Speed?Power?Accuracy?

[dearnis.com]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[KenpoTex]

Great discussion guys, a couple more points:

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

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

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

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

 

[Tgace]

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

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

 

[Cruentus]

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

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

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

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

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

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

What matters is what works.

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

Paul

 

[Tgace]

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

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

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

 

[Cruentus]

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

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

 

[loki09789]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Cruentus]

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

That's good, and it should.

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

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

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

Paul

 

[Cruentus]

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

Quick question...

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

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

 

[dearnis.com]

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

 

[Tgace]

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

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

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

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

 

[Cruentus]

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

Also...very nice website....

 

[loki09789]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[dearnis.com]

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

Well said.

 

[Tgace]

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

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

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

 

[dearnis.com]

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

 

[Tgace]

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

 

[Tgace]

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

 

[dearnis.com]

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

 

[Cruentus]

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

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