WHY QUICK KILL OR QK ? - BY: ROBIN BROWN.
Here are some thoughts by Robin Brown - AKA - Brownie, about shooting reflexively and using the bodies natural ability to point. They were
lifted from some of his recent web postings on the subject of Point Shooting.
ON COMPETITION SHOOTING:
I got into the game of IPSC for a very short time. My take on the "game" is it creates bad habits for the street. Having worked the streets for 25+ years in and out of the country in real situations, being a combat veteran as well, in the Corps in the late 60's, and having swat, counter sniper and counter terror gov type training behind me as well, I got out of the "games" which produce great scores and times, but bad habits.
One of the biggest bad habits they profess and which users need to do to be competitive is reload on the fly. In the real world, you reload in the open while moving and you'll likely die. For timed events, this is great but for the "street", it can be fatal to be reloading in the open.
Here's the rub between aimed and point shooting. I'll call it point shooting here but it can be called quick kill, instinctive shooting, you get the idea.
The gamesman practiced till they dropped, I did not practice between matches and was usually somewhere at the top of the board at the end of the day.
Why? Because I used my natural ability which all men and women possess that is with you at all times and not something that is "learned" and has to be reinforced continuously to remain relatively proficient.
ON USING THE SIGHTS:
I haven't used sights since 82 under 20 yds with any handgun.
God didn't put sights on your finger, yet you can point at something instinctively with the index finger from about the time you are 2 years old.
It's the natural ability of humans to be able to do this, so why did someone feel the need to put sights on handguns except to be able to aim at the longer distances?
Learn to use your natural ability to point. Anytime you use something that comes naturally to humans, it's going to be faster than something that requires a learning curve, and then continuous practice to maintain some level of proficiency.
I instruct in quick kill. And not all, but most can pick it up in 5 minutes.
If it takes more than 5 minutes, it's not something that's natural to the human body.
And most anyone can do it naturally, they only need be shown QK and have the willingness to use it.
The problem I see continuously, is that many will revert back to their sighted fire after they leave the range that day.
Now it is true that great amounts of ammo and time on the guns can get one to a high level of proficiency at CQB.
And then, there are the people who have been shown QK and can do the same in minutes using just their natural ability.
Not that practicing isn't a good thing, I just don't see the need to expend all that energy and time to reach a level of proficiency which you can readily do in two minutes, and naturally if shown a few quick shortcuts.
Most shooters will not absorb the ammo expense, or expend the time it takes, to develop CQB skills through repetitive practice. And I have seen they do not have to, if they'll only open their eyes to something that just comes naturally.
But I also know that if people are shown the way, that's no guarantee that they will use it.
I have several students who have paid to learn it, then revert back to using the sights when unnecessary.
You can lead the horse to water--or something like that, right?
ON FRONT SIGHT FOCUS:
In a web discussion, a party said that in practice he could hit very well at +/- 7 yards by focusing on the spot he wanted to hit: by "instinctively" pointing the pistol "by feel" and while holding it considerably below line of sight.
He also said that "when it comes to actual life and death shooting situations: I focus on the front sight at all distances beyond belly-to-belly. Why? Because I want to be absolutely sure of hitting the center of the target."
Here's Brownie's response.
Are you suggesting that PSing is for play and sighted fire is for the "real deal" on the street?
How accurate do you think you have to be in a combative situation at 7-10 yds?
Do you need pinpoint precision within an inch in an up close and personal situation?
What's your acceptable accuracy level at combatives?
I think the reason you stated what you did, is because as you previously said, you are "holding it considerably below line of sight." That statement makes sense if you believe that Point Shooting should be performed considerably below eye level.
But, if you were properly trained in QK, you would not have to worry about that as the barrel of the gun will only be 4-6 inches below your eye level, and you will have a constant reference point which makes shots repeatable.
I don't believe anyone shooting considerably below eye level will be as accurate constantly, and without lots and lots of practice to keep their proficiency up to an acceptable level.
Also, I'll be as accurate as you and your sighted fire out to 10-15 yds at anytime using QK.
Perhaps you should attempt to follow QK as described, and try it on the range.
Yes, you will not be as fast initially, as you will have new things to consider and old mental barriers to get over. But, the technique is valid, and works EVERYTIME as it is boringly repeatable.
I'll take a handgun with no sights and shoot against your sighted fire at the same distance. I will not miss, neither will you in all likelihood. Your shots may go 3 inch spreads at 10 yrds. Mine will go 5 inches at that distance.
And as one's head is larger than that, all my shots will be well inside that sized target, and as fast as I can pull the trigger.
ON SHOOTING PLATES:
I have shot plates in the past and they are fun.
One day when we were shooting fast and furious, my competitor saw I had only milspec gov45 little sights on my gun.
Well, I explained to him that I didn't use sights. But, he didn't believe it as I was kicking his butt with a 60 year old warhorse, against his super duper tricked out gov45 that cost him $2000.00 plus to build.
So, I took some electricians tape and covered the little blade on my slide. Still beat him bad on plates that were 10 inches in diameter and 33 feet away (11 yrds).
My times from buzzer to last plate down are 3.8-4.2 seconds for six plates from surrender position. Not that fast compared to some real hosers I know, but then those times are with using QK and no sights.
You are prudent not to use unsighted fire on the street if you are "well below eye level" and the distance is 33 feet and you have to stay inside a 10 inch target.
But using QK, that's a no brainer.
WHICH IS BETTER?
Is QK better than sighted fire? No, of course not.
But it is as fast naturally which means that you do not need the thousands of rounds and the practice time to be able to hit your targets quickly and with enough accuracy to be viable on the street.
Many who do not have the income and time to practice to be both fast and accurate, will benefit greatly from learning QK. They can be fast and accurate (accuracy being considered to be inside 10 inches at any distance you need to shoot at defensively), in short order.
It's a lifesaving skill.
It's been used to survive by some real pros out there who go in real harms way for a living.
It should not be discounted without firsthand knowledge, after all, you don't know how well it works until you have been trained in QK.
Go with what you know, of course, that's your best shot at surviving for you. But be cognizant that there are more ways to skin the cat than with sighted fire, and that they are as accurate and reliable as any sighted weapon.
There are men who live today who have proven it to be so in the real world.
Use your go back button to return to the prior page, or click here for the index.