Point (Instinct) Shooting Redux

[socman777]

Be here now...

Had the "experience" of reading some of the various posts re "point shooting" in general (this section) and DMR in specific. A hearty exchange. Before I start, it would be good to try to summarize what I found. The many who seemed to find fault with either, seemed to express views like these...

1. Some didn't like his posting style, felt it was abrupt and single-minded. His competitive experience was only reluctantly acknowledged, but in some cases, still denigrated.

2. Many felt that "index" and the sights were both actually used in point shooting, whether directly or indirectly (peripherally), and accounted for any success using this method. These felt that DMR's "point shooting" was but a slightly altered take on "aimed" shoot, albeit with a new moniker. When examples of shooting with no sights was given, it was posited that the barrel plane was used as a sort of alternative sight.

The elephant in the room - which was missed - is that in "point shooting" (originally taught as "instinct shooting" by Lucky McDaniel) - the eye and sights (or gun) are never in alignment. In "aimed shooting" they always are. The essential and unresolveable difference.

3. Most did not get that true point shooting (as perhaps first documented and promoted by McDaniel in the 1950's) really does put absolute and total focus on a point target, something that is relatively natural, fast and instinctive. As is pointing with your finger. It does not rely on the painstaking development of "index" and/or technical use of the front sight.

4. Most of the commenters had little or no personal experience with the method, and were criticizing something they did not truly understand or practice.

5. Most criticised DMR for holding forth that "point shooting" was the be all, end all. In fact, he made clear that he felt that this method was very effective only up to about 7 yards, but that the sights came partially into play between 7 - 10 yards, and that those sights came fully into play over 10 yards. This is a far cry from the accusations.

Does this mean I am siding with DMR? Not at all, but I do think there was an element of ganging up. Still, his responses seemed pretty moderate, though there were times his goat was finally gotten, which led to his challenges to meet for a shoot out. It is actually pretty funny that a bunch of highly competitive shooters were offended by someone who actually, uh, offered to compete.

A man of action who finally tired of a war of words. Think George Forman vs Mohammed Ali in the Thrilla in Manila, lol.

On the other hand, I did find that DMR played it pretty close to the vest regarding his method. He's a businessman who owns and sells what he believes is a valuable entity - his method - and doesn't want to give it away. It's fine to promote "point shooting" but if you post, you have to be prepared to discuss it in at least some detail. Or there's no real discussion. There was much legitimate frustration with this lack.

So in a spirit of open inquiry and discussion, I'd like to offer my own experience and understanding of "point shooting". I hope this provides some needed detail. Here's an exerpt from my blog about my first time at the range (after much, much practice)...

*********************

(Exerpt from: "First Day at the Range")

... To be fair, I had no expectations at all. My goal was simply to successfully jump in the pool and simply fire the gun. But I also knew that its important to do your best to go slowly and and to learn and practice proper technique. First up was assuming the two-handed grip. Because the handle on my Airsoft Elite was shorter, and because its slide does not recoil, I'd used a ridiculous grip that actually had my left forefinger against the slide to steady my aim. Unuseable, of course with a real semi-automatic. As far as the Glock, I'd practiced the grip shown in my NRA manual, which had the right (dominant) thumb lying over the (lower) left thumb (which was pointing foward and down near the left forefinger).

Perhaps solid enough, but on my Glock this placed my left thumb right over the magazine release. Somehow this didn't feel safe or proper. I feared it would all too easy to accidentally eject the magazine. But I'd also been an avid golfer, where the Hogan grip captures the left thumb and little finger with the right hand. Turns the hands into a nice, aligned unit. A grip I'd used many, many thousands of times. So for the Glock it somehow just felt a whole lot more natural - and safe - to allow the right thumb to angle down toward the mag release, and to capture it by placing the left thumb over it. For me, a reverse golfing Hogan grip. The right thumb could not reach the mag release, and the left thumb was held up and away from either the release or the slide.

It just felt strong, safe, natural and comfortable.

Apparently it was. After firing perhaps 15 rounds, I noticed that my shots were grouped slightly below the red zone. It is important to note that I'd frequently practiced an instinctive pointing method. I practiced in the bedroom, at the beach and other settings. I'd turn my head and quickly pick a target, point and say "boom", over and over, in one smooth motion - "firing" without hesition. I did the same with my airsoft and Glock in the privacy of my bedroom. The key was quickly picking out random targets and acting without hesitation. I'd held the pistol below my line of sight - after "firing", I'd hold position and move my head down to see where the sights had been aimed. To my amazement, I found the sights were almost always aligned with my target. With the airsoft (and it's tendency for the pellet to "hop" and shoot high) I'd learned to adjust my sight point of aim (lower) and not to alter the pointing of the gun. With the airsoft, knowing that it shot high, I simply shot at a point lower than my intended target.

