Survival Point Shooting Video + others

Status
Not open for further replies.
This "technique" is a bag of poop.

Your grip strength is dramatically reduced when you leave your two weakest fingers on the grip.

I'm not sure why anyone would take this guy seriously.
 
As to the 1911, I have not experienced a jam with one, and only shot one many many years ago.
I've shot tens of thousands of rounds through 1911s from a number of different manufacturers and never experienced such a problem. Your assertion that this is a design problem is complete crap.

The bottom line is that a 1911 user is left with no sure, easy, practical and effective way to fast and accurately shoot a 1911 in a CQB situation, as Sight Shooting can not or will not be used.
Baloney. First, there are other siting methods that can be used. Second, your method can be used with a 1911. Third, you can use your sights in CQB.

Stop trying to present yourself as an expert because you are just embarrassing yourself.
 
We teach aim point shooting during our advanced handgun training sessions. However, we teach it with traditional index finger trigger placement. For me, it makes sense to have a full and steady grip (THREE fingers on the grip) and pull the trigger as I normally do.

During our advanced training, we actually TAPE over the front and rear sights, to allow the shooters the chance to really focus on the hand control techniques.

I've seen shooters fire shots Center Mass again and again at distances up to about 45 feet (well past the normal gun fighting distances.)

Most of us are starting to go with the CAR (Center Axis Relock) method, which incorporates point shooting, for better visual observation of the scene.

There are tons of techniques out there. But the LEO's are the ones with the most opportunity to slug it out with the bad guys, and we can learn a lot from them as to what works best.

Theory is one thing. But as Lt Col Fairbairn shows us (based on his real life experiences with the out of control Shanghai... READ: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_E._Fairbairn ), use what ACTUALLY works best!

I don't think the middle finger on the trigger works best. Just my two cents worth.
 
There are tons of techniques out there. But the LEO's are the ones with the most opportunity to slug it out with the bad guys, and we can learn a lot from them as to what works best.

I'll stick to training with military instructors.
 
Anyone can hang out their shingle as a firearms instructor. While there are many outstanding ones (some well known, others not so much), there are also many snake-oil salesman. One rule of thumb for identifying a snake-oil salesman is the instructor who claims he will teach you the only method that works -- only his super-secret method will save your life and guarantee that you will prevail in a gunfight. Reputable instructors will tell you that there are many ways to skin the same cat, but that they prefer their method for reasons X, Y, and Z.

But this fellow is even worse. 5shot mendaciously claims that his technique offers a "4-finger grip" on the gun, implying that it is better than the standard "3-finger grip" on a gun, when, in fact, his technique actually provides only a 2 fingers on the guns grip. To be blunt, 5shot is lying about his technique from the get-go.

This "technique" is a bag of poop.

That is a gross insult to bags of poop -- which are actually useful as fertilizer.

Your grip strength is dramatically reduced when you leave your two weakest fingers on the grip.
Exactly.

I'm not sure why anyone would take this guy seriously.
Hopefully no one here does.
 
Last edited:
I would respect you more if you were forthright and told us you represented a business.

But you lied twice in this thread.

We don't want your DVDs.
 
Also, no connection has been established between range and street performance. So what one does in one "venue" does not guarantee the same in another.

Correct, but this kind of derails your argument, doesn't it?

In regards to shooting drills, and the practical need for them, per the NYPD's SOP 9:

The average number of shots fired by individual Officers in an armed confrontation was between two and three rounds. The two to three rounds per incident remained constant over the years covered by the report. It also substantiates an earlier study by the L.A.P.D. (1967) which found that 2.6 rounds per encounter were discharged.

The necessity for rapid reloading to prevent death or serious injury was not a factor in any of the cases examined.

In close range encounters, under 15 feet, it was never reported as necessary to continue the action.

In 6% of the total cases the Officer reported reloading. These involved cases of pursuit, barricaded persons, and other incidents where the action was prolonged and the distance exceeded the 25 foot death zone.

A few things that are seriously wrong with this.

One, it appears that you're quoting one year of a study that's been repeated more than a dozen times by NYPD. Those numbers have certainly changed from one year to the next.

