# Speed?Power?Accuracy?



## Tgace (Mar 26, 2005)

The elements of pistolcraft have been described as SPEED, POWER and ACCURACY. To win the gunfight (once that point has become unavoidable) you need to get the gun on target and working faster than the opponent. The power of the weapon should be substantial enough to damage the opponent quckly and signifigantly. And last (and IMO far from least) you have to be able to hit the target in the area that will have the most effect.

Question. If you could achieve "perfection" in any one of these elements which would it be? I choose accuracy because if I could hit in any desired area under any circumstance I could survive with a .22 Second place for me would be speed because many times in my profession you are playing the "catch up" game.


----------



## dearnis.com (Mar 26, 2005)

I'll second that.  As they say, you can't miss fast enough to catch up.  Yesterday I had my first real chance to work on steel with a timer since coming back from Gunsite.  I was very happy with my times....even with the extra shots that were on occaision needed due to accuracy deficit.  (was running Doziers with a turn in 3.5 to 3.8; I feel very good about that).
Power; well, if the other factors are there, you'll come out OK.  Power means the biggest caliber you can shoot fast and accurately.


----------



## bdparsons (Mar 26, 2005)

Definitely accuracy.

If you can't hit what you're aiming at aren't the other factors irrelevant?

Respects,
Bill Parsons
Triangle Kenpo Institute


----------



## KenpoTex (Mar 27, 2005)

Like Bill Jordan said, "Speed is fine, Accuracy is FINAL." (also attributed to Wild Bill Hickhok).  For me, that pretty much sums it up.  It doesn't matter how fast you can present the weapon and/or fire if you don't hit anything.  I'm not saying speed isn't important and with practice, you will become faster.  However, accuracy is paramount.


----------



## dearnis.com (Mar 27, 2005)

Well, we have a vote for power without comment....
Since I'm not alone in saying accuracy, convince us!


----------



## Jerry (Mar 28, 2005)

Though I too voted accuracy.. it's still a very quantative issue.

"where do your other skills lie"? Let's assume that you can currently hit a target first shot (and you are worried about a confrontation); then it would actually be speed, not accuracy that you were most worried about... you are already "accurate enough" (wonder if I can change my vote).

Of coruse, we all know non is usefull without the other two. I won't win a gunfight with a (very accurate and powerful) howitzer that I can't bring ot bear in under 2 minutes; nor will I win with a (very accuarte and fast) laser-pointer that cannot hurt you. 

So the real question must be "where are you most deficent"? It's really "accurate speed" that's needed... and with enough power you can sacrifice a little accuracy (shots from a .22 that would not stop you from shooting back, might if they were from a .45).


----------



## dearnis.com (Mar 28, 2005)

I think the balance of power and accuracy comes down to where we draw the cut-off for a serious defensive handgun.  A .32?  Obviously to little.  Also tends to lack in the other areas... I carry a P32 as an "always" gun.  Is it accurate?  Accurate enough; I normally shoot about 94% on our off duty qual course with mine.  It is also fair to say that the course asks more from the gun than I ever will.  Is it fast?  No.  I carry it deep, and it is too small for easy, smooth, manipulation.  So why have it?  Like I said, an always gun.
How about a .380?  Most are small enough that manipulation and smooth use is an issue.  Same with .38 snubbies as we move up.  It seems to me we are almost forced into the compact service size category before we get to a weapon that is big enough to maniplate smoothly, quickly, and accurately.  At this point the user will have to select the weapon based on comfort, and recoil, or perception of recoil is part of that package.  In very arbitrary terms, "pick the most powerful gun YOU can shoot accurately and quickly."
But, generalities aside, I still go with accuracy... I know how fast I can shoot, and I know I can get by with any reasonable defensive caliber.


----------



## Cruentus (Mar 28, 2005)

I'll be contrarian a little...just to be a bastard.. 

I would say for accuracy being first, it depends on what you mean by accurate.

If it was between being within a 5" or even an 8" grouping with multiple shots WHILE MOVING, but with me getting there faster then the other guy who might be able to shoot within a 3" grouping, then I'll take speed first.

If it is accuracy as in hitting target vs. not hitting a chest sized target at all, then obviously I would take accuracy.

As Applegate said: "You've got to be the first with the most," key word being "first." It doesn't do you any good to be able to hit within a 1" group if it takes you forever to get there. You'll be dead before you can be accurate. However, it doesn't do any good to be there first, if you don't hit the person shooting at you at all.

So I think a balance has to be maintained between accuracy and speed, and "accuracy first" would depend on what you mean by accurate, IMHO.

Power is always last, IMHO. THat has to do with caliber, which doesn't do you any good if you can't get there first and accurately.

O.K....I'm done. You can now pig-pile on the young shooting rookie...*ducks for cover*  :2xBird2:  :uhyeah:


----------



## dearnis.com (Mar 28, 2005)

Accuracy as I'm using it here is nothing more than the ability to place an appropriate center mass hit; say within 8".  A 3" group in a moving, timed combat drill is indicative of taking too much time.


----------



## Tgace (Mar 28, 2005)

Yep. I think a "beginners" speed is just fine as long as he can hit and manipulate smoothly. Speed should come as a result of training/experience more than being a goal in itself.


----------



## dearnis.com (Mar 28, 2005)

Very true.  Speed in shooting, as in other martial techniques, is ultimately a function of smoothness.  Smoothness, and with it speed, comes only from many CORRECT reps.  Anybody ever hear Professor Presas say to slow down, practice with flow, and then you will be fast?  Same idea.


----------



## Cruentus (Mar 31, 2005)

It's been dead here today, so I thought I'd add some insight from the great Col. Applegate:

_To be able to hit a black dot at a given number of yards is not nearly so important as to be able to hit an enemy before he gets you. The desired goal is to ingrain in the shooter a supreme sense of confidence in the hand gun, and complete confidence in his ability to use it to get there "fastest with the mostest lead."