I found out pointing was remarkably accurate. Back to the range.

Although I took the time to line up the sights a couple of times, for the most part I relied on my point-and-shoot method. I did not rush, but I also did not tarry. After noting I had begun to group a bit low (due to the airsoft?) I acted to try to shoot a bit higher. The shots started landing higher, but the spread had also increased a bit. But the mind-body connection is a marvelous thing. The shots started landing with some regularity in the red zone. I'd been keeping my focus on the target - not the sights - and could see where the shots were hitting (the target was nicely designed - the bullet would make a nice, wide visible white mark on the black/red splatter target).

And then something magic happened.

I'd been firing a bit faster and had just placed a shot nicely in the red zone. I took particular care in focusing my eyes - not on the sights, not on the red zone or general center - but this time, on the actual bullet hole I'd just made. Total and exclusionary focus. I shot again and struck within perhaps half an inch or even a bit less. I couldn't believe it! Lucky McDaniels would have been proud. His method - where he'd taught hundreds of new shooter to consistently hit a dime with a bb-gun - was largely based on instilling confidence. He felt that the average human being possesses well practiced skills of focus and coordination that come simply from being alive. His attitude was "...you've got it, you just don't know you've got it".

I believe this is true.

We spend lifetimes seeing with our eyes and pointing with our fingers. This is natural and instinctive for almost all of us. A gun is simply an extension of this innate pointing ability. Lucky also points out (pun intended) that when we run, drive or throw a ball we look ahead at our target - not at the ground, hood or ball. Our natural abilities, developed over a lifetime, then takes care of the rest. He said it's exactly the same with shooting, which just requires relaxed and confident practice.

I am sure that many new shooters like me, come to it with the notion that this will be hard, maybe something like golf or tennis. Swinging a golf club to hit a small white ball sitting on top of a wooden tee is not particularly natural. But unlike golf, pointing is very natural, almost basic to any human being, and a gun - particularly a handgun - is a fairly natural extension of the forefinger. Close enough that Lucky McDaniel was able to quickly teach thousands of everyday, ordinary people to shoot instinctively and accurately -usually within an hour. What I'd like to say is this...

For me, I think it's important to come to shooting with the notion that it's easy and natural, something that can be quickly achieved with just a bit of relaxed practice. To assume anything else might just be self-fulfilling, like the parent who scares the bejesus out of their child about the dangers of drowning, then takes them to the pool to learn. Compare to unspoiled babies who can be caused to swim - naturally - almost from the get-go. It's back to the womb for them.

Just like pointing. So what did I learn?

First, that the reassuring and confidence building attitude of the folks at Bass Pro set exactly the right tone. I was treated with respect and reassurance that I'd do fine. It was more an attitude that I simply needed a little basic knowledge and guidance. They didn't hover, showed confidence in me, but were there on request. Good people. Reading and understanding Lucky McDaniel's methods and philosophies in "Instinct Shooting" (by Mike Jennings) - before I went to the range - gave me not only a bit of method, but also the confidence that literally anyone can do it. As did Bob Brister's first chapter in "Shotgunning" - another classic book - wherein he teaches a 14 year old girl to shoot skeet in less than two weeks - using methods related to Lucky (training bb-gun with no sights). He too promotes reliance on our natural and instinctive pointing skills. Both Lucky and Brister noted that the sightless bb gun is aligned roughly parallel - but well below - your line of sight. Your focus is entirely on the target.

Lucky's methods were acquired by the US Army and became an official training method during the Vietnam War.

Next, all that bedroom and beach pointing - regardless of the amused looks of my honey - gave me easy and valuable practice, and confidence that what I was looking/pointing at was indeed accurate. I will add one possible caveat. I did indeed shoot a lot of airsoft plastic pellets with my plastic Colt Delta Elite spring gun. Like many other airsoft pistols with "hop up" mechanisms, it has a tendency to shoot high, especially with cheap .12 gram pellets, still with .20's, and yet even with heavy .25's. I had to aim almost a foot below my intended target. So I can't help but wonder whether my original grouping at the actual gun range - maybe 3 inches low - was related to this practice. I believe so. Even so, it did not take long for my shooting to move up and improve.

