it.

But instead when I inquire to all the local shooting schools and clubs here they uniformly want me to learn how to sight shoot through the recoil and learn combat competition drills and complex methods. For citizens like me, non cops, non commando types we are faced with $200-400 per day classes teaching us almost everything about a gun but basic aim point shooting as the core.

From my point of view almost everything Applegate says in his presentations suddenly seems crystal clear and true as a arrow. While it's very clear to me I will not be shooting hostage takers in the forehead, I wont be attacking a parking lot full of commandos diving and rolling. I will be instantly delivering 2-4 rounds to a BG literally feet away. I honestly believe in insuring the automobile that's actually driven on the road, not the one that never leaves the garage.

I have lots of crimes in my area to study, our police dept publishes the videos of all local robberies, and many of them are caught on tape. You can see these do not demand anything but simple point shoot delivered VERY quickly at 5-10 feet. Any moron can hit a dime at those distances with point shoot and a very little amount of training. It's clear this is NOT being taught. Just go to any range and watch how men and their wives shoot. The message is not reaching the peeps.

If I hear again how the simple point shoot I'm working on is not combat effective, inaccurate and dangerous to bystanders I might taste vomit.

Suarez International (Roger Phillips) has an excellent point shooting program.

__________________
Centennial Every Day

Some observations:

Applegate had the impossible job of training thousands of men to become OSS operatives.

At the beginning of WWII, the OSS was the flavor of the day SEALS, minus the water.

Their job was to go behind the lines and kill people.

My guess is that Applegate taught his students to raise the pistol to the eye level even though he taught point shooting with the conventional grip without any reference to the sights because he had to teach these men in a very short period of time and get them in the field.

You have to remember that at that time, we were losing the war. England was not down, but they were against the ropes.

So if it takes twice or more as long to learn to shoot from the hip, the quicker way had to be used.

Also remember that when those men went out on a mission, they knew what they were getting into and were alert. Vry different from a person waking from a deep sleep to find a BG in his house or maybe even already in his room.

On the other hand, two of the greatest lawmen with a hand gun were Jelley Bryce and Bill Jordan.

Both of them shot instinctively, point shooting if you must, and shot as soon as their forearm was level.

This link shows the both of them in firing position, side by side.

Point Shooting - Colonel Rex Applegate - Sykes - Fairbairn - bobtuley.com Real World Gunfights Happen At Close Range

Both of them could drop a quarter and draw with the same hand and shoot it before it hit the ground.

Jordon confesses in his book that he shot a lot of rounds learning how to do that, probably thousands more than Applegate could allow in his training program because of time restraints.

Another interesting thing is that Bryce shot from a semi-crouch.

Bill Jordan made a big point in his book of his belief that one should stand straight when shooting.

They were both fast fast fast.

Bryce once was surprised by a BG who was already pointing a gun at him. He drew and killed the BG before he could pull the trigger.

Jordan once shot and killed three Mexicans and came out without a scratch even though they were all drawing on him.

My point is that their technique differed but they were so good the results were the same.

So what works for you is what counts.

Actually read Applegates last presentations before he died around 1998 and you'll clearly hear why his basic program was basically unchanged. I think people really have an issue with the fact that a regular citizen can learn very quickly to hit with deadly accuracy and speed at close quarters and the most worse case scenario.

Hard to believe the close defense can be that simple. At least I'm a believer at this point. I will still sight shoot and work on other skills but I cannot make it clear enough that point and shoot aiming is not a compromise. It's the key... No amount of sighting will be more accurate and quick at 10 feet than I can raise and fire. And my eye never leaves the threat. The recoil never raises the gun and blocks my view of the threat either.

I think it's dangerous to get the idea that close quarters combat is "simple", regardless of whatever type of shooting method you prefer. In many CQB situations, it may be physically impossible to even access your gun, much less draw it. We also have to keep in mind that any presentation that requires the shooter to "swing" the gun up to parallel from the holster rather than lifting the gun up, rotating it, and pressing it out towards the target, is easily neutralized in a close quarters situation where the adversary is right on top of you. There is a reason why comprehensive self defense preparedness covers a fairly wide range of concepts, techniques, and skills and that is because different tactical problems often require different solutions.

