HAS YOUR POLICE TRAINING SET YOU UP TO BE KILLED?
ILEETA USE-OF-FORCE PANEL FAVORS SIGHT SHOOTING
At the recent 2010 ILEETA conference (International Law Enforcement Educators and Trainers), a use-of force panel discussed Point Shooting vs. Aimed Fire.

An article by David Griffith about the discussion, is in POLICE Magazine. This is a link to it.

"The panel, which consisted of firearms trainers, law enforcement officers, a physician, an attorney, a physician, and a psychologist, discussed the issue in terms of training and officer-involved shootings. And it concluded that point shooting may be what happens in a gunfight but to point shoot well under stress officers need to aim when they train."

"Point shooting well under stress is all about muscle memory," said New Braintree, Mass., chief of police Bert DuVernay. "And the way you achieve that muscle memory is by learning to align your sights."

DuVernay said that training officers to point shoot without training them to aim was a "shortcut." "There is no instinctive ability to shoot. So we need to teach our people to use the sights under realistic conditions. That's the answer, not point shooting."

"Firearms trainer Vicki Farnham* said point shooting allows shooters to put a lot of shots downrange very quickly but the results are less than spectacular. ... You better be able to use both of your sights and to hit what you want to hit."

Sgt. Brian Stover of the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department said "I was trained the old-fashioned way. And I've only been in one shooting. I fired three rounds and hit him once. I can tell you that an accurate shot ends the problem."

John Farnham* said "We trainers have to persuade our students to do what works best in most circumstances and that is use their sights."

Physician and gun trainer James Williams argued that trainers should keep an open mind on the issue. "What we need to do is find out what the agencies that really are doing a good job hitting the bad guys are teaching their officers and copy them," he said.

And Dr. Alexis Artwohl said that "This is a life-and-death question. So we need to ask ourselves, 'What does the research show?' That's a huge problem in law enforcement: A lot of the training is based on myths, assumption, and personal opinion. We need to know what works."

[* The spelling should be Farnam.]

..........

When I read the article, I was almost knocked out of my chair, as the information presented was the long standing dogma and traditional clap trap that has resulted in countless Police casualties over the years.

Now, no one doubts that when the sights are used, you can hit a target.

But, the studies and stats on Close Quarters Battle situations have established that Sight Shooting is not, and can not be used in most all of them. And it is in those situations where there is the greatest likely hood of an Officer being shot and/or killed.

As a result, Officers are being trained to use, a shooting method that is neither practical nor effective for use in most all Close Quarters Battle situations. And without such a means of self defense, only luck separates them from injury and/or death.

To send Officers into harms way, when this is now commonly known, is to me both a tragedy and a travesty.

And particularly so, as there are simple, and easy to learn and retain Point Shooting methods that are both practical and effective for use in Close Quarters Battle situations.

..........

A Clearly Biased Title:

The title of the article, ILEETA: Force Panel Debates Point Shooting vs. Aimed Fire, is clearly biased against Point Shooting.

Ask yourself who in their right mind would not choose: Aimed Fire (the GOOD), over its opposite: (un-aimed) Point Shooting (the BAD).

The topic was introduced by moderator Massad Ayoob, who also wrote a Jan, 2001 American Handgunner article titled: Aimed Vs. Point Shooting.

[Note: the similarity in the text of the titles. And also keep in mind that the issue is not as narrow as the titles imply. It is not simply a matter of the good versus the bad, as there can be "aimed" and "un-aimed" fire, as well as "aimed" and "un-aimed" Point Shooting.]

In the 2001 article, Mr. Ayoob said that he set up a "scientific test" to see which method was better accuracy and speed wise. Targets were set up at 4, 5, 7, 12, and 15 yards. And roughly 100 shooters participated in the event.

The conventional wisdom said everyone should be faster but less accurate when they weren't using sights. In fact, while this was the single most common result, a very significant number of the shooters did better with the unsighted pistol.

The test clearly shows that within five yards, if the gun is at eye level and can crudely be seen to be superimposed on the target, it can hit as well if not better than a pistol aligned with a conventional "sight picture."

Mr. Ayoob may not be anti Point Shooting, but the titles clearly are not pro Point Shooting.

The Panel:

With the table loaded with gun professionals, who by their own quoted words, favor the use of the sights, it was not a big shocker to read that the panel "concluded that point shooting may be what happens in a gunfight but to point shoot well under stress officers need to aim when they train."

And, as to the questions: What does the research show? And what works?

Apparently the Sight Shooters were not asked about any research or evidence in support of their bizarre claim that Officers "need to aim when they train," as there is no mention of any scientific evidence in support of that in the article.

What the scientific studies and stats have shown, is that Sight Shooting fails to be used in most all close quarters life threat situations, either due to poor lighting, the dynamics of the situations, or the automatic activation of our Fight or Flight response and its effects, one of which is the loss of the ability to focus on near objects like the sights.

