Point Shoot - Outdated and useless?

[GeorgiaShooter]

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.

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 I'm not yet convinced he's out of date to the extent everyone thinks.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.

 

[cshoff]

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 I'm not yet convinced he's out of date to the extent everyone thinks.

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.

 

[GeorgiaShooter]

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.

 

[photoman]

Especially for my wife who will likely only be able to use the basic techniques that are in harmony with fight or flight.

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.

 

[keith44spl]

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

 

[okjoe]

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

 

[cochise]

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

 

[Chuck1217]

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.

 

[dubhelix]

point shooting

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.