Has your handgun training set you up to be killed?

[5shot]

According to modern science, the study of thousands of police combat studies, and real time gunfight videos, Sight Shooting is not used in most all close quarters life threat self defense situations.

As such, it follows that if you have been taught only Sight Shooting for self defense use, or if the main part of your training was on Sight Shooting with minimal emphasis on Point Shooting, then you have been set up to be killed.

Unless you know of, and how to use an alternate shooting method such as Point Shooting, you will have no effective shooting method available for use in a real close quarters life threat situation. And it is in those situations, where your chance of being shot or killed is the greatest.

..........

The above paragraphs are the first 3 of a new article of mine.

If you want to check out the article, click on the link below.

(If you want me to post it here, I can do that but it contains 8 pics, which is 2 many for most threads, and it is not short.)

http:www.pointshooting.com/robbery.htm


PS I used some pics from the recent robbery video in the article, and just found via a INGun Owners member's web site, the utube version of the video. Thank you.

That version looks better than the one I saw which I understand was released by the New Smyrna Beach PD. Hopefully I will be able capture some better pics from the utube video to replace the current ones in the article.

FYI, Wisdom-soft screen hunter 5 is freeware (or at least it was when I got it) that allows you to capture what ever is on the screen. You can then crop it, or whatever. Good for frame by frame, or stop action looks at what's happening if you can't download or don't wish to download what you are looking at.

 

[JimFloyd]

According to modern science, the study of thousands of police combat studies, and real time gunfight videos, Sight Shooting is not used in most all close quarters life threat self defense situations.

As such, it follows that if you have been taught only Sight Shooting for self defense use, or if the main part of your training was on Sight Shooting with minimal emphasis on Point Shooting, then you have been set up to be killed.

Unless you know of, and how to use an alternate shooting method such as Point Shooting, you will have no effective shooting method available for use in a real close quarters life threat situation. And it is in those situations, where your chance of being shot or killed is the greatest.

..........

The above paragraphs are the first 3 of a new article of mine.

If you want to check out the article, click on the link below.

(If you want me to post it here, I can do that but it contains 8 pics, which is 2 many for most threads, and it is not short.)

http:www.pointshooting.com/robbery.htm


PS I used some pics from the recent robbery video in the article, and just found via a INGun Owners member's web site, the utube version of the video. Thank you.

That version looks better than the one I saw which I understand was released by the New Smyrna Beach PD. Hopefully I will be able capture some better pics from the utube video to replace the current ones in the article.

FYI, Wisdom-soft screen hunter 5 is freeware (or at least it was when I got it) that allows you to capture what ever is on the screen. You can then crop it, or whatever. Good for frame by frame, or stop action looks at what's happening if you can't download or don't wish to download what you are looking at.

FYI... we are discussing point shooting in the "Focus" thread and I provided a link to your site for reference.

Regards,

Jim

 

[5shot]

Thank you Jim,

I'll check it out.

 

[rhino]

Failure to use the sights is one of the reasons why the hit to miss ratio for police officers is so abysmally low.

All it takes to prove that someone can use the sights under stress is for one person to do it successfully. I know more than one, and know of several people, who report using and seeing their sights very clearly during real life shootings. Even the legendary Jim Cirillo related that he could see the serrations on his front sight when he was shooting.

Some will dismiss this as people just perceiving afterward that they saw their sights, but really did not. I find that argument less than persuasive. Some will dismiss Cirillo's anecdotes because some of his shootings were from staged posititions, but again I am not persuaded because his stress level was still very high.

Whether or not someone actually does use their sights will depend on how they practice. Furthermore, the idea of a sighted fire vs. unsighted fire as a dichotomy is not a useful construct. In my opinion, there is a continuum of what level of sight picture is required for any given shot. For a difficult shot, a hard focus on the front sight is necessary; for an easier shot, a softer focus on the front sight is necessary.

The phrase coined by Brian Enos (or it might have been Ron Avery?) is "see what you need to see" in order to make a specific shot. It's absolutely true, whether you're talking about casual plinking, intense action shooting competition, force-on-force simulations, or real-life defensive encounters.

