Theoretical Shootout Questions

[tops]

Years ago I was walking through the woods with one of my mentors and he would draw and shoot at running lizards. After shooting and missing a couple I asked if he had ever hit one and he laughed and said no but he had shot a lot of holes in the ground. That would be good practice for you. He could throw a can in the air and hit it from the hip. Instead of putting up targets I walk around the woods and fields and shoot at leaves and clumps of grass, etc. Sometimes I extend my arm straight in front but most of the time I shoot from the hip with my arm bent at 90 deg. I use a .22 most of the time because I am a poor person. Larry

 

[mc5aw]

I started practicing point shooting in earnest when I had shoulder surgery, leaving my strong arm incapacitated. A very generous Forum member gave me two DVDs on point shooting fundamentals to help my training, and my skill level has improved substantially from when I first began PS practice. For CCW revolver drills, I use my 317 as it is a J-frame and fires .22 lr, thus making it a perfect economical alternative to running .38s from my normal J carry piece. It is a highly recommended skill set to practice and master.

 

[MaximumLawman]

where the BG had his gun pointed right at the officers and they still drew on him and shot him down. I guess it helps to have a bullet proof vest.

All depends on who's prepared to do what and when. Buddy of mine walked into a holdup at a McDonald's. Bad guy was standing in line unbeknownst to my buddy who was in uniform. Cop walked up to the counter and the cashier looked nervous. My friend asked her: "Everything OK?" She moved her eyes only left and right as in "nope....stuff is very un-OK since you asked...." At that point the bad guy puts a gun to my buddy's head and says: "Don't pull your sh$%". Before he got the last word out of his mouth, the cop drew from his holster and dropped the holdup man with a .357 Supervel through the gut. Balls.

 

[shouldazagged]

At that point the bad guy puts a gun to my buddy's head and says: "Don't pull your sh$%". Before he got the last word out of his mouth, the cop drew from his holster and dropped the holdup man with a .357 Supervel through the gut. Balls.

Yeah, some cojones, but also a boatload of luck. And to my way of thinking, some questionable judgment. But of course I wasn't there.

 

[hotrod150]

............The point shooting vs. aimed fire debate has been raging for decades, but the answer is still "training". The amount of time to bring a handgun from hip to eye level is a small fraction of a second; and if that is how you trained to deliver an accurate round, that is what you 'will' do under stress. ......

I think some people here are equating "hip shooting" with "point shooting". You can point shoot from most positions, including from the hip, but I prefer to point shoot using the same weaver stance I use for aimed fire. The gun is held *slightly* lower so I look over the sights at the target, not through them. The front sight is or at least can be used as a reference, as Badkarma & OKFC05 describe. I get better results doing that than shooting from the hip. As revjames notes, using a lase rcan be a great aid to practicing point shooting.
I'm no gunnfighter, nor a LEO, but Maximum Lawman's method of staring to shoot at hip level and continuing to shoot with the gun on the way up doesn't make sense to me. It only takes a slpit second to get the gun up to the Weaver stance's sholder height, and IMHO it's easier to learn to hit from just that one position than from the hip, belly, chest, AND shoulder position.

 

[sac-gunslinger]

"No, Counselor, I did not aim my gun. I just drew it and started firing in the direction of my assailant."

Is that testimony you would like to present at your trial?

 

[Old TexMex]

"No, Counselor, I did not aim my gun. I just drew it and started firing in the direction of my assailant."

Is that testimony you would like to present at your trial?

OR....
"Friends, we are gathered here to celebrate the life of..."
Practice practice practice. Go ahead and sign up for total training, it's really not that expensive compared to internment costs.

 

[Mcwsky09]

By no means an expert here - and every situation would be different I think - but a couple items occur to me.

1. a step to left or right as you draw would be beneficial as seen demonstrated in training videos and effectively used in at least one security video from a real live shootout. However, this may be hard or impossible to practice at an indoor range or even an outdoor range with many lanes and dividers set up. Alternatively dropping to a crouch - again might not work at all ranges.

2. Initial practice with an empty gun and/or dry fry might be useful to build some muscle memory of the draw without shooting your foot or leg.

3. As mentioned shooting from the hip and point shooting are two different things.

4. Incorporating some no shoot targets into your training might be useful.

5. single hand and or off hand practice may also be useful and better for point shooting practice.

6. I recently used some target clays fixed on a backstop from about 10 feet - one hand - but not point shooting - aimed with sights - hit about 7 out of 10 using an M&P 45.

7. Practice and familiarity with your weapon of choice is important - especially if there are safeties to disengage or carrying with no round in the chamber.

8. Shooting through your clothing might also be an option to consider - which may get costly to practice - but would require shooting without using the sights.

9. I think someone already mentioned laser - of course some require an extra step to activate, some had trigger squeeze activation.