It is a matter of record that the majority of shooting affrays between individuals take place at a distance of not more than 20 feet. Consequently, the man who can use his weapon quickly and accurately from any position without using the sights is the one who will stand the best chance of not going out feet first. Here speed in firing, confidence of the shooter in his weapon and in his ability, and practice under conditions which approach those of actual combat firing are the important factors. You have a choice - you may be among the quick or among the dead.

                                                                       - Col. Rex Applegate
                                                                          Kill or Get Killed
                                                                          Copywrite 1943_

I think if the Colonel was alive and online, he may have voted speed over the rest.  :ultracool


----------



## KenpoTex (Mar 31, 2005)

Ah, Applegate, I was actually reading KOGK earlier this week, great stuff (everyone should read it).  His stuff on unarmed combat is very good as well.



> I think if the Colonel was alive and online, he may have voted speed over the rest.


 Possibly, but I think accuracy was a concern as well.  I think it really boils down to what we mean by accuracy.   If accuracy means the ability to shoot 2" groups at 25 yards "offhand," then different goals may need to be created.  In KOGK, Applegate outlined some different training methods for combat shooting which stressed speed but also worked toward achieving accuracy.  The difference was that his definition of acceptabe "combat accuracy" was being able to put all your shots into a 5" group on a human silhouette-target at a max of 15 yards.  Of course, that was his standard for instinctive shooting, he stated several times that if you had time for aimed fire, to make the most of it. 
Again, we see the need for realistic training.  Most SD shootings take place in the 1-3 yard range, maybe out to 7 yards at the most.  Obviously speed is important--being able to get off the first shot, or pop the guy that's running toward you with a knife is a good thing.  However, we still have to balance speed with a dose of accuracy, if you can't hit the guy it doesn't matter how fast you are.


----------



## dearnis.com (Mar 31, 2005)

Just to be counter to Paul...
While at Gunsite I got a polite *** chewing for running a shoot house point shhoting.  I got hits, and acceptible hits, but not great hits.  What I was apparently doing was not raising my gun above chest level.  On a later run in another simulator I found that I lost almost no time accquiring a proper sight picture, and got better hits (eg tear duct vs lung).
So I'll side with Col. Cooper over Col. Applegate.....
more to follow; see Jim Cirrillo's book for a good discussion on the topic.


----------



## Cruentus (Mar 31, 2005)

> Possibly, but I think accuracy was a concern as well. I think it really boils down to what we mean by accuracy.



I agree, and I detailed this in my first post; there is a balance between accuracy and speed.

As to Cooper's Vs. Applegate's methods, I know that more people today ascibe to more of a target shooting, sited fire approach that focuses more on accuracy then speed. Also I realize that people are more familiar with Cooper's methods then Applegate's; I mean, many people have read KOGK, but how many have had the chance to train with someone who was well versed in these methods, or trained with the Col. or someone who trained with the Col. themselves? Not many in comparison.

This is not accusing anyone here, but people read the book, and they think they know or can learn how to point shoot Applegate style. The reality is, like martial arts, there is only so much one can derive from a book. It gives you a good idea, but it just isn't the same as training the material.

I maintain that if one is point shooting properly, one will be much faster then with their sited fire under 30 feet, and very accurate as well (within a 5" grouping). Some other things to consider is this:

- In LE shootings, Law Enforcement Officers are facing only about a 20% hit rate or less each year. Most are taught sited fire at close range. What is happening is that they cannot get there fast enough #1. #2 is that when someone is shooting at them and their sympathetic nervous system takes over, they are unable to get a site picture while seeing the target. That coupled with a convulsary grip that they are not used to training with causes a miss. I know many of you have probably heard this arguement, but none-the-less, I am presenting it anyhow.

- Another thing to consider is movement in a gun fight. The Applegate method teaches you not only to shoot quickly and accurately, but to move, duck, and dodge for cover.This is not the same awkward and slow sideways movement that I have seen from people trying to get a site picture while moving. I am talking a running sprint and duck, and possible roll if you have to, for cover while your shooting one handed within a 5" or so grouping - movement that could not be achieved while trying to gain a site picture. Why is this important? I know someone who was in a gunfight (a cop) where he shot the guy directly in the heart. The guy still had time to yell "You'll never take me alive" before shooting himself in the head. What disturbed him greatly was not only did he have to lethally shoot the guy in the heart, but the guy had the time to yell and kill himself. The point is what if that guy had decided to shoot at the cop before dying? He would have been able to unload a clip before keeling over, and that is the reality. Even if someone is shot or stabbed lethally, they still have a lot of time to shoot at you before they die. If you are squared off or weavered off in front of the guy and shoot him first, he can still shoot you, and nobody wins. His friends can also still shoot you if you decided to unload your clip into him for fear that he will still shoot you after you get the first shot.

If you want to win, I suggest that you are moving for cover, while shooting quickly and accurately. Good point shooting is condusive of that, where as sited fire is not.


Sited fire, according to what I have learned, IS more accurate then point shooting, especially at ranges greated then 30 feet. However, to do sited fire, one must have distance, time, and cover.

Now, this post was more or less explaining a few elements of the Applegate method in its defense. I am not trying to argue that this method is better then the Cooper method, or anything else, even though I feel that the Applegate method, and particularly the target-focused -shooting method, is best for me. That is like argueing that Jujitsu is better then Aikido, or whatever. It comes down to personal preference who the practitioner is and how skilled the shooter is more so then the method itself. So I am sure that the folks at Gunsite do a fine job, and that some of our very informative MT members here are very skilled, even if they don't fully ascribe to the same method as I.

Paul


----------



## Tgace (Mar 31, 2005)

An issue that arises involves the fact that you are responsible for where your rounds go. Try saying you were not "aiming" but pointing on the stand when a bystander is killed...bad juju.


