# Point Shooting



## thardey (Dec 18, 2007)

In a recent thread, this article was posted. Near the bottom the author uses the statistics to argue for a need for Point-shooting practice, and suggests the "Vermont Method."

It's time for me to begin learning how to Point Shoot. So, before I go too far into one particular method, I figured I would get some feedback from you all.

I'm not going into sport shooting competitions, but I want something that I could use if I'm surprised. I've learned the "Front sight press", but in Low-light conditions, I'm stuck.

I carry a Glock 21 (.45 ACP), and I have a CO2 airsoft gun to match it, with a short-range airsoft target in my garage for practice. (About 10 ft.) I carry IWB at about 4:00.

What do you guys like? There aren't any instructors around here for point shooting, and I can sight shoot about as well as anybody I know, (I had some training form a national long-distance pistol champion.) I also don't have any money to travel and attend a seminar, unless one is very close to where I live. (Southern Oregon, or Northern Cal.)


----------



## arnisandyz (Dec 18, 2007)

Since you say you already are proficient at sight shooting I would start there...just do it 10x faster at closer targets. You know what it takes to get an accurate hit at distance, you just need to learn what you DON'T need to see at fast closer distances. Pretty soon you will be shooting faster than you are able to get a sight picture, about then you should notice your focus moving from the front sight to the target.  In a sense, you are already point shooting when you raise the gun to see the sights, you're just not pulling the trigger until you get sight confirmation. In time you'll learn your body alignment to the point to where you can look at a spot on the wall, close your eyes and draw, open your eyes and be on target. Then you train the trigger finger to break the trigger when you feel you are on target (without using the sights).

I know you said you don't plan on competing but I would suggest trying some IDPA or USPSA Production. it will give you a venue to practice both long range, medium range and close range shooting AND WHAT YOU NEED TO SEE TO GET YOUR HITS AS FAST AS YOU CAN AT DIFFERENT RANGES.  

\


----------



## thardey (Dec 18, 2007)

arnisandyz said:


> Since you say you already are proficient at sight shooting I would start there...just do it 10x faster at closer targets. You know what it takes to get an accurate hit at distance, you just need to learn what you DON'T need to see at fast closer distances. Pretty soon you will be shooting faster than you are able to get a sight picture, about then you should notice your focus moving from the front sight to the target.  In a sense, you are already point shooting when you raise the gun to see the sights, you're just not pulling the trigger until you get sight confirmation. In time you'll learn your body alignment to the point to where you can look at a spot on the wall, close your eyes and draw, open your eyes and be on target. Then you train the trigger finger to break the trigger when you feel you are on target (without using the sights).



Oh good, it was as I started doing exactly that, that I realized it was time to move up a notch. I have some glow-in-the dark airsoft pellets - I was thinking about turning off the lights and practicing with those. (Leave a couple around the edge of the sticky target, so I can see where I'm shooting. That way I'll have to shoot without the sights.



> I know you said you don't plan on competing but I would suggest trying some IDPA or USPSA Production. it will give you a venue to practice both long range, medium range and close range shooting AND WHAT YOU NEED TO SEE TO GET YOUR HITS AS FAST AS YOU CAN AT DIFFERENT RANGES.
> 
> \



I am definitely not opposed to that - in fact, before other opportunites came up this summer I was planning on attending a couple of those at the local shooting range. But I want to do it for the "think fast, shoot fast" mentality, not focusing on winning. Also something like that would be a time to practice shooting from cover, which lowers your overall time. It's stuff like that that doesn't really interest me -- I would rather learn to shoot from cover, and forget the overall time.


----------



## arnisandyz (Dec 19, 2007)

thardey said:


> I want to do it for the "think fast, shoot fast" mentality, not focusing on winning. Also something like that would be a time to practice shooting from cover, which lowers your overall time. It's stuff like that that doesn't really interest me -- I would rather learn to shoot from cover, and forget the overall time.




Not sure I follow you on this? You want to "think fast - shoot fast" but forget time? Isn't "fast" an element of TIME?  You can shoot the match however you want to...its only YOU who is putting the pressure of winning and time into the equation. If you want to shoot it to practice using cover properly then ignore the timer and take your time. Don't go through the walk-throughs and volunteer to go first (so you can paste afterwards). Go into the stage not knowing what you are going to see. Most men with guns are not humble enough to do this and ego and the desire to do well gets in the way...do you have it in you to come in last for the sake of training?  A lot of people say IDPA is NOT training, I say it is what you make it.


----------



## Blindside (Dec 19, 2007)

My brother in law does IDPA exactly for that.  He isn't in it for the win, he is there to practice his skills under pressure.  

I've never trained specifically in point shooting, but there are certainly times when practicing draw and fire drills that I know I don't "front sight," but do just fine on shot placement.

Lamont


----------



## thardey (Dec 19, 2007)

arnisandyz said:


> Not sure I follow you on this? You want to "think fast - shoot fast" but forget time? Isn't "fast" an element of TIME?  You can shoot the match however you want to...its only YOU who is putting the pressure of winning and time into the equation. If you want to shoot it to practice using cover properly then ignore the timer and take your time. Don't go through the walk-throughs and volunteer to go first (so you can paste afterwards). Go into the stage not knowing what you are going to see. Most men with guns are not humble enough to do this and ego and the desire to do well gets in the way...do you have it in you to come in last for the sake of training?  A lot of people say IDPA is NOT training, I say it is what you make it.



It sounds like you got the general drift.

My goal isn't to be the first one through the course. But I do want to work my reaction time. Like in Kata's -- each individual move is done with maximum speed, but overall I'm always one of the last to be finished.

Same thing here. I want to be able to acquire my target,  and take each target down as fast as possible, but not race to the next target without taking my bearings, making sure I'm loaded while under cover, and all set to go.

I'm hoping it will be easier to get into this mindset, since the guy who will be "introducing" me to the club also practices with this mindset, and he says a large part of this particular club does as well. However, I would almost just prefer to have a couple of airsoft guns, safety gear, and someone willing to go head-to-head in an old fashioned quick-draw competition, using my regular carry rig, and normal clothes.


----------



## punisher73 (Dec 19, 2007)

Paladin press has some good books on "point shooting".  Also remember when you are using your sights you should be getting a nice tight group, when you are point shooting you will have a lot looser group.  

As my instructors always tell us, if your group is tight it's because your going too slow. Some of the drills that we use are standing from about 7ft out and practice from the low ready and then holstered and just practice getting lead on the target.  Another drill we use that is kind of fun/scary is to grab the target with one hand and shoot it while you're still up close and personal with the target.  Feeling the blowback and energy when it hits the target is a new experience.  But, at that range you are relying on good mechanics and knowing your draw stroke and where it is at because you are literally pointing and there is no front site, etc.


----------



## thardey (Dec 21, 2007)

punisher73 said:


> Paladin press has some good books on "point shooting".  Also remember when you are using your sights you should be getting a nice tight group, when you are point shooting you will have a lot looser group.
> 
> As my instructors always tell us, if your group is tight it's because your going too slow. Some of the drills that we use are standing from about 7ft out and practice from the low ready and then holstered and just practice getting lead on the target.  Another drill we use that is kind of fun/scary is to grab the target with one hand and shoot it while you're still up close and personal with the target.  Feeling the blowback and energy when it hits the target is a new experience.  But, at that range you are relying on good mechanics and knowing your draw stroke and where it is at because you are literally pointing and there is no front site, etc.



What would be considered a decent group for, about 7 ft.?


----------



## KenpoTex (Dec 22, 2007)

thardey said:


> What would be considered a decent group for, about 7 ft.?


I'd say about fist-size.

On the whole point-shooting thing...arnisandyz covered a lot of what I would have said. My biggest thing is that you don't want to train a disparate method. Your point shooting "method" should mesh with your sighted fire method (i.e. your drawstroke/presentation should be pretty much the same).
Gabe Suarez uses the phrase "see what you need to see." Basically this just referrs to the ever-present trade-off between speed and precision. For example: At extreme close range (let's say 0-5 feet), you don't even need to see any part of the gun, you just know where it is because you've developed consistent reference points in your drawstroke. 
At close range 2-3 yards, you may bring the weapon to the next point in the "presentation path," at this point you may actually have the weapon in your cone of vision though you are still focused on the threat. 
At 5-7 yards you'll probably want to go ahead and get a two-hand grip so you now have the weapon indexed on your centerline and are actually looking over the slide though you may not be focused on the sights.
and so on and so forth...this isn't exact, just to give a rough idea.

The comment about being able to align the sights on a target with your eyes closed is dead on. This shows that you have gained consistency in your drawstroke therefore, you have developed the muscle-memory necessary to make a hit. At this point, the sights are just there for confirmation.


----------



## punisher73 (Dec 22, 2007)

> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *thardey*
> 
> 
> ...


 
Even that is too tight a group.  Remember, you want fast at close range and the more spread out in center mass that the shots are the more damage you are doing to your opponent to cause more shock.  That close you want as fast as you can go while still putting them all in center mass.  If they start going wild or not in center than slow it down some.

Gabe Suarez is a good instructor I have talked and trained with him one time.  My instructor has him come in once or twice a year and do a seminar.  Unfortunately, they are usually when I am already out of town and can't attend.  But, if anyone has the chance he has some good information.


----------



## KenpoTex (Dec 22, 2007)

punisher73 said:


> Even that is too tight a group. Remember, you want fast at close range *and the more spread out in center mass that the shots are the more damage you are doing to your opponent to cause more shock*. That close you want as fast as you can go while still putting them all in center mass. If they start going wild or not in center than slow it down some.


I don't agree with the portion I bolded. Pistols are anemic little weapons, if we're going to stop the guy as quickly as possible, we want our rounds to go through the brain/brain-stem (to cause instant shut-down), through the spine (to cause paralysis ergo instant incapacitation), or through the "high center chest" (to get the heart, aorta, lungs). 
By aiming "high center chest" (basically the upper half of the sternum upward to the base of throat), we've got a good chance of hitting the heart and lungs, and also of damaging the spine (if our rounds go straight through). I don't want my shots spread out all over his abdomen where they may in fact inflict fatal wounds, but will not give us that rapid stop.
With a _real_ gun like a rifle or shotgun, our margin of error increases a little due to the tremendous increase in energy. However, with a pistol, we want to get as many rounds into the areas I mentioned as possible.


----------



## punisher73 (Dec 24, 2007)

> I don't agree with the portion I bolded. Pistols are anemic little weapons, if we're going to stop the guy as quickly as possible, we want our rounds to go through the brain/brain-stem (to cause instant shut-down), through the spine (to cause paralysis ergo instant incapacitation), or through the "high center chest" (to get the heart, aorta, lungs).
> By aiming "high center chest" (basically the upper half of the sternum upward to the base of throat), we've got a good chance of hitting the heart and lungs, and also of damaging the spine (if our rounds go straight through). I don't want my shots spread out all over his abdomen where they may in fact inflict fatal wounds, but will not give us that rapid stop.
> With a _real_ gun like a rifle or shotgun, our margin of error increases a little due to the tremendous increase in energy. However, with a pistol, we want to get as many rounds into the areas I mentioned as possible.