Look, I'm glad it works for you. If your not looking for converts, why bring it up?

Even though your technique works for you, you present it as something that everyone should do. How irresponsible can you be? You really think that we can benefit from your technique? I don't think so.

You have limited yourself to being a one dimensional shooter. You have foolishly prepared yourself to confrontations within 21 feet. And you have altered your gun and your practice for this very thing.

You can site any and all historical or non-historical documents you like. You won't find ANY top level instructor that teaches your method.

You have taken a simple technique and made it quite complicated.

Again, point shooting is best accomplished when you don't have time to align the sights. By your method if you don't hit your target in the first two or three shots, chances are you won't hit it at all and all you end up doing is spray and pray instead of properly aligning the sights.

Immediately after point shooting in a self defense situation the sights should be brought up to eye level and on target for follow up shots. Your method and alteration makes this near impossible.

I am not opposed to new ideas and methods. As long as they are not dangerous. This one is. This thread needs to be deleted.

This is my last response.

But you must admit that like any skill, throwing tons of techniques, scenarios, foot work and complications can also backfire. Just compare the amount of training a professional soldier gets, then compare that to how much they actually use when they get to the field. I realize there is more to the big picture but it amazes me how much the basics are dismissed. It reads clearly in the words many people say, especially those conducting modern courses. Sometimes simple is also the best answer... I'm not dismissing advanced techniques, I'm just ignoring the level in which everyone dismisses Applegate. I'm not yet convinced he's out of date to the extent everyone thinks.

PS. I'm also going to just fade back again on this, practice and learn more in due time. I've more than stressed the points I wanted to make and this has been a good discussion for me to learn from. I'll revisit more advanced methods once I have these practical basics to a good level.

Yes, it's certainly possible to over-complicate things. Efficiency in motion is usually accomplished by limiting your options; in other words, if you have one way of performing a certain task, always, it's generally more efficient than if you have 3 different techniques you use to perform the task for various occasions. The simple fact that you don't have to "problem solve" before you can even start the task eliminates wasted time and movement.

But that wasn't really the point I was really getting at. The entire concept of self defense is based around having layers of contingency plans in place. For example, option "A" is usually avoidance, option "B" is usually to evade, option "C" is usually deescalation, and option "D" might either be retreat or fight, depending on the circumstances. Within each option, there are a certain set of skills that must be learned, and to a large extent, mastered, in order to be able to use each option most efficiently.

To elaborate a little further, as it relates to option "D" where we are forced to fight, that could mean we have to deploy anything from open hand combatives to firing our defensive firearm, so clearly there is a very wide range of skills we might have to rely on just to exercise one option. And that was more to the point of my previous reply; that it is dangerous to think of close quarters combat as "simple". Close-quarters situations can be anything but simple. They are not static incidents and they don't happen in a vacuum. No matter how well rehearsed we are with our preferred shooting technique, we might very well find that we are forced to fight our way to our gun before we can even begin to think about using it. And if our preferred method is subsequently neutralized by a threat that is upon us, we had better have a backup plan in place to deal with it.

I'm with you already. I'm not focused on knife defense, hand to hand combat because I need to get this basic point shooting mastered without sighting, without advanced techniques, without light. My basic skills sight shooting and general defense are not my weakest or most vulnerable area at the moment. The ability to defend with a handgun instantly under 5-10-15 feet under a panic is the major weakness at this time. Especially for my wife who will likely only be able to use the basic techniques that are in harmony with fight or flight. I know her very well, and we need to stay on course for the short term then begin fanning out. All other points well taken and will be considered.

This is an important consideration LB. When "it" happens, 99% of us will naturally do two things... (1) we will duck or combat crouch as some call it and (2) we will be intently focused on the threat. If "it" happens at close range, both of these natural reactions practically demand good point shooting skills. We learn point shooting not to replace sighted shooting but to add to our skill set, to be better prepared to fight and survive.

__________________
Centennial Every Day

I don't know how I miss this thread,

Dang, to think I been doin' this all wrong, for all these years.