If someone chooses to practice unsighted fire and can do it well, good for them. Most people who practice sighted fire will subconsciously develop a feel for what level of sight picture is required for a given shot and will essentially be point shooting at close distances even though they can and will see their sights while doing it.

 

[Wabatuckian]

Has your handgun training set you up to be killed?

No... my handgun training has been geared toward shooting the zombie before he can shoot or stab me.

I can, and have seen, the sights during, um, "stressful situations." It is not my imagination; I'd have to be imagining, too, that the sights took way too long to come back to target after each shot. That white dot just came down slooooowly (maybe .25 second in reality, an eternity trying to get it back down).

Heck, if anything, I'd have folks do more slow motion target shooting on a swinging and bobbing target from their preferred stance - that's kinda' what it feels like.

Sight Shooting is not used in most all close quarters life threat self defense situations.

Define "close quarters."

Josh <><

 

[cosermann]

I try to be proficient in non-sighted as well as sighted techniques so that they're there in my bag of tools to be used as needed.

While, it's true that in the majority of self defense situations, the distances are such (i.e. short) that point shooting techniques are very effective, there are situations, especially in law enforcement where the distances are greater and the sights must be used.

 

[mercop]

From my own experience and that of others I have concluded that those who manage to get their pistol between their eyes and the threat may very well remember "seeing" the sights. That does not necessarily mean that they used them. More a silhouette of the gun.

Another thing that needs to be looked at when discussing police involved shootings is whether the officer had predeployed his pistol prior to the shooting or was it spontaneous. Police officers are much more likely to "draw down" on someone since they are usually responding to calls for service or self initiated enforcement prior to being involved in a shooting. They are more likely to initiate contact leading to a shooting than a citizen is.

If the pistol has been predeployed by someone trained in using sighted fire, and there is a lapse in time before shooting it only stands to reason that they will hear a little voice in there head saying something along the lines of "front sight in a fight".

Again, for the shooter to use the sights they would have to be between his eyes and the threat. At extremely close distances (3-5 feet) this is all but impossible unless full extension of the gun hand is possible. And at this distance some may find it hard to remember they are carrying a gun, especially when the natural response is to get you hands us to protect yourself.

This is the reason we teach the drop step in response to an unknown threat. Unlike some traditional training you step back with your weak-side foot instead of staying square or dropping back with your strong side foot. Because of ritualized combat this puts your new center line (your strong side) where your COM was before stepping back. If it is an obvious deadly force situation the gun comes out as if you are pointing your finger, you begin to fire into the pelvic girdle and vertically track up. Until the gun is between your eyes and the target you cannot use your sights but are able to put fast accurate rounds on target. We refer to this as default targeting.

The drop step plays into our natural fight of flight response. Think of it as running away but while you are shooting.- George

If you have time to use your sights you should.

 

[shooter521]

Unlike some traditional training you step back with your weak-side foot instead of staying square or dropping back with your strong side foot. Because of ritualized combat this puts your new center line (your strong side) where your COM was before stepping back. If it is an obvious deadly force situation the gun comes out as if you are pointing your finger, you begin to fire into the pelvic girdle and vertically track up. Until the gun is between your eyes and the target you cannot use your sights but are able to put fast accurate rounds on target.

Do you have video showing this technique?

 

[mercop]

Not yet, let me see if I can find some pics. Also translates to access while on the ground and taking physical control of someone with you.

Using the drop step and visual ques to fire like tossing a tennis ball downrange encourage people to move.

 

[cosermann]

This is the reason we teach the drop step in response to an unknown threat. Unlike some traditional training you step back with your weak-side foot instead of staying square or dropping back with your strong side foot.

I like this idea, but is it the natural thing to do for right-handers? I seem to go back w/my right foot, but I can see how that could be a problem.

 

[Wabatuckian]

From my own experience and that of others I have concluded that those who manage to get their pistol between their eyes and the threat may very well remember "seeing" the sights. That does not necessarily mean that they used them. More a silhouette of the gun.

