Theoretical Shootout Questions

[sub-moa]

Mr Armstrong, the argument of sighted fire vs point shooting was long ago settled. Ed McGivern, probably the fastest (until recently; I think Miculek holds the record now) shooter on record, used sights (ever hear of a McGivern bead?). and proper trigger control. So does Miculek (I interviewed him). So do ALL the winners in all forms of Practical shooting, like the Bianchi Cup (don't take my word, ask them, like former Bianchi Cup champion John Pride, who was my firearms instructor when I was an LAPD recruit). Ever see how fast they shoot? Sights work, even at close range. Sighted fire is faster than pointing.

As far as some of your examples...wrong again. Bill Jordan was a former bullseye shooter (yeah, I interviewed him, too). He learned proper trigger control shooting bullseye. Yes, he was a phenomenal trick shot. But we're not talking about that. We're talking about point shooting being used in self-defense scenarios and training. Oh, and by the way, Jim Cirrillo former NYPD, also used his sights (he saw them in every shooting he participated in; he told me that more than once). He and I corresponded for years. He shot PPC and bullseye, quite well. He mentioned that trigger control and sight focus, learned in PPC and bullseye, saved his life. He and I met during my time shooting PPC with the LAPD; he told me that the PPC and bullseye training I was doing was the best prep for street encounters. Don't believe me? Read his book(s), or ask Bill Allard, his partner, who won every bullseye match on the East Coast (when he was an active shooter). Bill selected every member of the SOW (NYPD stake out squad), based on their ability to shoot tight groups USING SIGHTED FIRE on the old police L-course (it's shot one-handed).

I find your "knowledge" and criticism of the LAPD's training amusing. What years were you there? I was, for 24 years, including several years working the Academy as a firearms instructor. Comparing the two departments (NYPD vs LAPD), as you SHOULD know, is like comparing apples to oranges. LAPD's hit ratio, when point shooting was taught, hovered around 20-25%. It went to 45% when sighted fire was re-emphasized. It's now around 60% most years (and the LAPD shoots quite a few people each year). Shootings by each recruit class are tracked, recorded and analyzed. NYPD's hit ratio has traditionally stayed around 13-20%, depending on the year. NYPD qualifies twice a year; LAPD qualifies monthly, on targets with scoring rings. LAPD firearms training has emphasized Cooper's modern technique (Weaver), and now isosceles. It works, as well as any training regimen can for 10,000+ cops. I'm amazed how well the NYPD actually does in training and actual shootings; they train and qualify in excess of 40,000 people every year.

One thing you're right about is that pointed fire wasn't designed for long distances (we found that 10 yards was a "long" shot with most recruits). It doesn't work on "long" shots because of the LACK of proper trigger control. You don't teach trigger control by pointing and pulling the trigger. And cops (maybe citizens, too) might just need to shoot beyond 3-5 feet. MOST shootings take place at further distances (at least, in LA they do). This is pretty basic stuff, firearms instructor. Experienced shooters can usually make a seamless transition to pointing and shooting as additional training; new shooters, maybe not.

Maybe you're just trolling for an argument. I saw your posts in the last fracas you engaged in on the forum. Hopefully, it won't happen here; at least, if you want to argue, get your facts, data and history straight. I don't know about your experience, training, department or credibility; maybe you're doing something radically different that WORKS. I'd like to know. But until I see your training regimen and results (number of hits by officers trained), I'll just say that point shooting has been tried, and discarded, by every entity that uses firearms in sometimes daily shootings. And by every champion practical shooter. Sights work; they worked for me more than once when I was a street copper.
Bob

Yet another excellent post...

 

[sub-moa]

Good post; good arguments. I guess we'll just have to disagree. As far as "making stuff up", well, maybe not. I got stuck revising some of the LAPD firearms manuals in the late 80's. Pulling, slapping; all are terms for moving the trigger to the rear. But it ain't "trigger control". If it was, it would work at, say, 50 yards. Again, my department (like most others) found out that it wasn't effective training, didn't work and discarded the technique (point shooting) through extensive, years-long research. I realize that you have voluminous knowledge about my department (I'm flattered), but, unlike you, I was there, you weren't. Still waiting on the shooting and training data from your department or your professorial research, somewhere deep in the OTHER La. Anecdotal quips and name-dropping regarding CHP training won't get it. And would you PLEASE tell me what department still emphasizes point shooting? And I'm not talking about close-in defensive techniques, taught in advanced tactical training by most departments; we both know that isn't "point shooting" (I hope).