Two, you're referencing the summary of the study, which lists averages and generalities available to the general public. On the surface, any two (or 13) shootings that occur at roughly the same distance with roughly the same number of shots fired will be presented as nearly identical in the summaries. In the in-depth narratives and shooting reviews, details come out that make it obvious that no two shootings are alike. Those are sterile stats.

Three, nifty study on paper aside, I can think of half a dozen shootings off the top of my head where LEO's have had to reload to save their lives, sometimes after being shot or while being shot at, sometimes in very close quarters. Some of their shooting AAR's were compiled by the forensics teams who examined their dead bodies holding empty or partially reloaded guns.

Four, this is one study, with one set of parameters, that relies on fairly circular logic. It's based on one group of 40,000 cops, who despite their large number are all taught the same techniques, which are reinforced (right or wrong) in quals and in-service refreshers, and when those chemicals dump and slowtime starts they all revert to the same behavior that they repeated over and over. I'm no pro on NYPD's tactics, but my guess is that their CQ portion of quals hasn't changed in a long time, which also makes sense on paper, considering how often they have to run quals to get every sworn employee to the range twice a year. By design their personal range time at NYPD ranges is very limited, so I doubt they do much of it, and since there's probably not that many other ranges available to them locally.

CHP, FBI, DEA, etc. compile data that's less pat than NYPD's but has more usable info.

what the hell happened to that guy's hand?

Mine looks very similar when I hold my hand like that, only that dent isn't quite as round or deep looking.
 
Last edited:
Interesting, to say the least.



If I'm engaging a target, using the sights, and the target comes into "CQB" range, am I supposed to shift the grip on my gun to accommodate your 'technique'?

Also, I can shoot my pistol holding the grip with JUST my middle finger. The ring and pinky fingers really don't do much. In fact, I'm currently having trouble even holding my pistol with just those two fingers. In a CQB situation, isn't retention a big concern? Or are the first two rounds actually snap caps, so you've got that shit covered?
 
This particular technique came up in Massad Ayoob's ProArms podcast this week as a good way to amputate a finger when shooting a revolver, particularly the new Rhino. Thought it was interesting that the OP had gained sufficient reputation for "running around the internet" for them to think of him.
 
This "technique" is a bag of poop.

Your grip strength is dramatically reduced when you leave your two weakest fingers on the grip.

I'm not sure why anyone would take this guy seriously.

It's not a 2 fingered grip or your sissy 3 fingered target shooting range grip.

It's a 4 fingered grip that provides a strong and level shooting platform. It is made up of the natural pincer of the thumb and index finger, plus the ring and little fingers that add tenacity to the grip. There's more on this on my site if you are interested.

You can squeez the beegeebers out of the gun if you like and all you will do is improve the grip. You also can make front punches and/or elbow smashes, or use the gun as a crude battle axe.

Applegate says you will have a crush grip in combat, so you can forget your keeping your index finger aloof from the gun as you deftly squueze the trigger to the rear until the shot breaks.

:) :)
 
Last edited:
Below is some additional info that you may find of interest.

As to Ayoob, there's an article on my site about his involvement at the recent 2010 ILEETA conference (International Law Enforcement Educators and Trainers), in which a use-of force panel discussed Point Shooting vs. Aimed Fire. He has been and still is anti Point Shooting as far as I know. So don't expect him to support it in any form.

Check out the Threat Focused site run by an advocate of Quick Kill Point Shooting on this subject.

..............


Here are links to two new pages on my site that deal with CQB.

One is about a survivor of 14 gunfights. And one is about a survivor of one gunfight plus a video of that shooting.

http://www.pointshooting.com/1astasch.htm

It is based on an Ayoob interview which is a bit odd.

http://www.pointshooting.com/1akevin.htm

..........

Now I shall get on my soapbox:

The continuing incantation by true believer types of "use your sites" should stop.

The use of Sight shooting is PROVEN by studies not to be applicable or effective in CQ self defense situations. And any party who attempts to use it, will be left with little or no effective means of self defense.

As such, those who call for the use of Sight shooting in CQ self defense situations, or teach it, or make it part of an official program, are complicit in the shooting/maiming/murdering of those they influence or teach.

If there was proof in documents, or recognized stats and studies, and/or videos, that Sight Shooting is effective for use in CQ self defense situations, it already would be in evidence and available to all as it has been taught to be used over the past 100+ years.

