Point Shooting

[DRM]

I'm curious...

What do you IPSC guys think about "Point Shooting" ???

By Point Shooting, I mean 100% target focus, not seeing the sights or relying on them or using them in any way shape or form.

Does Robbie Leatham really always see his sights?

I ask because Todd Jarrett tells me a ALWAYS see's his...

Stay safe,

D.R. Middlebrooks - Director

Tactical Shooting Academy (TSA)

http://www.TacticalShooting.com

(Edited by DRM at 12:51 pm on Dec. 4, 2002)

[EricW]

DR-

You need to read Brian's book.  He covers sight focus in there.  I think you're talking about a type 1 or type 2 focus.

[Tactical Incorrectitude Mode ON]

For me, changing my sight focus depending on distance and what's needed at the time hasn't been deliberate, it just happens.  Brian's analysis of it is great, because then you can then reflect on it and allow what's necessary to happen rather than fight it.  I'm a new shooter, and although I don't think I ever totally ignore the sights, on the closer targets I  definitely look through them more than look at them.  But, my sights are always there to some extent.  They have to be since they're between me and the target.  There's a difference between not seeing your sights and just gleaning what information you need off of them.  I do a lot more gleaning at 50 yards than 5 yards.

I'm sure that some people make true point shooting work.  (Although my Dad was the only person I've met that could actually do it conistently, notably from the hip.)  For practical purposes, point shooting just seems like another crutch for people who don't want to put in the time to learn how to index their gun.  I'm sure it works at 7 yards, but beyond that, completely ignoring the sights is just going to cause total misses, so why go there in the first place?  

[Detlef]

when I don't see the sights in any way, shape or form on a shot, even a close-up one, I shoot again! Very powerful technique that took me much too long to learn. One might want to call it Point Missing, and the awareness of it.

--Detlef

(Edited by Detlef at 3:49 pm on Dec. 4, 2002)

[Jake Di Vita]

I have a lot of experience on this since I never actually started seeing my sights for my shots till about 3 months ago. When I first started I was so concerned with speed that I never took the time to learn how to shoot with looking at your sights. Point shooting all depends on your index and target focus. If my first shot goes into the A zone, then I have a point of reference and can consistently hit the A zone for the rest of the stage (assuming there are no targets out to 20 yards). However, If I'm even slightly off I'll start pulling C's, D's, or even Mikes. At the IDPA Nationals this year which was when I was just beginning to learn how to shoot while seeing my sights, I frequently went back to point shooting just out of habit. This habit cost me about 6 Mikes. The same can be said with the MI State USPSA match. 90 points in penalties there. All this being said, I think that point shooting should be used very liberally, and only by those who have a very well developed index. Granted at 1-5 yards when you are going Warp 9, you probably won't be seeing your sights for each shot. See what you need to see. For me, focusing hard on the target will give me A hits consistently out to 5 yards. Everything beyond that I need to start seeing my sights to make the hits.

Jake

[George D]

---

Quote: from TheItlianStalion on 6:53 am on Dec. 5, 2002

If my first shot goes into the A zone, then I have a point of reference and can consistently hit the A zone for the rest of the stage (assuming there are no targets out to 20 yards). However, If I'm even slightly off I'll start pulling C's, D's, or even Mikes.

Jake

---

Jake,

One stage of a match I shoot requires point shooting -  6 shots at 7 yds on target 1, reload and repeat on target2. As you say, it is important to see the first shot but if it is not in the A zone is is very important not to try to correct. The subconscious will correct the mis-alignment for you, but if you consciously attempt to correct then your shots will be all over the place.

[shred]

The top guys can use the sights just as quickly as they can point shoot-- with a good index, the sights are there anyway.

I've seen Todd & co shoot .14 splits and be able to call shots with precision.  Maybe they'd point shoot something they couldn't otherwise index onto, but that would be a rare exception.

[Jake Di Vita]

George

In my case, if my first shot is off, then all shots after that from the same position will be off as well. It does not matter if I don't try to correct it. With a fairly close target though as in your example, you can use your sights with a minimal loss of time. I'd much rather shoot all A's and be a half second slower than have some D's thrown in there. It is a risky venture to point shoot, sometimes it pays off, other times it burns you bad. Hence the importance of calling your shots.

[Steve Anderson]

I'm with Jake (Italian Stallion) on this one.