 
I agree with that totally, but I think we are arguing over two seperate tactics.  If you are that up close and personal your job is to get lead on target as fast as possible AS YOU ARE MOVING to a better position of cover/concealment.  Then I feel you can worry a little bit more and where you shots are going.  If you plan on standing there then I would agree to hit an area to either shut the mechanics of him moving, or shut the computer down.  In our department we don't train to stand and shoot unless we are working a specific mechanics drill.  We work on point shooting moving on angles and moving in and back.


----------



## thardey (Dec 26, 2007)

kenpotex said:


> I'd say about fist-size.
> 
> On the whole point-shooting thing...arnisandyz covered a lot of what I would have said. My biggest thing is that you don't want to train a disparate method. *Your point shooting "method" should mesh with your sighted fire method (i.e. your drawstroke/presentation should be pretty much the same).*
> 
> ...



If I'm shooting at different points of my drawstroke, doesn't that require different draws? I mean, a "gut shot" from the hip (old west style) is radically different from a "front sight press". If I used the whole drawstroke as I've practiced it, and just pull the trigger at different stages, then I'll just hit the ground.

I understand that drawing the gun so that I fire with the middle finger is radically different, and it's good to be consisted with what I know already (i.e. trigger finger on the trigger), but a one-handed shot is totally different than a two-handed shot. Or am I doing the FSP wrong?


----------



## arnisandyz (Dec 27, 2007)

thardey said:


> If I'm shooting at different points of my drawstroke, doesn't that require different draws? I mean, a "gut shot" from the hip (old west style) is radically different from a "front sight press". If I used the whole drawstroke as I've practiced it, and just pull the trigger at different stages, then I'll just hit the ground.



You need to refine your draw. From the point that your gun clears the holster it should be rotated toward the target, you could break a shot there...as the pistol and support hand merges forming a triangle in front of you, you could fire a shot there - retained position...as both hands move towards the target to your front sight press you should be able to break a shot anywhere in between. So in short, when the gun clears the holster muzzle is locked on target all the way out until you see your sights. Avoid casting and scooping at all costs. Its waisted movement, not efficient and is more dangerous as you could be sweeping your own body. Your draw on a 50 yard target should be the same as on a 5 yard target, just take the extra time on the sights.

I don't like the middle finger on the trigger. From a safety standpoint your pointer finger has a good chance of working its way into the trigger guard or riding the slide.  I prefer to get the pointer/trigger finger extended up against the side of the holster and to get the middle finger up as high as I can under the trigger guard (you can tell who has been practicing by the blister on the middle finger).  My average draw time from holster to sighted shot on a ten yard target is in the 1.25 -1 second range. I'm in the .75 sec -.5 sec range on a close-range non-sighted shot. I really doubt that I could get a safe secure grip using just my ring finger and pinky (since the middle finger is being used on the trigger). on the pistol when pushing beyond those times in practice.


----------



## thardey (Dec 27, 2007)

arnisandyz said:


> You need to refine your draw. From the point that your gun clears the holster it should be rotated toward the target, you could break a shot there...as the pistol and support hand merges forming a triangle in front of you, you could fire a shot there - retained position...as both hands move towards the target to your front sight press you should be able to break a shot anywhere in between. So in short, when the gun clears the holster muzzle is locked on target all the way out until you see your sights. Avoid casting and scooping at all costs. Its waisted movement, not efficient and is more dangerous as you could be sweeping your own body. Your draw on a 50 yard target should be the same as on a 5 yard target, just take the extra time on the sights.



Thanks, that'll give me several weeks of practice, and now it makes more sense.



> I don't like the middle finger on the trigger. From a safety standpoint your pointer finger has a good chance of working its way into the trigger guard or riding the slide.  I prefer to get the pointer/trigger finger extended up against the side of the holster and to get the middle finger up as high as I can under the trigger guard (you can tell who has been practicing by the blister on the middle finger).  My average draw time from holster to sighted shot on a ten yard target is in the 1.25 -1 second range. I'm in the .75 sec -.5 sec range on a close-range non-sighted shot. I really doubt that I could get a safe secure grip using just my ring finger and pinky (since the middle finger is being used on the trigger). on the pistol when pushing beyond those times in practice.



Are those times from a concealed position?


----------



## arnisandyz (Dec 27, 2007)

thardey said:


> Are those times from a concealed position?



Sorry, no, not from concealed, time is from my Comptac belt holster. Add about .25 sec &#8211; .5 sec for my IWB carry holster and T-shirt. But the point I was trying to make was that if my middle finger was busy doing the trigger work, it only leaves the pinky and ring finger to draw the pistol...might be fine at a slow pace but if I'm pushing for speed I need more control on the gun.


----------



## thardey (Dec 27, 2007)

arnisandyz said:


> Sorry, no, not from concealed, time is from my Comptac belt holster. Add about .25 sec  .5 sec for my IWB carry holster and T-shirt. But the point I was trying to make was that if my middle finger was busy doing the trigger work, it only leaves the pinky and ring finger to draw the pistol...might be fine at a slow pace but if I'm pushing for speed I need more control on the gun.



I agree, plus the extra "decision time" for choosing which finger to pull with would be confusing. It would have to slow you down if you got surprised.


----------



## KenpoTex (Dec 28, 2007)

punisher73 said:


> I agree with that totally, but I think we are arguing over two seperate tactics. If you are that up close and personal your job is to get lead on target as fast as possible AS YOU ARE MOVING to a better position of cover/concealment. Then I feel you can worry a little bit more and where you shots are going. If you plan on standing there then I would agree to hit an area to either shut the mechanics of him moving, or shut the computer down. In our department we don't train to stand and shoot unless we are working a specific mechanics drill. We work on point shooting moving on angles and moving in and back.


 
I fully agree that the "stand and deliver" method is NOT the way to do it. Movement (preferably toward cover), is the way to go. However, _in practice/training_, I want to strive for as much accuracy as I can so that when I'm moving, and under stress, and getting shot at, my performance will not degrade as much. Any hit is better than a miss, but not all hits are equal.
At the extreme close ranges that we've been talking about (1-3 yards), I feel that a lot of your accuracy will be predicated upon the integrity of your index--that is, you are consistent due to having practiced your drawstroke (and firing at different stages in the drawstroke) until it is ingrained into your muscle-memory. 

I don't think we're really in disagreement, we're just talking around each other. 



			
				arnisandyz said:
			
		

> From the point that your gun clears the holster it should be rotated toward the target...as the pistol and support hand merges forming a triangle in front of you, you could fire a shot there - retained position...as both hands move towards the target to your front sight press you should be able to break a shot anywhere in between. So in short, when the gun clears the holster muzzle is locked on target all the way out until you see your sights. *Avoid casting and scooping at all costs. Its waisted movement, not efficient and is more dangerous as you could be sweeping your own body. Your draw on a 50 yard target should be the same as on a 5 yard target, just take the extra time on the sights*


I fully agree with the bolded portion; however, my drawstroke differs slightly (not a big deal, just a slightly different technique).
I use the "Four-Count" drawstroke (I basically end up in a mod-iso position) which can be described as follows:

COUNT 1: Establish your grip on the gun with the hand as high on the weapon as possible. The off side hand will either be on the chest, or in use to fend off the attacker if we're at bad-breath range (BBR ).
COUNT 2: Gun is drawn *straight up* until the meat of the thumb touches the pectoral muscle ("pectoral index") wrist is locked which serves to orient the gun at a slight downward angle (this is our rentention position if we're still at BBR). By having the weapon pointed down slightly, I can fend the attacker off with my other arm w/o worrying about shooting myself in the hand.
COUNT 3: Hands meet over the sternum to establish our two hand grip. You can make some pretty good hits from here since the gun is now indexed on our centerline.
COUNT 4: Push the gun *straight* *out* to the appropriate level of extension. You can fire on the way from the compressed position to the extended position and/or just pick up your sights and fire when you hit extension.


----------



## AzQkr (Dec 29, 2007)

I know a few things about this subject of point shooting. 

If you are going to be threat focused learn to get the gun out and muzzle on thread asap as a few others have mentioned, the instant the muzzle is on BG, you can fire based on time and distance restraints.

Time and distance. It's going to be different for everyone to some extent, as to what skill within the threat focused skills you possess and can use to keep rds on COM, the sooner the better. 

The more skills within the threat focused/point shooting realm you possess, the more you will be as efficient as possible in the use of that time and distance given you in the scenario you find yourself in.

If you are going to be truly threat focused and combat oriented in various threat focused skills, you can and should drop the two handed hold, any particular stance, and be able to shoot one handed as well as you can two handed [ which is only a factor of practice doing so].

You should be able to go through 500 rds in two hours and never look at the gun, make COM hits on threats both while standing and delivering and while moving [ laterally, obliquely, etc ], all one handed, from distances of 3-30 feet at any time. You should be able to run through 8-10 different threat focused skills one handed in the time mentioned.

Hit rates using these skills is remarkably high with few hours on each skill in the classes.

For a history of various skills that can be employed without ever looking at the gun except perhaps peripherally, on ocassion, try this link, there's a lot of good discussion on various threat focused skills:

See my signature line.

Brownie


----------



## thardey (Jan 10, 2008)

kenpotex said:


> I fully agree that the "stand and deliver" method is NOT the way to do it. Movement (preferably toward cover), is the way to go. However, _in practice/training_, I want to strive for as much accuracy as I can so that when I'm moving, and under stress, and getting shot at, my performance will not degrade as much. Any hit is better than a miss, but not all hits are equal.
> At the extreme close ranges that we've been talking about (1-3 yards), I feel that a lot of your accuracy will be predicated upon the integrity of your index--that is, you are consistent due to having practiced your drawstroke (and firing at different stages in the drawstroke) until it is ingrained into your muscle-memory.
> 
> I don't think we're really in disagreement, we're just talking around each other.
> ...



This is the technique I was taught. I don't fully rotate the gun until it is even with the centerline of my chest. By the time it's rotated, both hands are in contact with the gun. At this point, It's just as fast to draw and rotate at the hip, using less efficient muscles (for me, anyway) as it is to bring the gun straight up, then rotate with it in the center of mass, with two hands already on it. That's why I was saying earlier that if I simply "shoot earlier in the draw" I'll just hit the ground.


----------



## KenpoTex (Jan 10, 2008)

thardey said:


> This is the technique I was taught. I don't fully rotate the gun until it is even with the centerline of my chest. By the time it's rotated, both hands are in contact with the gun. At this point, It's just as fast to draw and rotate at the hip, using less efficient muscles (for me, anyway) as it is to bring the gun straight up, then rotate with it in the center of mass, with two hands already on it. *That's why I was saying earlier that if I simply "shoot earlier in the draw" I'll just hit the ground*.