Sadly, there are no recognized studies and stats in proof of its applicability or effectiveness in CQ self defense situations. If it exists, I will gladly post it on my site, and have a page awaiting for its display.

Here's the link: http://www.pointshooting.com/1april.htm

So, and to say it more bluntly, lacking clear and convincing proof of its applicability and effectiveness in CQ self defense situations, it is way past time to stop killing cops and others who go in harms way, via training or encouraging them to use Sight Shooting in CQ self defense situations.

And as to CQB shooting:

If one is talking about handguns, it is important to note that if you are going to shot or killed, there is an 80% chance that that will happen at < 20 feet.

And most all shootings occur at < 21 feet.

Most all attacks do not occur from across the street.

So, training to shoot beyond CQ distance for most all, is "bad" training because it is not applicable to the most likely situation you could find yourself in.

Why ingrain or try to ingrain shooting habits that will not be applicable to your most likely situations.

If they are learned and ingrained, the result could be hesitation/confusion when an attempt to exercise them is made in situations where they will not be able to be employed, due to environmental conditions or the dynamics of a situation, or the instinctive activation of our fight or flight response in a life threat situation (ie attempting to use the sights). And that could prove to be fatal.

The police hit rate of < 20% is not a mark against Officers. It is a reflection of the reality of bad policies and training on the part of the brass and trainers. If management is in charge (which should be the case unless the inmates are in charge), it is "their" policies as carried out by trainers that are at fault. They and the trainers are directly responsible for the casualty numbers that flow from their policies and bad training.

..........

Now have a Merry Xmas and a good New Year :)
 
One, it appears that you're quoting one year of a study that's been repeated more than a dozen times by NYPD. Those numbers have certainly changed from one year to the next.

The initial study of thousands and thousands of cases ran for about 10 years and then was published. It has been updated, but on a year by year basis as far as I know.

Here's the link to it on my site: http://www.pointshooting.com/1asop9.htm

What I would like to see is a study of thousands and thousands of CQB cases that support the use of Sight Shooting. Should be a cinch as it's been taught for 100+ years.

How about TRUST but VERIFY?
 
5shot, there are many pointshooting techniques. Some of them even work within certain limitations. Ayoob even teaches some of them -- I've taken LFI-1 and LFI-2 from him. But Ayoob does not teach your technique. So stop using his name as a means to support your BS technique.

Your technique doesn't work. It's BS. And it is unsafe.

And for goodness sakes, stop lying about it being a "4-fingered grip," as though that makes it better than a "3-fingered" grip. Your technique puts 2 fingers on the grip of the handgun -- the two smallest and weakest fingers.

Stop lying or go away. Or better yet, just go away. I'm sure your mom needs to use her computer.
 
Last edited:
You can squeez the beegeebers out of the gun if you like and all you will do is improve the grip. You also can make front punches and/or elbow smashes, or use the gun as a crude battle axe.

Pistol whipping someone often breaks the handgun. Noggins are strong.

The use of Sight shooting is PROVEN by studies not to be applicable or effective in CQ self defense situations. And any party who attempts to use it, will be left with little or no effective means of self defense.

Proven by who? I could introduce you to people who've used their sights to win on several occasions.

The police hit rate of < 20% is not a mark against Officers. It is a reflection of the reality of bad policies and training on the part of the brass and trainers.

Bravo sierra. Here's what you're not taking into account. Most police shootings don't take place in a controlled environment. They have to effectively bring their handgun into play after brutal fistfighting, chasing someone through dark alleys, or getting stabbed, shot or clobbered themselves. They are usually close quarters life and death struggles, many times beginning as an ambush or a coordinated attack. Hardcore violent criminals train to fight this way and win. They also have the advantage of being used to regular violence and having no worries about loss of job, lawsuits or criminal charges if they incorrectly use force. And FYI, the "police hitrate" is a BS figure too. Although it's generally low, it varies from shooting to shooting, and the stats aren't assembled the same way in every area.

What I would like to see is a study of thousands and thousands of CQB cases that support the use of Sight Shooting. Should be a cinch as it's been taught for 100+ years.