A couple of observations:

I do believe the airsoft practice had a slightly misleading effect. Still, it was good that I adjusted for its high shooting by choosing a lower aiming point; but there was still a part of me that was aware of the actual, higher target. If I were to do this again, or continue using airsoft, I would work very hard to focus completely on the lower point until the shot was gone, so as not to confuse my sight picture. Still I suspect this may not be completely effective. Lucky's method was improved in that he stood beside the student, and tossed up a ball, disk, etc. maybe just 8 to 10 feet up - very close. At this very close range, a good bb-gun will be much more accurate than airsoft. This is true for even a cheepo Daisy Red Ryder. A competition Model 499 Daisy - at short ranges - is even more accurate and consistent - and can literally place a second bb through the same hole. Although airsoft has the advantage of backyard practice, a quality spring bb-pistol shooting precision steel bb's - using Lucky's toss and shoot method - would likely be an improvement. The key is a velocity of around 250 to 300 fps so you can see the bb, and count on your natural abilities of correction.

Like a baby learning to walk, shooting quickly becomes instinctive and remarkably accurate. Any "indexing" in the technical sense was a matter of birth, development and DNA from our ancestors. Those ancestors who focused and pointed well - survived - and we are the result.

All in all, things so far have gone fine. My first day at the range at a home defense range of 15 feet resulted in about 76% of my rounds scoring "9" or better, with about 26% in the red zone. Another 4% fringed the "9" zone, with 10% fringing the red zone. For practical purposes, ie home defense, that's about 82% fringing or in "9" or better with 36% in or fringing the red zone. Honestly I was surprised to learn that this is considered more than acceptable for home defense, my goal. Still, I won't take this to heart, since for me keepin score is not the objective.

Being in the moment is.

******************

In closing, I'm a big fan of Mr. Eno's Zenlike approach of watching the weapon shoot. As a drummer, my experience is similar in that I don't play the drums, I simply listen to them. I believe the differences between Mr. Eno and DMR may be less than it appears. Both seem to rely more on technique than either would admit. Mr. Eno seems obsessed with technique and feels the need to understand (and explain) them, and to incorporate them or not. DMR takes considerable time to explain his sometimes unorthodox stances and grip. Still, both have a good sense of "the other" (not of each other, lol, although that is equally true). In Mr. Eno's case this appears to be a journey of learning to integrate the mind and body into the (goal of) shooting skills. In DMR's it seems to be extending or expressing inherent mind and body capabilities into shooting.

It may be that Eno is working backward from intended shooting performance (toward integration of mind and body), while DMR is moving forward from inherent skills toward the task of shooting well. Mr. Eno is tied to the gun as he watches it shoot. DMR is tied to the target as he watches it struck. Interesting that both are performing what I'd call "point shooting" at short ranges, with "aimed" shooting making its appearance at longer and very long ranges.

Subtle but significant differences. Both deserve respect. A personal ending note...

To me Eno's ways, at least as expressed in his book, seem less accessible and more time consuming - yet still very valuable. I'm very much into his "Zen" of shooting, Beginner's Mind aspects. To me. OTOH, "point shooting" - to me - seems more natural, and provides a needed, quick, accurate and reliable entry into shooting at up to say, 7 yards. Beginning shooters can only benefit from the early confidence and results of this method. Later, and at longer ranges both come together, as aimed shooting becomes increasingly necessary.

To me. YMMV. Cheers and up spirits!

******************

References:

"Instinct Shooting" by Mike Jennings (approx 1952): explains Lucky McDaniel and his method.

"Shotgunning, The Art and Science" by Bob Brister: a recognized and respected classic.

"It's a Daisy", page 219 ("Daisy goes to war": defines the use of Model 99 derivative guns in the Army's ‘instinct shooting’ training program.

"Army Quick Kill Program" (training text 23-71-1, approx. 1967): the official Army text based on McDaniel's method, easily found and downloaded from the net (pdf). "The purpose of this text is to provide guidance in the training procedures of... rifle marksmanship and the fast unaimed method of fire called Quick Kill".

Edited May 24, 2009 by socman777

[RobMoore]

What, no abstract? That is a hefty bit of copy/paste for a first post.

[wide45]

Brian Eno plays keyboards.

[GentlemanJim]

Ah...where did this discussion start...what thread?

Jim...lost in space

[kgunz11]

And you say DMR several times in your post, one could only assume you mean in fact DRM, but you know what assuming will get you. His name is D.R. Middlebrooks.

I don't think anyone discounts the technique, maybe just some of the claims made as absolutes. In the "art" of shooting well, there are many different viable techniques, there is no end all be all, and I have the videos, DR Middlebrooks think and SAYS his teachings are the most effective ways to learn to shoot and shoot accurately in many different situations. He has done his homework, and he is spot on in a lot of things, but in my case, he left me with the impression that he thought his way was the end all be all. Some of this is contributed to the way he criticizes other techniques. Yes, the weaver and all its variations are considered to be outdated and obsolete, but they still work well for some folks. I guess what I am trying to say is, If I don't grip and index the gun like he does, it doesn't mean my technique is wrong or poor, it just means it is different. That is not the impression he leaves an interested student willing to pay for his teachings, or from my perspective anyway.