I disagree. I very clearly saw the dot of the front sight on the target as I squeezed the trigger.

I more or less agree with the rest of your post.

You might try this for very close ranges:

1) Smack the target in the "face."

2) Draw the gun.

3) Rotate the gun hand palm up, so the sights are pointing outward. You're setting yourself up to point shoot from the hip, from right above the holster on an OWB holster.

4) Fire. You will have much decreased muzzle flip if you're doing this right. Working on the principles of a simple joint lock, you've effectively removed your wrist from the equation for the most part.

Hits should be near the belly, clustered.

Back up a step, raise the pistol to chest height and index fire. Two more steps and you should be indexing the sights. After you've gone 7 yards, you should be using the sights and a two handed grip if circumstances allow.

I also have some stances and moves borrowed largely from JKD and Aikido which I applied to firearms. Effective but training intensive.

I believe that folks tend to make shooting in self-defense much more complicated than it is.

You're going to naturally want to run from the threat, and the trick is to keep control while you're backpedaling.

Purty simple I think, unless you're training for war. Then you should be armed with something other than a handgun because you've gone totally offensive.

Josh <><

 

[mercop]

In my particular situation I used a Glock 19 and and a Mossberg 590 in the same shooting. It was a man with a gun call and I had my pistol out and found him behind cover. I was behind another officer and had my left hand on his back and can clearly remember seeing a sight picture. Later with the shotgun it seems more silhouette of the gun since I was caught by surprise.

I have found the majority untrained people will break to their non dominant side during fight or flight. Since 93%+ of people are right handed this means they break left. Of coure this depends on their left being clear.

For those of you working uniform patrol you can cut way down on foot chases by putting the cover officer within arms distance at a 45 degree angle to the suspects left rear. If he wants to bolt he runs into the cover officer, if he wants to acess a weapon or attack the contact officer he has to give the cover officer his back.- George

 

[abnk]

I disagree. I very clearly saw the dot of the front sight on the target as I squeezed the trigger.

If the statute of limitations allows and if you are inclined to share, what was it that you shot?

 

[5shot]

Thanks for your comments,

Here is a small book. My software acted up and erased my earlier attempts to respond. Could have been the operator, but i won't admit to that.

..........

Per Rhino: "If someone chooses to practice unsighted fire and can do it well, good for them. Most people who practice sighted fire will subconsciously develop a feel for what level of sight picture is required for a given shot and will essentially be point shooting at close distances even though they can and will see their sights while doing it."

The other side of that is that during the data gathering time of the SOP 9 report which studied 6000 or so NYPD combt cases, officers were taught sight shooting. The report findings found no connection between range and street performance upon a sub-study of cases to see if there was one. Also see the recent RAND report about the NYPD. On my site the page is titled: "The Failure Of Police Handgun Training"

The "point" of this is that per the SOP 9, In 70% of the cases reviewed, sight alignment was not used. Officers reported that they used instinctive or point shooting.

Per the SOP 9: As the distance between the officer and his opponent increased, some type of aiming was reported in 20% of the cases. This aiming or sighting ran from using the barrel as an aiming reference to picking up the front sight and utilizing fine sight alignment. The remaining 10% could not remember whether they had aimed or pointed and fired the weapon instinctively.

So what they experienced in combat was a 70% failure rate of Sight Shooting being able to be used. That is it failed 4,200 times out of 6000 to be put into use. How would you like an airbag in your car that worked when needed only 30% of the time.

And since officers were not taught Point Shooting, which BTW does not happen by magic, not much was hit (80+% miss raate), which is also the accepted miss rate in the gun community in armed encounters.


Point Shooting is not hard, but you have to know about it and how to do it to get hits (at least I can't just point a gun in the direction of a target and get hits). See the info on my site on the SOP 9 study if you are interested.

...............

The following is a brief excerpt from the G&W for LE 4/03 article on Jim Cirillo by Rich Grassi. The article title is Jim Cirillo, Gunfighter - Close combat techniques from the stakeout squad! (The article was about Cirillo and a class he was teaching.)