10. Likely as many suggestions and options and things to consider as there are people reading this and situations they will encounter.

20. Hindsight is 20/20 - and no matter how much analysis of any situation is done after the fact you will likely be able to come up with an endless stream of what if? scenarios.

 

[OIF2]

Two of the most experienced gunfighters of the last century, Bill Allard and Charles Askins, were both champion bullseye shooters. Allard has been in more shootings than any other cop in the history of the NYPD. Askins, 1937 US pistol champion, was in probably a couple of dozen shootings, maybe more. Both attributed their success and survival to front sight focus under stress, derived from years of competitive shooting. Something to think about.

And while sight alignment probably isn't necessary at 3-5 feet, excellent trigger control is. Good trigger control is vital at 5 feet or 50 yards. Point shooting doesn't develop trigger control.

The LAPD, back in the 70's, taught "point shooting". Hit ratios were abysmal. It was learned, through much experimentation with both instructors and recruits, that a certain level of proficiency could be attained. The problem was maintaining that proficiency, which degraded rather rapidly. And any kind of accuracy was destroyed at longer distances, due to the emphasis on pointing and slapping the trigger.

Something I've learned from my time as a shooter, cop and Soldier is that marksmanship proficiency and tactics aren't usually the same thing. A good marksman can learn tactics easily; it comes from applying basic rules of engagement, experience and common sense. Once a certain level of proficiency is gained, that marksmanship proficiency can be applied to tactical scenarios. A poor marksman exercising good tactics can still lose a gunfight.

My point, which has been made numerous times over the last hundred years or more, is to learn to shoot first...constant practice of the basic, boring drills of sight alignment and trigger control on a standard target, over and over again. Developing absolute muscle memory between the brain and trigger finger is the key. This is boring and monotonous, though. No speed rocks, drawing on sinister-looking color targets, no rapid-fire failure drills, no jumping left or right while doing a road-house spin. A target won't lie; it'll tell you where you need improvement. Kind of like the wife of 20 years that knows you and tells you, whether you want to hear it or not. I was always happy to get a new recruit (when I was a training officer) who could shoot, and had the gold DX badge to prove it. I could teach him tactics; he already had the confidence regarding weapons handling and marksmanship.
Bob

 

[MaximumLawman]

Yeah, some cojones, but also a boatload of luck. And to my way of thinking, some questionable judgment. But of course I wasn't there.

If the holdup man is bold enough to lay in wait for a cop in uniform before putting a gun to his head, pretty much all you have is balls and luck.....I guess he could have tried to take the gun away from the guy and be tied up with doing that that while the bad guy's backup man shot him....What would you have done? There was a security guard there at the time. He jumped through a plate glass window to escape while this was going on.

 

[Ape Hanger]

Two of the most experienced gunfighters of the last century, Bill Allard and Charles Askins, were both champion bullseye shooters. Allard has been in more shootings than any other cop in the history of the NYPD. Askins, 1937 US pistol champion, was in probably a couple of dozen shootings, maybe more. Both attributed their success and survival to front sight focus under stress, derived from years of competitive shooting. Something to think about.

And while sight alignment probably isn't necessary at 3-5 feet, excellent trigger control is. Good trigger control is vital at 5 feet or 50 yards. Point shooting doesn't develop trigger control.

The LAPD, back in the 70's, taught "point shooting". Hit ratios were abysmal. It was learned, through much experimentation with both instructors and recruits, that a certain level of proficiency could be attained. The problem was maintaining that proficiency, which degraded rather rapidly. And any kind of accuracy was destroyed at longer distances, due to the emphasis on pointing and slapping the trigger.

Something I've learned from my time as a shooter, cop and Soldier is that marksmanship proficiency and tactics aren't usually the same thing. A good marksman can learn tactics easily; it comes from applying basic rules of engagement, experience and common sense. Once a certain level of proficiency is gained, that marksmanship proficiency can be applied to tactical scenarios. A poor marksman exercising good tactics can still lose a gunfight.

My point, which has been made numerous times over the last hundred years or more, is to learn to shoot first...constant practice of the basic, boring drills of sight alignment and trigger control on a standard target, over and over again. Developing absolute muscle memory between the brain and trigger finger is the key. This is boring and monotonous, though. No speed rocks, drawing on sinister-looking color targets, no rapid-fire failure drills, no jumping left or right while doing a road-house spin. Targets don't lie and tell you where you need improvement. Kind of like the wife of 20 years that knows you and tells you, whether you want to hear it or not. I was always happy to get a new recruit (when I was a training officer) who could shoot, and had the gold DX badge to prove it. I could teach him tactics; he already had the confidence regarding weapons handling and marksmanship.
Bob

Quoted for truth. Well said my friend.

