UnderGround Forums
 

OtherGround Forums >> Bravo45 Gunfighting Discussion Thread

| Share | Email | Subscribe | Check IPs

5/3/13 12:38 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
IP
63 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 6/22/09
Posts: 4452
^^^I watched and yes - hard to believe.
5/3/13 5:54 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Rhymenoceros
419 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 14996
sreiter - try it - i have

point at something, then walk towards it following your finger

forward to 1:15... how is he able to point and make hits?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7HN7THecwg

or these guys?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rclYaXUh3c0

Let's see, where to begin?

First, your test is anything but scientific. From right here on my couch I can point at the left eye of my buddy 1500 miles away. How do I know I'm pointing right at it? Well I'll get on a plane, fly home, drive to his house go inside, walk toward him and sure enough when I get there I'll be pointing right at his eyeball. Honestly, if you don't see why your "walk toward it" test isn't moronic I don't think anything can help you.

As for your videos, you do realize those cowboy quick draw folks shoot blanks, right? The unburnt powder from a blank is what pops the balloons. It's almost like a little shotgun blast. That's not to say that Bob Munden and the guy in the video with 5 balloons aren't damn impressive, but it's their crazy speed that is impressive, not their accuracy. Point shooting a balloon from the hip at 10 feet with a gun loaded with just gunpowder shouldn't be your best example of point shooting's effectiveness.

It looks like the folks in the 2007 "world championships" or whatever are shooting some kind of reduced load wadcutter. And even from short range it looks like they miss those big ass steel targets quite a bit.
5/3/13 9:37 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Owen Gregg
99 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 3683
You guys are gonna make me get my geek on here about point shooting. I totally agree with not being able to use sights at contact distance/in some CQB situations - I probably should have mentioned that. While I'm working on that, here's Taran Butler melting a plate rack in under 2 seconds shooting from the hip:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXX39ChdHvE
5/3/13 10:55 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
sreiter
31 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 26791
Rhymenoceros - 
sreiter - try it - i have

point at something, then walk towards it following your finger

forward to 1:15... how is he able to point and make hits?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7HN7THecwg

or these guys?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rclYaXUh3c0

Let's see, where to begin?

First, your test is anything but scientific. From right here on my couch I can point at the left eye of my buddy 1500 miles away. How do I know I'm pointing right at it? Well I'll get on a plane, fly home, drive to his house go inside, walk toward him and sure enough when I get there I'll be pointing right at his eyeball. Honestly, if you don't see why your "walk toward it" test isn't moronic I don't think anything can help you.

As for your videos, you do realize those cowboy quick draw folks shoot blanks, right? The unburnt powder from a blank is what pops the balloons. It's almost like a little shotgun blast. That's not to say that Bob Munden and the guy in the video with 5 balloons aren't damn impressive, but it's their crazy speed that is impressive, not their accuracy. Point shooting a balloon from the hip at 10 feet with a gun loaded with just gunpowder shouldn't be your best example of point shooting's effectiveness.

It looks like the folks in the 2007 "world championships" or whatever are shooting some kind of reduced load wadcutter. And even from short range it looks like they miss those big ass steel targets quite a bit.

typical, uninformed, arrogant, response... you're so predictable

"From right here on my couch I can point at the left eye of my buddy 1500 miles away. How do I know I'm pointing right at it? "

but if you aimed your hand gun, you'd be dead on, rt?

Nice to know empirical, observable evidence "isn't scientific"

"As for your videos, you do realize those cowboy quick draw folks shoot blanks, right?"

BBBWWWWWWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

they shoot wax bullets from 7 yards. fucking idiot

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAeTF4l2pDs
skip to 1:29 for explaination of bullets

skip to 0:55 for explanation of distance

asshat
5/3/13 11:03 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
sreiter
31 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 26792
"It looks like the folks in the 2007 "world championships" or whatever are shooting some kind of reduced load wadcutter. And even from short range it looks like they miss those big ass steel targets quite a bit."

yeah,because missing is how the tell time, and determine winners
targets are 2ft circle...hmmm 2ft, thats about as big as a ipsc target...and are pressure sensitive and wire to a timer...thats how time is keep and scores judged.

and of you watch, most hits are almost dead center

the reason for reduced load is so they can hold competitions anywhere, and you can practice anywhere without. even in your basement.

So are you trying to say that reduced loads are why they can point and shoot and be on target?