He quoted Cirillo as stating: "When you use the sights, you're target shooting." That was a surprise to some in the class....

Cirillo then went on to relate how in his first Stake-Out Unit shootout, he'd seen his sights "clear as a bell." The imperfections on his front sight were plainly visible while the suspect blurred in his vision. He reduced them to the colors of their clothing to know when to shoot and when to hold up. He explained that he had time (they'd come in the store earlier and cased the place), he had good lighting (unlike the usual confrontation), he had what he considered to be cover or concealment (a display of peanuts), and he had distance (more than a conversational range).

"If you got (those elements), you'd be a fool not to use the sights," Jim said.

It's when you don't that you use alternative sighting techniques, like his weapon silhouette and geometric point techniques....

The article touched on his alternative sighting technique, as well as "nose point" shooting.

"...The first of Jim's non-conventional aiming techniques is accomplished by bringing the gun up in front of your face and looking past it at the target. What you see is the weapon's silhouette. As long as (1) the target is (optically) wider than the gun and (2) the gun is aligned with the target, the hit will be made. It's not a real target shooting technique, but it's plenty accurate enough for a fight...."

[[To my way of thinking, to insure that the gun will be aligned with the target, you could put your index finger along its side--so the barrel will be parallel with it--and point at the target (P&S).]]

"The geometric point, or "nose point," is a course gun index relying on body positioning. The gun is centered on the body, below the cone of vision, directly under the nose. The nose--being placed between the eyes--is the one part of the body that is pointed at whatever the person is looking at. It's a very fast index and while not always the best choice, it can be the only choice."

[[The pointing method mentioned above, P&S, could also help insure gun/target/alignment.]]

Also, in one of the photos in the article, the students are seen practicing weak hand shooting with the gun tilted inboard. In a couple of other pictures where shooting is done right handed, the gun appears to be upright.

..........

With all due respect, Brian Enos is a target shooter. His web site used to say so. Don't know about now, as I was banned from there years ago.

[[As to why, I don't have the best of attitude at times, but then i'm old and crotchety or just mean. Or it could be that, those who "are in charge" so to speak, and for good reason one could say since they are competition champions, sometimes are not as nice as youse to the occasional boat rocker.

Here's a link to a page on my site that discusses the strength of the P&S grip. I wrote it as some diss the P&S grip as they think it is weak. If you used a traditional grip like Brian Enos, that might be the case, but it's not the case with the P&S grip. You may wish to check out the article the P&S Grip Is A Very Strong Grip. Basically, you can squeeze the beegebers out of the gun and all it will do is make your grip stronger.

Anyways, on that page is a link to an article on the Handguns Magazine web site which shows pictures of the grip of Brian Enos and Dave Sevigny. And in the picture of Brian Enos's grip, his thumbs do not touch the gun.

The description under the pictures reads: "Brian Enos believes one of the keys to a successful grip is having no contact by the thumbs along the side of the gun. The grip should happen strictly in the palms and fingers. Photo by Nidaa A. (Right) Dave Sevigny does touch the side of the gun with his thumbs and also considers that an important part of his technique." Here's a link: The Combat Handgun Grip

Again and with all due respect, I don't think a competition grip and use of the sights, would be what your average home defender would employ in a close quarters life threat situation. Neither did the off duty Officer in the drug store holdup.

Also, check out what Larry Seecamp, of Seecamp pistols says about using the sights since his guns con't come with them. It is on my site. Click on the link just under the pic of the Seecamp pistol. there is a link to the Seecamp site there as well.

.................

Mercop - Hi George,

Is the drop step like a speed rock? Or is it a step to the back or side.

I have heard that if you don't move out of the line of attack as in FOF, or if you stand and deliver in FOF, you end up "dead."

My page entitled Move & Shoot or Die has info by Bill Lewinski of the Force Science Institute which says you do have time to move out of the line of fire.

And here's a short video of an old fat guy moving and shooting in his garage with an airsoft to see if it can work. http://www.pointshooting.com/moving1.wmv

..........