 
If the attacker is at arm's length (or even a little more), you'll still get a hit, it'll just be lower in his abdomen.  I like this method for extreme close-quarters because you have the benefit of knowing exactly where the weapon is pointed thanks to the kinesthetic awareness you've ingrained by using a set of consistent reference points.

The other method of rotating the gun right out of the holster probably is better (i.e. slight decrease in the time it takes to get your first shot off) _if_ the oponent is farther away (2 yards+).  However, for me, the benefits of the high-elbow, muzzle-down retention position I mentioned above outweigh the very miniscule advantage in speed of the "rotate immediately" technique.  YMMV


----------



## arnisandyz (Jan 11, 2008)

The problem I see often with the multi-step process of A) First draw strait up...B) then bing to centerline...C) then meet with other hand and rotate...etc,etc is that it can get choppy (robotic) and you don't get a smooth draw. Its great for teaching and learning purposes and is a good starting point but the more you do it the more REFINED it should get. Many techniques are designed for the lowest common denominator to learn (not all LEO are gun people, but they still need to know how to present their weapon). 

We are all basically doing the same movement, I'm not doing an "old west" quick draw with one hand and then bringing it to my other hand (although I can if needed) but as my gun clears the holster the wrist already begins to break, rotating the gun forward AS its going to centerline, if I'm shooting a 1911 the thumb safety comes off after the gun clears the holster and the rotation starts. My weak hand grip MERGES with the stronghand (as opposed to meeting). My muzzle may not be perfectly on target before it gets to my weakhand but its already on route, when it meets the weakhand its already in motion, the pointer finger of my off hand acts as a pivot under the trigger guard and completes the rotation as the heel of my weakhand gets a purchase on part of the grip.  The key thing here is that things are happening AT THE SAME TIME. Its like a baton race where one runner hands off to another. They don't do it from a dead stop static position, they BLEND. If you can move smoothly through your draw you can stop at any of the reference points, the opposite isn't always true.

From a tactical standpoint, I don't want my muzzle pointed down in retained position. Good chance it might get trapped downward.  In my retained position I'm muzzle on target, finger off trigger, elbows in.   I can move my finger faster than rotating my wrist and elbows. Sounds like your retained position is our low ready.


----------



## Cthulhu (Jan 11, 2008)

I've been trained in the method where the gun is not rotated until it reaches the centerline of the chest as well. However, I've recently changed to the method described by Arnisandyz. 

For me, the greatest benefit is weapon retention...at close quarters, if someone is going for your gun, if you always train to not put the muzzle on the target until the gun is at centerline, you've potentially wasted valuable tenths of a second, because there's a good chance you won't put the muzzle on the fella trying to take your weapon immediately because your training has ingrained the other behavior into you.

Another factor is safety: most people will only train their draw from a standing position, so as long as they train properly under those conditions, there is little risk of sweeping themselves with the muzzle. However, if they're moving around quite a bit, squatting, etc., they may accidentally sweep a leg or foot with the muzzle unless they train for those situations as well.

Finally, there is the general advantage of getting the muzzle onto a close target >that< much faster. Those tenths or hundredths of a second of a second might make all the difference in the world.

Cthulhu


----------



## arnisandyz (Jan 11, 2008)

Cthulhu said:


> if you always train to not put the muzzle on the target until the gun is at centerline, you've potentially wasted valuable tenths of a second, because there's a good chance you won't put the muzzle on the fella trying to take your weapon immediately because your training has ingrained the other behavior into you.
> Cthulhu



This is what I was kind of talking about, about being LOCKED into a set method. By training the draw as  3 or 4 part process you are training it to be a rigid structured thing, when it should be a smooth flowing and adaptable process.  In the beginning you may do it to get the basic mechanics down but you need to move BEYOND that. I can do 5 draws and almost guarantee that no 2 will be exactly the same. Some might say thats a bad thing, that the draw should always be the same (rigid). I feel the draw should be a live thing. You might not get that perfect grip you wanted, external factors may effect your draw, you may be in an awkward position, etc. Instead of forcing your draw, be aware and go where the draw takes you.  Its like throwing a punch. We learn mechanics, theories and basics of how to execute the strike. but when it really comes down to it, if you want to hit the guy your body and mind finds a way without thinking it through a 4 step process.


----------



## thardey (Jan 11, 2008)

kenpotex said:


> If the attacker is at arm's length (or even a little more), you'll still get a hit, it'll just be lower in his abdomen.  I like this method for extreme close-quarters because you have the benefit of knowing exactly where the weapon is pointed thanks to the kinesthetic awareness you've ingrained by using a set of consistent reference points.
> 
> The other method of rotating the gun right out of the holster probably is better (i.e. slight decrease in the time it takes to get your first shot off) _if_ the oponent is farther away (2 yards+).  However, for me, the benefits of the high-elbow, muzzle-down retention position I mentioned above outweigh the very miniscule advantage in speed of the "rotate immediately" technique.  YMMV



Oh, I gotcha, I was thinking you were referring to someone beyond arm's reach. That makes sense. I think I'm going to start practicing with my airsoft at arm's length, as well as across my garage. Should be interesting. 

And I thought "gunslinging" was dead.


----------



## thardey (Jan 11, 2008)

arnisandyz said:


> The problem I see often with the multi-step process of A) First draw strait up...B) then bing to centerline...C) then meet with other hand and rotate...etc,etc is that it can get choppy (robotic) and you don't get a smooth draw. Its great for teaching and learning purposes and is a good starting point but the more you do it the more REFINED it should get. Many techniques are designed for the lowest common denominator to learn (not all LEO are gun people, but they still need to know how to present their weapon).
> 
> We are all basically doing the same movement, I'm not doing an "old west" quick draw with one hand and then bringing it to my other hand (although I can if needed) but as my gun clears the holster the wrist already begins to break, rotating the gun forward AS its going to centerline, if I'm shooting a 1911 the thumb safety comes off after the gun clears the holster and the rotation starts. My weak hand grip MERGES with the stronghand (as opposed to meeting). My muzzle may not be perfectly on target before it gets to my weakhand but its already on route, when it meets the weakhand its already in motion, the pointer finger of my off hand acts as a pivot under the trigger guard and completes the rotation as the heel of my weakhand gets a purchase on part of the grip.  The key thing here is that things are happening AT THE SAME TIME. Its like a baton race where one runner hands off to another. They don't do it from a dead stop static position, they BLEND. If you can move smoothly through your draw you can stop at any of the reference points, the opposite isn't always true.
> 
> From a tactical standpoint, I don't want my muzzle pointed down in retained position. Good chance it might get trapped downward.  In my retained position I'm muzzle on target, finger off trigger, elbows in.   I can move my finger faster than rotating my wrist and elbows. Sounds like your retained position is our low ready.



I agree, smooth is always faster. As far as "steps" go, I was taught as a two-step process: 1.)Bring the gun to you solar plexus and fire. 2.) continue firing while extending your arms straight out.

Kenpotex just broke it down, which helped me communicate over the written format what I was shown.

As far as "rotating immediately" I'm not sure what your body build is, but by the time my gun has cleared the holster (Glock 21 from a 4:00 IWB), my thumb is already touching my pectoral muscle, and it's time to rotate anyway. At that point, if I only rotate my wrist, the gun is already in front of my chest, at about my right nipple. My left hand has been waiting at the center of my chest, having gone there as I reached for the gun, and the right hand merges (I like that term) with the left automatically. With a compact body position (head ducked), I can see the front sight, if I want it. Bang! All this as soon as I rotate.

If I don't draw "straight up", but draw forward at an angle, then I can see the delay caused by having to rotate the weapon later, but then you've got other problems, and are moving into the "old west" type of draw.

If you draw backwards at an angle, then you can rotate the wrist sooner, but you still have to "push" forward a little bit with your elbow to get the stability to control a large handgun. But you can fire from the hip. However, I would have to carry the gun at about 2:30, which doesn't work for my body type, It would ride right on the bony part of my hip.


----------



## KenpoTex (Jan 11, 2008)

arnisandyz said:
			
		

> The problem I see often with the multi-step process of A) First draw strait up...B) then bing to centerline...C) then meet with other hand and rotate...etc,etc is that it can get choppy (robotic) and you don't get a smooth draw. Its great for teaching and learning purposes and is a good starting point *but the more you do it the more REFINED it should get.*


Agreed


			
				arnisandyz said:
			
		

> We are all basically doing the same movement


 agreed


			
				arnisandyz said:
			
		

> Sounds like your retained position is our low ready.


um, probably not,

Here's some pics so you can see the progression. I must not be explaining it very clearly. I swiped the pics from this thread over at TPI. The man pictured is an instructor named Paul Gomez.







  As you can see in the second pic, the gun is oriented at a downward angle (due to the high elbow and locked wrist) but not to the point that you won't get decent hits at ECQ. The slight downward angle just allows more freedom of movement with the off hand to fend off attacks and/or protect against a gun-grab attempt.
  The gun is not oriented dramatically downward. When we go from Count #2 to Count #3, you can see there's not a huge pivot required to get the muzzle oriented on a threat farther away. The pivot is accomplished because the elbow has to drop as the gun moves to mate/merge with the off-hand over the centerline.
  Count #3 is where the hands meet, the gun is now on our centerline.  We can fire from here as well as firing while pushing the gun out to the appropriate level of extension.

As you mentioned above, as we practice and get smoother, the "steps" kind of blur together, however, with by practicing this method, we can develop consistent reference points so that we have good solutions for a variety of ranges.


----------



## LawDog (Jan 15, 2008)

Those photographs are ok but there is a minor problem with them. The shooter brought his head down to the firearm, this will distort his true field of view. Point shooting is looking at the target with your eyes then pointing the barrel to where you are looking so there should be no need to drop your head down so low that is unless a few bullets are being returned to your position.
This is just a noted point.
:sig:


----------



## thardey (Jan 15, 2008)

LawDog said:


> Those photographs are ok but there is a minor problem with them. The shooter brought his head down to the firearm, this will distort his true field of view. Point shooting is looking at the target with your eyes then pointing the barrel to where you are looking so there should be no need to drop your head down so low that is unless a few bullets are being returned to your position.
> This is just a noted point.
> :sig:



Those photographs are in reference to getting a "sight picture" ASAP, their not primarily concerned with point shooting. But it does seem like a good place to start.


----------



## LawDog (Jan 15, 2008)

Understood


----------



## KenpoTex (Jan 15, 2008)

LawDog said:


> Point shooting is looking at the target with your eyes then pointing the barrel to where you are looking so there should be no need to drop your head down so low...


agreed but the discussion had kind of split off to discuss the finer points of a couple of different drawstrokes.


----------



## arnisandyz (Jan 16, 2008)

kenpotex said:


> As you mentioned above, as we practice and get smoother, the "steps" kind of blur together, however, with by practicing this method, we can develop consistent reference points so that we have good solutions for a variety of ranges.