It is possible to see the sights as fast as you can point shoot, with the exception of a 3 feet or closer speed rock type shot. Even then, I'd be inclined to extend, index and at least see the gun.

In my opinion, it is a myth that you have to point shoot to be fast.

SA

[Flexmoney]

DRM,

You bring up a good question.  It has been knocked around here a few times in the past.  Won't hurt to bring the discussion back up and kick it around some...

My take...if you aren't using the sights, then what are you using?  Must be the index?

I think some, like Leatham, have developed a superior index.  This allows them to "shoot the index" further out than most of the rest of the world.

Of course, "shooting the index" is a bit easier if you are standing in one spot, shooting a plate rack or row of poppers.  With practice, a person could likley shoot them with index and timing...maybe even blind-folded.

I just realized, the last match I shot was with a gun with no sights on it.  It makes for an interesting exercise.  I still "aimed the gun", kinda like shotgun shooting...there was some tough, little steel & some 25 yard paper.

[George D]

Jake,

In the match I mentioned the rules state that, for that stage, no part of the gun can be above the shoulder, so sights are not a part of the equation.

My reading of DRM's thread is that he was raising the question of "point shooting" as shooting without using the sights, ie from the hip or chest level but relying on the ability to point the gun rather than sight it. This is what the stage of the match that I refered to is testing.

I agree that if you can use the sights then it is better to do so, but I don't think that is what DRM was asking.

[Ron Ankeny]

DRM:

As you know, most of the IPSC greats teach the technique of indexing on the target in one form or another. Matt Burkett talks about it in his book, Brian talks about awareness exercises in his book, Ron Avery talks about his Sight Alignment by Feel Exercises in his video tapes.

We all know that the goal is to bring the pistol into extension (and that word is open to various interpretations) with the sights in alignment. If you fire at that point, without confiming the alignment with visual skills, we could loosely define the act as point shooting.

I think were the big rift comes in (between point shooting advocates and sight advocates) is that the sight advocates believe in always being aware of the relationship of the sighting plane to the target. Awareness can be a slippery slope and the fit between awareness and vision can range from kinesthetic awareness all the way to a hard sight picture.

Ron Avery told me that the body presents the pistol in alignment, then the eyes confirm the alignment. You "see what you need to see to make the shot". At close yardage the shooter may not need to "see" much, but they still need to be "aware" of the relationship of the pistol to the target.

At close yardage can I do sub one-second draws to center of mass all day long and not rely on the sights at all? Yes, of course I can.  Even though I can "point shoot" I rarely employ the technique. At a recent club match I shot a four target array with an Open gun with .12-.14 splits and .15 transitions while looking at the targets. I never even brought the pistol to full extension. I did it as a lark and I had all A hits out to ten yards but then I got the mighty Mike. Why pull a dumas stunt like that when it only takes a couple of hundreths of a second to confirm the sight alignment visually?

Mr. Middlebrooks, I have read your entire Web site. I respect your shooting ability and I think you are right about several issues as they relate to CQB. However, I don't feel like jumping on your bandwagon. I think what sets you apart from others is your approach and attitude. By your own admission, you are not the most diplomatic or delicate trainer around. Your FISTFIRE technique is touted as a one size fits all solution for every one. Between the approach and the attitude, I get the impression that you feel that you are right and the rest of the shooting world is wrong. That's hard medicine to swallow.  From a personal perspective, that turns me off and puts me into an antagonistic mode from the get go. That's a shame because you might have a lot of valuable tools in your toolbox, but I'll never know.

A good example of your tactics is coming here and asking about Robbie Leatham seeing his sights. I doubt that your motive is purely one of curiosity. On your Web site you portray Robbie as a natural born shooter. You come right out and say that what Robbie can do has nothing to do with technique and can't be taught. Now you are seemingly trying to imply through innuendo that your system must have credibility because TGO doesn't need his sights. You can't have it both ways. What is it you are looking for?

(Edited by Ron Ankeny at 6:06 pm on Dec. 4, 2002)

[Chriss Grube]

DRM,

Yes TGO, TJ, Matt and the Burner are great shooters and great athletes. They also put in years and millions of rounds in practice.

You can point shoot or index on the in your face type targets but put it at 5 yds + and it turns in to a poke and hope deal.