----------



## Tgace (Mar 31, 2005)

Also remember that just putting the front sight on target is "aiming". I dont believe anybody is advocating a range perfect sight alignment. While under simunition training, I dont really recall if I "sighted" per se or not, but there was a conscious alignment of the weapon and I do remember a "flash sight picture" on occasions where the guy wasnt already grabbing/stabbing me.


----------



## Cruentus (Mar 31, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> An issue that arises is that you are responsible for where your rounds go. Try saying you were not "aiming" but pointing on the stand when a bystander is killed...bad juju.



That might explain why most departments don't teach point shooting...hmmm...


----------



## Tgace (Mar 31, 2005)

At least why they dont use the "term", we do incorporate the concept however....in SWAT training we have a "zero miss" philosophy. We fine all members $1 a round for any shot off target. While the reality of life is that we will miss, the stakes can be so high that, as a philosophy, we have to have that point of view.


----------



## Cruentus (Apr 1, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> At least why they dont use the "term", we do incorporate the concept however....in SWAT training we have a "zero miss" philosophy. We fine all members $1 a round for any shot off target. While the reality of life is that we will miss, the stakes can be so high that, as a philosophy, we have to have that point of view.



That's kind of like when I have the "swearing jar" where I have to put in a dollar every time I swear when I try to give that up for lent...  :uhyeah: 

Yea, I thought about that a little after I posted it. I guess if I were on the stand, I would say that "I aimed, then fired."

Your still aiming when you point shoot; your just not using your sites. You aim with your eye. The idea that you don't aim when point shooting is a misconception by a lot of people.

All aiming is doing is creating an obtuse triangle from your eye, to the barrel, to the target as the three vertexes. The hypotinuse, or longest side of the triangle goes from your eye to the target or entry point. All siting does is make that triangle thinner by putting the hypotinuse through the front and rear sites to the entry point, limiting the amount of error and allowing for a more accurate shot. Front site shooting does the same, but your hypotinuse goes through just that front site picture; making the good assumption that with a trained shooter, proper grip and weapon alignment will take care of the rest. Point shooting just means that your not using your sites at all, but your still aiming, and the triangle still exists. For example, if the gun is at your hip (and this is only an example because point shooting doesn't just happened from the hip), you are still creating the triangle from eye to target to barrel; you just have a less thin triangle (or less of a distance from the hypotinuse and the other triangle sides), meaning more of a chance to error. But under 30 feet, that chance to error is minimized. By learning to point shoot appropriately, you are truely learning to aim with your dominate eye; something that will enhance your sited fire, as well as allow for more effecient firing at ranges under 30 feet (where most gun fights occur anyways).

So, on the stand I would say I aimed and fired; and this would be a 100% true statement.

Lengthy explaination, but I haven't heard the concept of an obtuse triangle used to explain aiming yet...so I am copywriting this right now...use it wisely young gunfighters! 

Paul


----------



## dearnis.com (Apr 1, 2005)

> know that more people today ascibe to more of a target shooting



Myth about Cooper's methods....  not target shooting but fast, precise, shooting using a flash sight picture.

I have been exposed to and trained in both; I'm not saying point shooting doesn't work...I have done enough of it not to argue otherwise.  But the loss of precision is there.  The loss of speed with proper Modern Technique is not.

There is natural tendency for the eyes to track to the threat...in shoot houses and sim courses you see this reflected in the number of shots that strike the weapon or weapon bearing hand.  (Tom, how many hand hits doing  sims?  Hurt, don't they).  I believe point shooting aggravates this tendency.
In sum, I'm not saying that point shooting doesn't or cant work, but it is a highly specialized tool, and a highly perishable skill that demands near constant practice.  Choosing it as a foundation for a shooter who will get limited training and even more limited training time is a mistake.

I'm off for the weekend, see ya monday.


----------



## KenpoTex (Apr 1, 2005)

Great discussion guys, a couple more points:

Chad's comment about the "fast, precise, shooting using a flash sight picture" is dead on.  Again it comes down to what we mean by aimed fire; whether we're talking about assuming a textbook Isosceles stance, etc. or whether it's just "put the front sight on target and fire."  Even a "front sight picture" is going to be more precise than "point shooting." 



			
				Tgace said:
			
		

> An issue that arises is that you are responsible for where your rounds go. Try saying you were not "aiming" but pointing on the stand when a bystander is killed...bad juju.





			
				Tulisan said:
			
		

> That might explain why most departments don't teach point shooting...hmmm


 This brings up something I thought of since my last post regarding Applegate's methods vs. those of others.  To begin with, a lot of the people he trained (OSS, etc) didn't have a lot of experience with combat.  He had to create a system that would give them a reasonable level of proficiency in the minimum amount of time (hence his focus on point shooting and speed).  Also, since he was training them for a combat situation or for blasting their way out of a tight spot behind enemy lines (both situations taking place at extreme close range), fields of fire weren't quite as important as they are in an urban situation with a lot of bystanders or the people in the apartment next door (i.e. there weren't as many "friendlies" around).


----------



## Tgace (Apr 1, 2005)

dearnis.com said:
			
		

> There is natural tendency for the eyes to track to the threat...in shoot houses and sim courses you see this reflected in the number of shots that strike the weapon or weapon bearing hand. (Tom, how many hand hits doing sims? Hurt, don't they). I believe point shooting aggravates this tendency.


Absolutely. Always practice your single hand shooting and weapon maipulation (try reloading/clearing malfunctions with one hand only) for just that reason.


----------



## Cruentus (Apr 1, 2005)

Well, there are some obvious points of disagreement that I have, but that is fine. Other then academically, I haven't experienced some of the academies out there, just as I don't think most of you have experienced the target focused shooting method.

