Sights or Point Shooting in CQB Situations

SHERMAN said:
What they did was take M16 or more accuratly vintage M16s, and cut them down to the length of the M4 or CAR-15, or in some cases the length of the shorty.
The IDF has both CAR-15 made in colt factories and what we call "Sawed" weapons, which are the result of this idiocy. If we were in europe or north america this might actually fly, but in the desert it is an absolute catastrophy. They jam very frequently. Its less of a problem now because infantry no longer has them at all, they now have either M4 or Tavor. The only combat units that carry them are armor and arty, which fire their rifles less frequently in combat. Still, I always thought that giving up the Galil SAR for the armor troops was silly. As a tanker you dont tap around much on foot, and the Galil has unmatched reliabilty in any conditions.
Click to expand...

Indeed, I actually have some experience with the Galil from 2007 since we were partnered up with Estonians. They use it as their primary rifle, and I must say I was very impressed. I had not even heard of the Galil until I worked with them, and I was amazed at how it paired all the advantages of the AK with improved sights and an improved bolt locking design. My admiration for Israeli improvements grew dramatically once I handled the Galil.
 
19Kilo30K4,

Thanks for all responses, and yours.

As to the 1911, the original US manual on the 1911 cautioned against using the shooting method described.

And that cautioned was echoed in other manuals of that time. Here is a link to an article that has both the language and links to those manuals:

http://www.pointshooting.com/1911.htm

The links and language on the 1911 are down a ways on the second part of the 1911 article.

In previewing/reviewing how the link and the link to the manual will work, I have found that since I found the original book and the contents for FREE and the link to it, it looks like someone has gummed up the works so all the contents are not available unless you buy the dang book from a source that wants to make a buck.

So, I will research my files, and if I can find a copy that I downloaded, which my OLD and fast fading memory says I did when it was available, I will put it up on my site, and add a link to it here.

..........

As to the method of shooting one should use, per the studies of Police CQ combat, if you are going to be shot and/or killed in a pistol gunfight, there is a 90% chance it will happen at less than 15 feet.

Also, most all gunfights occur at less than 21 feet.

The reason is pistol accuracy in real life threat situations sucks (the Police hit rate in CQB is less than 20%), and that is because of the short length (sight radius), of pistols and because of the human response to CQ life threat situations. Also the link between range performance and street performance has not been established.

So it seems to me, that knowing how to shoot a pistol "accurately" without the use of the sights at CQ distances, would be good if you plan to survive a CQB encounter.

And most of the methods are not a bar to the use of the sights if you can see them and there is time to use them.
 
Last edited:
5shot said:
So it seems to me, that knowing how to shoot a pistol "accurately" without the use of the sights at CQ distances, would be good if you plan to survive a CQB encounter.

And most of the methods are not a bar to the use of the sights if you can see them and there is time to use them.
Click to expand...


Eh, but that doesn't take into account advancements in technology. We've come along way from the year 1911. Crimson Trace laser grips are an affordable and very effective means of indexing a target without focusing on the sights. Pistol mounted flashlights can have a similar effect if you are trying to hit center mass of the illuminated target rapidly. Since you mentioned that most police shootings happen at close range, it is also worth noting that most of them happen at night. Using today's modern technology can tip the scale in your favor. In daylight I would always use the sights unles I am close enough for physical contact, in which case the priority is protecting the gun and getting the muzzle onto the enemy, even if that means shooting from the hip into the gut of the enemy. That instance aside, I have never and will never encourage one of my soldiers to fire a shot that is not aimed, because as we all know you are responsible for where that bullet goes. Even in a justified shooting, if you fire a shot that hits a guy down the street, you are in huge trouble. If you fire a shot that misses the target then you've just wasted your time all together, and the extra fraction of a second you spend aiming may save your life.
 
In the case of LE and laser sights most agencies don't allow them...mine being case in point. We do allow pistol mounted flashlights but only Tactical Officers are provided holsters to leave their lights mounted.
 
Here's a link to several Military manuals that mention P&S as I call it, and also the caution against using it with the 1911 because of its slide stop design fault.
http://www.pointshooting.com/1911pubs.pdf

I had to trick google into giving me the snipets from the manuals that I wanted, because you can't preview them. Something has changed for the worse as all of those manuals are in the public domain.

If you want the Army or Marine pistol manuals of a few years ago, you can download them for free from my site.

And if you want more about the fault in the design of the 1911 and my thoughts on that matter: http://www.pointshooting.com.1911.htm

As to accuracy, most Police are taught sight shooting, but unfortuantely it is not used in CQB for a variety of environmental and physiological reasons. Here is a link to a study by the NYPD of thousands of Police combat cases for more info on that: http://www.pointshooting.com/sop9.htm

The actual CQ combat hit rate is less than 20% so saying that every shot must be aimed, sounds good, but it's not reality.