I am having trouble posting links that people can just click on. Looks like the web geeks are developing new tools to keep people from putting them into threads. Sounds OK, just have to figure out a work around.

 

[Wabatuckian]

If the statute of limitations allows and if you are inclined to share, what was it that you shot?

Hello,

It's not something I'm inclined to discuss further, and only bring it up when I feel a particular point needs to be made and I can only make it by going from experience.

Regards,

Josh <><

 

[Coach]

sights?

Anyways, on that page is a link to an article on the Handguns Magazine web site which shows pictures of the grip of Brian Enos and Dave Sevigny. And in the picture of Brian Enos's grip, his thumbs do not touch the gun.


What does this have to do with anything?


The description under the pictures reads: "Brian Enos believes one of the keys to a successful grip is having no contact by the thumbs along the side of the gun. The grip should happen strictly in the palms and fingers. Photo by Nidaa A. (Right) Dave Sevigny does touch the side of the gun with his thumbs and also considers that an important part of his technique." Here's a link: The Combat Handgun Grip

Dave is a target shooter as well.

Again and with all due respect, I don't think a competition grip and use of the sights, would be what your average home defender would employ in a close quarters life threat situation. Neither did the off duty Officer in the drug store holdup

Not many cops are competition shooters. If I can use the sights I am going to use them. Liability for lack of any other reason. If I can't get full extention with my arms because the enemy is too close. I don't need the sights. (Perhaps that is your point)

 

[5shot]

Coach,

This is not meant to be argumentative, but more of an exchange of thoughts.

..........

I was responding to what Rhino had posted about Enos and may have carried a step to far, from target shooting to combat shooting. The SOP 9 says there is a disconnect between range results and street results.

I think "see what you need to see" is more of a Sight Shooting mantra than reality. Perhaps Brian is into Zen like stuff. And I don't doubt that to a national master shooter, such a mantra may be reality, but IMHO, not for your run of the mill home defender.

"The phrase coined by Brian Enos (or it might have been Ron Avery?) is "see what you need to see" in order to make a specific shot. It's absolutely true, whether you're talking about casual plinking, intense action shooting competition, force-on-force simulations, or real-life defensive encounters.

If someone chooses to practice unsighted fire and can do it well, good for them. Most people who practice sighted fire will subconsciously develop a feel for what level of sight picture is required for a given shot and will essentially be point shooting at close distances even though they can and will see their sights while doing it."

..........

Don't doubt what is said is true, but where are the pics, stats, and videos to back it up.

And even if my muscles or subconscious had their own sub-brains so they could remember stuff, old folks might have a senior moment sometime, and then what would they do?

The Officer in the robbery shooting was not using his sights.

The Cal SP has gone to PS as far as I know. Their version is Target Focus.

Here's some info about that:

There was an extensive article on Target Focus Fighting in the Oct 2001 issue of Guns And Weapons For LE.

Per the article, in developing the program, Lou researched 25 years of his Border Division's shootings.

"He found that 54% of the CHP officer involved gun battles occurred within six feet. Three quarters of them happened at less than 10 feet. Almost 100% took place within a 15 yard envelope.

"Ninety percent involved suspect movement and while under marginal light conditions. In 60% of the deadly force encounters both combatants were moving."

The article also states that based on his analysis, and how the majority of shooters react when confronted by a deadly threat, Point Shooting at close ranges became the core of the program.

Included were techniques for shooting while moving when one or both parties were distancing themselves or closing.....

..........

As I said above, I don't doubt what is said is true, but where are the pics, stats, and videos to back it up.

How about trust but verify?

And particularly when it comes to something that if it won't work when needed, will/may result in your demise.

 

[Jack Ryan]

How the heck did Bill Hickok and JWHarding ever survive with out all this training?

Draw your gun and shoot.

Practice it.

Practice it walking, moving forward, backing up, side to side.

Toss a pop can under handed in front of you, draw your gun and shoot it.

When you can hit it before it stops rolling while you back up, move forward, side to side, or when some one else tosses in on the ground in front of you before it stops rolling then you are ready for just about any one.

