..........

Sir,

You know, the world just goes on and on, and people endlessly get elected (or elect themselves) as experts. We don’t think for ourselves (we were relentlessly taught not to think for ourselves through years of schooling), but instead just try obediently to do what the experts tell us to do.

Once in awhile someone focuses a clear thought on an issue, and the result is SO compelling that it can’t be ignored by anyone but an intellectual bigot. Your P&S method is THE MOST COMPELLING MESSAGE ABOUT SHOOTING I HAVE EVER HEARD! A moment’s thought tells me:

1) P&S will work exceptionally well for virtually all defensive handgun situations (for the one in a million “hostage taker shot” one can use ones sights just as always).

2) Use of instinctive techniques, like P&S, will always be more dependable in extreme stress situations.

3) Just a small amount of practice will show anyone whether the technique will work for them. No “opinions” or expert input is needed—just look at the target.

4) Practice can become REALISTIC. Shooting at all sorts of angles and postures, moving, etc., can be done in a manner that will truly prepare oneself for an UNPREDICTABLE, HIGH STRESS situation.

5) Practice shooting can be fun!!

Thanks!

Sincerely,

SN

..........

Hi S,

Thanks very much for taking the time to respond.

Every so often, I get run down some, and then along comes a breath of fresh air and a boost.

It is messages like yours that have helped me "keep on a ticking."

Thanks again.

And if you would not mind, could I post your comment on my site, using just your initials as your ID? I would start a new page called Current Positive Comments on P&S or something close to that?

Best regards,

JV

..........

John,

I would be delighted if you posted my comments!

On a separate note: I've been thinking (and dry-fire practicing) about P&S, and I realize something that I'm not sure is sufficiently addressed in your work, and that is: trigger control.

Sure, "pointing" works great as a substitute for "aiming," but when you actually pull the trigger, if you have bad trigger control, your "point" can become quite degraded. This is especially true with Glocks, which so many, including myself, have made their primary defensive handgun.

Actuating the trigger without gun/sight movement is very important, even when using the P&S technique--in my opinion.

Best Regards,

SN

..........

Hi S,

Thanks for your response.

If you point-n-pull at the same time, with each shot, there should be no accuracy problem. At least that is the case for me, as shown in my gun test photos.

Click here for gun test info.

The bullets won't be in a quarter sized group or smaller, but they will be close to COM.

....

For example, take hold of your strong hand wrist with your weak hand, and then pull back firmly with your weak hand as you point at a door knob or some such object across the room.

You should experience no problem with pointing accurately even against very firm resistance.

Roughly the same thing will happen with P&S when you pull the trigger. You will easily overcome any trigger weight/resistance.

(The thought just came to mind that using the Weaver accomplishes about the same thing. The Weaver isometric push and pull, "isolates the trigger" and allows it to be moved without altering the aim of the weapon.)

With P&S, the pointing of the index finger, which is aligned with the barrel, keeps the weapon's point of aim on the target, when trigger weight/resistence is encountered with firing.

The key is to point-n-pull, and to do so with each shot. Pull the trigger with either the middle finger or weak hand index finger.

(Also, the middle finger is stronger than the index finger, and pulls back straighter in the hand than the index finger. And as such it is easier to maintain a point of aim when it is used to shoot with. Walter Dorfner made mention of that in his paper.)

Don't worry about the sights, or squeezing the trigger, or standing thus and so, etc..

I have been practicing shooting while moving in my garage using an airsoft pistol and have no trouble making COM hits when moving and pointing-and-pulling.

I don't think about trigger weight, or the sights, or whatever. Just point-n-pull.

As you said in your first e-mail, "just look at the target." It will tell you how you are doing.

Best regards,

JV

..........

John,

I agree. But if you have not used the Glock handgun much then you're not aware that the trigger pull on that pistol is significantly different from all previously made pistols: it's neither double action nor single action. The length of the pull is "like" double action, but the pressure needed is somewhat less. It's a unique system, but has become VERY popular.

Sure, you're right, even with the glock you can do very well, for defensive purposes, at close, defensive ranges. People (and I'm probably one!) always want to improve things! It's here that lots of work on trigger control can be a huge improvement.

I suppose why your method particularly interested me is that I seem to have a very good talent for point and shoot. I can very accurately and repeatedly "point" at 2-3" objects at 15-20 feet. But pulling the trigger on a Glock, without very good trigger control, would still cause a miss at that sized target and range. Now this is one-handed. I can even easily and naturally "hold" that point (it's funny, I can hold a "point" with less shaking and movement than I can hold an "aim." This is probably because you're constantly trying to adjust when aiming. I've never forgotten a secret once told to me by a waitress when I asked how they could carry a whole tray of soup or drinks and not spill them as they walked. Her answer: don't look at it! I've tried this myself, and you can do MUCH better walking with a glass of water when not looking at it than when looking at it. It's the same with pointing vs aiming, I imagine).

1) Things are much easier two handed.

2) One can shoot FAR worse than 2-3" at 20 and still be VERY effective for defensive purposes.

I firmly believe, at least with my personal talent for "pointing" (and probably anyone can develop theirs to an amazing degree), that with sufficient practice I could make consistent head shots out to 10 yds (30 feet). If one could do that fast and reliably, even under stress conditions, and one-handed to boot!, well...that would be a major defensive shooting accomplishment!

Best Regards,

SN

..........

Hi S,

Odly enough, I don't shoot that often. I have been experimenting with "airsoft" in the past couple of months, but only have gone to the range now and then in the past.

I am in a "Catch 22" situation.

If I shot a lot, then people would say: " Anyone who shoots as much as you do, could hit anything, so your P&S really doesn't mean much. It's just marketing hype, practice makes perfect, yadda yadda yadda...."