Check out what the FBI says about the concern about bullets traveling through a threat and continuing on: http://www.pointshooting.com/fbipart1.htm

Thanks again for your interest and comments.
 
5shot said:
The actual CQ combat hit rate is less than 20% so saying that every shot must be aimed, sounds good, but it's not reality.

.
Click to expand...


Notice how almost all the manuals you reference were from 1917? In 1924 the M1911A1 was adopted and it addressed many of the earlier issues that you are talking about and nobody uses the type of 1911 quoted in those sources. What you are suggesting simply cannot happen and it is not true. Sorry, but people use 1911s all the time and this is just not an issue that comes up. If you think a 20% hit rate when aiming is bad, then just imagine how low it would go if you don't aim. The 20% hit rates stated in the FBI stats also include shots that are fired by wounded officers in full panic mode after having been ambushed. It is quite probable that many of those misses were not aimed shots in the first place (using either technique). The heavy hitters in the MIL/LE community have all made well prepared and thought out arguments backed by real world experience and statistical data against this method. If you want to dicount the experiences of people like Larry Vickers and Massad Ayoob and discount the training practices of the top tactical organizations in the world, then that is on you. Your posts and the "references" that you posted out of context are misleading and wrong. No matter how you cut it, there is a reason why major organizations do not advocate the practice of using point shooting and their reasons are based on real world performance not misleading references from 1917. This former SWAT officers sums up nicely why NOT to use it：http://www.officer.com/web/online/Operations-and-Tactics/Point-ShootingAgain/3$32550

Paul Howe a 20 year vet of special forces who battled his way out of the Blackhawk Down incident and led the team that captured on of Aidid's top guys had this to say about point shooting:
http://www.combatshootingandtactics.com/published/tactical_shooting_thoughts.pdf

Word renowned pistol expert Col Jeff Cooper stated "the body aims, the sights confirm" and the list goes on and on.

Not to mention that this Staff Sergeant right here has a lot of combat time and won't bet his life on this method. <------ The only time I have engaged the enemy without sights is when firing full auto belt fed weapons with tracers, and then I walk the hits on.

So, in short, I'm trying to be civil but your opinions are not based on facts and your issue with the 1911 is unfounded and just plain not true. The slide stop detent was invented for this exact purpose! The notch cannot align unless you have defective mags with a poorly fit slide and just happen to be pressing really hard with the tip of your finger at the exact moment the slide locks back. There is a time and place for point shooting... that time is when the enemy can touch you with his hands. Oh, and did you read in the article above about how Wyatt Earp used sights? You may remember him winning many a gunfight back in the days when point or hip shooting was in style. He lived to old age, unlike many of his adversaries. Once again, take it from an actual gunfighter. Advocating combat tactics that have not been proven in combat makes little sense.

EDIT: and one more thing, you wouldn't be able to have your index finger on the end of the slide stop and pull the trigger at the same time anyway unles you are left handed (it's pushed out from the right side of the receiver) and it cannot be pushed out while the weapon is in battery. In regards to lights/lasers many of the country's leading departments are going to them, so don't just write them off as an insignifigant number since... umm, I dunno the largest Sherrif's unit in the country with over 9,000 sworn has been using crimson trace grips since 2003... http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3197/is_4_48/ai_100606756/
 
Last edited:
I carry a Kimber Custom TLE II 1911A1 every day I work. Every time I draw it as a right handed shooter I index my trigger finger along the frame and yes it touchs the slide stop pin. Never have I on this 1911 or many others has this pushed out the slide stop or caused a malfunction.

The slide would have to in motion with the right amount of pressure place the nano second the take down notch and slide stop were in the right postion.
 
Don't get the idea I'm discounting laser enhanced sites, I'm not. And while some depts authorize them none around me do, nor did my previous agencies or agencies around them. They have their place and they have their uses but many administrators have issues with them on patrol officer weapons. Our MP5's are laser equipped our AR's EOTECH equipped but the bosses don't want lasers on patrol officers pistols because of the PR aspect of little red dots center mass on people Tactical ops is different. We actually tried the laser site that replaces the guide rod on the Glock about 4 years ago. We ordered one installed it in the Sheriffs Pistol and he shot about two mags with good shot groups. Third mag the pistol went full auto. Dropped the guide rod back in the pistol went back to semi. That was the death of laser sites in my dept for patrol officers.


