Point Shooting

[Sam Shoun]

This all depends heavily on your definition of "point shooting". All shooters are using some sort of visual reference, just not always one as precise as a sight picture. Pineau's video above is a prime example. He says "no way of aiming", which is not really an accurate characterization. You can center the A zone of that target in the frame of that red dot and ensure hits as that distance. I've tried a method where I center the spot from my TLR-1 on a target and get reliable hits at similar distances. And anyone who shoots IDPA has probably made very close range hits without a sight picture. That's all aiming.

I prefer to view it as a spectrum, varying the precision of one's visual indication of point of aim. At closer range, one can get away with very loose indication. At longer range, one needs more precision. How much visual precision is needed depends on many factors--the skill of a well-indexed grip and stance being a major factor, and there are particular grip/stance combinations I believe have been shown more conducive to success with "loose" visual indication. Here's an example (skip to 3:12, but I recommend the whole series):




Some people also shoot from "floated" positions (gun not in the line of sight, not indexed against body). I've seen extremely effective weapon floating at short (zero) distance in force-on-force practice. I believe this is a skill worth training, for SOME people (separate subject). However, I am unconvinced that floating for anything past a few feet is worthwhile for self-defense. I haven't seen it work under pressure, or produce faster/better hits than "sighted" fire. Those who do it well on the range still depend on visual reference, but rely on more precise mechanics across the entire body. Talk about complex motor skills.

So there is a lot of gray area between "sighted fire" and "point shooting", and most utilize the gray area to some extent. But I think the fighting sciences are sufficiently advanced that we can dismiss the "you can't/won't use your sights in a fight" mentality as BS.

 

[ArGyLe64]

There's a reason they teach point shooting at CLEET and at FLETC. All you that see here on your high horse and bash the idea wile insulting the OP are rude and ignorant. If the SHTF right in front of you and everything escalated in milliseconds you're going to "point shoot". At high speeds and close range you will not focus on your front sight. Those of you on here who do not recognize this technique and shun upon it need to get out of "1980 through 1983" and recognize reality.

To the OP: Your sights should be your primary means for aiming your firearm. But if your threat is too close (within 3 yards) point shooting is perfectly acceptable. It's your life and you need to defend it with any means possible. Getting your gun up and out on your target faster than them can be the difference between you going home or to the morgue. Don't listen to the jackwagons on here who insult you or think it's a stupid idea. If they were in the thick and their life was threatened at close range they would probably point shoot anyway.

If you want to practice do so by shooting at a target within 3 yards and keeping your pistol in your normal shooting position as if you were going to aim down the sights but instead focus on the threat instead of your front sight. Then after a few rounds move the target further back. Focusing on your front sight should be your main priority for practicing but it doesn't hurt to practice point shooting a little.

 

[MLRyan]

Yeah serious.

I was hoping for better constructive criticism.

So what do you all teach if a threat is just out of combatives range and bearing down on you?

The thought of being able to draw from a holster or raise a pistol from say 6 or 8 ft away and shooting them in the chest doesn't sound impossible to me at all without sights....

Consider a threat bearing down on you. It takes most people around 2 seconds to cover 20 feet from a dead stop.

 

[yukonjack]

People that bash point shooting simply have not mastered the art or don't have the skill set to do so. If they put more practice into the skill instead of thinking about verbage to put on paper they'd probably become good point shooters.
.

 

[Glocktogo]

I happen to be a fairly good point shooter and I wouldn't rely on it in a defensive scenario. But there's a caveat to that. If you're in a position where locating and aligning the sights will take more time than you have, by all means use gross motor skills to align the gun and go to work. If you're in the clinch, you're not going to get a sight picture. If you have to work a guy off you, you shoot whatever your muzzle will cross on him and work your way in. If you've been knocked down and you're at an odd angle, you might not get a sight picture. If you're not squared with the threat at close range, it might take too much time to get a solid sight picture. If you're moving off line, etc., etc., etc.

Jim Cirillo has effectively used the silhouette of his gun against the adversary to take out bad guys. Bill Jordan was a superb point shooter. A lot of it depends on your training and how much time you spend developing the skill. But when time permits, sighted fire is always preferred.

I'd suggest the OP go to a pistol match and try point shooting under the stress of competition. Likewise, I'd recommend training where you do wind sprints or some other strenuous exercise immediately before picking the gun up and seeing how your skills fare when your heart rate is way up. Then come back and tell us what you've learned.

 

[Michael Brown]

There's a reason they teach point shooting at CLEET and at FLETC. All you that see here on your high horse and bash the idea wile insulting the OP are rude and ignorant. If the SHTF right in front of you and everything escalated in milliseconds you're going to "point shoot". At high speeds and close range you will not focus on your front sight. Those of you on here who do not recognize this technique and shun upon it need to get out of "1980 through 1983" and recognize reality.

I will now get out of my 1980's mindset.

I am glad you are here to tell me what I will do.

Michael Brown

 

[SMS]

A lot of it depends on your training and how much time you spend developing the skill. But when time permits, sighted fire is always preferred.

Thats the crux of it for me. Can point shooting be effective? Sure...with a lot of practice. No argument there.

It's also hard to argue that aimed fire isn't preferable to unaimed fire...so with limited training $$ and time, if I'm going to have to practice alot why not practice the best technique, which is aiming my weapon. I'd rather be really good at aimed fire, than split my training resources and be sorta-good at both.

Tom Givens is supposed to have written a great article on this very topic in the Jan edition of SWAT....

 

[Sam Shoun]

I will now get out of my 1980's mindset.

I am glad you are here to tell me what I will do.

Michael Brown

...And just when I was starting to develop a fondness for your 5.11 skinny tie.

 

[aestus]

What years of internet experience as a couch operator has taught me is that when things aren't going your way and you're getting your butt handed to you, put your flame suit on, mute the other players, and bust out the noob tube.

 

[MrShooter]

What are your thoughts? I think it is viable. In a reactive gunfight you most likely won't be able to use your sights. Don't get me wrong aimed fire is best but not the fastest if you are caught behind the eight ball. There is a time and place for everything.

Its not easy to use your sights in alot of positions you could be in when under attack. There is so many possibilities and not all include being able to have your eyes aligned with your gun. Crimson trace laser grips are helpful in these positions.