Point Shooting

[cshoff]

If you are bringing the gun up into your line of sight, you are, at the very least, using a rough sight picture to index the gun to the target.

Bottom line is to always use the sights when you can. You may be able to train yourself to make accurate hits from longer than average distances without using a sight picture of any kind, but you will NEVER be able to train yourself to make consistently as accurate hits from any distance without the aid of sight picture as you will with the aid of a sight picture of some kind. Try this drill using point shooting (no sight picture) and see how well you do:

pistol-training.com F.A.S.T. (Fundamentals, Accuracy, & Speed Test)

 

[USAF385]

A few years back I started point shooting with my .22 handguns. It started out as a recreational shooting thing first. I would hang multiple targets in different locations and see how close I could come without aiming. After a while it became easy to place the round very near to where I wanted it.. both from the hip and raised but without using the sights.

I have adopted this sort of shooting when training with the guns I carry the most... particularly my 642, LCP, and G27.

I practice all around.... right hand, left hand, one hand, two hands, under the leg (well.. maybe not that last one).

 

[Jellybean]

If you are bringing the gun up into your line of sight, you are, at the very least, using a rough sight picture to index the gun to the target.

This is where there is so much confusion in terminology. Purist sight shooters claim that if you are not aligning the sights you are point shooting. Purist point shooters claim that if you are using any kind of index or employing the sights in anyway you are sight shooting.

Bottom line is to always use the sights when you can. You may be able to train yourself to make accurate hits from longer than average distances without using a sight picture of any kind, but you will NEVER be able to train yourself to make consistently as accurate hits from any distance without the aid of sight picture as you will with the aid of a sight picture of some kind. Try this drill using point shooting (no sight picture) and see how well you do:

pistol-training.com F.A.S.T. (Fundamentals, Accuracy, & Speed Test)

I agree with you, you can make more accurate hits with more consistency using your sights. But this is for real world, life saving self defense shooting. In gun games, like your link, too much emphasis is put on accuracy over speed. Print out the target available in your link, then hold it in front of an average sized man, or a little smaller to simulate a crack head. If your shots go just below the big zero how much difference would it make to the score in the rules compared to the man behind the target? Shooting at center of mass is to make sure you have the most room for error, missing the "A" zone by a half inch will not make you lose to a guy that is more accurate but slower in real life.

But I will say that that target is a great training aid to anyone who wants to try point shooting, just like a paper plate taped to a standard silhouette target is. Back in the 70s when we were using a PPC based requalification course on B-27 targets there was a stage where you had to fire six shots strong hand only, then reload and fire six shots weak hand only from the seven yard line. Most people could keep their shots all within a small group at that range while shooting as fast as they can, even those that had trouble hitting the paper at 25 yards using their sights. Bottom line is that if you are ever in a self defense situation, it is half over before you know it started and speed is more important than shooting a nice tight group. Which I had trouble explaining to a couple of my officers that had attended a high priced shooting school, or used to shoot IPSC.

 

[cshoff]

This is where there is so much confusion in terminology. Purist sight shooters claim that if you are not aligning the sights you are point shooting. Purist point shooters claim that if you are using any kind of index or employing the sights in anyway you are sight shooting.

It really doesn't matter whether you are a "purist" or not. The act of using a reference point on the gun (the sights, the barrel, or the silhouette of the gun in a low light situation) to align the gun with the target, is, by it's very nature, sighted fire. Anything said to the contrary is simply splitting hairs.

I agree with you, you can make more accurate hits with more consistency using your sights. But this is for real world, life saving self defense shooting. In gun games, like your link, too much emphasis is put on accuracy over speed. Print out the target available in your link, then hold it in front of an average sized man, or a little smaller to simulate a crack head. If your shots go just below the big zero how much difference would it make to the score in the rules compared to the man behind the target? Shooting at center of mass is to make sure you have the most room for error, missing the "A" zone by a half inch will not make you lose to a guy that is more accurate but slower in real life.