As far as low light and site usage I'm a believer in point shooting using my front site only at ranges up to about 8 yards. After that you need to float the rea
 
Last edited:
Maybe it's because I'm not a cop, but I just don't get not using lasers due to PR issues. That just sounds crazy to me. I've had escalation of force incidents where my pistol with laser grips have gotten the person to back off and avoid a potentially bad incident. More recently I don't use them on my pistol because I have a PEQ 15 on my rifle and that has a visible laser on it and an M203 with less lethal rounds so it's better. I light em up with the laser and if that doesn't get them to stop, they get a foam rubber round in the chest or a spray of .48cal rubber balls in the legs. I find it to be a lot more effective. The bottom line on lasers is that if you have a laser to give you instant feedback on where your gun is actually pointed, then some of the techniques of point shooting can actually be incorporated. Soldiers, cops, and competitors regularly fire laser equipped weapons accurately without using the sights, but I just can't see doing so without an aiming aid of any kind. Additionally, laser grips can give you feedback on trigger control during dry fire training and are a valuable training asset. You can shoot from positions that I wouldn't even attempt if not for lasers. Case in point: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-oRUrNjBJIE
 
Most common administrative argument I've heard is that it leaves the public with the immpression that the Police are overly aggressive and shooting to kill.

I know it's BS argument but LE Administrtors are political animals.
 
One last post for now.

Mr. Denny and the other party mentioned IMO favor Sight Shooting.

My comments and the Point Shooting method I favor has been in use since the early 1800's. Here's a link to a chronology: [URL]http://www.pointshooting.com/history.htm[/URL]

I am not familiar with the FBI study mentioned, but I know the SOP 9 was based on over 5000 combat cases, and it has not been replaced to date by better info.

I deal in facts and science not opinion or supposition, though I have them 2, and when stated, are noted as such.

What is, is what is. No one says anyone has to like it.

The US Army in its combat pistol manual of 2003, says to use Point Shooting at 5 yards and in, at night (it's basically a two handed Isso).

Also the NRA has come out in favor of the use of Point Shooting for use at CQ. there's an article on that on my site. In their 2000 book on personal protection in the home, they say: "...the ability to keep all shots on a standard 8 1/2 inch by 11 inch sheet of paper at seven yards, hitting in the center of exposed mass, is sufficient for most defensive purposes."

..........

Now, thanks to your comments, I have checked and redone my article on the fatal flaw of the 1911. Reads better IMO. [URL="http://www.pointshooting.com/1911.htm"][URL]http://www.pointshooting.com/1911.htm[/URL][/URL]

Also as far as I know, with the minor changes incorporated into the 1911A1 which took place back around 1920, it was the US military's standard issue sidearm since then and without much if any change.

I am in the process of incorporating into the 1911 article mentioned above, the references to several more manuals I have found that caution against using P&S as I call it with the "1911". Here is the link to pdf file I made that lists them:
http://www.pointshooting.com/1911pubs.pdf


Some of manuals mentioned are dated well after the 1911A1:
1925
1926
1927
1929
1941

Also just because I haven't found a slew of them, so what?

If 5 or 6 Gov. pubs won't make the case to someone, I doubt 10 or more would. Sorry but, I haven't the time to do that much chasing around in circles. And most are probably out of print.

The shooting I am talking about is CQB shooting where most all pistol gunfights occur. If you are going to be shot and killed, there is a 90% chance that it will be a less than 15 feet. So that's what I am talking about. And I am talking about your run of the mill shooter, not SWAT or SEALS.

Here's a link to my article that first carried the title How 2 Shoot 2 Kill More Effectively, until I got some flack so I changed it to How To Shoot More Effectively In CQB Situations. [URL="http://www.pointshooting.com/iwin.htm"][URL]http://www.pointshooting.com/iwin.htm[/URL][/URL]

Want to see some very short short videos of fly-bys of WW II fighters? http://www.pointshooting.com/flyby.htm

And lastly here's a pic of the 1911 I captured from the original manual (in digital form) on the 1911 that I just acquired. Cool huh?

1911pic.jpg


Stay safe and adios.
 
Last edited:
Well, I've stated my case as well as I can but we are approaching the issue from much different points. 90% of the times I've been shot at have not been at 15 feet because I'm in the Army at war and I don't make a habit of letting people get that close to me without adjusting my security set (unless I'm in an Iraqi police station but I haven't been shot at there...yet). I obviously am operating much differently than a cop or a civilian on the street would because I am in a hostile environment so these methods don't apply to me here. At home, I've only ever drawn on someone once (guy tried to rob me at an ATM in 2006) and I did not fire because he immediately ran. I called the cops instead. So, since my experiences in what works and what doesn't are from a military standpoint, maybe that just doesn't apply so I'll leave this issue alone. I will continue to use sights everytime because my life is on the line, not anyone else's. Speed is fine, but accuracy is final.

