You advocating me shooting/practicing with one eye closed Team Sergeant?

Re: Re: Re: Love to Point shoot
 

LOL

I have a picture somewhere of a certain Team Sergeant shooting a 'quiet' pistol... BOTH his eyes are open, facing target with isoscles stance with arms extended straught out towards target.

Team Sergeant-
Were you taking out a target of opportunity (me) by saying that you "can" shoot with one eye closed when you want... or was your post meant as I read it, to say that you almost always shoot with one eye closed?

I am interested, really, as I have always shot with both eyes open. :munchin

Great thread!

Terry

Not at all tooth puller.

I would however advise against questioning someone’s shooting techniques until you’ve dropped the hammer on 500,000-1,000,000 or so rounds, or of course attended some world class shooting school.

You don’t see me questioning anyone’s surgical techniques do you?

TS

Ouch! That's gonna leave a mark

Depending on the distance....
 

Determines whether I shoot with both eyes open or one eye closed.

Re: Re: Love to Point shoot
 

NEGATIVE brother,

I always shoot with both eyes on the target! I only used the sights on the pistol for night shooting just to ensure my weapon is level. :)

L5

Re: Re: Re: Love to Point shoot
 

You damn sure will not be hitting a moving target while keeping both eyes on the target.

Target shooting is just that...TARGET SHOOTING!

Combat shooting...that damn target aint standing still. Throw in shooting & moving and you will miss every time unless you are acquiring a front sight pic and tracking the target.

I have finished Kill or Get Killed by COL Rex Applegate. The section on point shooting reminded me of this thread, which I have now re-read. I think there are several erroneous statements in the thread, and that the following are correct:

1. COL Applegate maintains that point shooting is an offensive, not defensive, method. (Chapter 5, first paragraph). In fact, he says that "defensive shooting" is a fallacy.

2. He advocates learning to shoot without using the sights at all only in close quarters (less than 50 feet).

3. He says that training to shoot without sights is important because the shooter may lack the time or light needed to use the sights, not that aiming is not a good idea.

4. He refers to a study which found a dramatic improvement in shoot-house performance after point-shooting training is provided.

5. His suggested method for raising the weapon seems to differ from the Team Sergeant's method.

One thing to keep in mind is that they were not doing what we call precision shooting - they were shooting center mass on a known hostile.

What the TS does is shoot eyes out over shoulders.

CQB is about precision shooting - a lot of people forget that part for some reason. It is discriminatory.

The other thing to remember is that those guys were Innovators. They would kick our collective asses if we stagnated and failed to move forward.

I hadn't seen Guy's post above yours - he makes a great point. Heads move a lot.

Thank you for your input, Grasshopper.

This has been discussed ad nauseam but for you we can continue to beat this dead horse.:rolleyes:

Had the Col attended a recent Special Forces shooting school I’m sure he would agree with how we’re now doing things. In fact I’m sure he’d be impressed. We’ve come a long way from point shooting…….. While I would agree that point shooting had its day that day has come and gone. Some of the Special Forces Vietnam Vet's taught me to point shoot, both pistol and rifle. Those techniques were good but now we've evolved to bigger and better methods.

Here are a few things to ponder, no one in the National Shooting leagues, that wins, point shoots. You will only find about one or two "firearms" instructors that actually advocate or teach point shooting. I know that no one in Special Operations is taught to point shoot, (well cept maybe our doorgunners…..) and the reason is point shooting is not surgical enough when firing into a mixed crowd. While not every SF soldier has attended our surgical shooting schools, many have and those that have teach those that have not.

Many in the US military carry pistols, very very few have been taught to use them offensively and only a handful with tack driving precision.

Please feel free to learn point shooting and I will continue to use the sights, all the time, every time.

I almost forgot, didn't I teach you to shoot a bullet hole through a bullet hole?
You cannot do that point shooting.

Team Sergeant
"Gun Whisperer"

Some training buddies and I took the Hocking College point shooting instructor course a couple of years ago. This is part of the Ohio POST curriculum as taught by Hocking and is the most direct Applegate lineage instruction available (the COL went and met with them, designed the curriculum and taught their first instructors.) I think I was third or fourth in the class of twenty one students.

That said, Sneaky is exactly right. Point shooting is NOT precision shooting and even very skilled and practiced individuals cannot achieve the degree of precision that TS and Sneaky do. When I'm really on my game, have been practicing faithfully and am having a good day, I can hit a beer can two out of three times at ten yards using Applegate's methods. At that same distance, they're putting bullets through the same hole. Something to think about.

Both methods have their place. As Sneaky points out if you're at relatively close proximity to the BG, across an average size room or closer, a saucer sized group in the chest is probably more than adequate.