Even  the close targets on the run you still index off the gun along with muscle memory. There is no one size fits all system. The top trainers will tell you that what works for them might not be the best for you. TJ makes this very clear in his classes. I have been a firearms instructor for my dept. for 12 years, I wish it was as easy as one system for everybody. What works for the 5' female might not be the best for a 6'6" male.

Point shooting is more of a learned index than anything else.

[Duane Thomas]

"In the match I mentioned the rules state that, for that stage, no part of the gun can be above the shoulder, so sights are not a part of the equation."

What a silly stage! What were they trying to accomplish, do you think? To see if chest-level, unaimed point shooting worked?

[George D]

Duane,

The match was modeled from an FBI combat course, so I guess that was what they were trying to accomplish. A good Service shooter will score 118/120 in this stage, so it would seem such technique does work. I suspect that it is this type of shooting that DRM was referring to when he started the thread.

(Edited by George D at 1:57 pm on Dec. 5, 2002)

[ong45]

I heard a story about Jethro Dionisio messin around one day and shooting 5 to go blindfolded . He was hittin all the plates half the time , i don't think i can draw with my eyes closed and hit  the first plate more than 1 out of 20 tries. Some of us just have superior index. btw , it was todd that told  me this story.

James Ong

[DogmaDog]

I don't really see "point shooting" as a distinct technique from "aimed shooting"...every shoot is a process of presenting the gun, refining the sight picture to a sufficient degree to score a hit, and firing the gun.  

I will allow that part of "sight picture" can be the tactile feel of the gun in your hand..."index" I guess, but there's a whole continuum from getting a tactile index all the way to getting that sharp focus on the front sight perfectly aligned in the rear notch for that 50 yard shot.

You learn through experience how far along the sight picture refining process you need to go, and cut it short when you can, and draw it out when you must, to hit center mass.

There's my dos pesos

Semper Fi,

DogmaDog

[DRM]

---

Quote: from Ron Ankeny on 4:47 pm on Dec. 4, 2002

On your Web site you portray Robbie as a natural born shooter. You come right out and say that what Robbie can do has nothing to do with technique and can't be taught...

---

No, Ron, this is what I said in the FAQ’s about FIST-FIRE:

Q: Who do you think is the best handgun shooter in the world today?

A: "Rob Leatham...he’s a natural born shooter, built for shooting. He’s long in the waist and has a short reach. He’s got excellent visual acuity and super quick hand and trigger speed. He’s undeniably the best pistol shooter of all time...probably the best that’s ever been."

Q: Well what about Leatham’s technique? If he’s the best, doesn’t that reflect on his technique?

A: "No, not really, because he’s a natural. You cannot teach "Natural Ability" nor can you impart it or transfer it to others."

Ron, I am sorry if you found this offensive.  I was being quite honest about his natural ability (why do you think they call him TGO anyway? ).  I still don’t believe you can impart natural ability (like his) to others.

Yes, I believe my FIST-FIRE System is the best, and yes, I do believe it is a “one size fit’s all” technique.  If you look at Daniel Horner and me you see two totally different body sizes. But that is not the point of the thread…

---

Now you are seemingly trying to imply through innuendo that your system must have credibility because TGO doesn't need his sights. You can't have it both ways. What is it you are looking for?

(Edited by Ron Ankeny at 6:06 pm on Dec. 4, 2002)

---

All I did was ask a couple of questions.  But for some reason, the subject of Point Shooting seems to make people mad (but then, so does everything else I teach).  Perhaps it is because I am having success with techniques that are contrary to traditional ways of thinking?

Stay safe,

D.R.

http://www.TacticalShooting.com

[EricW]

DR,

I mean this repectfully, but I've got to ask:  

1.  If point shooting works, why do you bother peddling sights and put them on your gun?  

2.  You continually put out the challenge for others to out shoot you.  Let me turn that around.  Why don't you and your disciples rip the sights off your guns and start showing up at IPSC matches and mopping up the floor with hapless, sight-watching IPSC shooters?

Strut your stuff in IPSC, not just IDPA.  Show me results.  You don't have to beat Todd or Jerry, just land in the top ten or 15 consistently.  Come to the matches and whoop everybody with a bald gun.  Head to the Steel Challenge and whoop'em all with a bald gun.  After that, folks may still hate you, but then at least they might respect you.