The Applegate method and the target focused shooting method is easier to learn to start off with; but this fits with my mentality in the martial arts. I don't want you to spend years trying to get someone to perfect stances and basic techniques so that by the time you have a black belt, you can fight. I want you to leave the lesson knowing how to fight with what you have today. I like to build skill off instinctual responses and what is most naturally going to occur in a real fight. We can perfect your technique from there. The Target Focused Shooting method takes this same approach, so it is easier to learn. But you still build good basics, including sited fire and long range shooting. 

As to not losing speed with trying to get a front site picture...well, I guess that will depend on the shooter. However, it seems illogical to me that taking the time to front site, even in a "flash" picture, would take the same time as not front siting at all. But I am open to learning, so if I have the chance to go to an academy like Gunsite, or just kick around on a range with someone who can show me differently, then cool.

Also, as to accuracy, I know that there is technically/mathematically more of a chance to error, especially to start with. However, the beginner can hit a man sized target within combat range in a very short amount of time. With proper training, I don't feel that you really lose accuracy under 30 feet with point shooting if your skilled at it. It seems to me that whether your "flash" siting or point shooting, your still looking for the same tight grouping. I doubt that you would be able to tell the difference from looking at a target as to who was point shooting and who was front siting, if they were both skilled at it.

As to needed practice and retention of the skill, I can't really say, because I practice all the time. I don't really know what it would be like to "not practice" and see if there was skill retention. But, I have heard that because it is working off your instinctual responses, it is very easy to retain at least the basic skills.

Well, in a nutshell, different experiences and different views makes for a good discussion. It all comes down to the shooter more-so then the method, I think. And anyone who takes the time to learn a good method, whether Applegates or Coopers or someone else, and especially anyone who takes the time to go to an academy like Gunsite is going to walk out of there skilled. There is no two ways about it; if you take the time to train and get good instruction and test your skills under realistic circumstances, then you will be a skilled shooter. And as for me, I am happy with the method in which I train, but I am still learning what I can. So I will be happy to be exposed more to other methods in the future, or at least put them to the test.

What matters is what works.

And it is all in the spirit of learning...

Paul


----------



## Tgace (Apr 1, 2005)

Tulisan said:
			
		

> I don't think most of you have experienced the target focused shooting method.


We (my dept.) train it quarterly...the way we look at it: when you are "up close and personal" (a la interview distance, doing pat-downs etc.) and the BG pulls a gun or grapples its point shooting. When you already have the gun out and/or are in a situation like a "hot stop" or room clearing you will be using a "flash sight" or point shot depending on who sees who first and the range/expectedness of the contact. If you are on a perimeter or holding down on a suspect (like in an armed stand off) you may be doing a range like, full sight picture on the guy. IMO you better not be putting all your eggs in one basket when it comes to method. 

Personally I recommend training a "flash sight" method as the core so when the situation allows it, you will use it. Because when its close and fast you will point shoot anyway. If you are "point intensive" I see a tendency to not use the sights as much when the situation will allow it.


----------



## Cruentus (Apr 1, 2005)

> IMO you better not be putting all your eggs in one basket when it comes to method.



Good advice...and that is why I am definatily open to other methods.


----------



## loki09789 (Apr 1, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> The elements of pistolcraft have been described as SPEED, POWER and ACCURACY. To win the gunfight (once that point has become unavoidable) you need to get the gun on target and working faster than the opponent. The power of the weapon should be substantial enough to damage the opponent quckly and signifigantly. And last (and IMO far from least) you have to be able to hit the target in the area that will have the most effect.
> 
> Question. If you could achieve "perfection" in any one of these elements which would it be? I choose accuracy because if I could hit in any desired area under any circumstance I could survive with a .22 Second place for me would be speed because many times in my profession you are playing the "catch up" game.


Well this sort of relates to the Kenpo technique aquisition process of FORM< POWER FOCUS SPEED to me.

Learn the shooting fundamentals of grip, stance, trigger control, sight alignment, weapon alignment...and so on.

THen learn to do that consistently while operating with the POWER or caliber you intend on applying (LEO, Defensive pistol use, target, ....what ever) FOCUS or accuracy will come with more control and consistency of the first two elements and then speed will be a developmental by product of all of those man hours on the others.

It is a cyclical thing. Once you get the Form down, fire some rounds off so you do it with Power, then try to tighten up the groups, then do it 'full draw' or from hands relaxed, slap leather, draw, aquire/fire, scan, holster...

Once you've gone through the cycle, you'll find that each element will shift up while others do not as quickly so that slower development is what you focus on while your training.

Training is training really. If you approach skill development with a sound principle of instruction the tool is interchangeable.  Then, as tgace mentioned, your goals of skill development drive the training and you don't end up 'married' to a system.


----------



## Cruentus (Apr 4, 2005)

> Well this sort of relates to the Kenpo technique aquisition process of FORM< POWER FOCUS SPEED to me.



That's good, and it should.

Basically, whatever method one uses, the "fight" shouldn't be taken out of your gun training. All combative situations have certian elements that remain the same whether you are armed or unarmed.

So, I think if your gun fighting SOUNDS similar to an empty hand or martial arts system, then this is definatily good.

I think that as long as you don't take the "fight" out of your "gunfighting" training, then regardless of the method, you will be very skilled and you will be able to shoot in a combative circumstance.

Paul


----------



## Cruentus (Apr 4, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> We (my dept.) train it quarterly...the way we look at it: when you are "up close and personal" (a la interview distance, doing pat-downs etc.) and the BG pulls a gun or grapples its point shooting.



Quick question...

Is it point shooting, or are you actually training the "Target-Focused-Shooting" method in your dept.? I am just wondering, because there are only 5 guys in the country who formulated the method directly from Col. Applegate. This would be Joe and Lou, who I mentioned already, and 3 instructors out of Hawking's college; but they do certify people so that is why I was wondering.

btw...this is just out of curiousity; even if it is not the same method, I still think that it is great that your incorporating it...