Among people I know who've really trained in both sighted shooting and point shooting, there is no "controversy" over which method to use. There is unanimity that sighted fire with both hands on the weapon is most desireable for both accuracy and rapid recovery. There is also recognition that there are likely to be times when circumstances make this untenable and being able to get hits shooting one handed without using your sights is a desirable skill to have.

A few interesting data points;

- D.R. Middlebrooks has repeatedly demonstrated that he can hit a plate out to fifty yards using a pistol w/o sights in a sort of Mod-Iso point shooting hybrid.

- In our class at Hocking everyone could get good hits (roughly saucer sized groups COM) at five yards. Perhaps three quarters of the class could do so at seven yards, only a third could consistently accomplish this at ten yards.

- A buddy was in a FoF class where the front sight had fallen off the training gun, he, and several other students, went through several iterations before anyone noticed the sight was missing. In close range confrontations even those who have trained sighted fire extensively may fail to use their sights (though they may think they are doing so.)

HTH

Oooops, cross posted with TS. Not taking issue with anything he posted and no disrespect or disagreement intended.

Thank you, TS. Still trying to grab that pebble . . .

Correct.

Also remember the Col. Rex Applegates book was written on how to take a large number of men, who may have no experience or interest in firearms and give them some proficency to shoot in combat while conducting this training in the shortest possible period of time.

This is also what police departments have to do thus the Col.s work with Hocking College.

Team Sergeant,
I can safely state that Applegate would be thrilled to see the evolution into what is being done today.

None taken.

That was a well written post.

Our missions dictate our level of training. One of our missions is counter-terrorism;

"Hostage or Sensitive Materiel Recovery. These are operations conducted to rescue hostages and/or recover sensitive materiel from terrorist control, requiring capabilities not normally found in conventional military units. The safety of the hostages and preventing destruction of the sensitive materiel are essential mission requirements."


It would not bode well to have an "accident" on one of these type missions.;) And the reason we are taught to shoot surgically....

TS

I was fortunate enough to go shooting with the Team Sergeant a few times.

Since then I have run a few FoF evolutions. Most of these evolutions by design put you behind the curve. I now try to use my sights all of the time. Although there have been a few evolutions that I have run where I don't remember if I used my sights or not. But, after looking at my paint rounds on the BG's and reviewing video tapes. I'm sure I use my sights all of the time.

I'm now a firm believer in using sighted fire all of the time. Also I think that you can train to a point where you will either consciously or subconsciously us your sights all of the time. But, I'm still working on consciously using my sights all of the time.

The long and short of it is, using sights = more accurate hits.

However, I am but a Padawan

Most affirmative, Sir. For most people, getting buy works, for those whose missions require more, that will not do. I sometimes feel that what I learned in the Marines is not much different than in the times of the Civil War compared to the professionism and expertise being taught today.

It is almost as though in RVN we faught with buck N ball.

I know that I may be beating a dead horse here, however I just wanted to add something on this subject. Try using the method of keeping the gun in and parallel with your line of sight whether using your sights or not.

If you are being attacked and the "bad guy" is 7 yards in front of you, do you really think you will need to use your sights on his high center chest if there is no penalty for a miss? The gaol is to find YOUR balance of speed and accuracey that is realistic for a fight. Your brain will try to force you to keep both your eyes open therefore using your sights is an advanced mechanical skill.

I'm not by any stretch of the imagination saying that sights are not important. Sights are only important if that's what you need to use to get the hit. If it's a one hole drill you will need them, if it's a high center chest at 7 yards you shouldn't but everybody's competencey is different.

In my classes I get my students to find their personal balance of speed and precision. They do this by shooting at a close distance and shooting at different sized targets and not using their sights. I like the S.E.B. target for this specific drill. High center chest is 4-6 shots and all numbers and head shots are 1 shot only. Always shoot as fast as YOU can while still getting combat accrate hits. Instead of focusing on the front sight, focus on the exact spot in the center of mass that you want to hit. If the gun is in and paralled with your line of sight, you will hit inside that combat accurate target area. Therefore you are working with what happens to you naturally in a fight instead of against it.

As you move back you will slow down and you will get to the distance that you will need to use your sights to get the hit in the combat accurate area. This is not point shooting, the gun is in the same place, the same way every time......in and parallel with your line of sight. There is a lot more to it, but if you just give it a try you may find that this will make you much more efficient in the context of a fight.

And when there is a "penalty for a miss" what do you teach then?

If you teach to "always" use your frontsight you will not miss. Try a "flash" front sight when in close. When in a close fight most will default to training, and if you teach to use the frontsight that will become the default.
This is how Special Forces is taught to shoot, we stopped point shooting decades ago.