Draw your gun and shoot.

Practice it.

 

[Wabatuckian]

Jack,

You realize that Hickok in particular despised tactics such as are being taught today? He would just aim while the other combatant was throwing shots wild.

It never ceases to amaze me, how people like to complicate things that are so simple.

I would suggest, even over moving as you say, do this:

1) Practice having a calm head.

2) While in this state of calmness, shoot the practice target.

There is no room in a gunfight for emotions. Afterward, you'll get hit with adrenaline, maybe vomit, maybe be a bit hysterical, maybe laugh - whatever the flood of chemicals does to your particular body chemistry.

But during, if you remain cold and emotionless, you'll prevail. Moving is good, but a cool, calm and collected persona beats every tactic ever devised all to hell.

If you do not panic in the face of death - whether it doesn't cross your mind to do so, or if you're just not afraid of death - you'll be much more apt to be calm than a person who is afraid of death.

Josh <><

 

[Coach]

Coach,

This is not meant to be argumentative, but more of an exchange of thoughts.

..........

I was responding to what Rhino had posted about Enos and may have carried a step to far, from target shooting to combat shooting. The SOP 9 says there is a disconnect between range results and street results.

I think "see what you need to see" is more of a Sight Shooting mantra than reality. Perhaps Brian is into Zen like stuff. And I don't doubt that to a national master shooter, such a mantra may be reality, but IMHO, not for your run of the mill home defender.

"The phrase coined by Brian Enos (or it might have been Ron Avery?) is "see what you need to see" in order to make a specific shot. It's absolutely true, whether you're talking about casual plinking, intense action shooting competition, force-on-force simulations, or real-life defensive encounters.

If someone chooses to practice unsighted fire and can do it well, good for them. Most people who practice sighted fire will subconsciously develop a feel for what level of sight picture is required for a given shot and will essentially be point shooting at close distances even though they can and will see their sights while doing it."

..........

Don't doubt what is said is true, but where are the pics, stats, and videos to back it up.

And even if my muscles or subconscious had their own sub-brains so they could remember stuff, old folks might have a senior moment sometime, and then what would they do?

The Officer in the robbery shooting was not using his sights.

The Cal SP has gone to PS as far as I know. Their version is Target Focus.

Here's some info about that:

There was an extensive article on Target Focus Fighting in the Oct 2001 issue of Guns And Weapons For LE.

Per the article, in developing the program, Lou researched 25 years of his Border Division's shootings.

"He found that 54% of the CHP officer involved gun battles occurred within six feet. Three quarters of them happened at less than 10 feet. Almost 100% took place within a 15 yard envelope.

"Ninety percent involved suspect movement and while under marginal light conditions. In 60% of the deadly force encounters both combatants were moving."

The article also states that based on his analysis, and how the majority of shooters react when confronted by a deadly threat, Point Shooting at close ranges became the core of the program.

Included were techniques for shooting while moving when one or both parties were distancing themselves or closing.....

..........

As I said above, I don't doubt what is said is true, but where are the pics, stats, and videos to back it up.

How about trust but verify?

And particularly when it comes to something that if it won't work when needed, will/may result in your demise.

I am at a bit of a loss for words.
I do not want to make hypothetical comments, and I do not want to make claims that I cannot back up. I do not want to talk beyond my knowledge or experience. These might be indications I should just be quiet.

I have never had to shoot to defend myself. I have had my gun in my hands a number of times thinking it was very likely to happen. I have even covered a person on my property when they should not have been there. I am familar with the adrenal dump.

The times I had space I had a clear focus on the front sight. The one time I did not have a clear focus it was not needed as the muzzle of the revolver was in firm contact with skull.

To be perfectly honest I struggle with the concept of planning or practicing to not use the sights. They are there for a reason. Lets use them if at all possible. Lets practice so that we are good at using them.

But I can see the place for up close and personal work without them as well. I am not sure how much practice that requires. If I can hit the center at 20 yards, can I not do it at three?

See what you need to see whoever said it is sound. But if you cannot see the sights what to do? Is this your point?