Oh, and what is "a steady pull of the trigger"? Could be a quote from a Louis L'amour western. Sounds cool, though. Carry on there, Teach.

Patiently awaiting the "steely eyed gaze"...

of the "gunfighter"

 

[David Armstrong]

Good post; good arguments. I guess we'll just have to disagree. As far as "making stuff up", well, maybe not. I got stuck revising some of the LAPD firearms manuals in the late 80's. Pulling, slapping; all are terms for moving the trigger to the rear. But it ain't "trigger control". If it was, it would work at, say, 50 yards.

Fair enough, but I'm not aware of anyone at any time who has taught point shooting at 50 yards.

Again, my department (like most others) found out that it wasn't effective training, didn't work and discarded the technique (point shooting) through extensive, years-long research.

Again, that is simply not true. I already mentioned Lou Chiodo for the CHP and their training for point shooting. NYPD still teaches point shooting. In fact, AFAIK almost every agency mandates some form of firing from retention or similar position, which is usually point shooting. The Ohio Peace Officer Training Council uses point shooting in its officer training. Last I heard Oklahoma's CLEET mandates a segment of unsighted fire as part of its firearms qualification, and I know Louisiana includes that.

I realize that you have voluminous knowledge about my department (I'm flattered), but, unlike you, I was there, you weren't.

Again, please don't make things up and try to attribute them to me. I have never claimed any great knowledge of LAPD, only what I stated: "my knowledge of what I have said comes from range manuals that were provided to my partner Greg Morrison and I when we were researching the article on police firearms and training for the Encyclopedia of Police Sciences."

And would you PLEASE tell me what department still emphasizes point shooting? And I'm not talking about close-in defensive techniques, taught in advanced tactical training by most departments; we both know that isn't "point shooting" (I hope).

Two things here. One, I have never said anything about emphasizing. Point shooting/target focus shooting is one part of a well-trained shooter. Second, close-in defensive techniques of shooting certainly ARE point shooting, and I would hope that anyone would know that.

Oh, and what is "a steady pull of the trigger"? Could be a quote from a Louis L'amour western. Sounds cool, though. Carry on there, Teach.

I'm sorry, if you unfamiliar with the concept of steadily pulling the trigger to the rear as a basic part of firing the gun I's suggest there is a distinct gap in your understanding. It is one of many methods taught, along with the infamous TR "press", the older "stack and release" from revolver days, and so on.

 

[OIF2]

Fair enough, but I'm not aware of anyone at any time who has taught point shooting at 50 yards.

Again, that is simply not true. I already mentioned Lou Chiodo for the CHP and their training for point shooting. NYPD still teaches point shooting. In fact, AFAIK almost every agency mandates some form of firing from retention or similar position, which is usually point shooting. The Ohio Peace Officer Training Council uses point shooting in its officer training. Last I heard Oklahoma's CLEET mandates a segment of unsighted fire as part of its firearms qualification, and I know Louisiana includes that.

Again, please don't make things up and try to attribute them to me. I have never claimed any great knowledge of LAPD, only what I stated: "my knowledge of what I have said comes from range manuals that were provided to my partner Greg Morrison and I when we were researching the article on police firearms and training for the Encyclopedia of Police Sciences."
Two things here. One, I have never said anything about emphasizing. Point shooting/target focus shooting is one part of a well-trained shooter. Second, close-in defensive techniques of shooting certainly ARE point shooting, and I would hope that anyone would know that.


I'm sorry, if you unfamiliar with the concept of steadily pulling the trigger to the rear as a basic part of firing the gun I's suggest there is a distinct gap in your understanding. It is one of many methods taught, along with the infamous TR "press", the older "stack and release" from revolver days, and so on.

Mr Armstrong, apparently you are just one of those individuals that like to argue and won't tolerate other viewpoints, despite the facts. Critiques from your students at the college you teach bear that out. Maybe you're in-between grading papers for the hapless students that have to tolerate your fiction. Funny; on your blog, you don't tolerate any disagreement, either. Posts are filtered and approved by you. Not too much disagreement there. You must be one of those liberal, intolerant professors I've read so much about. But it's a different story here. Your silly arguments don't hold water. Dodging facts and valid points won't work; seems like you're running into that here and on other forums (your points regarding C1 vs C3 were quite funny on the 1911Forum, where they were also shredded). I know, I know, you weren't understood by the unwashed masses here. Unacceptable for a college prof, though, ain't it? Of course you didn't understand the point I made regarding point shooting and 50 yard accuracy, either. Poor trigger control equates to no accuracy at longer ranges; point shooting doesn't emphasize proper trigger control. It was long ago discarded by major law enforcement entities as a standard training vehicle. That includes the NYPD, FBI, LAPD, etc. I am intimately familiar with their training, as I talked with all their firearms staffs numerous times to get feedback when revamping ours.