[DogmaDog]

DRM,

I don't think it's the subject of point shooting that's making people mad, nor everything you teach.

I think what makes people mad is what you DON'T teach.  You've made claims about the effectiveness of your methods, and about their distinctness from other, conventional methods, but you haven't really described any of your techniques.  

I don't really know anything about FISTFIRE that would allow me to make a well-reasoned appraisal of it.  I can't say I feel confident that you actually DO do anything different from what is "conventional"...for example, I described my conception of a continuum, a process of continuously refining sight picture until it becomes sufficiently refined to score a hit.  That could be substantially the same as your 3 positions, or it could be very different...we don't know without some details.

I don't really know anything about how you achieve accuracy when point shooting, and I can't formulate any opinion about whether such method would be effective or useful for me, shooting IPSC.  

So I guess the question is, what do YOU think of point shooting?

Semper Fi,

DogmaDog

[DRM]

---

Quote: from EricW on 10:22 am on Dec. 5, 2002

DR,

I mean this repectfully, but I've got to ask:  

1.  If point shooting works, why do you bother peddling sights and put them on your gun?  

---

Fair question...

When my eyesight started to go (age 44) I panicked and started designing sights I could see.  I experimented, desperate to find a fix.  I developed the first "Circle Dot" Pro-Sight (the one Todd Jarrett said wouldn't shoot).  It set the record for the highest score ever fired for a stock gun at Bianchi (a 1905 I think it was).

Then I turned my attention towards other controversial sight designs.  Ken Tapp called me and I sent him my V-Dot Pro-Sights.  He set the record for fastest elapsed time for a single run at Second Chance and then set the fastest total (aggregate time) for the entire event.  The sights helped him maintain 100% target focus and still see the dot.

I am not advocating you never use the sights.  We teach, “If you have time, use the sights.”  We also have formula: TIME = DISTANCE.  The more distance you have to the target, the more time you should spend on sights.

But I just can’t see the sights as fast as Todd or Jerry (or TGO) can.  So, I figured since my eyes are not getting any better, why not develop a point shooting system that worked?  So, I did.  Retention and Point Shooting are the foundation of the FIST-FIRE system, but not the whole enchilada...

---

2.You continually put out the challenge for others to out shoot you.  Let me turn that around.  Why don't you and your disciples rip the sights off your guns and start showing up at IPSC matches and mopping up the floor with hapless, sight-watching IPSC shooters?  Strut your stuff in IPSC, not just IDPA.  Show me results.  You don't have to beat Todd or Jerry, just land in the top ten or 15 consistently.  Come to the matches and whoop everybody with a bald gun.  Head to the Steel Challenge and whoop'em all with a bald gun.  After that, folks may still hate you, but then at least they might respect you.

---

In my business saving lives is paramount.  We are ONLY interested in what works.  My challenge is directed towards those who think FIST-FIRE is wrong.  Lot’s of guys hide behind keyboards and bad mouth my system of shooting.  They talk about me behind my back all the time. When I ask them get them to gear up and shoot, people get offended.  Hey, if you can’t back it up your , shut up.  That’s just how I look at it.  

As far as ripping my sights off my gun goes, Clint Smith made a similar challenge in the last American Handgunner.  He called it, “Pointless Shooting”.  I wrote the editor and told him I would be willing to take that challenge and “knock those bumpy things off my slide” to prove that point shooting is well suited for self defense situations (statistically, most gunfights occur at a distance of seven yards or less).  Haven’t heard anything back yet...

Now, I've always wanted to shoot the Steel Challenge...

Stay safe,

D.R.

http://ww.TacticalShooting.com

[benos]

DR,

"But for some reason, the subject of Point Shooting seems to make people mad (but then, so does everything else I teach).  Perhaps it is because I am having success with techniques that are contrary to traditional ways of thinking?"

Perhaps it's not what you teach, but how you teach it.

A - "YOU MUST do it this (MY) way because I've had (limited, at best) success with MY method, no matter what Temperament, motor skills, body size or type you were born with" - approach basically annoys true seekers. To say nothing of those who have proven themselves year after year in VARIOUS, MULTIPLE National and International championships. All you'll get from them is a good laugh. Think about it - Regardelss of the specifics, how far would you get if you tried to force-feed your "my-size-fits-all" approach down Rob Leatham's, Todd Jarret's, Jack Nicholas's, or Tiger Woods's throat.