Point shooting, hip shooting, snap shooting or instinctive shootin' or
what ever ya call it is a handy skill/tool to have in yer bag of tricks.

Personally, if you don't 'know' your sidearm well enought to get hits at 'accross the room' distances...
Well, ya probably ain't gonna do much better pointin' with a shotgun at spittin' distances neither.

I only time I ever recall usin' precise aimed fire was,
well this here feller was a shootin at myself and two other officers inside an office type building once.
Our shooter engaged us several times, we hemmed him up in a coat closet...He didn't want to give it up,
so I jest bared down, held hard through the crack and...





Besides Point Shootings fun, all my grandsons do it!





Oh, jest for fun...Back in the day,


Si Amigo,
Dave

__________________
"IN GOD WE TRUST"

When people present material that does not square with the facts, saying what is the case, just keeps things on the level.

Grab gun, point finger, pull trigger. Can be proven to work by most anyone with initiative, common sense, and the use of safe gun handling practices. Simple and accurate = quick and deadly.

If you are going to be shot and/or killed, there is an 80% chance that it will happen at less than 21 feet. Personal attacks occur at up close and personal distances. So, I suggest that one should train for reality, and not what-if's. Some what-if training, may be advisable.

If you are planning to plead self defense in applying deadly force much beyond CQ, good luck.

Also, if you can focus on the sights in a CQB situation, you will not be shooting in a real life threat situation. In a real life threat situations, your fight or flight instinctive response will be triggered, and adrenaline will be dumped into your blood stream. It will relax the Ciliary muscle that controls the shaped of the lens of the eye, and the lens of the eye will flatten. That will enhance your far vision for threat focusing, and the sights will be blurry at best.

The literature and the US Army says you can't focus on two different things at once.

Grab gun, point finger, pull trigger. Hard to get simpler than that IMHO.

With the method described above, where the index finger is placed along the side of the gun, pointed at the target, and the trigger pulled with the middle finger, you will get automatic and correct sight alignment for each shot taken, and when one points at the target you will get an automatic and correct sight picture for each shot taken.

Also the method has been around since at least 1835 and was know of by the US Military, which for 30+ years cautioned against its use with the 1911, because if the index finger was/or is placed along the side of a 1911, it can depress the slide stop pin when the 1911 is fired and the 1911 can jam.

A caution is found in manuals on the 1911 from 1912 up to the 1940's, so most folks, in the USA, don't think that's a good way to shoot any gun.

I will agree that it's not a good way to shoot a 1911, but that's not the case with any other suitable gun.

And it will give one the option of fast and accurate shooting for each shot taken, and regardless of whether the sights can be seen and used or not.

To bad that option (of getting automatic correct sight alignment, and an automatic and correct sight picture), was not made available to our Armed forces during WWI, WWII, Korea, and Vietnam, and still isn't to those who use the 1911 now. A simple fix was made by the Soviets to the Tokarev TT-33 (1.7 million or so were produced).

..........

Thanks for your response. I as going to stop as well, but folks keep asking me back it seems.

Stay safe.

I saw a movie short on Bill Jordon fast draw point shooting. Simply amazing what people can do with some practise.

__________________
JIM
NRA Pistol Instr

From what I've read PS is very much alive. Not from the hip, but without the straight arms, without two hands, raising the pistol well above the waist and- by indexing and intuition- firing as fast as possible. I always tend to ignore anyone saying 'never do this' or 'always do that.' As many said, SD situations are always fluid, and rarely by the book. You gotta be able to PS- all the old guys couldn't be wrong.

Aside from their classic aesthetics and legendary reliability, "point shooting" is the whole reason I choose to own a dozen S&W's instead of the various 1911's, Glock, HK's, etc that I have owned, and sold, through the years. With a S&W round butt, all I have to do is stick my arm out, and the sights are lined up on target without conscious effort. I reckon this is what's going to happen if I am ever faced with an imminent threat - Pointing, and Shooting. In my opinion, if the gun doesn't index naturally and repeatably without having to intentionally line up sights, it is not a good fit as a defensive tool.