(With F/F activation, adrenaline is dumped into our system. It in turn, relaxes the ciliary muscle of the eye to enhance our far vision so we can focus on the threat. And that unfortunately, causes us to lose our near vision which is necessary for focusing on the sights.)

The NRA And Point Shooting:

The NRA is an advocate of the use of Point Shooting in close quarters self defense.

In chapter 6 of its Guide To The Basics Of Personal Protection In The Home, In Chapter 6 - Defensive Shooting Concepts, the Guide states that "...real-life violent encounters occur at very close range, often in reduced-light conditions, and are over in a matter of seconds.

One study of Police shootings in a major urban area showed that the majority of encounters took place after dark, at 3 yards or less, in less than 3 seconds, and involved the firing of an average of three shots."

The text goes on to say: "Often, either the assailant or the defender - or both - are moving rapidly during the encounter. Such conditions do not permit the careful alignment of the sights on a specific aiming point on the target."

Of particular interest is this statement: "...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, it is a given that Close Quarters Battle studies have established that some form of "instinctive" shooting (not Sight Shooting or Aimed Point Shooting), is defaulted to in Close Quarters Battle situations.

And it's also a given that to be effective, any shooting MUST BE AIMED either via use of the sights, or via a method of Aimed Point Shooting. And particularly so with pistols, because of their short length.

But unless one trains in Aimed Point Shooting, their defaulted to Point Shooting will be un-aimed Point Shooting. And the Police hit rate of less than 20% attests to its ineffectiveness.

Also, Aimed Point Shooting does not happen by magic, or by some type of divine intervention that turns Sight Shooting practice into Aimed Point Shooting in life or death close quarters situations.

Would that it could.

That's a nice thought, and makes for a good story like reports of flying saucers, or tales of aliens being buried out in Area 51.

But, for a dose of reality, the next time you are at the range, grab your gun in a crush like grip, (which per the literature is what you will use in a life threat situation, not your "sissy" competition-marksmanship-range-grip when Sight Shooting), and point it in the direction of a man sized target placed out at 12 - 15 feet, and fire off 4 or 5 shots as rapidly as you can pull the trigger and without looking for or at the sights.

Look at your target, and unless you are some kind of super-natural Point Shooter, you will understand why the hit percentage in Close Quarters Battle is what it is.

The short radius of pistols is the main reason why it is very difficult to hit a stationary man sized target with un-aimed fire even at five yards.

And that is a sound rationale for using the sights, as Sight Shooting is accurate. The rub is that it can't be used, or fails in most all Close Quarters Battle situations where there is the greatest likely hood of your being shot and/or killed.

Now, if you are going to be shot or killed, there is an 80% chance that it will happen at less than 20 feet; so it would be wise to know of and how to use an effective alternative like Aimed Point Shooting.

Point Shooting can be aimed via: 1. body indexing, 2. visually placing the gun muzzle on a target, or 3. using the index finger to fast, automatically, and accurately engage a target.

Aimed Point Shooting is deadly effective at close quarters, works well under stress, and it is also is very easy to learn, and retain.

Why Aimed Point Shooting methods are not embraced and taught to those who go in harms way for us, as their first line of self defense against real life threats, is beyond me.

Makes one wonder just who is in charge of providing our Military and Police forces with shooting methods to use in close quarters to save their lives.

..........

Here's a quick lesson on 3 Aimed Point Shooting methods that you are welcome to try at your own risk and expense.

When trying them, do not look for, or at the sights. Use most any target. And shoot at 10 - 15 feet (gunfight distance).

The Fairbairn/Applegate/Sykes method. With the gun held tightly, and with your arm held down at your side and stiff, bring the gun up until it is at COM, and then pull the trigger immediately. Repeat.

Quick Kill. With the gun held firmly in hand, use the gun as a pointer and put the muzzle at COM. Pull the trigger immediately. Repeat.

AIMED Point Shooting or P&S. Grab your gun and place your index finger placed along the side of the gun, point at COM and when the gun is there, pull the trigger with your middle finger, or your left hand index finger. Repeat.

With P&S you automatically get correct sight alignment and sight placement, and without going through the process of meeting the traditional and must-be-met requirements of Sight Shooting.

Here is what the US Army says about our ability to point at things. It's found in the US Army's Field Manual 3-23.35: Combat Training With Pistols M9 AND M11 (June,2003).

"Everyone has the ability to point at an object.

"When a soldier points, he instinctively points at the feature on the object on which his eyes are focused. An impulse from the brain causes the arm and hand to stop when the finger reaches the proper position.

"When the eyes are shifted to a new object or feature, the finger, hand, and arm also shift to this point.

"It is this inherent trait that can be used by a soldier to rapidly and accurately engage targets."