----------



## dearnis.com (Apr 4, 2005)

Only 5?  Out of all they guys Applegate trained?  Or is it a derivative method?


----------



## Tgace (Apr 4, 2005)

Same Same...Target Focus Shooting is a derivative of PS being marketed by Lou Chiodo out there with the California Highway Patrol. 

We use a method closer to Darrell Mulroy's. A two-handed grasp of the gun with both arms fully extended into an isosceles position. The gun is held below the line of sight. Like Cirillo's geometric or nose point techniques, the elevation is adjusted by holding the gun at the level where the shooter wants to place the shot. When its really close we train to shoot from retention.

Heres a good site that explains all the derivations of PS and their histories...
http://www.spw-duf.info/point.html

This guy states that Walt Rauch coined the term "target focus" as a PS component/term before Chiodo started using it as a system name. Chiodo by all reports has done some excellent things with the CHP and percentages of gunfights won by LEO's has risen considerably there. I dont think he has reinvented the wheel though.


----------



## Cruentus (Apr 4, 2005)

Cool...it's nice to know when I am speaking apples to apples...  

Also...very nice website....


----------



## loki09789 (Apr 4, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Same Same...Target Focus Shooting is a derivative of PS being marketed by Lou Chiodo out there with the California Highway Patrol.
> 
> We use a method closer to Darrell Mulroy's. A two-handed grasp of the gun with both arms fully extended into an isosceles position. The gun is held below the line of sight. Like Cirillo's geometric or nose point techniques, the elevation is adjusted by holding the gun at the level where the shooter wants to place the shot. When its really close we train to shoot from retention.
> 
> ...


This sounds similar to the Masaad Ayoob "Turret stance" idea as well.  The thing to remember when adapting/adopting shooting methods used by LEO/SWAT/Operational types is that they have to consider muzzle awareness as applied to small unit tactics, body armor, and goals/mission when considering stance/movement/positions....as a civilian user, some of those concerns are not present or as important to focus on as other things might.

For example, barricading yourself in a 'safe room' in your home if you have an intruder, knowing how third party intervention applies to what you can and can't do in a moment like this and calling the cops and communicating are things that tactically are not part of LEO SOP training.

Civlian defensive firearms training can take from these professional areas but there still needs to be modified to fit the application.

I tend to focus more on the goals and intent of my firearms practice than on the 'system.'  Point Shooting/instinctive shooting/pressure shooting all are helpful skills/terms to know when preparing for 'close/near ambush' type of situations. Sight picture/alignment/'range' style shooting is applicable when you have time, distance and cover to your benefit and the situation warrants those skills (but honestly in a civilian situation, those would be very rare when getting out of dodge is generally the best thing when you have that much time).

The fundamentals of grip, trigger control, target recognition and such all still apply no matter what 'system' you start with.

Shoot/no shoot scenarios, tactical decision making, legal application and other 'context training' can be done slowly to focus on firing fundamentals within a given setting OR done quickly to focus on the tactical elements or evaluate how the 'range training' translates to pressure situations.  In the end, consistency and confidence in skill will be the biggest issue.


----------



## dearnis.com (Apr 4, 2005)

> Shoot/no shoot scenarios, tactical decision making, legal application and other 'context training' can be done slowly to focus on firing fundamentals within a given setting OR done quickly to focus on the tactical elements or evaluate how the 'range training' translates to pressure situations. In the end, consistency and confidence in skill will be the biggest issue.



Well said.


----------



## Tgace (Apr 4, 2005)

Alright, since this thread has stepped into the the good old point vs.aimed debate, lets step into another one....

9mm vs. .45 cal vs. 40 cal vs. ???

I like .40. Good combination of .45 "punch" and 9mm capacity and controlability. I can "hold down" a 9mm in rapid fire a little easier...so I guess I can say Im not militantly for any caliber. That said Ive never been a fan of the "pocket caliber" .22, .25, .380 etc.....


----------



## dearnis.com (Apr 4, 2005)

Must we?  No one has come down on the Power side of things.  Short version- hand gun calibers are marginal man-stoppers; best put the biggest hole you can reliably direct into the most important target you can hit....repeat as necessary.


----------



## Tgace (Apr 4, 2005)

You know me...always looking to stir a little ****.


----------



## Tgace (Apr 4, 2005)

Speaking of shooting methods Chad, what do you know/think about the CAR method? Ive read/seen a little of it and it looks interesting but havent event tried shooting with it. You?


----------



## dearnis.com (Apr 4, 2005)

About the same; done some reading but haven't really played with it.


----------



## Cruentus (Apr 4, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Speaking of shooting methods Chad, what do you know/think about the CAR method? Ive read/seen a little of it and it looks interesting but havent event tried shooting with it. You?



Some people and LE do that in my state...but I am not a fan. Yet I could see how it might have its place in a really confined space were one needed a high level of accuracy but a really compact stance, though, like say in an airplane or schoolbus or something.


----------



## Tgace (Apr 4, 2005)

Having done some handgun shooting in heavy armor with rifle plates, I can see how it could work in that situation. I can just about straighten out my arms in the thing.


----------



## dearnis.com (Apr 5, 2005)

Shooting, or doing just about anything else, in armor is a whole different game.  And it seems like 90% of LE incidents are in overlyy close quarters!


----------



## Cruentus (Apr 5, 2005)

dearnis.com said:
			
		

> Shooting, or doing just about anything else, in armor is a whole different game.  And it seems like 90% of LE incidents are in overlyy close quarters!



I can see that...and it seems like the CAR system would work in tight spaces. What I question is if it is superior then other methods available, because I am not convinced that it is. I would have to put it under test conditions to find out. It may be something that is good for LE, and just not for me. For me, I don't see why I wouldn't just point shoot or even hip shoot if it is real close. If the spaces are so tight, my accuracy seems like it would do the job without having to sight with the CAR system. 