So, I don't shoot much and use rental guns to show that P&S works with most any gun, and for folks like me who seldom shoot.

My first test using P&S with a pistol was in 1998 after not shooting a gun in over 40 years.

I used a S&W 5906 and after some warm up shots using 11x17 inch targets, I hit a target 6 out of 7 times at 25 feet while pointing the gun and pulling the trigger, as fast as I could.

I also have used a Glock 17, S&W 40 cal, S&W 59, 40 cal Sig, P239, Glock 26, and Ruger P95. With both Glocks and the other guns, I just pull the trigger.

For me, I found that the 40 cal guns were more difficult to shoot accurately. I understand that the reason for that is because most 40 cal guns use a "standard" 9mm frame. So they are "hotter" relative to frame size, and as such, harder to handle.

As an aside, I also understand that the FBI went to 40 cal because it penetrates better than a 9mm and about as well as a 45. Also, according to their tests, it shoots straighter. So, they have ended up with a straight shooting gun which shoots bullets that penetrate better, which was one of the prime requirements. BUT, since it is a "hot" gun, it is harder to shoot accurately.

Such a pickle.

Which brings me to Glocks and their, to me anyway, fat and bulky grips. Fat and bulky grips are harder to grasp (see my article on grips -Liability And Grip Concerns), and as such guns with them are harder to shoot as accurately as a single stack gun that most anyone can really get a good grip on.

I suggest that the bulky grips rather than trigger pull and pull weights, which I understand can range from around 5 to 12 or so pounds, can affect a gun's effective shootability.

And most Glock's are prime examples of poor ergonomic gun design resulting from the demand for increased bullet capacity within minimal overall gun and magazine length.

What you end up with, are guns with fat and bulky grips that affect their shootability.

Couple a fat and bulky grip with a gun in 40 cal, and you end up with yet another very serious pickle to deal with.

Lots of bullets going who knows where.

I don't know where the requirement for high capacity mags came from. Not from serious gun studies as far as I know.

One of the findings of the study of 6000 police combat cases by the NYPD that the average number of shots fired by individual officers in an armed confrontation was between two and three rounds. And that the two to three rounds fired per incident remained constant over the ten years covered by the initial SOP 9 report. It also substantiated an earlier study by the L.A.P.D. (1967) which found that 2.6 rounds per encounter were discharged.

And also consider that the necessity for rapid reloading to prevent death or serious injury was not a factor in any of the cases examined. In close range encounters, under 15 feet, it was never reported as necessary to continue the action.

My conclusion is that it is not difficult to understand why real CQB accuracy is a bad as it is considering gun design factors alone.

And then when you add in real time close quarters gun fight stress factors and real time gun fight environmental conditions, you might wonder why it isn't worse.

Best regards,

John

.....

Here's a posting I just found on GT that adds a bit of fuel to the fire.

Marty Hayes

Senior Member

Registered: Mar 2001

Location: Thumbs down grip allows the right dominent hand to control recoil better due to opposible thumb concept. One can apply much more pressure to the handgun with the thumbs down grip.

The thumbs forwad grip allows more contact on the gun, resulting in bette recoil control as both hands are working to control the recoil.

As stated above, both work fine for controlling recoil. The scales tip in favor of the thumbs down grip when it comes to one handed shooting, and doing weapons retention training.

In addition, people's hands are different sized, and one must allow for that too. For example, I can use a thumbs down grip effectively with a Glock 22, but with the fatter Glock 30, I must switch to a thumbs forward grip, and the gun is too fat for me to get a good weak hand grip on the gun too.

Marty Hayes, Director

The Firearms Academy of Seattle, Inc.

www.firearmsacademy.com

..........

Good information.

You know, many people deal with the oversize grip problems in the glock by having the grip size modified (www.robar.com is well known for this).

I'm sorry you're in the catch 22 situtation! People need only open their eyes to see the value of your ideas--too bad it's so difficult for most to open them!

You're right if you've assumed that the glock I use in particular is a .40--it's the model 23. This model is VERY popular with law enforcement (I'm not a cop), so mastering it is a very common problem.

I wish you great luck in promoting your insights!

Sincerely,

SN

..........

Hi S,

Here is some info on the S&W 3913 I found that you may find of interest. It is from an American Hanguner Annual 2000 article by Massad Ayoob.

The S&W 3913 would be a good match for a P&S index finger rest as well.

It comes in a "lady" version and also a plain "tactical" version.

The.... "Smith & Wesson Model 3913. This flat, compact 9mm was an instant hit when introduced in 1988. In the mid-1990s, a group of top instructors and writers in the officer survival field took an informal survey of the guns they were carrying. The S&W 3913 was overwhelmingly the gun most in evidence. It is also disproportionally represented among female firearms instructors.

Utterly reliable and surprisingly accurate, the 3913's design comprises the double-action first shot that many police departments favor for liability reasons. It is the only gun in its class that has the following features:

It's equipped with a manual safety that, at the owner's discretion, can be locked on to help thwart disarming attempts, though it is not required to make the gun drop-safe. There is also a magazine disconnector safety which allows the user to deactivate the gun, including its ability to fire the chambered round, simply by pressing the magazine release button-- another strategic advantage should a struggle for the gun take place.

Those who prefer double action only pistols can get the same gun in this format as the Model 3953. The 3953 still has the magazine disconnector safety but lacks the manual safety lever, yet has the same flat profile as the original model. Indeed, some would describe its profile as flatter since it is a "slickslide" that has no levers mounted on its slide. Capacity is eight-plus-one."

Best regards,

JV

..........