One last note, the 1911 is considered by many (to include me) to be the finest combat pistol ever made. I simply do not beleive that you can apply enough pressure with the tip of your index finger to push the slide stop out and no amount of random quotes taken out of context on your website is going to change that. The 1911 is a proven design, and just because someone with a completely unproven theory says it doesn't work well with a completely baseless method of employing it.... well, that means absolutely nothing. A properly tuned 1911 is devestating. I am not ever going to reference stuff you post on your wesite as fact. I prefer to go with sources that I actually know to be true. If I wanted to make an argument the other way, I think I'd be skeptical about a site called "sightedfire.com" as well. It's just too biased to be taken seriously.
 
5shot said:
I deal in facts and science not opinion or supposition, though I have them 2, and when stated, are noted as such.

What is, is what is. No one says anyone has to like it.

The US Army in its combat pistol manual of 2003, says to use Point Shooting at 5 yards and in, at night (it's basically a two handed Isso).
.
Click to expand...


Ok, so I just finished reading FM 3-23.35 and you are right, it does mention point shooting ONE TIME in it. If you read the paragraph directly above it (Section II Combat Marksmanship) it says

"The main use of the pistol is to engage the enemy at close range with quick, accurate fire. In shooting encounters, it is not the first round fired that wins the engagement, but the first accurately fired round. The soldier should use his sights when engaging the enemy unless this would place the weapon within arm's reach of the enemy."

Then it goes on to say this in Subparagraph C. (this is all on page 2-15)

"[FONT=TimesNewRoman,Bold]Quick-Fire Point Shooting[/FONT]. This is for engaging an enemy at less than 5 yards
and is also useful for night firing. Using a two-hand grip, the firer brings the weapon up
close to the body until it reaches chin level. He then thrusts it forward until both arms are
straight. The arms and body form a triangle, which can be aimed as a unit. In thrusting
the weapon forward, the firer can imagine that there is a box between him and the enemy,
and he is thrusting the weapon into the box. The trigger is smoothly squeezed to the rear​

as the elbows straighten"

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Army FM method sounds absolutely nothing like the method on your site, so why even reference it? It doesn't tell you one time anywhere in that entire manual to point with your index finger and pull with your middle finger... not one time, and that is a fact. What it does say is exactly as I've stated this whole time... that the only time non sighted fire should be even attempted is when the enemy is close enough to grab your gun. You really should stop referencing this document. I've read this manual from cover to cover and it advocates using sighted fire all the way. Additionally, this manual instructs the reader in several grip techniques... not a single one looks anything like the ones on your website, and ALL of which instruct you to fire with your "trigger finger" and not your middle finger. Even the text that you do have quoted specifically states that you should be using your "trigger finger" on the 1911. The 1911 is not flawed, your technique is. I really have no idea why you reference Army manuals when they do not support your ideas. Facts and science you say? The first sentence on your dissertation about the failings of the 1911 is a quote from Wiki.... umm. Followed by several IMO references. The facts are this: the 1911 is one of the most enduring pistol designs ever created. The reason it has endured is because it works, not because of a conspiracy to quell alternate firing methods. You make it sound on your website like the FBI advocates point shooting, but oddly enough the FBI HRT team uses 1911s.... unusual. I like how you keep bringing up quotes from like 1835 and things like that. CQB tactics have evolved dramatically in the past 2 decades, and those ideas have been debunked. Even rifle CQB has changed. Reflex sights like the M68 or the EoTech now reign supreme in the close quarters world because all armed professionals realize that even at CQB ranges you still need a sight. That's why the Army spends all those taxpayer dollars on the reflex sights and crimson trace laser grips. It's not to waste money, it's because it works. Quote all the supposed government pubs you want, but I'm a combat arms soldier who carries a pistol and I have never ONCE been instructed in the methods that you claim the Army manuals advocate. The reason is because the Army DOES NOT train soldiers in that method. PERIOD. And that is a fact, and not just an opinion. Find me another armed professional with combat credentials who says differently, not just some random guy who's never been in a gunfight.
 
Last edited:
While one may debate the value--or non value--of point shooting, it has nothing to do with pulling the trigger with your middle finger.
 
pat1902.jpg


pat1908.jpg


From the 1908 patent:

"This invention relates to a device adapted for attachment to fire-arms of various kinds, more especially to shot - guns or hunting rifles, and has for its object to facilitate quick and accurate pointing of the weapon without being obliged to adjust the gun-stock to the shoulder for aiming at birds just rising from the bush or in flight, or at other game.

