SIGHT SHOOTING VS POINT SHOOTING ???
Sight Shooting Vs Point Shooting ???
There are those who are of the mind set that you must use the sights in CQ encounters at beyond contact distance.
And that would be fine if you will have the time and composure to use them, and the light is good.
But according to the stats, 75% of gunfights happen at less than 21 feet, and if you are going to be shot and killed, there is an 80% chance that that will happen at less than 21 feet.
So, at those distances there will be little if any time for proscribed breathing, aligning the sights, and careful squeezing of the trigger, etc.... which are critical for accurate shooting, and then the repeating that process for each shot taken.
Also, per the science and stats, in up close and personal life threat situations, your fight or flight response will kick in automatically and adrenaline will be released into your bloodstream.
Your fine motor skills which are necessary to Sight Shooting will be lost to use due to a rise in you heart beat above 125 BPM. It will immediately jump to 140 and above due to the dump of adrenaline. The adrenaline will also cause your cilia eye muscle to relax and change the lens in your eye so that you can focus on the threat/s. As a result, near objects (the sights), will be blurry. Click here for details on why Sight Shooting fails in CQ life threat situations.
So, if you who don't know how to Point Shoot, you will be on your own, and per the stats, the shooting method you will employ is instinctive shooting.
Not a bad choice given no other, but most likely an ineffectual one, as the acknowledged MISS rate in CQ armed encounters is 80+%.
The only saving grace is that gunfights are rare, and most likely the perp will not know Point Shooting.
So unless you are having very bad day, you will not be in a gunfight, and if so, you will probably survive anyway.
..........
As to Point Shooting, I'm a fan of the method I call AIMED Point Shooting or P&S.
Here are pics of a 1902 Patent and a 1908 Patent that show it:
And here is wording from the 1908 Patent about it:
"This invention relates to a device adapted for attachment to fire-arms of various kinds, more especially to shot - guns or hunting rifles, and has for its object to facilitate quick and accurate pointing of the weapon without being obliged to adjust the gun-stock to the shoulder for aiming at birds just rising from the bush or in flight, or at other game.
The invention is based largely upon the fact that the conscious or sub-conscious faculties intuitively enable men to point the index finger directly and accurately at any visible object without bringing the outstretched finger into alinement with or between the eye and the object."
The U.S. Army, in its Combat Pistol Manual of 2003, agrees that soldiers can do that which is stated above.
P&S dates way back to the early 1800's and is described or acknowledged in books dated: 1804, 1810, 1816, 1829, 1835, 1870, 1885, 1898, 1900, 1903, and the Patents above. The US Army also acknowledged it by cautioning against its use with the 1911 in manuals and books dated: 1912, 1915, 1917, 1918, 1920, 1921, 1922, 1925, 1926, 1927, 1929, 1941. Here's a link to more specific info on that.
The nice thing about P&S is that it is EZ to learn with little or no training. And it can be maintained with limited practice. It's also FREE. So it can save ammo costs and your time.
For dry practice, just walk around the house, point at stuff and say bang. That's no joke, because that's just what you do with an airsoft pistol or firearm.
You are welcome to try it with airsoft or at the range at your own risk and expense.
It works when using one or two hands, standing still, moving, shooting at moving targets (even aerials), and in good light or bad. There's videos on this site and on U-tube of it being used as stated.
P&S can be used to enhance Sight Shooting if lighting, time, and circumstances allow for its use.
It also can be used with the method/s developed by Fairbairn and Sykes, and Applegate. And ditto for use with Threat Focus, QK and CAR.
Best yet, P&S provides you with a fast, automatic and correct flash sight picture. For more on that, click here.
As to effectiveness, a web search of "Ruby shoots Oswald" will get you proof that the method is deadly at CQ.
..........
Now, it's fair to ask, if the method is good, how come our military and other's didn't and still don't use it?
For an answer, let's take a look at the slide stop of the 1911 which was the standard issue sidearm of US Forces from 1912 - 1985.
If the index finger is placed along the side of the 1911 as in the Patent photos above, it can depress the slide stop pin with firing and the 1911 can jam.
As such, military manuals from 1912 to 1941 cautioned against using P&S with the 1911. I'm sure the caution/prohibition was also mentioned in other publications which are no longer in print and lie silently in the dust bins of history.
The message that was delivered for at least 29 years was -- DON'T USE IT WITH THE 1911! -- DON'T USE THAT METHOD!
The result was to effectively suppress/ban P&S from use with the standard sidearm carried by all of our armed forces for 70+ years. So there was no reason why would it gain acceptance and popularity with our forces, which also made up the pool which would give rise to many Police and firearms instructors.
Here is a picture of a Tokarev TT-33, and one of the end of its slide stop pin that is held in place with a two pronged clip. The Tokarev has features that are similar to those of the Browning pistol. The Tokarev was used by the Soviets and over 1.5 million were produced. Apparently the Russians believed that practicality and survival should drive gun design. The Tokarev photo is by: Mike Killebrew.
Also, don't get me wrong about the 1911. It's an excellent functioning piece of machinery.
The rub is that our troops were denied the option of using a method of shooting/killing the enemy that is effective at CQ for 70+ years, because the slide stop design was not modified to prevent the 1911 from jamming if P&S was used with it. For more on that. click here.
As to why a modest modification was not made to the 1911 to fix the design fault, I don't have a clue except to think that the "Sights Only" crowd held sway and the traditional way was their way.
Remember that in the 1600's, Giodana Bruno was burned at the stake for going against the dogma that the sun revolved around the earth. And Galileo got life under house arrest. The Salem witch trials also were in the 1600's.
If you are of the mind that those in charge always are looking out for what's best for YOU, I suggest that it would be prudent to add a measure of skepticism to YOUR thinking.
..........
In Shanghia, Fairbairn and Sykes had good success with their target focus method which was built upon by Applegate in WWII.
The Applegate method was even taught at the FBI Academy for a few years after WWII, until a new "boss" came around. Then it was pushed aside as the "MT" came into being and became the cats meow.
Since that time most all police were and still are trained to use the sights for shooting.
In the 1970's, the NYPD SOP 9 study of some 6,000 + police combat cases found that in most all cases the sights were not used. Officers shot with one hand with few exceptions. And the MISS rate was 80% +/-. Click here for more details.
Also, check out the RAND corporation study of the NYPD which was funded by the NYPD.
To me, a miss rate of 80+% is a very very bad joke.
And to not accept the facts about real CQB situations, and do something about them, such as making a study of shooting methods to determine factually what does and does not work in CQB, and then share that info with the law abiding gun owning public, IMHO is just wrong. As to whose to blame, don't lay any on the students as they are not in charge. Look to "the Government", gun makers, and trainers.
The NRA has recognized the facts, and supports the use of Point Shooting for CQ self defense. Click here for more on that.
.........
Lastly, here's a link to a page that has pics and videos of Sight Shooting being used effectively in CQ.
Hey, just having a bit of fun. :) :)
You may not like what is, but it is what it is.
I am an optimist, and hopefully things will get better with time.
Use your go back button to return to the
prior page, or click here for the index.