Thanks for posting those pics.  I have several friends that do the same draw stroke. Like I mentioned, we are all doing the same basic draw. Some differences (for better or worse).  I'll call the draw I do the IPSC draw for lack of a better term as it seems that a majority of shooters in IPSC/USPSA/IDPA all seem to adapt the same technique.

IPSC draw &#8211; draw doesn't come as high, instead of the high upward motion into the chest, as soon as the muzzle clears the holster its heading up at an angle toward the target. Less head and shoulder movement. Like Lawdog said, moving your head forward and back up and down and hunching your shoulders can change your visual plane to the target whether point shooting OR sight shooting. I was taught to TRY to keep the upper body as still as possible during the draw. Generally more relaxed and neutral with less muscular tension. maybe a little more forward lean on the balls of the feet.

Granted I'm sure the draw method you posted is tried and true and proven in self defense shootings. There may be reasons why there is so much tension throughout the draw. Could be when the adrenaline kicks up fine motor skills go out the window, so the tension creates a familiar reference point.


----------



## thardey (Jan 16, 2008)

arnisandyz said:


> Thanks for posting those pics.  I have several friends that do the same draw stroke. Like I mentioned, we are all doing the same basic draw. Some differences (for better or worse).  I'll call the draw I do the IPSC draw for lack of a better term as it seems that a majority of shooters in IPSC/USPSA/IDPA all seem to adapt the same technique.
> 
> IPSC draw  draw doesn't come as high, instead of the high upward motion into the chest, as soon as the muzzle clears the holster its heading up at an angle toward the target. Less head and shoulder movement. Like Lawdog said, moving your head forward and back up and down and hunching your shoulders can change your visual plane to the target whether point shooting OR sight shooting. I was taught to TRY to keep the upper body as still as possible during the draw. Generally more relaxed and neutral with less muscular tension. maybe a little more forward lean on the balls of the feet.
> 
> Granted I'm sure the draw method you posted is tried and true and proven in self defense shootings. There may be reasons why there is so much tension throughout the draw. Could be when the adrenaline kicks up fine motor skills go out the window, so the tension creates a familiar reference point.



Some very good points.

The guy who taught me is an FBI special agent - and it looks a lot like his "draw" to get his rifle into action -- with the head down, shoulders hunched, etc. And I'm sure it has something to do with gross motor skills, since that's a point that he pushes often, whether dealing with weapons or empty-handed: "When the adrenalin hits, fine motor skills disappear". I think the idea is to get the gun in front of you before you touch it off, since you'll be pulling it when you're surprised, and have less time to take in the target and background.

I can definitely see an advantage to the style you mentioned in the IPSC/USPSA/IDPA, since it would shave off precious 1/10ths of a second, and not add "tension," but you're right, I learned that draw in regards to a surprise/self-defense situation.


----------



## arnisandyz (Jan 17, 2008)

In regards to "real world" or competition:
there IS a correlation between street and competition. IPSC was originally created to test self-defense techniques (the focus has since changed). This was a time when EVERYONE was shooting Weaver. 

The reason I say this is that its much more than 1/10ths of a second you mentioned you are saving (which by the way I think is a bit off on your estimation). You are not only gaining time but the advancement and refinement of technique. It has come full circle to where schools that teach modern defensive tactics have brought in competition shooters to teach their methods of the modern iso, the "IPSC" grip, speed reloads and other techniques born in competition.

I don't really buy the theory that "this is for the REAL word and that is just for competition" and vice versa. YES there are things that you can do in competition that will get you killed on the street and there are techniques used by LEO/Military that won't work in competition if you want to place well.  In the end there are more similarities than differences.

I also don't agree with manufacturing your OWN tension on the draw or anywhere for that matter. I DO buy into the idea of being neutral, if the situation creates the tension then you are able to adjust to it. The problem with creating your own tension is that it can be variable...too much pressure one way and not enough the other will change your alignment.  Think about driving a car.  You don't have a death grip on the wheel the entire time. As the car reacts to bumps and turns you adjust your input as needed. Also, anyone that has ANY martial arts experience will tell you tension kills speed and power and also traps the mind.

The original post was about point shooting...I really believe neutrality and awareness will take you farther in point shooting that techniques which appear unnatural and uncomfortable.  With that draw, rather than a natural act of just getting the gun on target it looks forced, like someone is TRYING to do a fast draw rather than just doing it.


----------



## thardey (Jan 17, 2008)

Wait, I'm confused. Are you responding to my post? Then I think I wasn't very clear. Let me try again.



arnisandyz said:


> In regards to "real world" or competition:
> there IS a correlation between street and competition. IPSC was originally created to test self-defense techniques (the focus has since changed). This was a time when EVERYONE was shooting Weaver.



Of course, the correlation is very close, closer than hand-to-hand differences between sport and "real world" self-defense. I mean, If I understand the differences between your draw (IPSC) and the one I was shown (Front Sight Press, I believe) we're talking about _exactly_ when you pivot your wrist, which can be crucial, but overall is pretty much the same draw.



> The reason I say this is that its much more than 1/10ths of a second you mentioned you are saving (which by the way I think is a bit off on your estimation). You are not only gaining time but the advancement and refinement of technique. It has come full circle to where schools that teach modern defensive tactics have brought in competition shooters to teach their methods of the modern iso, the "IPSC" grip, speed reloads and other techniques born in competition.


The 1/10ths of a second wasn't my idea, I was using the time mentioned earlier--


> I've been trained in the method where the gun is not rotated until it reaches the centerline of the chest as well. However, I've recently changed to the method described by Arnisandyz.
> 
> For me, the greatest benefit is weapon retention...at close quarters, if someone is going for your gun, if you always train to not put the muzzle on the target until the gun is at centerline, *you've potentially wasted valuable tenths of a second*, because there's a good chance you won't put the muzzle on the fella trying to take your weapon immediately because your training has ingrained the other behavior into you. . *snip*
> 
> ...


So I just went with what was already said. I've only tried the one style, so I'm taking his word on the time difference.

Also, I'm not theoretically saving the time, you are -- I'm sacrificing the time for what I hope is consistency.



> I don't really buy the theory that "this is for the REAL word and that is just for competition" and vice versa. YES there are things that you can do in competition that will get you killed on the street and there are techniques used by LEO/Military that won't work in competition if you want to place well.  In the end there are more similarities than differences.


Well, sure the one is a great place to train for the other. But there is one thing that can't be reproduced, and for me personally, tends to be one of the filters that I run this stuff through. That is the element of surprise.

Personally, I should only need this technique, especially in the idea of point shooting, if I got totally taken by surprise. If I have half an idea that in the next five minutes I _might_ need to draw my gun, my hands already on it, or it's in "Low ready" and I will be working hard to get out of that situation ASAP. 

On the other hand, if someone "gets the drop" on me, and catches me unaware (stupid for me, but it could happen) I'm going to go from thinking about dinner that night, to drawing and firing a gun. That's the part that simply can't be reproduced in any training environment. When I change that fast, I usually overreact, and I want a draw that has some reference points for my muscle memory to find while my brain is still catching up. 



> I also don't agree with manufacturing your OWN tension on the draw or anywhere for that matter. I DO buy into the idea of being neutral, if the situation creates the tension then you are able to adjust to it. The problem with creating your own tension is that it can be variable...too much pressure one way and not enough the other will change your alignment.  Think about driving a car.  You don't have a death grip on the wheel the entire time. As the car reacts to bumps and turns you adjust your input as needed. Also, anyone that has ANY martial arts experience will tell you tension kills speed and power and also traps the mind.


Ah, but think about throwing a punch. There is tension, but only at the end of the punch, the rest is neutral. In the FSP draw, there is only tension right as the trigger is pulled, and that's only because your forearm is locked close to your chest. IMO, it's the same as the tension used in steadying a rifle, by jamming it hard into your shoulder. Besides, the added tension was your idea, I was just agreeing that it could be a factor.



> The original post was about point shooting...I really believe neutrality and awareness will take you farther in point shooting that techniques which appear unnatural and uncomfortable.  With that draw, rather than a natural act of just getting the gun on target it looks forced, like someone is TRYING to do a fast draw rather than just doing it.


Hmm, look at kenpotex's avatar . . . see how in order to use the sights he hunches his head over? Same thing with shooting a rifle, your bring your head down to the sights. Same with boxing. For me, that _is_ the natural and neutral position. Standing straight up for me would be the forced technique. Since the first few answers I got for point shooting were essentially, "use the standard draw you have, but don't rely on the sights," if I naturally drop my head, then why not? 

Which brings me back to my question about when the wrist rotates in IPSC. Starting with the photographs provided of the FSP, between pictures #1 and #2 there is the beginning of a rotation, provided by the bent elbow necessary to clear the gun from the holster. The wrist never rotates, other that than it started in a bent "forward" position, but as the gun clears, the wrist returns to a "neutral" position, the gun is now pointed forward. For #3, the elbow is pushed forward, that is -- the shoulder rotates _without dropping_, and as soon as the gun is horizontal it can be fired. (This would be the only point of "tension.") By this time the other hand may or may not have merged on the grip, but it's certainly possible, without losing time. It would still be "point shooting" at this time, because you couldn't get a line of sight down the barrel even if you ducked your head like a turtle. #4 is the end of the 3rd or 4th shot, by which time you've been using the sights, unless it's dark.

So, the only way I can envision cutting out time would be to fire before the time it took Mr. FSP to get to photo #3. 

So far I can only come up with two ways -- #1 "Stupid cowboy who watched too much John Wayne" Method, or SCM (Stupid Cowboy Method) for short. This would involve a pistol carried low on the back of the hip. Reach down for the gun, "whip" it out, and hope it doesn't go off early and shoot yourself in the thigh, foot, or the source of your macho cowboy attitude. Could be quicker, possibly. I'm not willing to test that theory, even with an airsoft gun.

Second, carry as normal, (for me, 3:30 IWB) and start as far as photo #2 (got to get the gun out first, of course), but then instead of pivoting at the shoulder, push the gun slightly down and forward, until you get the gun to the "fire from the hip" (actually about the floating rib, not the waist.) position. True "Point Shooting." Maybe you don't _have_ to push the gun back down, but as for me, I simply can't shoot a gun from my armpit, that may be problem, but it just ain't gonna happen for me. _But the elbow and shoulder would have to drop,_ otherwise we're back to Photo #3. Then to continue the draw the gun would have to swing up slightly until it got to a point where it was stable again (Photo #4 _with_ the head down, so I could use the sights) So the gun moves up, down, then around to final resting place. So I could get off a first shot quicker (maybe 1/10th of a second or less), it's harder to fire the second and third, (compared to pushing it straight out from Photo #3) until I get gun stable again for the forth shot. And I certainly can't use the sights for any of the first three shots.