Common sense and safe gun handling must be employed when using this method. It should not be used with autoloaders if the index finger will be hit by the slide, rest over the ejection port, or extend beyond the muzzle. Also, don't use it with a 1911, because per the 1911 manuals published in 1912 and up to the 1040's, the 1911 can jam if the index finger presses on the slide stop pivot when the 1911 is fired.

Click here for a pic of Jack Ruby using P&S to kill Oswald.

This is a link to pics and videos of Sight Shooting being used effectively in Close Quarters Battle.

..........

To train Officers and the public to use Sight Shooting, which is a proven failure in close quarters life threat situations, or to supply them with opinions or unproven theories to use in their self defense, will leave them with no practical and effective shooting method to use to stay alive in close quarters life threat situations.

As such, they will be set up to be shot and/or killed in those situations where the greatest likely hood of that happening exists.

To me, that is criminal.

..........

I am open to adding onto this article and my web of pics and videos of Sight Shooting being used effectively in Close Quarters Battle: references to scientific studies and/or data provided by ILEETA or the use-of force panel members in support of the panel's conclusion. My email is ps (at) pointshooting.com

I make the same offer to the Force Science Research Center and professional trainers who champion the use of Sight Shooting and/or their own brand of Point Shooting. As to Point Shooting advocates, descriptive information on just how that is done should be included as it is most often not included with the claims about it.

I believe that in the area of life or death self defense, science and facts should rule, and not tradition or opinions - no matter how well intentioned they might be.

Our citizens and the young men and women who go in harms way for us, deserve to be provided with the tools and training for self defense use, which have been studied scientifically, and found to be both practical and effective in close quarters life threat situations.

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

Two comments were included at the bottom of the article. Both were dated 9/10/2010.

They are included here as they present a sensible and forward looking rebutal to the panel discussion and its conclusions.

1.

"No attack to the writer or the participants but a shockingly, lopsided, simplistic and misleading "debate". The moderator Ayoob, the Farnhams and DuVernay may be great and experienced trainers all but over many years have been strong proponents of sights and sighted fire in defensive shooting if not openly averse to point shooting or true threat focused shooting. WHERE ARE THE POINT SHOOTING ADVOCATES? As Dr Williams,Dr Artwohl and Scarry mention or allude to find out what works and then use it. WHERES THE DATA TO PROVE IT? FBI UCR on officers killed and assaulted has a lot of great and valuable info, but it doesn't have no of rounds fired/number of hits/location of hits for hit ratio and location effectiveness at all or consistently addressed. There needs to be a fair and open comparison of many agencies large and small and their HIT RATIOS to determine if sights or point shooting work or not. 2 anecdotal stories and an analogy about card games is not data or proof and hardly objective."

2.

"To offer positive alternatives instead of just pointing out the deficiencies in the article/debate here are other ways to OBJECTIVELY cover it. Gather a larger panel of experts or knowledgeable, experienced trainers FROM BOTH SIDES OF THE ISSUE. Get point shooting advocates such as Mike Rayburn, Lou Chiodo, Matt Tempkin,Chuck Klein,Jim Gregg, Rob Pincus and others, as well as those that changed from sights only advocates to a mix or point shooting such as Mike Conti, Gabe Suarez etc.. Keep the sights advocates already included in the article and add the doctors/psychologist/psychiatrists and ergonomic/human kinetics experts such as Bruce Siddle,Lt Col Dave Grossman,Dr Bill Lewinski etc. Then have a detailed discussion and debate while presenting evidence, data by all the panel members as objectively as possible. The panel could also devise some experiments that could help clarify issues to be done force on force with Simunitions or airsoft and possibly with eye tracking systems such as Setcan's Eyelock system to accurately determine where shooters are looking sights or threat in simulated combat scenarios at least. Careful interviews of officers involved in shootings as well as review of training officers participated in (department and outside) should be compared with hit ratios and results in actual shootings( many shootings, many officers over time) to get enough information to determine what trends exist in support of or against sights or point shooting. What should be clarified is that there isn't all or nothing issue as at contact distance to a few feet point shooting is the only way and at distances out beyond 7-10 yards almost everyone will need sights to get hits. It is in the non contact non longer distances that the issue between sights and threat focus becomes controversial. Lets use clear thinking,objectivity,science,data and results from actual shootings to settle this issue properly for the good of every officer."

LASTLY: If "police" really are concerned about cops being shot and/or killed, one would think that the FBI, or the DOJ, or Police Chiefs, or gun makers, or instructors, would be demanding that someone do a study like the SOP 9 to effectively determine which shooting methods are effective at close quarters and which are not.

What is not needed and will certainly lead to more Police deaths, are recommendations like those coming from the 2010 ILEETA use-of-force panel.

Use your go back button to return to the prior page, or click here for the index.