Well my finger doesnt even have a round, so by your logic, my finger pointing should be the most accurate of all

go away troll
5/3/13 11:05 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
sreiter
31 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 26793
Owen Gregg - You guys are gonna make me get my geek on here about point shooting. I totally agree with not being able to use sights at contact distance/in some CQB situations - I probably should have mentioned that. While I'm working on that, here's Taran Butler melting a plate rack in under 2 seconds shooting from the hip:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXX39ChdHvE

rhym -i guess this guys is knocking over steel with powder blast too
5/3/13 11:08 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
sreiter
31 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 05/03/13 11:08 AM
Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 26794
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tca3wZ7z4m8

same guy claims he cant be as fast when he aims


SORRY JED /HIJACK...
5/3/13 11:18 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
tyronehernandez
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 6/16/12
Posts: 217
from my experience "point shooting" is a function of a proper draw/presentation including sight picture and sight alignment repeated to the point that you create muscle memory so that your draw will "automatically" align your sights with what you are looking at regardless of whether you are looking at the sights or not (in a phrase, NPOI). Basically with a perfect presentation the sights really just confirm aim. I haven't tested this with multiple targets or with more than two shots and this is all pertaining to only about 5 yards and in.

For me sightless fire is faster but its is no way to take a precision shot. I get "acceptable" accuracy out to about 5 yards (I can keep it on an 8 inch pie plate) but beyond that even keeping the rounds in center mass is difficult. I'm sure better shooters would have better results.

Another possible problem with this might be that once you start shooting while focusing on the target, which is a much more natural act than focusing on the FS, you run the risk of creating "training scars" and reverting to nature under stress or even fatigue. Probably better to always use the sights in training.

In "Inside Delta Force" Haney describes Delta's shooting style as "point shooting", focusing on the target only. He claims there were making extreme precision shots at lightning speed on multiple targets and used live Delta members as stand-in hostages in live fire hostage rescue drills in their shoot houses. He claimed that they point shot targets at speed that were less than an inch from their fellow Deltas' heads. I guess naturally gifted shooters with unlimited budgets and training time are capable of amazing things (and maybe some hyperbole too)?

5/3/13 12:30 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Jedburgh1
684 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 3229
Haney is confused in his terms, I think and most definitely outdated.

I can guarantee no one is teaching point shooting at the highest levels of special operations units.

It becomes a problem of paralysis by analysis; say I've trained point shooting extensively at 5 yards, and find myself in a gunfight at 7 yards. Now I've created a decision making process, however minute, that gives me an engagement stumbling block. Do I aim? What distance am I at? Can I hit from here?

When it comes time to skin that smoke wagon, I want to protect my own life and end someone else's as smoothly and efficiently as possible. Phone Post 3.0
5/3/13 12:37 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Ahren_nhb
276 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 22239

sreiter, quit being a blight on this thread.

5/3/13 1:00 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
sreiter
31 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 05/03/13 1:40 PM
Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 26795
.
5/3/13 1:41 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
sreiter
31 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 26798
Ahren_nhb - 

sreiter, quit being a blight on this thread.


ahren - blow me.

show me exactly where i'm NOT providing accurate/relevant information

oh, and since you want to come at me, judging by your record, does the "_NHB" stand for never hits back?
5/3/13 2:01 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
tyronehernandez
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 6/16/12
Posts: 218
"Haney is confused in his terms, I think and most definitely outdated.

I can guarantee no one is teaching point shooting at the highest levels of special operations units. "

I thought it sounded kind of far fetched too but if you read the book he clearly describes point shooting, though he calls it "instinctive fire". He describes focusing on the front sight as for "target shooting" and says that for "close in gun fights" you have to look at what you are shooting. He compares it to "wing shooting" with a shotgun and advocates "slapping" the trigger rather than "smoothly squeezing" it. He goes on to say so many things that fly in the face of what is considered accepted shooting doctrine these days I could hardly believe what I was reading. Again, I'm just relating what he wrote.

I have however, always thought that focusing on the front sight was such an unnatural act considering that for every other gross or fine motor skill we focus on the target/object as in either picking up or throwing an object. We've evolved to focus on a threat (and our eyes instinctually follow movement) to the point of tunnel vision and I've always felt that under heavy stress of a life threatening gun fight it would be very hard not to revert to nature and look at the threat instead of the FS.

Haney says that this is what accounts for such an abysmal hit ratio in LEO shootings - that they train looking at the FS and then under the stress of a real gun fight revert to nature and focus on the target.

This is also why I found it a bit far fetched to "count rounds" in a real gun fight. I would think that under such duress you would go into a kind of "auto pilot" and counting rounds is more of a conscious act which I think you would probably forget to do or do incorrectly under so much stress. I would think that your survival instinct would naturally eliminate anything not related to the primary focus of eliminating the target. Adrenaline does what it does.