Thank you, Team Sergeant - this answers a question I've had for some time.

A CCW holder who hits the wrong target - or, for that matter, misses the target - might face a considerable penalty for a miss.

Not trying to start a debate by any means but "point shooting" can be done with the gun in any position. Again the gun is in the same place whether you are using your sights or not.

I recentley had an SF guy down here in one of the classes and I saw the method you use. I'm not saying that the method is bad. I used to use it myself.

People will naturally slow down or use their sights when there is a penalty for a miss. I let them experience it for themselves in a drill I have.

Unfortunatally this is just one of those topics that is just much easier to demonstrate and teach someone in person. If you want more info just PM and i've got some.

But you have, once again, started the debate and I'll be the first to tell you point shooting is dead.

If you teach individuals to a higher standard they will strive to maintain that standard, and we teach a much higher standard.

Ranger Paul Howe teaches this method, using sights. I actually do not know of any Special Operations instructor that uses or teaches a point shooting method.

And you work for?

I know who Paul Howe is. Great book. I'm a contract instructor. But that is only until March when I leave. I've taught some of his students as well considering i'm in Houston just a few hours away. Haven't had the pleasure to train with him personally yet.

I'm not disagreeing with your method, point shooting aside. Your absolutley correct that the student will default to their level of training. If they have an understanding of their balance of speed and accuracey and believe in their application of that ability they will always get the hit. Misses are not acceptable in our program either. I just don't believe that in Extreme Close Quarters people will look at their sights when being attacked.

I have a link that I think that you would find really interesting but my computer is acting like a shit bag right now. Please go to this website and take a look at this study.

http://www.forcesciencenews.com/home/index.html

Go to transmission #135. I believe the original study is in transmission #134 but #135 sums it up pretty good.

How about answering the question TS asked....... :munchin

My bad, i'm currently doing work for 360 Tactical Training in Houston and Crow Global Inc. in Toronto. I have been asked to go to SOTG for the CQB instructors and the Sig Academy before I leave.

Please keep in mind that i'm not the typical instructor that refuses to progress and stays in the box. I'm always looking to better myself and my students and i'm glad I brought this subject back up because at the end of the day it will make me a better teacher and student.

Three of the instructors at 360 have been to several of Paul Howes classes. I called them this morning to discuss what has been brought up here. My question to them was "What are you seeing when the gun is at extension and on target from 7 yrds and closer when trying to hit a high center chest"? Their collective answer was that their primary focus was on the threat but they could see their sight and it was blurry. My next question to them was "Is this what you learned at Howes courses"? There answer was a collective "yes". Thay haven't heard the term "Flash" front sight before but they agreed that it was a great term for what they are seeing. I also agreed that because the gun is "in and parallel with my light of sight" I also see a blurry front sight or flash front sight with my primary focus being on the spot that I want to hit.

If there is a misunderstanding here guys, please let me know. If i'm wrong, explain it to me. This is always a hot topic in the shooting industry and people are very passionate about the subject when they discuss it. I'm just always on the hunt for the best and most realistic methods for a fight, i'm not looking to piss you off.

I would suggest you take more classes, find and talk to some high level shooters and do some reading.

There is nothing more important than the front sight, period. If you take the time to read on this website you will find some very good posts concerning the front sight and why it is so important. I will tell you that I am sure Paul Howe stresses the front sight and has probably told individuals something like "front sight, front sight front sight squeeze."

This holds true for pistol, submachine gun and short assault rifle (unless you're using optics). And if I had to guess I'd speculate that the ability of using the front sight is greatly diminished because of the current and heavy use of optics.

When you level a weapon at the intended target you should be concerned with three objects, the target, rear sight and the front sight, which one is in focus and why?

I don't listen to the "shooting industry" as most are non-military or non-combatants. Most are weekend "civilian" shooters (like weekend golfers) that enjoy throwing lead down range and really don't care how well they do it. Most cannot hit the water if they fell off the boat.

Every law enforcement officer (city, state or federal) will have a different opinion on marksmanship and most teach some form of forty year old marksmanship techniques. This goes on today all over the country. There are individuals teaching federal law enforcement officers that have never been in harm's way yet they are marksmanship/weapons training "directors" and they're are "city" law enforcement officers that consider themselves "military Special Operations Instructors", there's a gunstore owner in Scottsdale, AZ that has NEVER been to sniper school consulting/teaching the Scottsdale police department "sniper techniques, tactics and procedures. I digress. My point is the "shooting industry" is rife with idiots thinking themselves as weapons instructors.