[mike cyrwus]

Not saying its you, socman, 777; but theres a nutjob trolling all the gun boards; getting slapped around mercilessly. Hes promoting pulling the trigger with your middle finger, so you can point. Its hilarious ..and sad.

You can spell, however, so Im sure its not you.

Point vs aimed is semantics, thats all it is; we all do one, and we all do both.

[GentlemanJim]

I wonder if one can see a bullet hole faster than seeing the sight or dot lift?

Thinkin I might just stay with what I know now...let who may wish to follow this path

Lest brave souls meet on the field to ordain its merits.

jim

[shred]

I wonder if one can see a bullet hole faster than seeing the sight or dot lift?

I know the answer to that, and it depends..

With a little practice anybody can 'point shoot' close targets pretty darn well.

What they generally can't do is correct on the fly for mistakes in grip, stance or trigger pull.

That's what calling the shot gets you on close targets; not the aiming, but the real-time feedback.

It took me a while to learn that.

(NB, this may be one reason the triangle-style sight setups don't seem popular with good shooters even though there's a valid psychological reason they should work better-- all their sights do up close is show where the shot went)

Just as a practice exercise for everyone, try point-shooting some close targets, but use the sights only to see where the shots went. No traditional 'aiming' allowed. You may be interested in what you notice.

[Flexmoney]

Heck of a good post, shred!

[benos]

As a youngster just learning to shoot... I was a big fan of Lucky McDaniels. Just ordered the book from albris.com.

I was also a big fan of Lucky's "opposite," Ed McGivern. So much so that Ed was a part of my inspiration to move to AZ - you just couldn't practice arial shooting in Ohio.

I love the - just pay total attention to the right thing and let your body work it out - method of learning.

be

[opcx6]

As a youngster just learning to shoot... I was a big fan of Lucky McDaniels. Just ordered the book from albris.com.

I was also a big fan of Lucky's "opposite," Ed McGivern. So much so that Ed was a part of my inspiration to move to AZ - you just couldn't practice arial shooting in Ohio.

I love the - just pay total attention to the right thing and let your body work it out - method of learning.

be

I began shooting at about 6 or 7 years with a Daisy Red Ryder BB gun (I am 64 now). I tried using the sights, such as they were, very crude, but couldn't hit anything with it and had no one to instruct me. I resorted to sighting along the left side of the barrel and watching the path of the bb rather than the sights. This predates Lucky McDaniel by many years. I became very proficient with this and could hit birds on the wing regularly with that old Daisy.

Some twenty years later I found I could do the same thing with a '92 Winchester carbine in .44-40, I could briefly see the bullet against the sky in relation to my target, usually a crow, and did some amazing things with that old rifle in this manner.

I also learned to use the sights, but when the action was very fast it was pure instinct shooting, and I was deadly.

It is becoming 'one with the gun' impossible to teach, I have tried many times in my advanced shooting courses when I was in my prime but I would be surprised if anyone learned it that way. I belive it comes down to Zen, or being in the 'zone', which is an incredible experience in itself

The closest explanation of my point or instinct shooting as I tried ti instruct it was to 'be' the bullet and to 'be the bullet' going from the barrel to the target. This was the end stage of the course, having started with shooting dots using the sights (from John Shaw) then a 'flash' sight picture when shooting close and fast, then 'point' or 'instinct' shooting. What modest success I achieved in IPSC was using this method.

So it works for me. It may not work for you. But it might!

Bryan

[Joe4d]

In reference to D.R Middlebrook's Fist Fire, I see alot of comments either taken out of context or made by people who just dont get it. D.R. has been and has trained several IDPA National Champions but his technique is meant for defensive shooting. I have also used Fist Fire and half a day to train several woman who were a day away from loosing their job because they couldnt qualify with a Sig 226 to easily qualifing . I you attended his classes alot would make since. He uses alot of human nature and natural human reactions in his training. I you are surprised by a loud bang , IE someone shooting at you are naturally gonna raise your shoulders and duck your head. If someone points a gun at you your vision will focus on that gun not on your front sight. If you are gonna do that anyway why not learn to hit that way ? Why not learn to hit when focused on the target ? But Fist Fire is alot more index shooting, at the short range stuff you index and shoot, at the longer range you still index and the sights just happen to be right on target and in your line of sight.