Point Shooting vs Aim shooting

[Pilgrim]

How many of you point and shoot rather than aim and shoot with a handgun?

I shoot righty and am apparently left eye dominant and aiming takes some real concentration, for me to focus properly.

Pointing has never really worked that well for me for some reason, but since I got my 1911, it almost seems natural and it seems to work. I haven't really tried point shooting at the range yet but picking the gun up and pointing it and dry firing at random objects seems to be working very well.

I'll point it, hold it still and see where my point of aim is and it'll be real close to what I wanted...much better than with other guns I have.

I'm going to keep practicing this way and see how it affects my range time.

I realize pointing is not much good when you need a practiced steady aimed shot, like in the discussed scenerio where a bad guy is behind your loved one and you have to give him a head shot. However it would seem that in most self defence scenerios, point and shoot would be much more beneficial (faster) than aim and shoot.

My 1911sc seems like it's the end of my finger...so natural.

Anyone use this technique?

[JimConway]

This is one of those subjects that will not go away. The Ogden, UT police Department just completed and issued a study of aimed vs. Point shooting which concluded that Aimed shooting was and is better.
With that said, the best answer is to do whatever you need to do to get the hit. There are two extremes that must be considered. The first is very close and the other is a precision shot of over 20 yards. For a very close shot (bad breath distance), it would foolish to consider anything but a shot from retention with the gun indexed along the rib cage. If you pushed the gun out for an aimed shot at this distance, the BG would at the very least take your gun away from you.
The other extreme is a precision shot with little margin of error. For example a shot in a hostage situation where the only shot is a head shot. Here only an aimed shot will cut it.
The question is often asked is where do you transition from point shooting to aimed shooting. The answer that I always give is that you are the only one that can make that decision. I suggest that the decision be made based on how you shoot and how confident you are of making the required shot at the distance involved.

[Lynne]

Pilgrim, I do both when I practice. I use the flash site (quickly looking to make sure the sight is pretty much lined up before pulling the trigger) and point and shoot. Maybe because I practiced so much with point and shoot, I find I'm not that far off from actually aiming with one eye closed. Yes, the group is a bit bigger, but it's all center mass.

As Jim said - do what you need to do to hit your target, which is the main objective. [smile]

[M1911]

I agree with Jim. The answer is "it depends." If I'm close, my body is indexed squarely towards the target, and the target isn't moving quickly, then point shooting is significantly faster. But if I am moving and the target is moving, or I am more than 20 feet from the target, then I need to use the sights. YMMV.

[NH40VE]

i went to the range the other day and did four shots that were point-n-shoot..well here's what happened.there was a sec pause between shots.(unless i'm resting my arm on the bench,i normally do the point-n-shoot method)

http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c34/beretta92d/4shottarget.jpg
sorry for the small size,it was taken with my cell phone.
basically all four shots are inline with less then a inch spacing.this was at 8yrds.


i'd have to say,it was s*#@ luck

[Nickle]

Not too bad. I've found I do better with a handgun either point shooting, or rapid fire. I qualify with the M9 on pop-ups. Definitely Point Shoot time then.

I've found I like the M9 enough that I finally bought one.

[BigBill]

I have found out that with shooting a few different handguns all the time and really not getting to know one gun can be hard to be accurate with all of them. I have learned with my shorter barreled handguns to cover what i want to hit and squeeze it off and i hit it everytime. I taught this method to a jarhead marine buddy of mine who couldn't hit a barn with his 1911/45acp and the kid was deadly with it after i showed him how to do it. It worked with my 2 3/4" barreled 357 ruger mag too. With the 6" barrels and up to 7 1/2" barrels i aim those using the sights and i'm good to go. But some guns can be finiky with accuracy too. I had an older colt python 357mg 6" barrel that always shot high for some reason. I was shooting one day with some off duty LEO's and just for ha, ha's i aimed my python at some small rocks on the 100yd berm. I aimed dead on and hit the rocks everytime. I was using my reloads with 140gr JHP speer bullets. What an accurate load and gun. Each handgun can be different and we must figure out whats wrong and get it to shoot accurately. Lets face it with accuracy its not a given. But your right i'm more accurate with the shorter barrels by just covering what i want to hit and it works most of the time. Just try some empty soda cans.

[Brownie]

There was a good discussion here:

http://www.threatfocused.com/forums/showthread.php?t=281

on that Ogden Utah study. In a nutshell is was stacked in the favor of sighted fire, and was put on by one of their own in that dept who has been very anti where threat focused skills are concerned, having written an anti article on the subject in a national publication prior to the "test".

The consensus; biased, not objective and designed toward the sighted fire side.

Brownie

[JimConway]

For those of you thst are interested, I had a discussion with Brownie today about having him provide his Threat Focused Training course here next year.
I will provide more details on this shortly. BTW, the course is based upon not using your sights

[LenS]

Brownie = Robin Brown, formerly of PRM now a free man in AZ.

He is a superb edged weapons instructor, I've seen him in action when he did a demo for one of the Constable's assns. Too bad they never had the desire to follow up with a course.

I know that he teaches the Quick Kill (QK) technique, but I know nothing about it at this point.

[dreppucci007]

For those of you thst are interested, I had a discussion with Brownie today about having him provide his Threat Focused Training course here next year.
I will provide more details on this shortly. BTW, the course is based upon not using your sights


Now that I just read what Len said about Brownie, I'm interested!

Jim, Please keep us posted.

[Brownie]

Thanks for the kind words Len,

I'll start a thread on the firearms training we provide across the country for the members shortly.