I am also familiar with CHP training; it is very similar to the LAPD's. I was friends with Bill Davis, retired CHP firearms instructor, and builder of superb PPC revolvers, used by most So Cal PPC shooters. Most all departments use some kind of close-contact firearms training (NOT point shooting), done as advanced training after the basics are (hopefully) learned. The LAPD does it in the form of live-fire tactical training, usually quarterly, done at divisional level and under the scrutiny of our firearms staff. It's a building-block thing; once you learn to shoot, you learn advanced techniques, like CQB (the Army calls it SRM, for short-range marksmanship).

I won't respond to your ridiculous arguments after this; obviously, you have some time and money invested in them, and are pushing them in your "studies". No one likes to hear that what they espouse is discredited. I will say in closing, though, that most every experienced gunfighter in the last century or so, from John Wesley Hardin and Charlie Askins, to Bill Allard (NYPD) and Kyle Lamb (US Army Delta) emphasized sighted fire and stated it worked, during actual gunfights. The arguments over sighted fire vs point-shooting were long ago settled, by people more knowledgeable and experienced than either of us. No need to re-invent the wheel here, and most everyone reading this agrees.

Lastly, I'd like to know your qualifications and credibility (you're the one arguing here). What department(s) did you work for, what training have you received, what matches have you won (it helps if you can shoot), how many gunfights have you been in or studied? What world-class marksmen have you trained with? Did they have a hand in setting up your dept firearms training? What data, like training and following a recruit class for 5 or more years on the street, have you collected and analyzed? How many street cops have you interviewed, after an in-policy shooting, using questions posed by a large department's firearms staff? I think I know the answers.
Bob

 

[David Armstrong]

Mr Armstrong, apparently you are just one of those individuals that like to argue and won't tolerate other viewpoints, despite the facts.

Nonsense. I welcome and enjoy reasoned discussion that allows me and others to expand our knowledge base.

Critiques from your students at the college you teach bear that out.

Being a bit selective about that, aren't you??

Maybe you're in-between grading papers for the Ihapless students that have to tolerate your fiction.

If you have some evidence that anything I have presented as fact is fiction please go right ahead and offer it. So far the only fiction I've seen is on your part when you selectively quoted folks like Jordan and Cirillo to make it look like they did not support point shooting.

Funny; on your blog, you don't tolerate any disagreement, either. Posts are filtered and approved by you. Not too much disagreement there.

Again a bit of make-believe. There are a number of posts on my blog that present disagreement from my position.

You must be one of those liberal, intolerant professors I've read so much about.

Sigh. You must be one of those burned-out ex-cops who never understood anything except hitting people with nightsticks I've heard so much about. OK, now that the personal insults are out of the way shall we get back to the issue?

But it's a different story here. Your silly arguments don't hold water. Dodging facts and valid points won't work; seems like you're running into that here and on other forums (your points regarding C1 vs C3 were quite funny on the 1911Forum, where they were also shredded).

Interesting. AFAIK I've never participated on the 1911 Forum.

I know, I know, you weren't understood by the unwashed masses here. Unacceptable for a college prof, though, ain't it?

Strange, seems many here understand me just fine. Perhaps the problem is you, not them or me??

Of course you didn't understand the point I made regarding point shooting and 50 yard accuracy, either. Poor trigger control equates to no accuracy at longer ranges; point shooting doesn't emphasize proper trigger control.

I understood it fine which is why I said it really doesn't matter. Point shooting does emphasize proper trigger control, at least if it is being taught correctly. Perhaps that is part of the problem, you just never knew how to teach it right.

It was long ago discarded by major law enforcement entities as a standard training vehicle. That includes the NYPD, FBI, LAPD, etc. I am intimately familiar with their training, as I talked with all their firearms staffs numerous times to get feedback when revamping ours.

Not sure what you mean by "standard training vehicle." It has been and still is taught as a part of firearms training by many, if not most, LE agencies.I just checked with former student who is with the Secret Service regarding Federal training and he said they are taught point shooting and that it is a part of their regular qualification shooting.