I have limited exposure with body armor though...I've only tried on the light stuff that didn't seem to effect my mobility enough to need a different method. Haven't put on the big plates yet, though, so I wouldn't know much about that...Maybe CAR is more comfortable with heavy armor, but again, I would have to test that one for myself to believe it.

Paul


----------



## loki09789 (Apr 5, 2005)

Tulisan said:
			
		

> For me, I don't see why I wouldn't just point shoot or even hip shoot if it is real close. If the spaces are so tight, my accuracy seems like it would do the job without having to sight with the CAR system.
> 
> Paul


CAR system is not for everyone because everyone isn't wearing body armor as an asset (protection that you can rely on to stop rounds will affect firing stances) and a draw back (wt. increases fatigue, reduced speed/mobility/agility).

Personally, as a civilian especially, practicing the instinct shooting skills should include bringing the weapon to the centerline with the muzzle pointed straight away from me, whether in close (elbows tucked into ribs) or extended (iso stance/weaver/turret/what ever) because that 'touch reference' and orientation increases retentionability in close contact situations AND allows me to use it as a non ballistic/impact weapon as well.  You do run the risk of creating a malfunction or misfire if you do this too much or in a way that affects the firing of the weapon but the goal is self defense - if I hit a guy in the face with a hunk of steel shaped like a gun and it takes the fight out of him...I buy time and 'win' the escape opportunity

CAR applications are primarily designed for someone that is part of a tactical unit that has assets that a single civilian will not.  But also will be limited on what he/she can do because of the 'mission' and the desire to maintain the dynamic movement of the team.  A civlian defensive firearms user can move in all directions without worrying about formations.

The only analogy I can think of now is the difference between a Gladiator using spear and Gladius compared to a Roman Legionare using the same weapons.  They may know the same list of techniques but the situation and context/goal changes what is appropriate for techniques, movement, stance...

CAR system is like the approach that a Legionare would train to apply his skills and a civilian defensive curriculum/system would be like the approach that a Gladiator would train to apply his skills (because he is fighting as an individual instead of as a member of a team/group).

Of course there are going to be some things that each would benefit from understanding and 'stealing' from the other system, but the 'system' won't work wholesale.


----------



## Tgace (Apr 5, 2005)

Some CAR video clips...

http://www.sabretactical.com/C_A_R_/Video_Clips/video_clips.html

As you can see it looks like it incorporates some "point" and apparently some "flash sight picture" components.


----------



## modarnis (Apr 6, 2005)

>>>best put the biggest hole you can reliably direct into the most important target you can hit....repeat as necessary.>>>
__________________


Chad, what can I say, you should be in advertising.....   :ultracool


----------



## loki09789 (Apr 6, 2005)

The 'reaction' video is what I would consider the most important as a civilian shooter to adapt/adopt from it.  The idea that you don't rely entirely on the firearm and build it into a response continuum that includes striking and movement is the most helpful.

Good shooting.   As a civilian shooter, if someone witnessed me shooting from that low center/chamber position and was a witness, it might be used against me as 'unaimed' shooting.  Not something to think about in the moment but it is important to consider when you are training and when you are formulating a statement after an incident.


----------



## arnisandyz (Apr 6, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Also remember that just putting the front sight on target is "aiming". I dont believe anybody is advocating a range perfect sight alignment. While under simunition training, I dont really recall if I "sighted" per se or not, but there was a conscious alignment of the weapon and I do remember a "flash sight picture" on occasions where the guy wasnt already grabbing/stabbing me.



Good practice for this type of "point shooting" is bird hunting or skeet shooting. You don't have time to aim, most shotguns have a bead sight (rather than traditional sights) for this reason. My uncle use to use a small 410 when skeet shooting and he would do as well as my cousin and I would using 12G or 20G. Most people think of a 410 as a"kids gun" but in all actuality, in order to do the same job with a 410 your point shooting must be that much better.


----------



## Cruentus (Apr 7, 2005)

> Personally, as a civilian especially, practicing the instinct shooting skills should include bringing the weapon to the centerline with the muzzle pointed straight away from me, whether in close (elbows tucked into ribs) or extended (iso stance/weaver/turret/what ever) because that 'touch reference' and orientation increases retentionability in close contact situations AND allows me to use it as a non ballistic/impact weapon as well. You do run the risk of creating a malfunction or misfire if you do this too much or in a way that affects the firing of the weapon but the goal is self defense - if I hit a guy in the face with a hunk of steel shaped like a gun and it takes the fight out of him...I buy time and 'win' the escape opportunity



These are good points about touch referencing and using the gun to "punch" a guy when in close. All components of the applegate method...

Paul


----------



## dearnis.com (Apr 9, 2005)

> Good practice for this type of "point shooting" is bird hunting or skeet shooting. You don't have time to aim, most shotguns have a bead sight (rather than traditional sights) for this reason. My uncle use to use a small 410 when skeet shooting and he would do as well as my cousin and I would using 12G or 20G. Most people think of a 410 as a"kids gun" but in all actuality, in order to do the same job with a 410 your point shooting must be that much better.



Good points, especially on the 410 as an experts gun.  I don't think use of a shotgun really counts as "point shooting" though.  The platform is different and it functions differently.  I know ModArnis has told me that his handgun work suffers when he is really putting time in on shotgun work (and I've seen him having a "mediocre day" shooting clays; the guy is no slouch!!) About the only analogy to point shooting would be the use of slugs or bucksoht at semi-stationary or stationary targets, and I have seen horrendous misses with both at 12-15 yards.

I would argue that  with a shotgun at moving  targets sight picture, and especially consistent follow-through, is far and away the key attribute...but shitgunners see sighst and sighting differently than other shooters.  (I think most serious shotgunners wil agree on follow-through though).

If you have ever put any time into shooting moving targets with a handgun you see the same thing; especially at range you will miss just pointing...you must use the sights and must follow through!!