So, my question is (and I asking honestly, since I'm certainly not married to any one style.) where did I miss the mechanics necessary to rotate your wrist "earlier" without working against your final goal by dropping the gun back down? If you're only going for one shot, I could see the advantage, but in that kind of situation, I'm training for at least three shots, and I'll probably fire off 5 or so before I'm done. (Remember, I'm surprised, and overreacting.) I have two goals, both very important to me. A.)Get the first shot off as quick as possible without sacrificing B.) get off 2-4 more shots in rapid succession _using the sights_.


----------



## arnisandyz (Jan 18, 2008)

thardey said:


> photo #2 (got to get the gun out first, of course), but then instead of pivoting at the shoulder, push the gun slightly down and forward, until you get the gun to the "fire from the hip" (actually about the floating rib, not the waist.) position. True "Point Shooting." Maybe you don't _have_ to push the gun back down, but as for me, I simply can't shoot a gun from my armpit, that may be problem, but it just ain't gonna happen for me. _But the elbow and shoulder would have to drop,_ otherwise we're back to Photo #3.
> 
> So, my question is (and I asking honestly, since I'm certainly not married to any one style.) where did I miss the mechanics necessary to rotate your wrist "earlier" without working against your final goal by dropping the gun back down?



Sorry,  I wasn't really addressing anyone, just throwing more stuff out there for discussion. If you look at photo 2 the draw IS all the way up to the ARMPIT with elbow high (as you mentioned). You also mentioned you have trouble presenting the gun from here. THIS is the tension I was talking about! If you take your hand by your side and put it in the position in photo 2 you will FEEL the tension in your neck and shoulder. This is almost a standing center-lock that some people in Modern Arnis do to create tension on the wrist, neck and deltoid muscle. The gun doesn't need to "DROP DOWN" if it doesn't go up that high. 

On my draw..photo 1 would be close to the same except the elbow would be more rear facing (pointing to the rear like you are elbowing somebody) instead of up (which puts pressure on your neck and causes you to shift position), elbows tucked close to the body as possible. This will allow you to stabilize your upper body and head movement. You only need to come up as high as you need too to clear the muzzle from the holster and nothing more. As soon as the muzzle clears the holster the wrist breaks and gets the muzzle close to 45 degrees, as the elbow returns forward to centerline the gun moves forward at an upward angle to the target. The support hand comes in right at the point where the elbows are at centerline. You would have to have someone fine-tune the details as its all variable depending on your body type and carry position.

If you look at the photos again you can see the draw is in 2 planes of vertical and horizontal. Gun comes strait up and thrust strait out. Take that and eliminate photo 2 and 3 and replace it with an upward angle (new dimension) and you'll be close!

Try it and let me know what you find.


----------



## thardey (Jan 18, 2008)

Aha! That makes sense. Unfortunately, with my body build, and the fullsize Glock I carry, I can't clear the gun from the holster that way unless I start with it in about the 2:30 position. (I have long arms and a short, thick torso.) That just doesn't work for a daily carry option for me, I can't even stand to have my cell phone there (I can't sit down!). If I had a pocket sized gun, I could carry it at my appendix, and then I would definitely use that variation of the draw.

But I'll go home and play with it this weekend, and see if I can't come up with a cross between the two. Thanks for your help!


----------



## thardey (Jan 21, 2008)

Okay, got to play around a little this weekend, and here's what I found:

If I cocked my wrist hard when I drew, I could clear the gun without having to raise my shoulder as much, but I still had to draw straight up. (I have been naturally keeping my elbow in close to my body, I just never thought about it -- must be the karate drills that did that!) Essentially no change to what I was doing before, but I did notice that the overall tension was a little less. Then I could "snap" my wrist slightly past a neutral position, and be ready to fire. The gun was now about 1" beneath by nipple (instead of even with it as before), and about 1" to the outside -- which was just enough of a change to warrant one-handed firing. The second shot was now taken at the same position of my previous first shot (two hands, close to the body, stable "shot platform", and the third and fourth shots extended with the use of the sights as before.

Overall, I think an improvement, for close range shots (up to 2.5 yards or so), but I'm going to have to work on two things: One, there's a significant beat of time between my first and second shots, but I don't see why that can't be smoothed out over time, and two, I have a huge tendency to drop the gun about 2" for the first shot, so that it does that stupid up, down, and around thing that I was whining about earlier. It's going to take some time to break that. (I caught myself doing that about 1 in 5 draws.)

I've also got to get used to the feeling of shooting with a slightly cocked wrist -- so far as I remember, I've _always_ shot with my wrists perfectly straight, but then I've always limited myself to target shooting before this.

So anyway, that's what I've found, thanks for all the help, and clarification. If I'm still missing something, please let me know.


----------



## arnisandyz (Jan 22, 2008)

Glad you are doing some experimentation, as you know, you're going to have to go through that to find what works best for you.  The only comment I have to make is that I would practice in dryfire going from the holster to an extended sighted shot FIRST keeping things smooth and moving through the entire draw. This doesn't and shouldn't be done at full speed initially. You should just be looking for smoothness. Smooth is fast.  The problem with picking set places to shoot from in the draw is that it will make you choppy....stop and go. Once you can do the entire draw smoothly, fire multiple shots WHILE THE DRAW IS HAPPENING as long as the muzzle is clear. You will be doing 2 distinct and separate acts.   Your draw stroke is the same whether you are firing multiple shots or one sighted shot, you are simply firing the gun as the draw is happening.

But for point shooting I would practice shooting from your natural sighted position before shooting through the draw, the gun will be slightly lower to get a better view of the target and you won't look at the front sight but be able to see it in your peripheral vision. You will be target focused and sighting down the gun like a rib on a shotgun.

Hope that makes sense and be very careful and watch your muzzle!


----------



## thardey (Jan 22, 2008)

That's good, I hadn't done the entire draw for some time, and I hadn't done the draw while dry firing yet.

Was it you that recommended, in a different thread, to fire various number of shots each time you draw? Sometimes you'll fire four, sometimes two, etc.? I think doing that while firing at different times during the draw may help smooth things out.

So far I've been experimenting with the airsoft gun, so I'm not as tense, and have a little more freedom to play. (That was exactly my reason for buying it in the first place -- that and I could shoot it in my garage.) So hopefully I've worked out most of the bugs before I go live. I'll just start slow and smooth again and keep going from there.


----------



## chinto (Jan 23, 2008)

thardey said:


> In a recent thread, this article was posted. Near the bottom the author uses the statistics to argue for a need for Point-shooting practice, and suggests the "Vermont Method."
> 
> It's time for me to begin learning how to Point Shoot. So, before I go too far into one particular method, I figured I would get some feedback from you all.
> 
> ...




I prefer the old Col. Rex Applegate point and shoot system that was tought and proven in close combat in WWII by the commando's  rangers and OSS and SOE.  works great for close in, of course at 25 M or more sights become some what practical in a combat situation. but at say 5M or less you will provably not see the sights on your weapon, just the threat.


----------



## thardey (Jan 23, 2008)

chinto said:


> I prefer the old Col. Rex Applegate point and shoot system that was tought and proven in close combat in WWII by the commando's  rangers and OSS and SOE.  works great for close in, of course at 25 M or more sights become some what practical in a combat situation. but at say 5M or less you will provably not see the sights on your weapon, just the threat.



Got any more information on that?


----------



## chinto (Jan 26, 2008)

thardey said:


> Got any more information on that?



yes, his book and also plenty of statistics of police shooting multiple magazines of ammo at a suspect at less then 15 ft and missing with all 14 to 40 rounds!!

the book is called  "Kill or Get Killed" by Col. Rex Applegate  and is published by paladin press  ISBN0-87364-085-3  
this book covers a lot of skills and are all combat proven in actual combat in WWII and Korea as well as many police agency's around the world use the information he developed.

for unarmed combat I would suggest if you have the ability and time you take a good traditional martial art. but his unarmed combat system is a troop system designed for very short training time... but it also has some good knife defense and weapon retention information too.

as to seeing only the threat at close range, it is called tunneling. and your vision tunnels in  on the treat. you see the attacker and especially his weapon if he has it. you will not see your sights , and so if trained to shoot only with sights you blast away and do not hit any thing. .. that is why there are newspaper stories of 40 round and the suspect at 9ft was missed every time...  and note that in that shoot out the anti gun nuts always point at at the LA bank, where the men had assault rifles and body armor the cops kept shooting for center mass and not at say their feet! a shot gun load of shot in their feet would have put them down.. the shoes were not covered by Kevlar or trauma plates!!!  but since they never train to shoot any where but center mass they did not go for head shots or feet or any where else with shot guns or pistols!


----------



## thardey (Feb 21, 2008)

chinto said:


> yes, his book and also plenty of statistics of police shooting multiple magazines of ammo at a suspect at less then 15 ft and missing with all 14 to 40 rounds!!
> 
> the book is called  "Kill or Get Killed" by Col. Rex Applegate  and is published by paladin press  ISBN0-87364-085-3
> this book covers a lot of skills and are all combat proven in actual combat in WWII and Korea as well as many police agency's around the world use the information he developed.
> ...



I wanted to bump up this thread with some updates.

I got that book, and practiced some of the ideas in there last night. I appreciate it, I liked his approach very much. That was almost exactly what I had in my mind when I asked about "point shooting" at the beginning of this thread. He explained it very clearly, and it wasn't hard to try.

Another thing I tried last night was with my airsoft gun in the garage. I got a pack of glow-in-the-dark bb's, and a sticky target from wal-mart. (They work great, btw!) After a few practice draws in full light, I turned off the light, and left enough bb's on the target to show where it was. (range was about 8 feet).

It was a totally different experience not being able to see the gun. I didn't realize how much, even peripherally, I was sighting the gun, even if I wasn't using the sights themselves. It didn't take long for me to adjust (maybe 20 rounds), and then it was fine, but at first I had no idea where I was shooting. I highly recommend this exercise for anybody interested in point-shooting. I intend to add pitch-black shooting to my "in town" shooting practice, alongside dry-firing and airsoft "quick-draw" practice.

By the end the hardest part was loading the bb's into the magazine without turning the lights on!


----------



## chinto (Feb 25, 2008)

thardey said:


> I wanted to bump up this thread with some updates.
> 
> I got that book, and practiced some of the ideas in there last night. I appreciate it, I liked his approach very much. That was almost exactly what I had in my mind when I asked about "point shooting" at the beginning of this thread. He explained it very clearly, and it wasn't hard to try.
> 
> ...




glad to hear you liked it... all his techniques were proven many times in WWII and since in real life and death combat by military and intelligence operatives, and law enforcement encounters.

it really does work.

there are also some things about weapons retention and handling persons as prisoners safely....


----------



## AzQkr (Feb 29, 2008)

If you are not rotating the muzzle toward the thread as soon as it clears leather/whatever within 4 yrds, you are wasting time. From 3- 12 feet [ and further ] a trained threat focused shooter can put rds on threat from the time it clears holster and the muzzle is horizontal, and continue firing on threat throughout the extension of the shooting arm until the pistol is just below line of sight.