You need to read some more studies, and individual accounts that don't try to jam the discussion into the parameters of stats. Sometimes people who are involved in shootings report that they specifically used the sights with very vivid recollections of what happened, including being able to read the brand names on the shell casings that flew through the air as their perceptions altered. Others have no recollection of what happened, because adrenaline and cortisol shut down the upper 2/3's of their brain, and they completely shut down mentally and went into survival mode. Others report having choppy memories, fragmented scenes with missing details, or who had a completely different recollection of events thanthe video or other trained witnesses. I talked to one cop who shot it out with a guy, he said that it was like having a childhood garden hose fight, where he was trying to spray the other guy with his face turned away to avoid the "spray" of the other muzzle. Shootings, especially ones as up close and personal as you're describing, are generally very traumatic and explosive events, and people's brains focus on different things when all hell breaks loose.

There's also a handful of other things I'm not going to post publicly that you're missing in a big way.
 
Science and stats should rule in matters of life and death to my way of thinking.

Sight Shooting which has been and still is taught to most police and others, has been PROVEN by studies not to be applicable or effective in close quarters self defense situations where most all gunfights occur and where there is the greatest chance of being shot and/or killed.

For example, the study of thousands and thousands of NYPD combat cases found that most all Officers did not use Sight Shooting.

So, if a person does not know another shooting method that is accurate at close quarters, they will have no effective means of self defense, when most needed.

Further, scientific studies have established that it is not possible to use the sights in close quarters life threat situations. Adrenaline is dumped into our system. It in turn, relaxes the ciliary muscle of the eye which enhances our far vision so we can focus on the threat. That unfortunately, causes us to lose our near vision which is necessary for focusing on the sights.

Now, if there was proof in documents, or recognized stats and studies, and/or videos, that Sight Shooting is effective for use in CQ self defense situations, it already would be in evidence and available to all as it has been taught to be used over the past 100+ years.

But sadly, there are no recognized studies and stats in proof of its applicability or effectiveness in CQ self defense situations. If it exists, I will gladly post it on my site, and have a page awaiting for its display.

Here are links to a page about a survivor of 14 gunfights, and one to a page about a survivor of one gunfight plus a video of that shooting.

http://www.pointshooting.com/1astasch.htm

http://www.pointshooting.com/1akevin.htm

There are several "Point Shooting" methods that utilize an aiming method other than the sites, and which are accurate at close quarters. P&S which I advocate, is the simplest method and fast and accurate at close quarters. Even the US Army says it can be used to fast and accurately engage targets.

swmp9400.jpg

target3.jpg

kahrtarg.jpg


How are you at shooting at aerials with your shooting method?

P&S has been around since 1835. Worked then, still does.

Have a nice xmas and a good New Year.
 
As to Ayoob,

He mentions P&S in his book The Gun Digest Book of Combat Handgunnery, 5th edition, 2002, by Massad Ayoob.

His book contain inaccurate and just plain wrong information about P&S, and about the Ruby/Oswald shooting in which P&S was used by Ruby. The author also has praise for Tom Aveni's negative article on what Aveni refers to as the Vermont Technique (P&S).

And there are two pics on the page, which obviously are meant to ridicule the P&S method.

To me, the message they send is: look at this folks, only a moron would do this.

The intent is to slam the Vermont Technique (P&S) by innuendo and by presenting false information about it.

Here is a link to an article about this on my site. It has a link to his book as of 10/22/07: http://www.pointshooting.com/1amorons.htm

In my opinion, such presentations, have and can result in police and others being wounded/killed via squelching innovation and experimentation with shooting methods such as P&S.

Traditional shooting means and methods, which rely on the use of the sights for accuracy, are a proven and dismal failure in close quarters armed encounters. The police armed encounter hit rate percentage is less than 20%.

Yes, 4 out of every 5 bullets fired, miss the intended target and go elsewhere, which apparently is no concern to those in charge.
 
Seriously 5shot give it up.

I think I can speak for most people here when I say Nobody is buying it. [hmmm][thinking]
 
Science and stats should rule in matters of life and death to my way of thinking.

Where do street results factor in?

Sight Shooting which has been and still is taught to most police and others, has been PROVEN by studies not to be applicable or effective in close quarters self defense situations where most all gunfights occur and where there is the greatest chance of being shot and/or killed.

Capitalizing "proven" doesn't prove anything. Which studies?