----------



## Cruentus (Apr 9, 2005)

> ...shitgunners see sighst...



Chad...what's a "poopgunner"? Is that one of those DE Cop things? :rofl:

Sorry, couldn't resist!

As to point shooting methods with the long gun (shotgun or rifle), even though the form is different, the fundamental concept seems to be the same.

I have read the "Quick Kill" military manual that details point shooting with a rifle. I personally know someone who can point shoot with a shotgun. 

I have not had the chance to try this myself yet, though, as I am mainly a handgun guy. I would love to try some of these methods with skeets and see how I do.

The only thing with long gun point shooting is I am not sure for up to what range it is good for. For a pistol, if your good you won't see a significant difference when combat shooting from 30 feet between sited and unsited fire; at 50 feet there is a significant difference, but your still hitting a man sized target; over that, it's real iffy. For a long gun, there is less chance for error due to the barrel length, so it seems to make sense that your point shooting methods would work at longer ranges. But having limited experience with this myself, I would not know for sure.


----------



## Cruentus (Apr 9, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Same Same...Target Focus Shooting is a derivative of PS being marketed by Lou Chiodo out there with the California Highway Patrol.
> 
> We use a method closer to Darrell Mulroy's. A two-handed grasp of the gun with both arms fully extended into an isosceles position. The gun is held below the line of sight. Like Cirillo's geometric or nose point techniques, the elevation is adjusted by holding the gun at the level where the shooter wants to place the shot. When its really close we train to shoot from retention.
> 
> ...



About Lou...and this is my understanding of it....he has been a pioneer to a degree.

Sure, it is true that he did not invent the wheel. Nor did Applegate for that matter. THey all built upon what was previously taught to them.

What Lou brought back to the table was being able to point shoot at a 360 degree radius from your vantage point without having to square with your target.

The way it was explained to me was that pre-Fairbairn and Sykes, American Western and British gunfighting methods were a bit different in that you learned to shoot without having to square or face both shoulders to the target. My theory is that this was propigated due to the use of the horse. On horseback, you were moving in a given direction, but you still had to be able to shoot 360 degrees from your vantage point as you moved....like you were a gun turret. This carried over to moving and shooting on foot. In old pre-WWI western and European shooting, you could square up extended, square and hip shoot, or move while shooting and not be squared at all. All these were practiced in totality. Fairbairn learned these methods, but simplified them. When he and his guys were in Shainghai, they were not on horseback; and he realized the tendency for a person to naturally square up on the target when under stress. Fairbairn wisely wanted to work within the constrains of the SNS response, so he focused his method on squaring with the target, among other things. This method was taught to Applegate, as well as to others, but Applegate was responsible for perfecting and expanding these methods. Lou learned from Applegate, but he expanded these methods from him, re-introducing the 360 vantage point shooting without having to square on his own accord. If the SNS causes you to square, then this is no problem and Lou teaches to work off that. But, idealistically he teaches you to move to cover (which can be a natural reaction as well when being shot at). While moving to cover (whether going towards your threat on an angle as Applegate suggests or not) you can shoot like your upper body is a gun turret in any direction with his modification and training method.

So, I think Lou has done a lot that many may not want to accredit him for.

The progression seems to have gone from [practicing not needing to square to threat] to [practicing mainly square to threat] back to [practicing not needing to square to threat]. Because of Lou, it seems the system has made a full circle, but a very important one for the advancement of modern gunfighting methods.

Paul


----------



## Tgace (Apr 9, 2005)

The one issue that seldom gets addressed in the point vs. aimed debate is training. I believe that a well trained point shooter will shoot better than a "hacker" sighted shooter and vice versa.....

I know the "take two equally trained shooters...." scenario will come up and to that I say, "then you better start training harder to become better than the other guy."


----------



## Cruentus (Apr 9, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> The one issue that seldom gets addressed in the point vs. aimed debate is training. I believe that a well trained point shooter will shoot better than a "hacker" sighted shooter and vice versa.....
> 
> I know the "take two equally trained shooters...." scenario will come up and to that I say, "then you better start training harder to become better than the other guy."



I agree for sure. That is why I compared the different shooting methods to being like one martial art vs. another. In most cases, it comes down to skill and training of the individual.


----------



## Tgace (Apr 9, 2005)

Tulisan said:
			
		

> I agree for sure. That is why I compared the different shooting methods to being like one martial art vs. another. In most cases, it comes down to skill and training of the individual.


Xactly
:asian:


----------



## Tgace (Apr 10, 2005)

IMO, while hitting the target is "job 1" with firearms, a close 2nd is "weapon manipulation". Loading, clearing malfunctions, draw/holster, even assembly/dissassembly are all skills that while seemingly tangental, pay off dividends in the long run. 

Not to blow my own horn, but I won a local SWAT round-up competition (individual event) last fall. While accuracy and good old foot speed were big components, what contributed the most IMO was faster and smoother loading/clearing and "make safe" proceedures. As part of "train up" I would spend hours at home drawing, loading, unloading, failure drilling, transitioning, even field stripping/assembling, I also would visualize the different stages of the event and focus on each weapon and the proceedure of how to load, engage and make safe each one. It was the difference IMO....that way when you are on the street and your weapon goes dry or goes "click" instead of "bang" you will go auto-pilot....


----------



## dearnis.com (Apr 10, 2005)

Paul- yes it is a DE cop thing; lack of coffee = typo.  Ooops.  Either that or I was point typing....
Keep in mind that shooting clays (or birds) is fundamentally different from shooting grounded targets.  That is to say the mechanics are different.

Tom is right on; in the total picture it is smoothness that wins the game.  Just like stick work; train for smoothness and speed will come!