A "my-dogma-is-the-only-dogma" preaching approach might attract a few lost souls, but it won't get you far with this group.

And one last thing - from everything I've heard you're a decent shot, so, your original question in this thread is a bit disappointing, because,

You know when you need to:

See a good sight alignment, or

See a course (maybe out of focus) sight picture,

Or just notice the top of the gun.

So your "passively-vague" question has no meaning.

And you also know that the controversial phrase - "point shooting," means something different to every person who is silly enough to indulge in it. Furthermore, knowing your skill level and attitude, it wouldn't appear your post was designed to either help yourself or any one else. My first thought as  I read your post reminded me of a thead on GlockTalk a year or so ago -

"Which is better, Weaver or Isosceles?" I happen to know the excellent shot who started that thread (under a pseudonym) - he did it just to get everybody all stirred up.

Here's a question for you - Are you on this forum to learn, share (or help out), or promote?

be

[DRM]

---

Quote: from DogmaDog on 10:58 am on Dec. 5, 2002

DRM,

I think what makes people mad is what you DON'T teach.  You've made claims about the effectiveness of your methods, and about their distinctness from other, conventional methods, but you haven't really described any of your techniques.  

---

Guilty, as charged...

Yes, I have been overly protective of it over the last (4) years.  Maybe now that the book is coming out, I will be willing to share more information (at least that way, I’ll get some of the credit for it! ).

BE,

I have tried to play nice.  Been accused of a lot of things I did not even do (by you and others, both on and off list).  Seems to me you are upset that I'm here. What's the deal?

Stay safe,

D.R.

http://ww.TacticalShooting.com

(Edited by DRM at 12:21 pm on Dec. 5, 2002)

[Paul Sharp]

To a performance oriented shooter, which is what I consider myself or at least what I am attempting to be, you have to see what you need to see to make the shot.

Here comes some more thread drift.  The issue of IDPA or IPSC is moot and counter productive.  Ultimately this is all about performance, can you shoot regardless of the arena?

For the sake of useless knowledge and those that play trivial pursuit..., the word competition comes from the late latin competre, meaning to strive together.  

The true meaning of competition, in this case shooting, is to work together to improve one another.  So, regardless of the venue, I will learn.

Case in point, all the top shooters teach something similar to this; See what you need to see to make the shot.  That might involve the sights, than again, it might not.  The sight picture you need is subjective to the distance to the target.

btw, D.R. has disciples?!    I got into this for the potential harem.  Harems are cool, a bunch of guy's following me around, not cool.

Lunch is over, back to the mine.

[benos]

DR,

"Seems to me you are upset that I'm here. What's the deal?"

Here's the deal -

"I wrote the editor and told him I would be willing to take that challenge and “knock those bumpy things off my slide” to prove that point shooting is well suited for self defense situations (statistically, most gunfights occur at a distance of seven yards or less).  Haven’t heard anything back yet..."

Your last sentence reveals who you are. Your passive-aggressive attitude haunts your every post. And you wonder why you annoy people.

"In my business saving lives is paramount."

Would you please read the "Announcements" for this forum. Especially "rule #2." Meaning - if you'd like to continue participating on this forum, stop justifying your every post by  referencing defensive or tactical techniques and scenarios.

Personally, I have no problem with defensive, tactical, or survival topics. Nevertheless, I/we decided early on that this forum is not for those topics; however, there's a boatload of forums in cyberspace that are, just waiting for you.

be

[benos]

I'd like to make a "two-fold defensive" post - using the skill level required to be a successful "tactical shooter" to defend the spirit of this forum.

Once you've trained long (and properly) enough to reproduce an accurate index on demand, it's not difficult - even with the coarsest of sights, or even just looking down the top of the slide - to fairly quickly hit an 8 inch disc out to about 15 yards by focusing right on the target. With proper guidance and application, one could accomplish that in two to three years of hard training. (I could, fairly regularly, draw and hit an 8" disc one to four times, at 15 yards, with my eyes closed the entire time.) My point being - if that was as far as I wanted to progress, I'd have stopped training long ago. I can't speak for everyone on this forum, but I'd guess most are here because they would like to advance to a higher level. Hence this forum's growth/competitive spirit.

be