I've never been in a gun fight nor am I qualified to question what you or he writes but I think its pretty interesting to read his thoughts on shooting and how they trained.

If anyone has the book, it all starts on page 94.
5/3/13 2:22 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
IP
63 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 6/22/09
Posts: 4455
"Haney says that this is what accounts for such an abysmal hit ratio in LEO shootings - that they train looking at the FS and then under the stress of a real gun fight revert to nature and focus on the target."

I realize this was written a long time ago, but I still believe it to be true.
5/3/13 2:36 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Sgt. Slaphead
146 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 8957
IP - Can someone explain to me why certain people excel at slow fire precision pistol shooting -while performing poorly at shooting-on-the-move, when others display the opposite?

I dunno about pistol, but here is how I see rifle.....I was never very good at bullseye competition/precision due to the repetitiveness. My mind works best when I'm allowed to flow-with-the-go....thsat's my excuse :p I shoot like I do BJJ, etc, I have no idea what I'm doing or where I'm going I kinda find my path depending on where I'm at and what is going on. For a short period of time I can force myself, but eventually nature kicks in and I start winging-it. Which makes for decent results, but not excellent result.....it is however faster and more adaptable IMO.

IMO, the best bullseye and precision shooters are mentally "slow" and repetitive/consistent. Slow in the sense they don't get rushed in things they do so they have a much better consistency in their flow of setting up a shot. They're very meticulous. I would suppose this is similar for pistol guys
5/3/13 5:58 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Jedburgh1
684 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 3230
tyronehernandez - "Haney is confused in his terms, I think and most definitely outdated.

I can guarantee no one is teaching point shooting at the highest levels of special operations units. "

I thought it sounded kind of far fetched too but if you read the book he clearly describes point shooting, though he calls it "instinctive fire". He describes focusing on the front sight as for "target shooting" and says that for "close in gun fights" you have to look at what you are shooting. He compares it to "wing shooting" with a shotgun and advocates "slapping" the trigger rather than "smoothly squeezing" it. He goes on to say so many things that fly in the face of what is considered accepted shooting doctrine these days I could hardly believe what I was reading. Again, I'm just relating what he wrote.

I have however, always thought that focusing on the front sight was such an unnatural act considering that for every other gross or fine motor skill we focus on the target/object as in either picking up or throwing an object. We've evolved to focus on a threat (and our eyes instinctually follow movement) to the point of tunnel vision and I've always felt that under heavy stress of a life threatening gun fight it would be very hard not to revert to nature and look at the threat instead of the FS.

Haney says that this is what accounts for such an abysmal hit ratio in LEO shootings - that they train looking at the FS and then under the stress of a real gun fight revert to nature and focus on the target.

This is also why I found it a bit far fetched to "count rounds" in a real gun fight. I would think that under such duress you would go into a kind of "auto pilot" and counting rounds is more of a conscious act which I think you would probably forget to do or do incorrectly under so much stress. I would think that your survival instinct would naturally eliminate anything not related to the primary focus of eliminating the target. Adrenaline does what it does.

I've never been in a gun fight nor am I qualified to question what you or he writes but I think its pretty interesting to read his thoughts on shooting and how they trained.

If anyone has the book, it all starts on page 94.

What's more interesting here is the progression.

Consider the timeline, Haney got into that unit on the ground floor in 1977.

This predates the widespread rise of all mainstream shooting disciplines that have helped influence modern gunfighting.

It wasn't until the 1990s that unit revamped its shooting techniques, mostly using Modern Technique as per Jeff Cooper etc.

Enter today, the "Post-Modern Technique" if you will, that leads us to our current shooting systems; there are lots of folks around the globe being killed by sighted fire.

Like he says in his own book; back then they considered sighted fire to be "target shooting".

It's fascinating to me just to consider how far we've come in our shooting, and also how far-reaching that particular organization has been in changing certain doctrines within the US Military.
5/3/13 6:25 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Owen Gregg
99 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 3684
Continuing with point shooting, I should say that for the purposes of this conversation I’m leaving out bad breath distance shooting. I’m also gonna put a couple definitions out there so that you guys know what I’m talking about. The definitions overlap each other.

Natural Point of Aim: Body positioning that allows the gun to remain on target with minimal/no muscular input.

Indexing: Aligning your body to a target to promote the most consistent and efficient shooting platform; the goal being to achieve a NPOA on the target.

Point shooting has been around forever. I think the earliest accounts are around the mid 1800’s. I agree there has to be some kind of value to point shooting. If there wasn’t, it would have faded away by now. Working toward modern reincarnations, Jim Gregg (No Relation) advocated his own Fire Control method and touts it as so easy to learn – you can become proficient in 3 boxes of bullets.