That draw above encompasses two skills sets. The Elbow Up/Elbow Down [ also known as drawing to the half hip position from Fairbairn and Sykes of ww2 ] and the zipper.

That draw also puts 4-5 rounds on the threat before you can raise your arm to line of sight. As to the subject of the scoop draw, it has a place in a few of the threat focused skills. 

If you aren't going to use a few of the better threat focused skills which have served the likes of Bill Jordan, Jelly Bryce and  Col. Charles Askins as they survived with their sidearms to your advantage, you wouldn't have need to scoop the gun like they and others would.

Brownie


----------



## thardey (Feb 29, 2008)

AzQkr said:


> If you are not rotating the muzzle toward the thread as soon as it clears leather/whatever within 4 yrds, you are wasting time. From 3- 12 feet [ and further ] a trained threat focused shooter can put rds on threat from the time it clears holster and the muzzle is horizontal, and continue firing on threat throughout the extension of the shooting arm until the pistol is just below line of sight.
> 
> That draw above encompasses two skills sets. The Elbow Up/Elbow Down [ also known as drawing to the half hip position from Fairbairn and Sykes of ww2 ] and the zipper.
> 
> ...



I just checked out
*Handgun or Pistol Quick Kill [ QK ] Shooting Technique* 

Your top sticky on handgun shooting. I liked the idea of "aiming" two inches below.



> Now, place the end of that finger about 2 inches below your target. Move your arm, NOT JUST THE FINGER. Then, lower your head and try to sight along the length of it. You will be on the object. Raise your head and you will see the end of the finger still about 2 inches below the object. The reference point can be different depending on the person and gun being used. Many handguns have different natural pointing abilities. Just start out at 2 inches below the target initially.



I learned this idea when I learned to shoot bow and arrow as a kid (I didn't get to use sights until I could shoot by sight). Sort of the same thing. You find a reference point of where the arrowhead should be in relation to the target. It's surprisingly accurate.

I found that when shooting one-handed, I was about two inches below, and one inch to the right. Shooting two-handed was centered, but two inches below. (That is, my finger moved two inches, not two inches as measured at the target. My finger was resting 8 inches or so from the target. Does that make sense?)

I also found that anywhere between those two inches, and "dead on" produced about the same accuracy. That meant that once I got my gun/finger to a certain height, I could fire accurately while continuing to move the gun towards a "sight picture." That is, I wasn't stuck with either "point shooting" or "sight shooting," but could instinctively transfer from one to the other.

I also found that using Applegate's one-handed stance (actually Fariburn's, I think, leaning forward), that two inches below "sight picture" is actually pretty low, and is a very quick draw.


----------



## AzQkr (Mar 1, 2008)

thardey,

Your post is spot on with the results you were seeing [ students all get the same results with this skill ], and how quick it is to pick up naturally using your peripheral vision and the gun below line of sight.

I've used this skill since 1981 [ unless I really need a very precise shot ], and from then until about 3 years ago, people were clueless that I wasn't using the sights for one reason------that being,

I out-shot most of them even when shooting plate racks or bowling pins in competition. We've all seen the threads and posts where people denigrate any form of pointshooting/threat focused skills for anything over 4-5 feet or contact distance, those opinions [ yes, they are only opinions and not fact ] are baseless in fact in real world skills and one of the reasons so many people balk at the idea.

Here's a quote from a student in Tenn based on his real time observations [ along with the rest of the students ] last summer.

_" The thing to remember isn't that you're not replacing sight shooting skills with these skills. This just provides additional skills. *Brownie may be able to chew a ragged 2 inch hole out of a target with 2 handed QK at 30 feet*, but I would still use my sights if I had to put bullets into a space that precise at that range"_

That was 17 rounds into that group, not 2-3 shots in case anyone is wondering. I don't see many people who can hold a 2" group at 30 feet using their sights, let alone without them, but the proof is in the training of the skills that are easy to learn, easy to replicate and easy to use. Saving time by not looking for that front sight picture or front sight press/MT techniques.

I've heard things like "I'm fast enough with this or that form of the Modern Technique [ front sight, eyes on the front sight, blah, blah blah, etc ] and what they all fail to realize is they'd be faster without direct sights verification. You can lead em to the water, but can't make em drink it.

Another quick quote from a student who did 22 years as an SF Pathfinder, now retired who took my threat focused training systems course last fall. He's been to thunder ranch, and other big name MT schools while a civilian, been trained to one of the highest levels of MT skills while in the service of this country--with that as his background, he had this to say:

http://www.threatfocused.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1411

_"After lurking about on this forum as well as others I made the decision to take Brownie's "Quick Kill/ Threat Focused Response" class this past weekend in Flagstaff. I've been shooting for over 25 years in both the military and the civillian world. I've been to a number of the high end shooting schools and am always striving to maintain and develop tactics and mindset.

Having said that, I can say this was this was the finest real world training I've had. Due to 4 no-shows our class was only 4 people. Excellent, more one on one training for me I thought. I won't get into all the skills and drills, you can read about them on the forum. When I get instruction I try to leave as much of my baggage behind and get into the student mode. I don't want to be coddled or pampered. Brownie has a no BS approach to training. I love that. It's when I learn and retain the most. I put 1300 rounds downrange in one day. I've never shot that much in any civillian school. I actually had to tape my fingers due to wear on my grip tape and trigger wear.If you're not bleeding, you're not training hard enough right? The instruction was intense, focused and fun. When I indicated I wanted to skip lunch and continue to shoot Brownie stayed on the line with me and helped fine tune my technique. Never saw that level of commitment in any school by the head Instructor!

The tactics and skills Brownie teachs and has developed are quite simply the fastest way to kill an opponent.That's the stuff I want. I was hitting targets out to 100 yards using no sights. On the second day my front sight boke off, no biggie, I wasn't using it and didn't need it anyway.

I was a confident shooter prior to taking this class but after completing it I feel as if the skills and tactics taught by Brownie will be the ones to save my life in the event of a real world gunfight. They are the ones I will spend my precious training time on. No more front sight trigger press for me."_

[/I]Brownie


----------



## AzQkr (Mar 1, 2008)

I should also mention here that it's not really about what I can do with threat focused skills, it's about what the students can do in short periods of time using the same skills.

Developing ones proprioceptors and understanding how to develop and fine tune your proprioception skills in practice encourages the mind let things happen subconsciously allowing your trained eye/hand coordination skills to work most efficiently.

The students comments state whats possible while threat focused through their own observations and professional training.

Brownie


----------



## 5shot (Aug 16, 2008)

I have a site that provides lots of free info on different methods of Point Shooting and on self defense. QK, FAS, CAR, P&S.

I favor P&S, which has been alluded to in this thread, incorrectly.

The US Army and Marine Corps pistol manuals, with their discussion of the Natural Point of Aim (NPA) will be added back in today.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Aug 16, 2008)

AzQkr said:


> thardey,
> 
> Your post is spot on with the results you were seeing [ students all get the same results with this skill ], and how quick it is to pick up naturally using your peripheral vision and the gun below line of sight.
> 
> ...


 The issue what Brownie can do.....there is such a thing as phenomenal natural skill.....the issue is what he can teach the average person to do.  Sighted-fire versus point shooting.  A real test would be to take two groups of like people and teach them both methods and see which ones can replicate that feat the easiest.

That's not a dismissal of point-shooting.......but i'll stick with the Modern Technique sent down from God to Jeff Cooper until I see something that convinces me otherwise.......flash sight picture.

Considering that point shooting philosophy pre-dates Jeff Cooper's codification of the Modern Technique, and was well worked out under Applegate and Fairbairn, it's had ample opportunity to be tested and no one can really say it hasn't been given a fair shake.  If it works for you, use it......but the notion that it's superior in some way to the Modern Technique is not in evidence.

DVC.......Diligentia Vis Celeritas

Just my humble opinion only.


----------



## Deaf Smith (Aug 16, 2008)

Now guys, I've sparred with brownie over at GT and other places for many a year. So let me weigh in on this.

Yes point shooting can work. So can sighted fire. But, one can spend time learning two totaly different ways of shooting or just learn one (and Paul Howe feels the same way.)

If you train to always bring the weapon up to the same place you will find the sights are pretty much in alignment. You can use that rough alignment at close range quite fine (and this is really what flash sight picture is all about.) You see, with flash sight picture you don't adjust the sights at all. You don't even have to focus your eyes much on them as long as you can verify they have sufficent alignment to get a good hit at the ranges you need to hit!

What is more, as you practice this you will see that in low light and darkness, you can use the same presentation (read draw) and the sights, while not seeable, will still be in that same rough alignment, and thus you fire just as if you could see the sights!

This is all part of the Modern Technique Doctrine (MT).

Now life did not end when the MT came around and things have been learned to build on? Nope! Some sighting methods like soft focus, hard focus, types 1,2,3,4 focus. Trigger methods like prepping or riding the reset. Or recoil management using modified isosceles stances to where you manage the recoil to bring it right back to the same place. Or add such as retention shooting methods that go beyond the speed rock. Yes much has been learned and added to our knowledge.

You will still find that just learning a method of retention shooting and a method of sighted fire will do all that needs doing. If you master that, then it will get you through the night (as Ayoob would say.) It's the base. Every thing else past the base is just nice to have.

If you want to go farther and learn point shooting, I say fine. I encourge you do to that. I hip shoot a real lot and it's my favorite close range shooting method. *But do this only after you have master the two above and you want to learn more.* 

Deaf


----------



## AzQkr (Aug 17, 2008)

_The issue what Brownie can do.....there is such a thing as phenomenal natural skill.....t*he issue is what he can teach the average person to do.* Sighted-fire versus point shooting.

_Got it, here's some AAR's from students who were all sighted fire MT users before taking a two day Integrated Threat Focused Trainign Systems [ ITFTS ] pistol course.

Keep in mind when reading them, these are average people with various experience/skills levels with a firearm.

_"*Even my wife, who was about as inexperienced with firearms as they come*, was quite impressive with her little Kahr MK9, almost immediately. Brownie was kind enough to devote some extra time and attention to her, and when he was done she was downright scary. I wouldn't want to be on the other end of her barrel any day. *That is probably what impressed me the most. Regardless of your skill@arms, Brownie will do what it takes to make you competent with your gun."
_____________________________________________________

*"Really, I would say that this course is an absolute must-take for anyone serious about self defense. You will blow yourself away with what you learn and how easy some of it is. For the skillset Brownie teaches, for the cost that he charges, it is hands-down worth it. Better than Gunsite? I'd say yes. But its two different set-ups and comparing them gets tough. Both teach good skillsets but I would say that QK and the associated techniques are much more likely to be used. *No joke, one of the guys who came (forum member - TacticalCompact) brought his wife. From what I understand, she's not an experienced shooter by any stretch. She came in and just.. WOW!! I was totally impressed but not 100% shocked. Its so intuitive. Really... the gun becomes an extension of your hand."
___________________________________________________
*_
Those one from a 22 year USArmy SF Pathfinder veteran:

_"I made the decision to take Brownie's "Quick Kill/ Threat Focused Response" class this past weekend in Flagstaff. I've been shooting for over 25 years in both the military and the civillian world. *I've been to a number of the high end shooting schools *and am always striving to maintain and develop tactics and mindset."