I am also familiar with CHP training; it is very similar to the LAPD's.

Oh, then LAPD does still train for some point shooting like CHP?

Most all departments use some kind of close-contact firearms training (NOT point shooting), done as advanced training after the basics are (hopefully) learned.

Yes, that is point shooting no matter how you try to deny it.

The LAPD does it in the form of live-fire tactical training, usually quarterly, done at divisional level and under the scrutiny of our firearms staff. It's a building-block thing; once you learn to shoot, you learn advanced techniques, like CQB (the Army calls it SRM, for short-range marksmanship).

OK, now we have it. LAPD apparently does teach point shooting, they just do it as an after-Academy type of thing. So apparently they must think it works.

I won't respond to your ridiculous arguments after this; obviously, you have some time and money invested in them, and are pushing them in your "studies". No one likes to hear that what they espouse is discredited.

On the contrary, if someone can provide some legitimate evidence that what I have said is wrong I would love to see it. That is a bit different, however, than someone making things up and claiming that they are mine.

I will say in closing, though, that most every experienced gunfighter in the last century or so, from John Wesley Hardin and Charlie Askins, to Bill Allard (NYPD) and Kyle Lamb (US Army Delta) emphasized sighted fire and stated it worked, during actual gunfights.

Again, no disagreement. That has nothing to do with point shooting as an alternative to sighted fire when time, distance, or environment suggests that.

The arguments over sighted fire vs point-shooting were long ago settled, by people more knowledgeable and experienced than either of us. No need to re-invent the wheel here, and most everyone reading this agrees.

Yes, the argument has been settled for a long time, which is why pretty much every reputable training program includes point shooting as part of their training.

Lastly, I'd like to know your qualifications and credibility (you're the one arguing here).{/quote]
Really?? You aren't arguing also??

What department(s) did you work for, what training have you received, what matches have you won (it helps if you can shoot), how many gunfights have you been in or studied? What world-class marksmen have you trained with? Did they have a hand in setting up your dept firearms training? What data, like training and following a recruit class for 5 or more years on the street, have you collected and analyzed? How many street cops have you interviewed, after an in-policy shooting, using questions posed by a large department's firearms staff? I think I know the answers.
Bob

Well, let's do a few quick ones here since I have to teach a CCW class in about 30 minutes.
I've won assorted IPSC, IDPA, and NRA Action matches, and have won the Louisiana State Championship for Marshals and Constables.. I was on the rifle and pistol team for my unit of the National Guard long ago. I've trained with Gunsite, Thunder Ranch, Sig, John Farnam, Smith & Wesson, Jim Cirillo, Marty Hayes, Mas Ayoob, Shoot-N-Iron and a few other folks. I carry firearm instructor ratings through the NRA, Glock and DTI in addition to LE instructor certifications in various disciplines. I've researched over 10,000 shooting to various degrees including investigating a number of officer involved shootings. Depending on how you want to define "gunfight" I've been in various numbers. I like to go with the most restrictive and say 2, but given a more expansive definition you could go to 13 or so. Don't know if any of that matters much, but I do point out that I'm a court qualified expert witness in the area of firearms and police tactics, and when the Encyclopedia of Police Sciences was looking for someone to write the section on firearms they came to me as their subject matter expert of choice.

Now, any chance we can discuss the issues themselves without trying to make it a personal fight??

 

[OIF2]

OK, Teach, I guess we'll just have to disagree. You win; after all, you ARE the professor. Don't forget, though, to tell your CCW class that, if they forget everything else you tell them, to watch the front sight (Jim Cirrillo's words, not mine). Gonna go out and work on that 1911 drawing and chambering thing; it's REALLY fast, I hear. Faster than Condition One (I got that from your posts on that other thread). Damn! The things you learn here. It's been a smile. Remember...front sight.
Bob

 

[David Armstrong]

Yep Bob, I am the professor. I'm also the semi-retired police officer. Sure, "Front Sight--Press!" is the mantra...when appropriate. But as Jim Cirillo, Bill Jordan, and all those other folks said, knowing how to point shoot is as important as knowing how to use the sights. As for the draw/chamber, again please don't put words in my mouth. That seems to have been the main thrust here...make up something and claim I said it, then attack it. C3 can be and is fast. Whether it is faster than C1 depends on a lot of things. Always glad to meet a fellow LEO. Stay safe.