The invention is based largely upon the fact that the conscious or sub-conscious faculties intuitively enable men to point the index finger directly and accurately at any visible object without bringing the outstretched finger into alinement with or between the eye and the object."

Now, if you have your finger along side the 1911 and press on the take down pivot when you pull the trigger with your middle finger, the slide stop can be displaced and jam the gun with firing.

That's a fact as attested to by the US Army.

The US Army also says that that aiming method is fast, natural, and accurate, but cautioned against using it with the 1911. That caution appeared in 13 publications issued from 1912 - 1941. http://www.pointshooting.com/1911.htm

I was able to find 13 instances, but am sure there are additional pubs that are now in the dust bin of history that carry that same caution. (Older books and publications are only now becoming available to the public via Google's book project.)

A few years ago, I had two jams using a different pistol that had a slide stop of a similar design.

Due to the design flaw of the slide stop of the beloved 1911, the natural and accurate method of aiming and shooting as described in the 1908 Patent, can't be used with the 1911.

And by the Army's not fixing this minor design fault, those who went and still go in harms way for us, were denied the optional method of natural and accurate shooting at CQ distances.


To those of the mind set that you must always use the sights, NO PROBLEM.

No problem that is, if all gunfights occur in good lighting, and that one has the time and composure to use them.

Also and IMHO, you better have the composure and ability of a professional shootist or SEAL type, because if you are going to be shot and/or killed, there is a 90% chance that that will happen at less than 15 feet.

At that distance there will be little time for proscribed breathing and careful squeezing of the trigger, and REAIMING each shot taken, and etc...which are critical for accurate shooting.

Armed Forces members, Police, and others who do not know how to Point Shoot, will be "on their own" in CQ life threat situations. And according to the literature, the shooting method they will employ, is instinctive shooting.

Not a bad choice given no other, but most likely an ineffectual one, as the acknowledged MISS rate in armed encounters is 80+%.

The only saving grace is that gunfights are rare, and most likely the perp will not know Point Shooting.

So unless one is having very bad day, he/she will not be in a gunfight, and if so, will probably survive anyway.

Sure, there are those who say that you can accurately point a gun by just pointing it at a target, but that is not reality. You can easily prove that to yourself the next time you are at the range. I have tried that, and my results were very poor.

There are several methods of Point Shooting that you can familiarize yourself with. P&S, CAR, FAS, Threat Focus, ....

And none are a bar to the use of the sights, if there is light to see them, you have not lost your near focus ability and/or your fine motor skills, and there is enough time to aim each shot properly.

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

More info added 2/25:

Just reviewed the Crimson Tracer video. If you don't have one on your gun, your index finger can do the job for you, and for each and every shot, and for shooting from most any position at CQ.

What do you use to assure accurate aiming in situations shown in the video at close but beyond contact distances or at night?

Also, the clip of the guy shooting from the car, looks much like the CAR method as described in an article on my site. I developed it from the CAR training manual and videos. It was approved of by Paul Castle as written.

I haven't tried the under my arm and upside down to shoot backwards method shown in the Crimson Tracer video, and don't plan to.

But, there is a video on my site showing me moving and shooting and hitting the target.

Jack ruby used the index finger to aim and the middle finger on the trigger method, to kill Oswald. See the pic on my site or link to it of Ruby shooting Oswald. Lots of the same pic on the web.

In the references cited in the article on the 1911, mention is made of the French Officer shooting and killing a German Officer using P&S in the late 1880's.

And how about the Chinese Army using it when shooting the broomhandle?

If you are a soldier, you do what you are told to do, at least I did most all of the time.

I didn't carry a pistol.

For a time I carried a grease gun and was told to use the P&S when shooting it from the hip by a Sgt who had been in WWII. Worked back in 54 or 55, and still works today. :)

See my avatar pic from a night training exercise at the NCO Academy in Munich. I was a Cpl for a time, then a Spec. Note the helmet and arm patch.

As I have stated many threads, would like to see a few videos and pics of Sight Shooting actually being used effectively in a CQ engagement since its been the cat's meow for the past hundred years or so.

But dingy dang, they seem to be rarer than hen's teeth.

For a bit of humor check out http://www.pointshooting.com/1april1.htm

Lastly, thanks for your comments and hopefully I have maintained a reasonable sense of decorum.

Best regards.......

PS As to aiming, P&S gets you a fast automatic and correct flash sight picture for each and every shot at CQ: see http://www.pointshooting.com/1a2auto.htm
 
Last edited:
Jesus Cristo......You do know weapons and tactics have evolved since the early 1900's correct?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top