_*"Having said that, I can say this was this was the finest real world training I've had"

*_"The tactics and skills Brownie teachs and has developed are quite simply the fastest way to kill an opponent.That's the stuff I want. I was hitting targets out to 100 yards using no sights. On the second day my front sight boke off, no biggie, I wasn't using it and didn't need it anyway.

I was a confident shooter prior to taking this class but after completing it I feel as if the skills and tactics taught by Brownie will be the ones to save my life in the event of a real world gunfight. They are the ones I will spend my precious training time on. *No more front sight trigger press for me."

*_The above from a man who spent his entire career training the modern technique front sight press skills from the best schools available. HMMmm.
_____________________________________________________________

_"Thats how the whole day went- show the skill, do the skill slow, repeat it faster 5-8 magazines, move on. *The incredible thing about the training is you OWN the technique, no need to think about it- its natural and instinctive.* At lunch and the end of the day he shared the history of the drills and gave some sage insight on how and when to use each.

After the day of training I had gone through over 1200 rounds and had a serious case of Glock Finger where the trigger guard had worn the skin off the side of my middle finger knuckle. I gained so much confidence in my ability to handle a gun it was incredible.

 Everyone  regardless of experience and background would benefit from attending the course. I forever have a different view of point shooting, and these skills* blend seamlessly with my existing abilities"*_ 

___________________________________________________________


_"I PROBABLY HAVE ABOUT 150,000 PLUS ROUNDS DOWN RANGE ALL OF WHICH I HAVE USED THE TRADITIONAL STYLE OF SEEING MY FRONT SITE ON THE TARGET , I DONT KNOW HOW MANY TIMS I HEARD " FRONT SITE FRONT SITE " HECK I THINK THERE IS EVEN A SCHOOL CALLED FRONT SITE ? WELL LET ME TELL YOU ABOUT THIS FIGHTING SYSTEM THAT CAME TO EASTON F&G THAT CHANGED ME KIND OF LIKE WHAT BILL BIXBY GOES THROUGH WHEN HE TURNS INTO THE INCREDIBLE HULK , REMEMBER THAT SHOW . 

ROBIN "BROWNIE" BROWN IS HIS NAME AND "QUICK KILL" IS HIS GAME . SIMPLICITY, RUNNING THE GUN ON A VERY PURE SUBCONCIOUS LEVEL. BIENG TOTALLY CONCIOUSLY FOCUSED ON THE THE THREAT\S WHILE NATURALLY MOVING IN ANY DIRECTION, AS FAST AS YOUR BODY WILL ALLOW ,YET GETTING ACCURATE , SUPER FAST HITS ON THE THREATS BEFORE THEY CAN CONSIOUSLY GET ANY ON YOU._
_
*THIS STYLE OF FIGHTING WITH THE GUN* IS SO JIUJITSU LIKE , AND YET SO *SIMPLE TO LEARN*"
_____________________________________________________________

_This one from a wife in one of the classes in Knoxville, Tenn:

_"That first class, I learned to draw, point and shoot with accuracy. So did Jamie and her husband Andy. You expect a man to pick up a gun and shoot well, but not a young lady. Jamie was drawing her gun and keeping a tight circle of bullet holes in her target that first day. She was enjoying it too! *It was amazing that Brownie could take someone that had never shot a gun before and someone like me who had, and teach both of us how to aim without sites and hit a target with such accuracy."

*_Okay, everyone [ sgtmac_46 I'm sure as well by now ] gets the point he was questioning relative what students, new to shooting, well seasoned vets and any and everyone in between can learn in one or two days ], there's plenty more where these came from over at my site here:*http://www.threatfocused.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=19

*Deaf would have you believe sight fire and retention skills are all thats needed, and once you have these, then you might try threat focused skills.

Unfortunately, he hasn't taken the training to be able to make any judgements on what is or is not necessary here. As we see from the excerpts above, new shooters, shooters with years of professional MT schools training behind them feel differently after taking the course of fire.

They speak from a lifetime of MT and a day or two on threat focused skills. They've seen what they need to make their decisions, and until you actually experience it yourself, it's all just so much subjective banter based on not possessing the knowledge imparted in these courses.

sgtmac_46,

You quoted my post which included several students from various previous skills levels in MT training, and then wrote this:

_the issue is what he can teach the average person to do. Sighted-fire versus point shooting. *A real test would be to take two groups of like people and teach them both methods and see which ones can replicate that feat the easiest.

*_Thats been answered several times within the reviews. No one comes to the ITFTS program with anything but MT skills. They're confident the threat focused skills are more apt to keep them alive over any and all of their previous MT skills and training and all within a day or weekend course.

That speaks volumes relative your questioning the ease with which one can learn these skills. I was a little surprised you didn't pick up on that reading the review excerpts yourself and it had to be point out to you.

Brownie








http://www.threatfocused.com/forums/editpost.php?do=editpost&p=7771


----------



## AzQkr (Aug 17, 2008)

Double post, 

My apologies to everyone. 

Fairbairn/Sykes/Applegate skills are well represented in my own courses. These skills have been proven on the streets as far back as the 1930's. Fairbairn and Sykes trained the Shaghai Police upon request due to their losing officers every week in that city. After the training, they documented over 600 gunfight wins in just a few years using the skills imparted in a matter of a day to these officers. It's not rocket science, but then most will never really understand what they're physically capable of in hours until they experience it. 

Brownie


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Aug 17, 2008)

While I respect anyone who trains hard to learn the art of the pistol......i'm far from convinced that Point Shooting is superior to the Modern Technique.  But that's why Baskin Robbins has 31 flavors.

But I have learned much from the legendary Col. Rex Applegate's writings......'Kill or Get Killed' is well weathered and treasured addition to my book collection.  On the topic of Point Shooting, though, I defer to his late contemporary, the also legendary Col. Jeff Cooper. 



> "Now then, our fellow board member Rex Applegate has been coming forward in various publications with a conspicuous backward step. He has long been an advocate of unsighted pistol fire, and without trying to put the man down I must insist that this question has long been settled. Certainly one can learn to hit reliably with a pistol out to considerable distance providing he starts with a lot of talent and has unlimited opportunity to practice. I, and the other old timers who originated practical pistol shooting, used to do a lot of belt-level point-shooting, and we enjoyed it very much. Ray Chapman, Elden Carl and I used it and demonstrated it at length, but the acknowledged master of the art was Thell Reed. Thell's specialty was not exactly "hip shooting," since he fired with the pistol at belt level and a forearm's length forward, but he could do amazing things that way. I do not expect you to believe it, but I have seen Thell hit that iron chicken at 50 yards consistently, without sights. I certainly admire his amazing talent, but I must point out that when Thell entered competition against any of the original masters he shot from the Weaver Stance.
> 
> The idea that one is quicker without sights has been thoroughly disproved. In the time it takes you to get the pistol out of the holster you can raise it to eye level. The fastest single shot I ever saw hit under controlled conditions in competition was shot in .45 seconds, and it was shot from Weaver. The only sensible reason for shooting without the sights is under conditions where the adversary is so close that he may deflect your pistol with a hand block, and here we are talking about a range of 2 or 3 feet - not yards.
> 
> Col. Rex is a good old boy, and I enjoy reading him, but this is one topic on which we definitely disagree." -Col. Jeff Cooper



That having been said......I suspect that the truth is not entirely polar......the Point Shooting systems have much to offer, especially in training extreme close quarters shooting.


----------



## AzQkr (Aug 17, 2008)

_While I respect anyone who trains hard to learn the art of the pistol......i'm far from convinced that Point Shooting is superior to the Modern Technique.

_Threat focused skills aren't superior or inferior to the modern technique [ sighted fire ]. Neither should be trained exclusively over the other. They compliment each other, based on the "time/distance" equation you find yourself in relative a SD situation. 

All my carry guns with the exception of two [ used for demonstration purposes in the classes ] have night sights and one has the XS big dot front sight. 

When the time is short [ you're behind the curve for some reason ], and the distance is within the scope of various threat focused skills, you are going to be faster to hits on threat using them than any sights verification system. 

Fight to the sights, don't die trying to get to them.

Brownie


----------



## Deaf Smith (Aug 17, 2008)

AzQkr said:


> Threat focused skills aren't superior or inferior to the modern technique [ sighted fire ].


 
I'll agree with that much.

The thing is, sighed fire takes no longer to use than point shooting (unless you don't understand the idea of flash sight picture.) And retention shooting can do well to at least 2 yards if not more. And that gives the overlap needed. Sighed fire can be used from almost zero range on out, and retention can go from zero to the max distance the shooter can get good hits fast from the belt level.

Now brownie has said he had 8 hrs or so of MT instruction, yet he never had heard of Gunsights field manual (a paperback issued at gunsight orange, Jeff Coopers writings, not gunsight grey, after he left) nor the abiltiy to shoot in darkness where one cannot see the sights. 

That manual had far more than the five main principles of the MT. Thing is you can get the principles off the internet, but you sure can't get the manual!

And the ability to use a form of sighted fire and retention to cover the whole spectrium, and thus pair down what all is needed to master, is why I feel it's the core.

If later you want to add such as point shooting, or long range shooting, sure, the skys the limit. But it's not the core.

Deaf


----------



## AzQkr (Aug 17, 2008)

_The thing is, sighed fire takes no longer to use than point shooting (unless you don't understand the idea of flash sight picture.)

_Well, again we see you arguing with the statements from some of the best trained MT shooters in the country Deaf, but thats exactly what I've come to expect from you based on your lack of actually knowledge on this subject based on your lack of training in this course materials.

22 years of constant MT training at the highest levels our govt can and does provide has been dismissed after just two days of threat focused skills in the ITFTS's course.

His quote again which confirms over and over by MT shooters who've been through numerous national MT instructors courses:

_"I made the decision to take Brownie's "Quick Kill/ Threat Focused Response" class this past weekend in Flagstaff. I've been shooting for over 25 years in both the military and the civillian world. *I've been to a number of the high end shooting schools *and am always striving to maintain and develop tactics and mindset."

_*"Having said that, I can say this was this was the finest real world training I've had"

*_"The tactics and skills Brownie teachs and has developed are quite simply the fastest way to kill an opponent.That's the stuff I want. I was hitting targets out to 100 yards using no sights. On the second day my front sight boke off, no biggie, I wasn't using it and didn't need it anyway.