Do some reading here, there are a few threads concerning marksmanship. When you're done with those ask me more questions.

Will do TS. Thanks again.

IMHO
 

Gentlemen,

Respectfully, I attended CSAT's Tactical Pistol Operator course last month. While it is certainly possible I was the class dunce, the above description is inconsistent with the methodology taught by Mr. Howe, and the course notes he prepared for students.

That's not what Paul teaches, so they missed the point or have chosen to unlearn it. He teaches his students to push the weapon out from a modified retention position with the muzzle angled up so that the front sight is acquired and the trigger squeeze begins before the arms reach full extension. This allows you to break the shot upon "first good sight picture". If their sights are blurry their attention is not where he taught them it should be.

Roger that. I will say on their behalf that it's been a few years since they have been to his class and they have been to many different schools since but i'll be sure to tell them it's front sight, front sight, front sight.......squeeze. Thanks

CoolT,

Certainly, if you're firing from retention (such as the pectoral index as taught by Southnarc) or from less than full extension, such as Position 3 in the 4 count drawstroke, then it is nearly impossible to attain a sight picture as the weapon is out of your physical cone of vision. In those cases, you would need to employ indexed shooting techniques. However, if you're going to full extension before firing and putting the weapon into your vision cone, why not take the fraction of a second required to obtain at least a flash front sight picture? Is that 10th or 100th of a second time advantage actually going to have an appreciable effect in the outcome of the shooting?

Lot of knowledge here...
 

over the years there is always "some better way" to acquire and engage targets under stressed conditions. Whose method is better can only be tested in a one on one room to room duel. Winner wins. What ever is taught now certainly is good enough for the newly informed. To banter back and forth can only let each person believe his way is best. I learned and practiced a certain way and occasionally evaluate other systems for some enhancement over what I do. My thoughts are what ever system a person trains to comfort and confidence should work split second well.
Still trying for the best well place shot and the very split second difference may allow me the better shot.....or not. Unless I do some paint ball duels I'm not likely to know...

Razor,
I agree with what you are saying. The split second used to pick up the front sight won't make much of a difference. I do see the front sight on the target when at full extension, however my visual focus is in the center of mass of the area that I want to hit with a blurry front sight. But this is only at extremely close distances.....about 7 yds and in. If the target is small or far I will use a hard focus for more surgical shooting or slow down, depending again on my own balance of speed and accuracey. Either way I still shoot as fast as "I" can and still get the hit. The only real difference is as you stated, you focus on the sight no matter the distance, and at ECQ I focus on what the threat is doing and where I want to get the hit. I do that because it works well with what happens to the human body naturally in a fight. Keep both eyes open and focus on what is trying to kill you.
Did you happen to read that Force Science News article? Transmission #135.

But like you said, or someone else said. As long as you can do what you were taught well it doesn't matter. It's symantics. Still a good conversation to have though.

I'd have to disagree with this statement. If you were taught something incorrect or that is later shown to be ineffective it doesn't matter how well you do it or how much you train it - you have been set up to fail. If you have an appropriate mentor/instructor and train hard to precisely perform exactly what was taught at a very high level it shouldn't matter.

Take a look at a lot of the martial sports out there - the technique is designed to score points without neutralizing a threat (injuring an opponent will get you penalized.) You can train those techniques to a very high level but will find out how useful those skills are should you find yourself in a no bullshit combat moment. You should train how you want to fight because you WILL fight how you train.

Ped,

Let me clarify. That statement was in reference to the two different methods of shooting that we were discussing. Both are good and both work. BJJ or JJJ, both are good and both work.

Quick note to PedOncoDoc
 

Unlike Martial Arts, rarely do shooting styles focus on wounding the opposition. Most generally...to shoot is to kill.
Of course if one is trying to shoot a weapon from an opponants hands, the front and rear sights may be necessary...
Good shooting everyone... Blitzzz

Another note; For those who believe me to be a smart ass, yes, often when given the ammunition..Thanks.

The horse is (and should be) dead indeed.

FWIW, here's MSG (ret) Paul R. Howe's own words on point shooting:
http://www.combatshootingandtactics....g_thoughts.pdf
Most folks here have read it.

I subscribe to the "if it works, it works" and "if it ain't broken, don't fix it" mindsets. However, there are scenarios where if you find it doesn't work, you don't get a second chance. For these, I look up to those who've been there, done that, more than a few times (so that luck had nothing to do with it), and emulate their TTP's.

The horse is far from dead as there are tens of thousands that swear by point shooting and are teaching it as a "credible" shooting technique.

I actually don't mind, I'd rather not have tens of thousands shoot as well as we (SF) do.:D