 

[keith44spl]

OR....
"Friends, we are gathered here to celebrate the life of..."
Practice practice practice.
Go ahead and sign up for total training,
it's really not that expensive compared to internment costs.

Right there it is!!!

Get training, all ya can afford.

Practice, practice some more and as often as you can.

Su Amigo,
Dave

 

[David Armstrong]

"No, Counselor, I did not aim my gun. I just drew it and started firing in the direction of my assailant."

Is that testimony you would like to present at your trial?

No, which is why it wouldn't be presented that way. Instead it would be presented as "Counselor, I aimed my gun using the same alternative sighting method taught to the police and the military for decades, a method that has been shown to regularly provide a good combination of speed with accuracy at reasonable distances."

 

[David Armstrong]

Two of the most experienced gunfighters of the last century, Bill Allard and Charles Askins, were both champion bullseye shooters. Allard has been in more shootings than any other cop in the history of the NYPD. Askins, 1937 US pistol champion, was in probably a couple of dozen shootings, maybe more. Both attributed their success and survival to front sight focus under stress, derived from years of competitive shooting. Something to think about.

Just as noted gunfighters Rex Applegate, Bill Jordan, Jelly Bryce, and Jim Cirillo just to mention a few, all used point shooting to good effect is also something to think about.

And while sight alignment probably isn't necessary at 3-5 feet, excellent trigger control is. Good trigger control is vital at 5 feet or 50 yards. Point shooting doesn't develop trigger control.

Huh?? Point shooting uses the same trigger control as Sight-focus shooting. how you pull the trigger is completely separate from how you aim the gun.

The LAPD, back in the 70's, taught "point shooting". Hit ratios were abysmal.

Sort of like the abysmal hit ratios of folks that taught sight-focus shooting, such as NYPD?

And any kind of accuracy was destroyed at longer distances, due to the emphasis on pointing and slapping the trigger.

Target focus/point shooting was never designed for long distances, and I've been in the training business for a long time and talked with others who were trained and doing training before me and I've never found any program that advocated slapping the trigger. I know LAPD range instruction from the 60s and 70s included a steady pull of the trigger.

 

[sub-moa]

Two of the most experienced gunfighters of the last century, Bill Allard and Charles Askins, were both champion bullseye shooters. Allard has been in more shootings than any other cop in the history of the NYPD. Askins, 1937 US pistol champion, was in probably a couple of dozen shootings, maybe more. Both attributed their success and survival to front sight focus under stress, derived from years of competitive shooting. Something to think about.

And while sight alignment probably isn't necessary at 3-5 feet, excellent trigger control is. Good trigger control is vital at 5 feet or 50 yards. Point shooting doesn't develop trigger control.

The LAPD, back in the 70's, taught "point shooting". Hit ratios were abysmal. It was learned, through much experimentation with both instructors and recruits, that a certain level of proficiency could be attained. The problem was maintaining that proficiency, which degraded rather rapidly. And any kind of accuracy was destroyed at longer distances, due to the emphasis on pointing and slapping the trigger.

Something I've learned from my time as a shooter, cop and Soldier is that marksmanship proficiency and tactics aren't usually the same thing. A good marksman can learn tactics easily; it comes from applying basic rules of engagement, experience and common sense. Once a certain level of proficiency is gained, that marksmanship proficiency can be applied to tactical scenarios. A poor marksman exercising good tactics can still lose a gunfight.

My point, which has been made numerous times over the last hundred years or more, is to learn to shoot first...constant practice of the basic, boring drills of sight alignment and trigger control on a standard target, over and over again. Developing absolute muscle memory between the brain and trigger finger is the key. This is boring and monotonous, though. No speed rocks, drawing on sinister-looking color targets, no rapid-fire failure drills, no jumping left or right while doing a road-house spin. A target won't lie; it'll tell you where you need improvement. Kind of like the wife of 20 years that knows you and tells you, whether you want to hear it or not. I was always happy to get a new recruit (when I was a training officer) who could shoot, and had the gold DX badge to prove it. I could teach him tactics; he already had the confidence regarding weapons handling and marksmanship.
Bob

Excellent post...

 

[OIF2]

Just as noted gunfighters Rex Applegate, Bill Jordan, Jelly Bryce, and Jim Cirillo just to mention a few, all used point shooting to good effect is also something to think about.


Huh?? Point shooting uses the same trigger control as Sight-focus shooting. how you pull the trigger is completely separate from how you aim the gun.
Sort of like the abysmal hit ratios of folks that taught sight-focus shooting, such as NYPD?

Target focus/point shooting was never designed for long distances, and I've been in the training business for a long time and talked with others who were trained and doing training before me and I've never found any program that advocated slapping the trigger. I know LAPD range instruction from the 60s and 70s included a steady pull of the trigger.

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

 

[David Armstrong]

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 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.