Brownie

[hminsky]

Speaking of pointing .. I just tried a magazine full of tracers in my AR15. You can't really see them if you are aiming through the sights, but if youhave your head up and point the weapon and fire, you can see the bullets trajectory. It was really fun to try and hit something at 50 yards by firing and then adjusting the point of aim, without looking over the sights. I think it was a good excercise in muscle memory. Well, anyway it was cool.

[SPG]

I will start this off by saying Brownie is a close personal friend of mine, so I am not without my bias. He is also SCARY with a 1911, I wish I was any where near that good. ( I usually shoot 100% on my MCJTC course of fire every year, and the 2-3 additional shoots we do every year with Brockton PD)
My point being, I am not to shabby, Brownie is very good. He is damn good with a blade also, in the past gave seminars to local PD's including Brockton SWAT. SPG

[Coyote33]

I came across this, and am wondering if it applies to point shooting.

Fitts' Law:

http://ei.cs.vt.edu/~cs5724/g1/glance.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitts'_law

http://www.cs.umd.edu/class/fall2002/cmsc838s/tichi/fitts.html

[TonyD]

How are you trying to tie Fitt's law into point shooting? Just curious where you're coming from.

[Coyote33]

Just wondering. IS there any sort of tie?

[TonyD]

At a cursory glance, his logarythm is above me. However, it just seems to me that he's saying it can be expressed AS a logarythm. His formula doesn't seem to take into consideration such things as; threat assessment, cerebral processing / reaction time, relaxed / fluid motion v. tensed muscular manipulation, etc.

[Neptune Cat]

I came across this, and am wondering if it applies to point shooting.

Fitts' Law:

http://ei.cs.vt.edu/~cs5724/g1/glance.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitts'_law

http://www.cs.umd.edu/class/fall2002/cmsc838s/tichi/fitts.html


From what I can understand about Fitt's law, I would say it is most definitely applicable to shooting whether it is point shooting or aiming. It is simply saying that in order to acquire a given target a person will need to slow down their motion to increase their accuracy. It also states that this change in motion is an exponential function of the accuracy needed.

I would guess that mathematically you would need a higher exponent to describe aim shooting as apposed to point shooting which would support the fact that point shooting is much generally faster, and aiming is more accurate.

I hope some of this makes sense, my writing skills are minimal.

[Neptune Cat]

At a cursory glance, his logarythm is above me. However, it just seems to me that he's saying it can be expressed AS a logarythm. His formula doesn't seem to take into consideration such things as; threat assessment, cerebral processing / reaction time, relaxed / fluid motion v. tensed muscular manipulation, etc.

This is true, however when trying to explain something as chaotic as human movement some variables are going to be left out.

For instance in your variables you've also left out whether or not the person has had their coffee or even a healthy breakfast.[smile] There are going to be a billion variables which is why most are ignored and statistics and testing is used to replace them.

[TonyD]

This is true, however when trying to explain something as chaotic as human movement some variables are going to be left out.

For instance in your variables you've also left out whether or not the person has had their coffee or even a healthy breakfast.[smile] There are going to be a billion variables which is why most are ignored and statistics and testing is used to replace them.

I didn't leave it out - it was expressed as 'etc.'.

I don't think it applies to the discussion of point shooting v. aimed shooting as it relates to which method is most effective in a combat scenerio at a given distance. It is simply a mathamatical formula of measurement producing a result dependent on the inputs.

Although, I may be wrong.

[Neptune Cat]

I didn't leave it out - it was expressed as 'etc.'.

I don't think it applies to the discussion of point shooting v. aimed shooting as it relates to which method is most effective in a combat scenerio at a given distance. It is simply a mathamatical formula of measurement producing a result dependent on the inputs.

Although, I may be wrong.

I think I understand what you are saying and If I do, I agree with you. On an individual basis and in given scenarios sometimes timing is more important than accuracy and other times accuracy is more important. And of course timing and accuracy will change for each person.

This being said. These mathematical representations do give some hints to human behavior and we can learn many things from them. They should be looked at blurred and at a distance (figurativly speaking). Coaching in general is based on these types of models, although most coaches may not know this. Actually It's general models such as this that make coaching possible.

I didn't mean any harm with the comments in my last post, hence the. [smile]
I appologize if it was taken as a kick.

[Coyote33]

"Aim small, shoot small, hit small"

Isn't that kind of what this is all about?

[JonJ]

"Aim small, shoot small, hit small"

Isn't that kind of what this is all about?The Patriot. Did I win?

Lots of info here on point shooting: http://www.pointshooting.com/

[TonyD]

I agree, Cat, but I think Fitt's law is just simply an equation that defines an output dependent upon several inputs. I don't think his law has any bearing on proving anything except if, (x) is (y), then (a) will be (b).



"Aim small, shoot small, hit small"

Isn't that kind of what this is all about?




Not at all. It's much more complex than that. Mathmatical functions can never figure in human behavior or reaction. Let alone learned response.

[Neptune Cat]

Fitts law helps us understand why it may take 1 second to reliably hit a body, 3 seconds to reliably hit a body in the chest and 9 seconds to reliably hit the heart.

I of course made these numbers up on the spot but you should understand the concept.

and of course, there are variables left out. Some people won't ever be able to hit the body. The person, the gun, the ammo, and a billion more variables.

in a controled environment fitts law may prove itself true. None of us lives in a controled environment but we can take what we learn from a controlled environment and see where it fits in with uncontrolled cases which can be studied. Maybe thousands of uncontrolled cases.

This is how we learn techniques, frame of reference, and what we should try to better ourselves.