For example, the study of thousands and thousands of NYPD combat cases found that most all Officers did not use Sight Shooting.

NYPD's stats will also tell you that their officers have accidentally shot innocent bystanders via overpenetration. What they don't tell you is that at the time of those shootings their officers were issued WWB 9mm, and have since changed to 124 grain Speer Gold Dot as a duty load. How does ammo selection factor into their reporting? Do they identify the type of firearm used by the officer involved?

Here's a question for you. How does NYPD determine the distance between the suspect and the officer after a police shooting, and how do they incorporate barriers and obstructions into those figures? A follow up question would be how do they differentiate between the CQ OIS's involving lots of movement vs. the ones where the shooter and the suspect are stationary?

Have you read anything more than the basic, widely circulated summaries of NYPD's shootings?

Further, scientific studies have established that it is not possible to use the sights in close quarters life threat situations. Adrenaline is dumped into our system. It in turn, relaxes the ciliary muscle of the eye which enhances our far vision so we can focus on the threat. That unfortunately, causes us to lose our near vision which is necessary for focusing on the sights.

Well you're going to have to explain that study to a certain SWAT cop in Texas who put three .223's into an armed felon from less than 10 feet away with his AR, using the sights. You'll also have to explain it to the deputy & trooper in Ohio who exchanged shots with the Kehoe brothers. Yes, they used their sights, but it turns out their close quarters shooting wasn't as cut and dried as the statistics on it, or the Ron White routine explaining what went wrong. None of those guys reported distortions in their vision while shooting in close quarters, they all found the sights just fine. I bet you couldn't tell me about how their "hit rates" were tabulated though.

In another interesting shooting, a cop chased an armed suspect across a bustling city street. In the officers recollection, he shot at the suspect while chasing him, without the suspect firing back. He specifically stated that he raised his gun and fired at the guy's back while still sprinting and killed the suspect. Other officers involved in the shooting specifically stated that as the suspect fled, he turned and fired at the officer chasing him, so the officer stopped running, carefully aligned his sights and shot the suspect. There were other factors that made that shooting more intense that I'm describing it, but when stuffing it into stats, which account should carry more weight?

Blindly compiled stats don't do much for your case when they don't include detailed accounts from the shooters involved and everyone else at the scene. They also don't take into account the chaos that surrounds these messy events.

There are several "Point Shooting" methods that utilize an aiming method other than the sites, and which are accurate at close quarters. P&S which I advocate, is the simplest method and fast and accurate at close quarters. Even the US Army says it can be used to fast and accurately engage targets.

Cops are taught some sightless shooting for close quarters. Some agencies incorporate it into their qualification course of fire, others don't teach it at all. But as everything with police across the nation, it isn't uniform, and often changes.

Traditional shooting means and methods, which rely on the use of the sights for accuracy, are a proven and dismal failure in close quarters armed encounters. The police armed encounter hit rate percentage is less than 20%.

Yes, 4 out of every 5 bullets fired, miss the intended target and go elsewhere, which apparently is no concern to those in charge.

Using fractions and percentages to re-state the exact same isolated figures isn't helping you any. Did you know that there are LE agencies with astonishingly high hit rates across the board, despite training and regularly reinforcing to their guys to use the sights? Could you explain that anomaly to me?

While you're at it, you can explain how the hit rates of every police officer in the US are formed, considering that the overwhelming majority of police departments are small in size, without the same AAR standards as NYPD.
 
Where do street results factor in?

.....
In the NYPD study they tried to establish a relationship between range results and street results and they were unable to, which says range performance doesn't equate to street performance.
.....

Here's a question for you. How does NYPD determine the distance between the suspect and the officer after a police shooting, and how do they incorporate barriers and obstructions into those figures? A follow up question would be how do they differentiate between the CQ OIS's involving lots of movement vs. the ones where the shooter and the suspect are stationary?

Have you read anything more than the basic, widely circulated summaries of NYPD's shootings?

.....

A quick answer is where is your proof to back up anything you say?

The NYPD data covered THOUSANDS of combat cases, so even if you tossed out a hundred here and a hundred there, the results would be just about the same.

I have read all that I can get my hands on. Where is the NRA and the gun makers on this since they gain money wise with membership and gun buyers. To bad that they are generally silent on the issue that is the main reason for buying a weapon that is designed to kill, which is being able to use one in self defense.