You are completely missing the point I was making by posting a link to that drill. It's not about whether a "miss" of a inch or two makes any difference in the "real world", it's about the fact that a considerable number of shooters who use their sights are able to score "advanced" or "expert" on that drill, which provides more than anecdotal evidence that speed and accuracy are both quite achievable with sighted fire, even under stress. I've read a number of debriefings from gunfight survivors in which they remembered seeing the front sight on their gun in vivid clarity at the moment they made the shot.

Obviously, it's not plausible to think we will be able to obtain a "adequate" sight picture in every possible defensive scenario, but it's also not plausible to think that we will NEVER be able to obtain said sight picture either. It is for that reason that our training should be multi-faceted and lend itself to allowing us to adapt to the adversity of a dynamic incident.

But I will say that that target is a great training aid to anyone who wants to try point shooting, just like a paper plate taped to a standard silhouette target is. Back in the 70s when we were using a PPC based requalification course on B-27 targets there was a stage where you had to fire six shots strong hand only, then reload and fire six shots weak hand only from the seven yard line. Most people could keep their shots all within a small group at that range while shooting as fast as they can, even those that had trouble hitting the paper at 25 yards using their sights. Bottom line is that if you are ever in a self defense situation, it is half over before you know it started and speed is more important than shooting a nice tight group. Which I had trouble explaining to a couple of my officers that had attended a high priced shooting school, or used to shoot IPSC.

Forgive me for nitpicking, but that is only sound advice to a certain extent. Speed is only more important than accuracy until the point that accuracy falls outside of acceptable (adequate) defensive standards. Once you cross that line, speed becomes a detriment over accuracy. Like it or not, we are always responsible for where our bullets go, regardless of the reason why we engaged a particular target. If a person sacrifices accuracy for the sake of speed and completely misses the deadly threat in front of him/her, that person likely only achieved the goal of (potentially) being killed faster, perhaps at the expense of innocent bystanders caught in the crossfire.

 

[Kanewpadle]

If you ever end up in a gun fight, two things are highly likely. First, the range will be VERY close. Second, the event will happen VERY fast. Neither of those lead me to believe that the classic "stand and deliver" Weaver front sight shooting method will produce satisfactory results in that situation.

There is a place for both sighted shooting and instinctive shooting. If the situation warrants, the sights should be used. On the other hand, with proper training and practice, it's downright amazing what a shooter can do without using the sights and that is a very valuable skill to have in the toolbox.

So... I guess what I'm saying is, be good at both and know which one to use at the right time.

Couldn't have said it better myself. Good post. To the point and easy for anybody to understand.

Point shooting AND sighted shooting should be practiced.

In point shooting you may or may not push the gun forward towards the target. If you bring the gun up to or near eye level, this could be considered sighted shooting. Because whether you realize it or not, in point shooting at eye level you use your periferal vision to find the front sight as a reference as you extend towards the target.

Obviously any position other than eye level is considered instinctive point shooting whether from the hip or in between the hip and eye level.

Point shooting is one reason why some guns don't have sights that stand out and are difficult to find. Some guns have a trough sight. It's because the gun was meant to be used up close and personal and bad breath distance were you may not have time to align the sights.

 

[Jellybean]

cshoff, I got your points, I think you might be missing mine. I'm not saying that you can't achieve speed and accuracy by using the sights, I'm saying you can achieve greater speed with an acceptable loss of accuracy by not using them.

Look at the rules printed on that target. A shot outside of the 3X5 box takes two seconds off your time and a shot outside the 8" circle takes one second off your time. The fastest record is 3.56 seconds. So if a guy shoots it in 2 seconds but misses all six shots, a penalty of eight seconds, by 1/4" he is a novice by their standards but the winner, maybe, in a real gunfight.

Also, a guy that misses real fast would die at the same speed as if he didn't get a shot off at all because he was trying to use his sights, not faster. I've only had a few street cops ask me about point shooting, most of them could care less about their life, but of the ones that did one there was one thing I noticed. Most of them were able to hit the target with no problem, and of those they always hit the target with the first shot. The misses were usually with follow up shots and were correctable once they learned how to control the handgun properly under recoil. There were a few that had problems hitting the target at all and they were all higher "skilled" shooters. Their problems were because they had trained to shoot with two hands and when attempting to shoot with one hand the shots would go right, or left in the case of a lefty, and they either had to learn how to point differently or bring the gun further in to the centerline of their body.

 

[Jellybean]

Point shooting is one reason why some guns don't have sights that stand out and are difficult to find. Some guns have a trough sight. It's because the gun was meant to be used up close and personal and bad breath distance were you may not have time to align the sights.

And some handguns don't have sights at all. But if yours does, learn how to use it in every way you can. Just because they are there doesn't mean they have to be used, but they add to the versatility by making a gun that was intended strictly for close quarters gunfighting a potential fighting tool out to say 100 yards or more. I just had to throw that one in there.

 

[Kanewpadle]

Also with point shooting or sighted shooting come the responsibilty of getting effective hits on target. Even more so with point shooting we must have the ability to assess the situation and react.

This is were the use of movement and/or cover come into play. Simply pointing and pulling the trigger may be the wrong decision. You may think that you don't have the time to make the right decision. But you must. As a well known gun writer once said "every bullet has an attorney attached to it".

 

[cshoff]

cshoff, I got your points, I think you might be missing mine. I'm not saying that you can't achieve speed and accuracy by using the sights, I'm saying you can achieve greater speed with an acceptable loss of accuracy by not using them.

And I would have to argue that in a lot of situations, that is simply false. Many shooters are just as quick, if not quicker, using a legitimate sight picture,than many other shooters are who use point shooting. Of course, everything is situational, and the further you are from the target, the more critical precise sight alignment becomes.

Point shooting definitely has it's place and should certainly be in the repertoire of every defensive shooter, but it can't replace sighted fire in many situations.

Look at the rules printed on that target. A shot outside of the 3X5 box takes two seconds off your time and a shot outside the 8" circle takes one second off your time. The fastest record is 3.56 seconds. So if a guy shoots it in 2 seconds but misses all six shots, a penalty of eight seconds, by 1/4" he is a novice by their standards but the winner, maybe, in a real gunfight.

Again, I posted the drill to illustrate how proficient one can become with sighted fire under stringent time constraints. I'd guess you'd be hard pressed to find many point shooters that could complete that drill with no misses from 7 yards even in 10 seconds, but that is really irrelevant to the point I was making. If a shooter using sighted fire can draw and place 5 shots into center of mass of a humanoid target from 21 feet in 3 seconds, and a shooter using point shooting can achieve the same thing albeit with a slightly larger group, then the clear advantage, at least in my eyes, goes to the shooter using sighted fire.

Also, a guy that misses real fast would die at the same speed as if he didn't get a shot off at all because he was trying to use his sights, not faster.

Not necessarily, because in a number of incidents, a slow hit has been enough to incapacitate an attacker or otherwise thwart further aggression from the attacker. A fast miss likely won't have the same effect. Bottom line is a slow hit beats a fast miss almost 100% of the time, and you can't miss fast enough to lose a gunfight.

I've only had a few street cops ask me about point shooting, most of them could care less about their life, but of the ones that did one there was one thing I noticed. Most of them were able to hit the target with no problem, and of those they always hit the target with the first shot. The misses were usually with follow up shots and were correctable once they learned how to control the handgun properly under recoil. There were a few that had problems hitting the target at all and they were all higher "skilled" shooters. Their problems were because they had trained to shoot with two hands and when attempting to shoot with one hand the shots would go right, or left in the case of a lefty, and they either had to learn how to point differently or bring the gun further in to the centerline of their body.

Training, or a lack thereof, can well be the difference between life and death.

 

[Jellybean]

cs, you obviously aren't seeing the forest through the trees. I have responded to every thing you just said in previous posts, except for the part you completely misunderstood, and I'm not going around this bush again.

 

[cshoff]

cs, you obviously aren't seeing the forest through the trees. I have responded to every thing you just said in previous posts, except for the part you completely misunderstood, and I'm not going around this bush again.

When you speak in absolutes, you will almost always be wrong in one way or the other. That is why I took exception to your statement,

"I'm not saying that you can't achieve speed and accuracy by using the sights, I'm saying you can achieve greater speed with an acceptable loss of accuracy by not using them."

Beyond that, I now believe you and I are pretty much on the same page with this issue.

 

[keith44spl]

Jellybean,

When the big surprize comes and you feel like you just got hit with a cattle prod
and your clawin' at that iron trying to clear that leather in time, just tryin' to stay alive...
Those that haven't tasted the copper just don't get it.

I think you & I would be trying to shoot back sights or no sights.

IMHO,

Su Amigo,
Dave

 

[Jellybean]

When you speak in absolutes, you will almost always be wrong in one way or the other. That is why I took exception to your statement,

"I'm not saying that you can't achieve speed and accuracy by using the sights, I'm saying you can achieve greater speed with an acceptable loss of accuracy by not using them."

Beyond that, I now believe you and I are pretty much on the same page with this issue.

cs, if that's the only thing between us right now maybe we can move forward here. I'm not talking about a competition between point shooters and non shooters. I'm sure there are point shooter that will beat sight shooters in any given game just as there will be sight shooters that will beat point shooters in the same game, it all depends on the individual shooters ability.

The statement you quoted above is about one individual, any individual. If he is able to draw and shoot a target a number of times in a certain amount of time while using his sights he will be able to draw and shoot the same target the same number of times in less time by using point shooting simply because he won't have to move his arm as far, we are talking fractions of a second here but that may be all he needs, or has. Yes he will need to practice this and will probably never be as accurate as he is with his sights, but he only needs enough accuracy to make vital hits. I'm not saying this is the best way to shoot in all circumstances either as their will always be differing circumstances. I'm not trying to insult you but I have found that competition shooters have a problem with this concept because it goes against everything they have learned about shooting, but shooting against someone for points is different than shooting at someone for survival.

 

[Jellybean]

Dave,
You got that right. I'm going to do what I have to even if it means poking my finger in his eye to give me time to shoot him.

I used to keep up with all the new and improved techniques. Then, I was fortunate enough to have my rude awakening on a FATS machine, although it took me twice to understand what was happening, instead of a real life or death shooting situation. I finally realized there was a serious problem and it wasn't just a bad day at the range so I started from square one. All those old guys, no offense, that everyone says are outdated or old school had learned what they know from guys that had seen the elephant, as they say, or saw it themselves in some cases. What all these combat experts that have never shot off of a controlled range are spreading around doesn't belong on the street, it belongs on my garden. The bad guys that are running around shooting people have never even heard of IPSC or IDPA and don't play those games.

Good Luck Dave, and shoot straight.

 

[cshoff]

cs, if that's the only thing between us right now maybe we can move forward here. I'm not talking about a competition between point shooters and non shooters. I'm sure there are point shooter that will beat sight shooters in any given game just as there will be sight shooters that will beat point shooters in the same game, it all depends on the individual shooters ability.

I agree. We all learn and develop skills at a little different pace, and some of us are just naturally better at some things than others.

The statement you quoted above is about one individual, any individual. If he is able to draw and shoot a target a number of times in a certain amount of time while using his sights he will be able to draw and shoot the same target the same number of times in less time by using point shooting simply because he won't have to move his arm as far, we are talking fractions of a second here but that may be all he needs, or has. Yes he will need to practice this and will probably never be as accurate as he is with his sights, but he only needs enough accuracy to make vital hits. I'm not saying this is the best way to shoot in all circumstances either as their will always be differing circumstances.