I think you are being a bit selective there. Numerous IDPA and IPSC champions have said they use target-focus shooting on close targets and switch to the sights for farther targets. But if your argument is that shooting at targets when you know where they are and when you will need to shoot them is an argument for sighted fire, sure, go for it. I'm more concerned with fighting with a gun than competing with a gun.

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.

Right. And Jordan talked extensively about the importance of being able to point shoot for defensive shooting. I had the pleasure of sharing lunch and range time with him a few times, where he said that a police officer who couldn't point shoot was handicapping himself to a great degree. A continuum of unsighted shooting positions even appears in his book, No Second Place Winner. Jordan's continuum uses what appear to be variations on Fairbairn and Sykes's half-hip and three-quarter hip positions at zero to three yards and three to seven yards, respectively, then brings in the support hand to supplement the three-quarter hip position for seven to 15 yards.

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.

No disagreement. But you are leaving out the fact that Jim also taught what he called "alternative sight methods" which involved pointing the weapon and using the silhouette as a rough check to get rounds on target quickly at close range. Jim taught his "weapon silhouette point" by taping over the sights on the gun because they weren't needed.

I find your "knowledge" and criticism of the LAPD's training amusing.

As always, I find it amusing when people make stuff up and then try to claim it was done be someone else. I haven't criticized LAPD's training at all. In fact I generally have LAPD training to be rather cutting edge. But 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. Perhaps the manual was wrong and LAPD taught to slap the trigger instead of steadily pulling it to the rear??

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.

True, but since I didn't compare the departments I'm not sure what the point is. You argued that point shooting was the result of a poor hit rate, I pointed out that another large metro area that taught sight fire also had a poor hit rate. That is a comparison of technique, not agencies.

But until I see your training regimen, I'll just say that point shooting has been tried, and discarded, by every entity that uses firearms in sometimes daily shootings.

And I will point out that is blatantly false. Shucks, head right down the road (it is "down" IIRC) to Chula Vista and tell Louis Chiodo that the target focused shooting he developed for CHP doesn't work, then get back to me, hmmm?

And by every champion practical shooter. Sights work; they worked for me more than once on the LAPD.
Bob

Of course they work. So does target focus/point shooting, as pretty much every IDPA and IPSC champion will tell you. There is a time and a place for both.

 

[OIF2]

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.

 

[MaximumLawman]

I'll just say that point shooting has been tried, and discarded, by every entity that uses firearms in sometimes daily shootings.

I figure that if I fire a round off as soon as my muzzle clears the holster, and I'm only about 7 feet away, I'll very likely hit some part of the bad guy. If I fire while I'm looking over the sights, I'll very, very likely hit within a few inches of where I'm pointing and if I fire while looking through the sights, I'll likely be able to hit the body part I'm aiming at. I'm not going to hesitate firing as soon as my muzzle clears the holster because I can't see my sights yet......

Gunfights for the average person are way too dynamic to rule out any sort of shooting "style" as inferior. I think most cops who don't make a living on the range training other cops might just tell you after their first shooting that you may as well grind the sights off of your gun for the first few shots as much as they used them.....That's what I'd tell you....That goes for revolvers too.

Yeah, I know: "You shoot like you train..." Well, cops don't train much. That's just a fact. And the majority of people with CPL's train even less. I still laugh at the debate over Isosceles vs. Weaver vs. Modified Weaver.....Angels dancing on the head of a pin......If anything should be emphasized more, it's probably WHEN to shoot as opposed to how......And maybe being able to actually get the gun out of the holster without fumbling. Actually, we could probably save more cop and civilian lives by using the time arguing about point vs. aimed shooting to teach them how to drive better.....

 

[walkin' trails]

Everyone who carries concealed knows that there's a chance the BG may be armed with a gun. If we are ever in a close proximity shootout of 7 yards or less, is there really time to line up the sights before taking the shot? Short of enrolling at a tactical shooting school, what kind of drill can we do at the range that would enhance our chances of survival?[/QUOT

Use of sights in a close quarters situation depends on how you've been trained in the first place. Go buy and read Bill Jordan's "No Second Place Winner" for starters. Marksmanship requires practice, but point shooting requires a lot more. There may be some naturals, but everyone else has to work at it, and its probably more perishable than the skill of sight alignment. Also, I haven't found point shoot to be all that accurate to start with, and certainly not very accurate beyond three yards for sure. Five yards is about the limits unless one is practicing a lot (and five yards still requires a lot of practice). Sure, you can point shoot out to seven yards, but you can also get on your sights probably just as fast at this distance (or at five yards). And with shot placement being the key to stopping a threat from harming you or yours, a gut shot or a shot to the lower extremities as may result from pointing instead of aiming is less likely to terminate the hostilities unless the attacker just doesn't want to be shot. Again, read Bill Jordan's book, and follow it up with Rex Applegate's.