Point Shoot - Outdated and useless?

[old curmudgeon]

Absolutely. I can point to at least 3 other gun forums I belong to that he has tried to peddle his snake oil on. This is a gimmick. Nothing more.

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.

 

[cshoff]

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.

 

[old curmudgeon]

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?

 

[photoman]

Point Shooting is normally understood to be shooting sans sights, or unaimed shooting.

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.

 

[cshoff]

Thank you.

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

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

 

[old curmudgeon]

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.

 

[ogilvyspecial]

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.

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………

 

[old curmudgeon]

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?

 

[ChattanoogaPhil]

Gentlemen,

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

 

[ogilvyspecial]

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

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!

 

[okjoe]

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.

 

[Kanewpadle]

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.....................

 

[maddog909]

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.

 

[okjoe]

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.

 

[GeorgiaShooter]

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.

 

[photoman]

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

 

[old curmudgeon]

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.

 

[GeorgiaShooter]

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.

 

[cshoff]

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.

 

[Kanewpadle]

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.

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.