I often tell my students that there is no such thing as a one-size-fits-all solution to every tactical problem. Life threatening incidents are not static; they happen dynamically and generally play out very quickly. As I mentioned earlier, it is for this reason that our training should be multi-faceted and lend itself to enabling us to exercise flexibility in a dynamic incident. No defensive shooter's skillset would be complete without being able to make those fast, in your face, must do it now without the aid of sights or a sight picture shots.

I'm not trying to insult you but I have found that competition shooters have a problem with this concept because it goes against everything they have learned about shooting, but shooting against someone for points is different than shooting at someone for survival.

The thing is, I am not a competition shooter. I consider myself a student of combatives, and more specifically, a student of efficiency as it relates to combat with a handgun. If tactics or techniques can't stand up to the realities of FoF combatives, then they generally aren't of much value on the street.

 

[tpd223]

In my experience hip shooting only works at touching range, and not always well there.

Walking one's rounds into the target only works when shooting cooperative cardboard, or with belt fed automatic weapons.

Gut shooting bad guys can not even come close to being counted on to stop a fight.

I can think of three different bad guys gut shot with all 9 pellets from a OO buck round at close range that weren't impressed at all.

With all due respect to the gentleman in the video posted elsewhere, I believe that his shooting in the video, at that distance, could have been done both faster and more accurately if he had both hands on the gun and used the sights.

 

[tpd223]

You are talking about training excercises right?

Yes, I abbreviated FoF, commonly used in my circles as shorthand for force-on-force training.

 

[tpd223]

Jeff Cooper had talked about a combat triangle, or something tacticooly trianglish like that, where he claimed power speed, and accuracy were all equally important. Well, I believed it for a long time, until I found out how much he really knew about real gunfighting,


But first, if I may since you have obviously collected a lot of data, do you happen to have statistical information for the agencies, such as the LAPD, that push for sighted fire on the percentage of officers that are shot without ever drawing their weapon or that did draw it but never fired it compared to agencies that don't push it so hard? And also the percentage of officers that are taught to use their sights that actually do? Most of the agencies I've dealt with teach sighted fire at every distance but the officers themselves that have been in actual shootings admit that they didn't use them during the event, even though they intended to do so. The FBI doesn't collect all this information and it's hard to find.
Thank you.

Actually, the FBI summary of LEOs killed each year would have the info as to whether the officer was killed with his gun in his holster, returned fire but was still killed, etc.

Sighted fire has nothing to do with a quick and efficient draw stroke.


Jeff Cooper killed at least three men in combat, at close range, using a handgun, one of them had just opened fire on him with a sub-machine gun. That gives him far more experience than the average guy.
He also made a study of debriefing as many other combat veterans as he could, and had quite a few graduates of his school report back using his teaching successfully.

I never met the man, nor attended his school, but to say he didn't know anything about gunfighting is simply not true.



To throw even another variable into the mix, it is completely possible for an officer to have in fact used sighted fire and have no memory of the sights, just as they often have no memory of hearing their gun go off, having reloaded after the fact, etc.

I met a SWAT officer once who was involved in an entry where they were ambushed. This officer only remembers the point man going down from multiple leg hits, and having trouble getting a grip on the drag strap on the injured officer's vest to get him out of the line of fire.
This officer had not memory until well after the fact that he had emptied a 30 round mag on an MP5 and reloaded, shooting the bad guy numerous times.

Some info on memory distortion and other factors in deadly force events here;

http://www.forcescience.org/articles/stressreactions.pdf



Another study by the Force Science folks here on gaze patterns;

http://www.forcescience.org/fsinews...pattern-findings-mean-for-your-training-more/


With this clip from the article;

"Through innumerable repetitions they have developed a highly accurate feel—a strong kinesthetic sense—for raising their gun to a proper alignment without consciously thinking about it or making a pronounced visual or attentional shift to it. If you ran a laser beam from their eye to the target, it would shine right through their sights.