Years back when I was into archery (where I was very much an advocate of instinctive rather than aimed shooting) I recall a guy doing demos where he would shoot aspirin tablets out of the air with an unsighted primitive bow; I forget the name, but it was impressive.  On the other side of the coin, Jeff Cooper used to train people to take clay birds on the fly...with .308 rifles and sighted fire.  
It all comes down to training.  That said, I will still argue that poit shooting is a far more perishable skill requiring much more practice to maintain.  As to point shooting with a rifle...sure...BUT NOT AT RIFLE DISTANCES!


----------



## Tgace (Apr 12, 2005)

Just on the slim chance that nobody has already seen this....

The Rules of Gunfighting

1. Bring a gun. Preferably, bring two guns. Bring all your friends who have guns. Bring their friends who have guns. (Contractor's: procure as many as possible from all available sources). 

2. Anything worth shooting is worth shooting twice. Ammo is cheap. Life is expensive. 

3. Only hits count. Close does not count. The only thing worse than a miss is a slow miss. Don't be slow. 

4. If your shooting stance is good, you're probably not moving fast enough, nor using cover correctly. 

5. Move away from your attacker. Distance is your friend. (Lateral and diagonal movement preferred.) 

6. If you can choose what to bring to a gunfight, bring a long gun and a friend with a long gun. His friends should also be close by and they should have guns. 

7. In ten years nobody will remember the details of caliber, stance or tactics. They will remember who lived and who didn't.... So plan on living to tell the story. 

8. If you are not shooting, you should be communicating, reloading or running (bounding back). 

9. Accuracy is relative: most combat shooting is more dependent on pucker factor than inherent accuracy of the gun. 

10. Use a gun that works EVERY TIME. "All skill is in vain when an Angel pisses in the flintlock of your musket". 

11. Someday someone may kill you with your own gun, but they should have to beat you to death with it because it is empty. 

12. In combat, there are no rules, always cheat; always win. The only unfair fight is the one you lose. 

13. Have a plan. 

14. Have a back up plan, because the first one will not work. 

15. Use cover and concealment as much as possible. The visible target should be in FRONT of YOUR gun. 

16. Flank your adversary when possible, protect yours. 

17. Don't drop your guard. 

18. Always tactical load and threat scan 360 degrees. 

19. Watch their hands. Hands kill. (In God we trust. Everyone else keep your hands where I can see them.) 

20. Decide to be aggressive ENOUGH, quickly ENOUGH. Dominate the situation! 

21. The faster you finish the fight, the less shots you will get. 

22. Be courteous to everyone, friendly to no one. 

23. Be polite. Be professional. But have a plan to kill everyone you meet. 

24. Your number one Option for Personal Security is a lifelong commitment to avoidance, deterrence and de-escalation. 

25. Do not attend a gunfight with a handgun, the caliber of which does not start with a "4".


----------



## dearnis.com (Apr 12, 2005)

Good addition!


----------



## KenpoTex (Apr 13, 2005)

> 2. Anything worth shooting is worth shooting twice. Ammo is cheap. Life is expensive.


 "The term One Shot Stop is stupid. Anyone who thinks their bullet will stop a man with one shot is suicidal, anyone who only shoots once is poorly trained." -Gabe Suarez


> 11. Someday someone may kill you with your own gun, but they should have to beat you to death with it because it is empty.
> 
> 12. In combat, there are no rules, always cheat; always win. The only unfair fight is the one you lose.


 That's just good advice.  Along those lines, another one I like is: "If you're in a fair fight you're doing something wrong"



> 25. Do not attend a gunfight with a handgun, the caliber of which does not start with a "4".


 Amen!


----------



## modarnis (Apr 13, 2005)

>>I would argue that with a shotgun at moving targets sight picture, and especially consistent follow-through, is far and away the key attribute...but shitgunners see sighst and sighting differently than other shooters. (I think most serious shotgunners wil agree on follow-through though).>>


As a semi-serious skeet shooter, I would agree that sight picture is important with ones approach to shotgunning moving targets, but only relative to  the amount of lead and swing speed.  Far more important is consistent mount, so the patter is actually going where you are looking/pointing, and keeping the gun moving, both for followthrough and maintaining the appropriate lead (or for catching and passing if you swing through rather than sustained lead)  Of course for any of this to work you need to watch the target only, not the barrel, the bead or anything else.  I suppose all my work on the skeet field ultimately helps my eyes work well for pistol craft.


----------



## dearnis.com (Apr 13, 2005)

Maybe...well, I'll hold my comment....


----------



## Tgace (Apr 21, 2005)

Good stuff here....

http://www.virginiacops.org/Articles/Shooting/Combat.htm


----------



## KenpoTex (Apr 22, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Good stuff here....
> 
> http://www.virginiacops.org/Articles/Shooting/Combat.htm


Very interesting, thanks for posting that.

Some more food for thought.  I was reading Applegate's KOGK again the other day and saw some interesting info.  They analyzed the performance of recruits run through the famous "House of Horrors," a "shoot house" that included both pop-up targets and manequins (to practice sentry removal with a knife).   They compared the results obtained by those who only had traditional "bullseye" training; those who had only been trained in "point-shooting;" and those who had both.  I don't remember the exact percentages but those who had undergone both methods of training scored far higher than those only trained in bullseye marksmanship.  The interesting part is that those who were _only_ trained in point-shooting scored as high as those who had both types of training.


----------



## dearnis.com (Apr 22, 2005)

> The interesting part is that those who were only trained in point-shooting scored as high as those who had both types of training.



This was almost a given as Col. Applegate was really the only person using a shoot-house type mock-up at the time.  In other words it is not really a comparison of sighted vs. unsighted fire, but rather of  Applegate's entire mindset towards handgun training.  The sighted fire of the time was one hand, bullseye target, no movement, etc.  This did not really change until the 60s and into the 70s, especially in the law enforcement world.


----------



## KenpoTex (Apr 23, 2005)

Good point.


----------