Upon critical examination, Jim’s standards are hitting a target at a distance of 5 yards within a couple inches of your desired point of aim.

I really hate to naysay people, but in his videos, you see guys shooting steel at 5 yds repeatedly. That’s not cool and is a recipe for injury, IMO. You also see Jim repeatedly pointing a pistol that’s in slide lock at his student’s head. He doesn’t have a “firing grip” on the pistol, but it’s still unacceptable.

http://www.jimgregg.net/

The basic method appears to be altering a student’s stance or grip until he can consistently get the desired hits on target. He’s teaching a student how to effectively index on a close range target. I’ve tried it and have as much success as his student. Anybody that has dry fired knows how quickly progress comes. Very quickly during your draw practice, you notice the sights appearing more and more quickly and consistently on target. This effect is most pronounced in guys that are just getting started. When they dry fire, they already have their target indexed, and they’ve hopefully tweaked their NPOA to get the sights on target with minimal fishing for the front sight.

Because your sights are appearing much faster and also in alignment, you can break your shot much more quickly with relatively minimal time investment.

You also have the guy at pointshooting.com. When you read his stuff critically, the bullshit flag gets raised very quickly and repeatedly. He advocates using your strong hand index finger along the slide of the gun while triggering with the middle finger. I have not tried this and won’t without losing my trigger finger in some freaky sex accident with a Thai hooker.

This guy cites an army manual that specifically refers to our ability to natural point at something and be on target. I’ve read that the manual is specifically mentioning shooting at night with a pistol that does not have night sights. Because I haven’t been able to wrap my head around using your middle finger as your trigger finger, I really haven’t delved any deeper into this theory.

You also have Faribairn & Sykes with their “Shoot to Live” book. Applegate (Kill or Get Killed) is also usually lumped in with the other two. Their method is usually touted as Threat or Target Focused shooting. This method is purported as being developed in the early 1900’s as a result of police combat encounters in China. Your data should be timely. All of these guys published in the early 40’s if I remember right. I did find a couple passages I found interesting. First, “Target shooting has its place and we have no quarrel with it...There probably will be a quarrel, however, when we go on to say that beyond helping to teach care in the handling of fire-arms, target shooting is of no value whatever in learning the use of the pistol as a weapon of combat.” And also this, “The two things are as different from each other as chalk from cheese, and what has been learned from target shooting is best unlearned if proficiency is desired in the use of the pistol under actual fighting conditions.”

I do feel obligated to mention there wasn’t any “practical” pistol competitions at the time that I know of. I’m pretty sure what they’re referencing is bullseye type shooting – in which case I would tend to agree with them.

Why does point shooting remain such a hot topic of debate? There are several good reasons. Police officers or military guys involved in lethal encounters reportedly do not remember using the sights a lot of times. In the research world, drawing conclusions from this is called “false correlation.” Just because they don’t remember using sights does not necessarily mean they did not use them. You also have the fact that the vast majority of gunfights happen inside 7 yards for police. If you don’t remember seeing the sights, and gunfights happen up close and personal; are we doing a disservice to those we put in harm’s way by teaching them a method that is inferior to point shooting?

You have to divide your examples, which is where a lot of confusion happens. You have guys that are fantastic shooters, but we can’t use these guys as the measuring stick to compare systems in this specific circumstance. Why? Because the people we are going to have use this system will never be top shooters. For every top “point shooter” there will always be a top “sight shooter” to throw back into the argument. I used to argue with people constantly about the ability to draw and shoot 6 rounds in the A zone 7 yards away in less than 2 seconds calling every shot. Anybody that follows any kind of competitive shooting knows this is a bench mark and doable by a lot of people – not just GM level shooters. Point shooting advocates dismiss the line of reasoning right away, stating that there is no way these shooters are using
5/3/13 6:27 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Owen Gregg
99 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 3685
traditional marksmanship to achieve such an outstanding display. Many point shooting advocates are unable to wrap their head around the fact that there is a middle ground between a slow bullseye trigger press and mashing the trigger as fast as possible. The vast majority of police will never shoot their weapons outside of an annual qualification course.

So, the real question becomes, “Which system will provide the best results in the least amount of time?” Continuing, the system should be simple, repeatable, and used under severe duress. I’m of the opinion that neither system will result in improved performance, unless you can get normal cops to train with their weapon more often.