"Careful sight alignment was an important step in starting them toward that point of excellence. Experience and intensive training are ultimately what brought them there. Over a long time, they were able to transition from one emphasis to another. Yet even at their exceptional performance level, referencing the sights in some manner, however fleetingly or peripherally, was still part of their response in the type of rapidly unfolding encounter designed for this study."

 

[photoman]

Yes, I abbreviated FoF, commonly used in my circles as shorthand for force-on-force training.

Good enough. I'm familiar with Gabe's terminology but wasn't sure that's what you were talking about.

 

[cp1969]

An old fella who taught me a lot about shooting used to do a demo in which he would place an empty Coke can on the top of his outstretched right hand. At a signal, he would draw his 2" model 10 from a belt holster using his right hand and shoot the can before it hit the ground. I saw him do this many times, usually on a bet.

Try that using aimed fire and let us know how it works out.

 

[tpd223]

Next time I get attacked by a Coke can I hope that guy is around to bail me out.

 

[cp1969]

Next time I get attacked by a Coke can I hope that guy is around to bail me out.

Well, if a Coke can did attack you, he could indeed handle it, if you couldn't. Probably anything a lot bigger and meaner, too.

 

[Jellybean]

The thing is, I am not a competition shooter. I consider myself a student of combatives, and more specifically, a student of efficiency as it relates to combat with a handgun. If tactics or techniques can't stand up to the realities of FoF combatives, then they generally aren't of much value on the street.

I guess that's what I used to be, until I found out most of the instructors were fakes. That was when I found the best way to train was to just shoot the SOB and not waste my time with fancy techniques, abbreviations, words and what have you. The tactics and techniques that you learn may do just fine, until you run up against someone that just knows how to shoot. I have yet to see a training program where someone in the crowd couldn't show the instructor up at their own game that they have practiced over and over again. Or shown that their new way of doing things is actually an old idea that never worked that well before. Am I'm happy to say that for the last few years of my career, it was me.

To be honest CS, I used to be alot like you and worshipped some of the instructors I'd had, until I learned the truth about them and a little more about real gunfighting. I wouldn't let a guy that had never replaced a light switch tell me how to wire my house and I'm through letting guys that were never in a gunfight tell me how to win one. I'll learn my own way to do it. But then, it's not just what works, but what works for each individual. Some guys just aren't coordinated enough to point shoot or do other types of shooting they don't understand , and a lot of them just don't seem to care enough to try.

 

[Jellybean]

tpd223,
Thanks, but the LEOKA publications I got from the FBI didn't break the information down by dept. or give any information about the type of training or qualification courses used by each dept.

I've learned a lot about reading about gun experts, and non-experts too. I've spent a lot of ammunition to find that most of them are just trying to make a name for themselves that they don't deserve. And this applies to point shooting experts too. I watched a video with two of the biggest names in modern point shooting that looked more like they were dancing than they were shooting to save their lives. It was all pretty sad, stupid and funny at the same time.

I've read some stuff from Jeff Cooper and used to have a video of his. I recall him saying he learned everything he knew about modern combat from shooting action pistol type games. Also, I've known many men that killed people in combat that don't go around calling themselves experts with anything. He was the first writer I thought was a God, and one of the last I accepted as a phony. I found that before I believe anything from anyone anymore, I will try it out for myself first, which is how I found about him.

I don't agree with your thoughts, but I admire your thinking.

 

[stanc]

practice,practice,practice and hope you have the will to kill if and when the time ever comes
stanc

 

[cshoff]

I guess that's what I used to be, until I found out most of the instructors were fakes. That was when I found the best way to train was to just shoot the SOB and not waste my time with fancy techniques, abbreviations, words and what have you. The tactics and techniques that you learn may do just fine, until you run up against someone that just knows how to shoot. I have yet to see a training program where someone in the crowd couldn't show the instructor up at their own game that they have practiced over and over again. Or shown that their new way of doing things is actually an old idea that never worked that well before. Am I'm happy to say that for the last few years of my career, it was me.