At least the NRA has come out in favor of point shooting.

If one wants to have a gun for sport/range shooting, a BB gun could be used to establish predominance and whose the best of the best in the world on the range.
.....

Well you're going to have to explain that study to a certain SWAT cop in Texas who put three .223's into an armed felon from less than 10 feet away with his AR, using the sights. You'll also have to explain it to the deputy & trooper in Ohio who exchanged shots with the Kehoe brothers. Yes, they used their sights, but it turns out their close quarters shooting wasn't as cut and dried as the statistics on it, or the Ron White routine explaining what went wrong. None of those guys reported distortions in their vision while shooting in close quarters, they all found the sights just fine. I bet you couldn't tell me about how their "hit rates" were tabulated though.

In another interesting shooting, a cop chased an armed suspect across a bustling city street. In the officers recollection, he shot at the suspect while chasing him, without the suspect firing back. He specifically stated that he raised his gun and fired at the guy's back while still sprinting and killed the suspect. Other officers involved in the shooting specifically stated that as the suspect fled, he turned and fired at the officer chasing him, so the officer stopped running, carefully aligned his sights and shot the suspect. There were other factors that made that shooting more intense that I'm describing it, but when stuffing it into stats, which account should carry more weight?

Blindly compiled stats don't do much for your case when they don't include detailed accounts from the shooters involved and everyone else at the scene. They also don't take into account the chaos that surrounds these messy events.

.....
Again where is your proof via broad based scientific studies and stats of more than incidental, albeit important events?

As I recall, Jim Cirillo used his sights in his first shootout, but he had the element of suprise and he was the agressor, not reacting in a self defense mode. Who wouldn't use their sights if they could, there was time to use them, and the environmental conditions and dynamics of a situation would allow for their use.

P&S is not a bar to the use of the sights. It can get you one target fast, instinctively and accurately. You can then polish off the shot with the sights if you wish to and can.

This is about close quarters killing situations, not across the street shooting/marksmanship where the Fight or Flight response affect on fine motor skills and vision will not be adverse. At least that's what the science says.

The Kehoe brothers encounter is detailed in an article on my site. It was the reason I began my journey into the world of the gun.

Before I saw it on TV, I thought you folks in the gun world knew what you were doing.

The TV clip clearly shows that not to be the case as neither hit anything but air. I have a couple of copies of the TV clip recorded at that time or soon after. If you watch it several times, you will find that the narrative and the video differ as to what was taking place.

We can see the Deputy firing, hear the noise and see his gun jumping, and it doesn't look like he's using his sights.

Be that as it may be, let's look at the studies done by several police agencies, the FBI, or anyone else, which can inform gun buyers, cops, and military folks of what they can expect in a real close quarters life threat situation, and importantly, which shooting method works the best or better than most in such situations. Sadly there are none or rest assured I would already have had several shoved down my throat. :)

If the method I tout ends up on the bottom, so be it.

I await studies and their proof, and will gladly publish it (with permission), on my site for all to see.

The goal is to reduce the number of Police and others who and shot/maimed/murdered.
.........

Cops are taught some sightless shooting for close quarters. Some agencies incorporate it into their qualification course of fire, others don't teach it at all. But as everything with police across the nation, it isn't uniform, and often changes.

Using fractions and percentages to re-state the exact same isolated figures isn't helping you any. Did you know that there are LE agencies with astonishingly high hit rates across the board, despite training and regularly reinforcing to their guys to use the sights? Could you explain that anomaly to me?

While you're at it, you can explain how the hit rates of every police officer in the US are formed, considering that the overwhelming majority of police departments are small in size, without the same AAR standards as NYPD.

.....
I know that the CA CHP went to point shooting, using a method similar to Applegate's. Lou Chiodo led the way. There is an article on my sight about that, and a link to an interview of Lou by Paladin press.
.....

Thanks again for all comments.
 
Last edited:
Nobody cares about anything you have to say.

Nobody gives a flying F about your studies.

No reputable trainer, including those who have actually killed people in real gunfights, listen to you or teach what you advocate.

You got laughed out of Gabe Suarez's board. You are getting laughed out of here too.

Loser
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom