The following is most of post to a thread by a party who goes by the web-name of 7677.

"...5shot's website has a ton of useful information on it.

However, 5shot and I have gone round and round on the subject of shooting with the middle finger for several years. I do not contest the fact it works because I have a friend that lost his pointer finger and shoots just as well with his middle finger.

"My point has been why should people drop the standard and go to this method? 5shot has been unable to answer this and the system he advocates is an incomplete system that does not integrate with any of the current systems or equipment. None of the holster catalogs I have sell a holster with a bracket slot...."

..........

Here is most of my web response, plus a little added info:

Thanks for your kind word about the site.

P&S is not an either/or method, and it goes hand in glove with most all pistol, sub-gun, and assault rifle shooting methods. For example, I used it back in 1954/55 with "my" grease gun.

P&S can be used alone, or as enhancement to most all other shooting methods, whether they be a Sight Shooting method, a Point Shooting method, or a blend.

This is what the U.S. Army of today, says about using the index finger for aiming a weapon. It is in Chap. 2, Sect. II of the Field Manual 3-23.35 Combat Training With Pistols M9 AND M11 of June, 2003:

"Everyone has the ability to point at an object. Since pointing the forefinger at an object and extending the weapon toward a target are much the same, the combination of the two are natural....

"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."

..........

Now, the Army says that: "...Since pointing the forefinger at an object and extending the weapon toward a target are much the same, the combination of the two are natural..."

However, what the Army DOES NOT SAY is that they are the same, and how that can best be done.

We do know, per video cams of gunfights, that shooters do extend their weapons towards their targets, and that they do shoot. And we also know that the police hit rate in close quarters armed encounters is less than 20%, or close to that.

So where's the rub?

My thinking is that although the US Army says on the one hand, that the forefinger can be used to naturally, rapidly, and accurately engage targets, the US Army HAS NOT supported using that same finger along the side of the gun to naturally, rapidly, and accurately engage targets; because if that is done with the 1911 or 1911A1, which have been the standard issue sidearms of the US from 1911 to 1985, the gun can jam.

Cautionary language against using the natural, rapid, and accurate aiming method, is in the 1912 military publication - Description Of The Automatic Pistol, Caliber .45, Model Of 1911.

Here is that text:

..."(3) The trigger should be pulled with the forefinger. If the trigger is pulled with the second finger, the forefinger extending along the side of the receiver is apt to press against the projecting pin of the slide stop and cause a jam when the slide recoils."

That "fault" with the 1911 has been known since its adoption in 1911.

I do not know why the US military excluded the use of a real and effective shooting method, to accommodate a weapon, rather than making a minor modification to a weapon to accommodate those who go in harms way. That makes absolutely no sense.

The P&S method was known at that time, and as far back as 1835.

In a review of the Mauser C-96 "Broomhandle" Machine Pistol by David M. Fortier which appeared in the February 2001 issue of Gun World, he said that the C-96 was extremely popular in china.

The C-96 was manufactured from 1896 to 1936 in Germany. And though it was not as widely used as some other pistols, it was the primary service pistol of the Chinese military and police.

That is what P&S is, and what it can do for you, and for each shot.

It can give you an edge which could be the difference between your living or dying in a life threat close quarters situation.

As to what the STANDARD shooting method is, there really is no STANDARD shooting method as far as I know.

There is traditional marksmanship - Sight Shooting, FAS, QK, the FSP technique, CAR, and several other methods or techniques pushed or touted by this or that trainer or GURU.

The standard method you use, may require a specific grip, and/or the use of body indexing, or the use of a centerline or dominant eye index, or a specific point of aim, or just seeing what you need to see, a Flash Sight Picture, etc..

If for some reason you can't do what you are supposed to do, or even if you can, P&S will get you where you want to be faster than you can get there using just your method.

That is because it is natural, fast, automatic, and accurate.

And as it is brain dead simple, you can learn and maintain it with little or no training or practice.

Works in good light or bad, when moving, and against moving targets -- even aerials.

..........

As to the "must use" of the finger shelf as many refer to it, Walter Dorfner, who was the long time lead firearms instructor for the VSP, and who wrote a paper on his experience and experimentation with P&S, said that he did not think the shelf was necessary. Here's a link to a digest of his paper.

I feel that it can help keep your finger in position and away from the slide when firing rapidly. For many that could be a benefit.

But to each his own.

As to the historical use of P&S, click here.

And as to a design flaw of the 1911, and how I believe it impacted on the general knowledge of and use of P&S, click here.

Lastly, here's a pic of a dremeled holster.

There are millions of Americans who have a gun at home, and who do not carry that gun holstered and at the ready around their home. Of course they could.