IMO, the reality is this: Either system will work well for purposes under 5 yards. But, when you run into a situation that requires a precision shot (Fabled Hostage shot) or distance shot (Active shooter) which system will hold up? Consistent training with your gun should be the goal, not the method we use to teach basic marksmanship. And by consistent training with our guns, I mean training that emphasizes accurate shots on target as quickly as possible. We should be able to draw our gun to our NPOA and Index on a target subconsciously. The problem is that this requires consistent practice and most police simply do not. Taking it a step further, the best case scenario would be to train enough so that you can index a target with your upper body alone; leaving your lower body free to move/maneuver.

To wrap up, I’ll tell another story about a “friend” and the value of shooting from retention. He and his partner got a call to a domestic disturbance at a house of frequent fliers (They responded to similar calls repeatedly with the same parties involved). When they got there, they heard the girl screaming bloody murder – which wasn’t typical. Approaching the house, they heard, “Oh god, no” and found the front door locked. They knocked and announced their presence, at which time they heard a female voice yell, “Oh God, help me!” My friend kicked the door and saw this chic covered in blood, beaten pretty good. He also saw the door close to a room of his right shoulder. The lady screamed, “My kids!” and pointed to the door my friend just saw shut. His partner was on the radio and began to assess the victim.

My friend immediately pursued the suspect to the doorway to find it locked. He actually shouldered through the door. It was a cheap door, so it broke right in the middle while the latch stayed secure. He stumbled through the broken door and caught sight of the suspect now approaching him knife in hand 8-10 feet away. It was a corner fed room, so he began to square up to the suspect, left arm catching suspect’s knife arm. At the same time, he tried to back pedal and draw, but hit the wall. When his gun cleared the holster, he muzzle punched the suspect as hard as he possibly could in the skull and knocked him out. I know my friend pulled the trigger upon impact, but he’d evidently knocked his gun out of battery and didn’t get a shot off. No injuries to my friend.

I think about the situation frequently and wonder if it might have been better to shoot the suspect from retention. I honestly don’t know. Shooting from retention in this situation might have taken an idiot out of the gene pool, but it also might have afforded the suspect time to inflict injury or death. In the end, I decided shooting was the better option, as I feel it would be more likely to end the confrontation quickly. Guaranteeing a knockout with a muzzle punch isn’t possible. So I started including shooting from retention in my training. Whether or not I will use it in a similar situation remains to be seen.
5/4/13 11:01 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Jedburgh1
684 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 3232
Tough call. Shooting from retention would definitely have been acceptable, but situational awareness is also important, i.e. where are the kids, what way are we facing etc.

But the muzzle thump is always a viable option, though it works better with the long gun.

End of the day? Some people need killing, but don't always get it. More importantly the attack was stopped and no officers were hurt.
5/4/13 2:33 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
williepep
36 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 7/2/07
Posts: 7335
Since I just kind of want to post it, and can't think of another thread, ok ok wait it relates to the SCAR posts earlier with all the goodies.


Visited a shop today, "the man" mentioned he has something in the back I may want, it was cool was able to get 8 SCAR 17 mags for a decent price. There were a couple of FDE mixed in, so it was a nice little haul along with 8 Pmags for a nice price.




5/4/13 2:35 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
williepep
36 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 7/2/07
Posts: 7336
I need to catch up on the thread, but nice posts about the Haney comments. I will pass this information along, have a few friends that bring up questions about Haney's comments regarding shooting styles/techniques.
5/4/13 5:07 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Jedburgh1
684 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 3235
Haneys old. Also, PM me, I got something for you Phone Post 3.0
5/4/13 5:11 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Jedburgh1
684 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 3236
Haneys old. Also, PM me, I got something for you Phone Post 3.0
5/4/13 5:22 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
IP
63 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 6/22/09
Posts: 4461
IP - "Haney says that this is what accounts for such an abysmal hit ratio in LEO shootings - that they train looking at the FS and then under the stress of a real gun fight revert to nature and focus on the target."

I realize this was written a long time ago, but I still believe it to be true.

I'd like to hear more on this subject (Haney's quote). I found it to be somewhat true during "oh shit" situations. Anyone have first hand experience or knowledge? Jed, Owen?
5/4/13 7:31 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Sgt. Slaphead
146 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 8964
in bowbunting, point shooting/instinctive IMO is usually some method of "gap" shooting or indexing. I used to shoot trap with a riot gun and same thing IME. With handguns indexing toward the tgt a d pistol in field of view is also similar.when the pistol is at hip...is not the shooter still indexing their body toward tgt and gun at a consistent reference point?

| Share | Email | Subscribe | Check IPs

Reply Post

You must log in to post a reply. Click here to login.