To be honest CS, I used to be alot like you and worshipped some of the instructors I'd had, until I learned the truth about them and a little more about real gunfighting. I wouldn't let a guy that had never replaced a light switch tell me how to wire my house and I'm through letting guys that were never in a gunfight tell me how to win one. I'll learn my own way to do it. But then, it's not just what works, but what works for each individual. Some guys just aren't coordinated enough to point shoot or do other types of shooting they don't understand , and a lot of them just don't seem to care enough to try.

I think you have a lot of nerve to pretend you know what I'm like or act like you know who I "worship". You have no idea who I've trained with, how I've trained, what kind of situations I have or haven't been in, or anything about what techniques I advocate or deplore. In my experience, most guys that go around on internet message boards bragging about all of the "gunfights" they've been in are usually full of horse manure. I'm not saying you are or you aren't, but some of the statements you've made certainly seem suspect. Guys that brag about how great they are, are usually the first to be out-shot by their wives or girlfriends when they get to the range, and they are usually rife with excuses; blaming their gun, their ammo, their equipment, or anything else they can think of to deflect fault away from their poor attitude.

I've met a heck of a lot of very accomplished shooters, and I've yet to meet any (other than on the internet) who believed he/she already knew it all, or that he/she could never learn anything useful from anyone else. I've also met several REAL gunfight survivors that were very inexperienced shooters and certainly not in any position to teach others their "magic" techniques; most of them, in fact, were taking training with various instructors so they would be more prepared if they were ever faced with an armed deadly threat again. Surviving a gunfight certainly does not, in and of itself, qualify you as an expert in gunfighting or self defense.

 

[Kanewpadle]

I guess that's what I used to be, until I found out most of the instructors were fakes. That was when I found the best way to train was to just shoot the SOB and not waste my time with fancy techniques, abbreviations, words and what have you. The tactics and techniques that you learn may do just fine, until you run up against someone that just knows how to shoot. I have yet to see a training program where someone in the crowd couldn't show the instructor up at their own game that they have practiced over and over again. Or shown that their new way of doing things is actually an old idea that never worked that well before. Am I'm happy to say that for the last few years of my career, it was me.

To be honest CS, I used to be alot like you and worshipped some of the instructors I'd had, until I learned the truth about them and a little more about real gunfighting. I wouldn't let a guy that had never replaced a light switch tell me how to wire my house and I'm through letting guys that were never in a gunfight tell me how to win one. I'll learn my own way to do it. But then, it's not just what works, but what works for each individual. Some guys just aren't coordinated enough to point shoot or do other types of shooting they don't understand , and a lot of them just don't seem to care enough to try.

Well sir, since you have it all figured out, why don't you enlighten the rest of us?

 

[Kanewpadle]

And some handguns don't have sights at all. But if yours does, learn how to use it in every way you can. Just because they are there doesn't mean they have to be used, but they add to the versatility by making a gun that was intended strictly for close quarters gunfighting a potential fighting tool out to say 100 yards or more. I just had to throw that one in there.

Now I know your crazy. Why in the world would I fight with a handgun at 100 yards?

I've read all of your posts in this thread and you make no sense at all.

You come across as another keyboard commando.

Studying this and that. Reading this and that, will never take the place of hands on training.

Point shooting doesn't have to be over analyzed.

Point shooting is quite simply instinctive, reactive shooting when there is no time to use the sights. Period.

The most IMPORTANT thing is to recognize when it should be used and practice it.

 

[Jellybean]

Well sir, since you have it all figured out, why don't you enlighten the rest of us?

That's what I was doing all along.

 

[Jellybean]

You come across as another keyboard commando....

Studying this and that. Reading this and that, will never take the place of hands on training.

Point shooting doesn't have to be over analyzed.

Point shooting is quite simply instinctive, reactive shooting when there is no time to use the sights. Period.

The most IMPORTANT thing is to recognize when it should be used and practice it.

That is exactly the same way I feel about it. I guess I'm not the only keyboard commondo in this thread, am I?