I was a confident shooter prior to taking this class but after completing it I feel as if the skills and tactics taught by Brownie will be the ones to save my life in the event of a real world gunfight. They are the ones I will spend my precious training time on. *No more front sight trigger press for me."
--------------------------------------------------------------------

*_Just read the above bolded aqain. I'm quite sure one of the most professionally trained MT shooters this country produces has more actual experience using the MT skills over a lifetime of professional service in hot spots all over the world than yourself. His opinions mean more to me than yourself [ only becuase I know you haven't been in 22 years of hot spots actually shooting at and being shot at like he was ]. 

Here's a quote from a Sgt. named Ayman Taha who served in the 5th SF group in Iraq, kicking doors at 4am taking terrs down after two days one on one with me here in Az just before he deployed. 

_"The techniques Brownie and 7677 are using are making all the difference for me over here. Believe me, *when you are clearing rooms for real, you definitely want those techniques in your toolbox*. Stay sharp,
_
_ataha"
______________________________________________________

_I find it interesting you dismiss them as unnecessary skills and all you need is front sight press and a retention position to solve every problem most efficiently, yet real world shooter who have seen the elephant readily state the skills I train others in are the ones they will use [ and did use in battle ] over their extensive MT training.

I'll let the readers decide who has a more clear picture of what works better in the real world Deaf. Your statement that _"The thing is, sighed fire takes no longer to use than point shooting (unless you don't understand the idea of flash sight picture.) _clearly shows your lack of real world knowledge where threat focused skills are concerned.

If MT skills didn't take any longer to use, you wouldn't be reading reviews from real world soldiers and people who've had dozens of professional MT courses make the statements they do based on actual experience, not supposition. 

This summer I've been training a 12 man USAF Para-Rescue [ PJ's ] unit here in Tucson. They've now reverted to the threat focused skills from my course as well and it's what they'll be using when they jump into a combat zone under fire and rescue/retrieve downed pilots while their lives are at stake.

Seems they've had all the MT training one can get in their profession as well, but they move to these skills when it's their lives at stake. They brought me in to help them survive real world encounters with skills that they feel are superior to their extensive MT training.

Of course I could be wrong, but I tend to think their professional MT training has been far more extensive than your own, and they have the benefit of actually having taken the threat focused training to know what they are talking about when they make the above statements, unlike yourself.

One last quote from a student who has been to the Gunsite, Thunder Ranch, and Front Sight MT schools on numerous occasions [ in other words, he's well versed in MT skills ]:

_"So if you use your sight(s) instinctively via training and you use the right technique, it isn&#8217;t slow. *But the up close stuff Brownie teaches is simply faster and I can prove it."*_

Thanks Brownie &#8211; great training.
_________________________________________________________

Brownie


----------



## Deaf Smith (Aug 17, 2008)

22 years of government MT training? Are you saying the U.S. military uses Coopers MT system? The whole system, right? Is that it brownie? Do you understand what MT is? You know large bore handgun, SA pistol and all that?

I suspect you kind of blur all sighted forms of firing as being 'MT' and this clouds your judgment. And that is what bothers me. You don't really know what these people are trained in. It's all 'MT' to you.

Deaf


----------



## AzQkr (Aug 17, 2008)

The US Army SF 5th Group trained at Gunsite, Blackwater and several other MT schools [ many of these training centers are by THEIR OWN definition MT schools ]as a unit over the course of 6 months before deploying. Ayman came out here with "Front sight press" skills he was trained in at these same schools. Is that MT enough for you deaf?

_Are you saying the U.S. military uses Coopers MT system?_

_*"No more front sight trigger press for me" *_from the pathfinders AARFront sight press is considered modern technique. Whether that all inclusive of present day MT or not isn't my concern. What is my concern is that these front sight press trained operators are finding they are faster with the combat accuracy in less than two days over their previous training which is heavily weighed in the MT skills sets so that may have a better chance of surviving with a pistol should the need arise and the skills are warranted based on the time/distance equation they finf themselves involved in.

Police depts around the country have been primarily using part or all of the MT platform for their officers pistol skills.  Here's an AAR after a few days with me out here in Az. from a firearms trainer for a major PD in California with over 1400 officers in his charge who'd also been to several of the "MT" schools across the country and trains his officers per their SOP's in MT skills:

_"I was of course a little apprehensive about how I would fare with the QK technique. Brownie assured me I would do just fine, still being the type A+ Obsessive Compulsive Disorder personality, I was my own worst enemy. I would not settle for anything less than the utmost perfection. *I had been a MT shooter all my life"*

"*Brownie showed me techniques that doubled my speed from draw to shots on target with combat accuracy*. He showed me techniques that I had never seen before which, in my humble opinion, were life saving combat techniques which should be taught to every responsible gun toting person on the planet."

"I will say this. Brownie tried and tested various techniques which I had never seen before. *These techniques work, and are repeatable. They work every time.* I have added these drills into my personal bag of tricks, and will practice them weekly.*They will be life savers in a gunfight.*..This is what it's all about, winning a gunfight and going home to my family, cause at the end of the day, that's what counts."_
___________________________________________________________

And the hits just keep coming--------------------no matter what you think is necessary or unnecessary where self defense skills with a pistol are concerned. Pay particular attention to his comment about "*I had been a MT shooter all my life"*". If you are willing to argue that they don't know what MT skills are, or that their visits to Gunsite are anything but MT training in some form or another, take it up with them. 

Like I mentioned before------I like to let my students speak to the training. They tell me they've been MT students and instructors for years, and they've been to Gunsite which *is *the grand daddy of MT training. If you can't believe they understand MT skills after having attended Gunsite [ and other ] MT training, I guess we're at an impasse. 

Brownie


----------



## Brian King (Aug 17, 2008)

*AzQkr wrote*



> "Fight to the sights, don't die trying to get to them."


 
Nicely said

Thanks
Brian King


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Aug 18, 2008)

AzQkr said:


> _While I respect anyone who trains hard to learn the art of the pistol......i'm far from convinced that Point Shooting is superior to the Modern Technique._
> 
> Threat focused skills aren't superior or inferior to the modern technique [ sighted fire ]. Neither should be trained exclusively over the other. They compliment each other, based on the "time/distance" equation you find yourself in relative a SD situation.
> 
> ...


 Good response per MT versus PS.....and clarified a couple things I had misinterpeted from reading your comments. I absolutely agree that threat focused shooting is the answer at close quarters, and it's the way we already train.

But, then that's exactly what Col. Jeff Cooper was training, too......


----------



## AzQkr (Aug 18, 2008)

_I absolutely agree that threat focused shooting is the answer at close quarters, and it's the way we already train.

_Please define the distance of "close quarters" so we're all on the same page.

Brownie


----------



## Deaf Smith (Aug 18, 2008)

AzQkr said:


> The US Army SF 5th Group trained at Gunsite, Blackwater and several other MT schools [ many of these training centers are by THEIR OWN definition MT schools ]as a unit over the course of 6 months before deploying. Ayman came out here with "Front sight press" skills he was trained in at these same schools. Is that MT enough for you deaf?Brownie


 
And that's the only thing way they trained brownie? And all Blackwater teaches is Cooper's MT. Are you SURE? Weaver stance? Hmmm?

I sure remember three Marine instructors at the Chapman Academy when I trained there. In fact, I've seen military instructors at most places I've trained. And to think the SF never trained for 20 years at any other method except Coopers MT, Weaver stance and all.

That don't compute brownie.

Still sounds like you mix all sighted fire methods with Coopers MT and don't have a clue as to what flash sight picture and the presentation methods of Coopers MT.

Deaf


----------



## AzQkr (Aug 18, 2008)

_And that's the only thing way they trained brownie? And all Blackwater teaches is Cooper's MT. Are you SURE? Weaver stance? Hmmm?_


Perhaps you missed this before, let me reiterate it once more for you.

Whether that all inclusive of present day MT or not isn't my concern. What is my concern is that these front sight press trained operators are finding they are faster with the combat accuracy in less than two days over their previous training which is heavily weighed in the MT skills sets so that may have a better chance of surviving with a pistol should the need arise and the skills are warranted based on the time/distance equation they finf themselves involved in.

Perhaps you need to realize that no matter what these guys were trained in at those training centers, whether that was all inclusive of MT or not, included the whole soup to nuts or not, they all have made their AAR statements listed throughout this thread, and then some, and that sir, is THE important message here:

That they've been to these schools, which include the Gunsite courses, and advanced level courses at that, and their opinion, having taken all that training and then the ITFTS course, is that they'll use the skills I train them in, and not the skills these schools offered. 

I'm not interested in what they trained at these schools, whether that was all or part of the MT skills, I'm interested in their opinions about which skills are btter capable of keeping them alive.

Your constant straw argument about excatly what they were taught, whether that was all inclusive or not is irrelevant. They trained at these schools extensively, all of them teach MT skills in some form or another, they are ones who state they were taught MT skills, and they are the ones who've decided those skills are not as effective as the skills I teach.

Thats pretty damned simple to understand, so stop trying to complicate and distract from the facts in evidence from their AAR's. Its not going to work here anymore than it's worked at other sites.

Unfortunately, you don't have the benefit of both worlds like they do, having taken the training. Multiple years and multiple schools under their belts, real world do or die, and they've expressed their opinions on which has more value to them when lives are at stake.

Lets stop the dancing, you don't have the knowledge to make an educated/informed opinion, you can only follow me around the net and try to circumvent and confuse the subject in some attempt to justify your own opinions as to what is or is not necessary where SD skills with a pistol are concerned.

Brownie


----------



## Deaf Smith (Aug 18, 2008)

What you missed brownie was the fact there are many ways of sighted fire and MT is only one. Yet you call all sighted fire MT and claim the SF use 'MT' and claim you have had courses in "MT" which oviously you havn't.

All you can say is some people who had some kind of sighted fire training didn't do as good as point shooting. And these people didn't even know what form of training they had.

That would be like someone here talking about how important and essential high kicks are in Shotokan. That meanly means they have no training at Shotokan.

All this makes what you say suspect. How about ringing up your SF friend and find out exactly where his '20 years' of MT was at and just what did he train in (if at all.)

Deaf


----------



## AzQkr (Aug 18, 2008)

_What you missed brownie was the fact there are many ways of sighted fire and MT is only one. Yet you call all sighted fire MT_ 

What you've missed over an over again is the fact that they've been to the some of the best high level sighted fire schools in the country and have decided the skils I give them are where they want to be after two days, even when they've been training professionally for over 20 years for some of them.

It's no more or less than that, it's quite simple. 

_All this makes what you say suspect_

What I say? The students who've been these other schools are doing the talking, remember the excerpts Deaf, not mine, theirs. Try to stay on course here, and not attmept to keep putting others thoughts into my mouth.

WhatI think is irrelevant, it's what the SF'ers, PJ's and those who've committed to the gunsites of the world as civilians is important. They've spoken based on understanding both sides of ther equation, something you can't speak to.

Brownie


----------

