Instructors and students alike are reporting that it gives students the opportunity to recognize and understand, the life and death importance of moving and knowing how to Point Shoot in a real CQ threat situation.

These reports are adding fuel to the often intense firearm discussions on the question of whether one should use Point Shooting or Sight Shooting in a CQ gunfight situation.

On the web, the discussions are often times more like exchanges between the Hatfields and McCoys, than the presentation of differing points of view by members of a polite society.

Sight Shooting, and the use of the Front Sight Press, are championed by many trainers and agencies as the absolute shooting technique/s for use in CQB situations, except of course at physical contact distances. This traditional mind set still persists today, and even given the continuing absence of any real time videos showing Sight Shooting being used in real time CQ gunfights.

For example, in a recent thread on GT, on whether or not Point Shooting or Sight Shooting is used by SWAT teams in CQ entry situations, two distinct camps immediately formed, and words began to fly.

Statements and comments made, were often framed as absolutes or unequivocally stated and/or supported with words such as always and only.

As in the past, it was thrust and parry, thrust and parry, and with the Sight Shooting camp taking the most fixed and absolute positions.

However, there were also some who brought up the results of FOF training which support the use of BOTH techniques, but as a continuum of methods.

The FOF results support the use of physical contact shooting, to Point Shooting at very close ranges and while moving, to a blending of PS/SS for mid range shooting, and finally to Sight Shooting for long range affairs.

And that's because both trainers and students say that that is what one must do to survive real dynamic and chaotic CQ threat situations in the FOF training crucible.

The shooting-method-continuum can be likened to the force continuum used by police to respond to different threat circumstances.

Gabe Suarez, a nationally known trainer, in a 5/25/05 thread posted on his web forum Warrior Talk, presented in brief the results of his recent FOF training classes as they relate to Applegate vs Cooper or said another way, to Point Shooting vs Sight Shooting.

Gabe said that he debriefs students....while their hearts are still pumping and the lesson is still fresh in their minds. "What kind of sight picture did you see?", I ask. The replies are quite different from what they would all respond with after a clinical static shooting drill at a traditional school. Interestingly enough, there is very little dissention on the issue once everyone has had the experience.

Rather that beat the horse into the ground with words, we let each student arrive at his own conclusions. The message is clear.

One lesson keeps ringing true. Minimize your physical actions. Ideally ONE WAY TO GET THE GUN ON TARGET would be used that could be utilized at all fighting ranges. To accomplish this we teach a directional draw stroke. Get the muzzle on target as soon as possible (i.e. Southnarc’s high #2), and extend the gun out as much as necessary to hit, and as little as necessary to avoid a gun grab at close intervals.

Lesson number two is that you must move. Those who move dynamically don’t get hit. Those who stand still get run over. If you stand still you may get one shot off. It will always coincide with the enemy’s shot or cut. Results – A tie..both of you die.

Lesson three is that you must avoid “Over Sighting” the shot. See what you need to see, but do not wait to see anything else. On one extreme you have pure target focused point shooting. On the other extreme you have traditional modern technique front sight focus. The sight picture/visual verification you need for a given problem will be found somewhere in between.

During a drill at class where we shot a burst into the chest and a head shot or two I asked the collective group what was needed to make each one. One student answered, 'For the chest you need Applegate. For the head you need Cooper'.

From arm’s length out to 20 feet (+ or -), for a chest shot, you may need Rex Applegate's methods. From 20 feet to the working distance of your gun, you may need Jeff Cooper's.

Force on force training will teach you IF YOU LISTEN. Our goal? To shoot the enemy to the ground before he can accomplish his mission to kill us. Use what you need to use without categorizing yourself or excluding workable material because you don’t like the source....

Mr. Suarez operates Suarez International USA, Inc. which is home based in Arizona - 928-776-4492 - info@suarezinternational.com

Here is a link to Suarez International.

To continue, here is a 5/29/05 comment made by another trainer in a thread on GT on what do SWAT entry teams use: PS or SS?

He said....We teach aimed fire, period. We are set up for using aimed fire in low-light conditions as all weapons are capable of having weapon-mounted white light on them.

Having said that, there is a strong possibility of encountering an adversary at such a close distance that it is more likely that we will simply bring the weapon up to the shooting plane (straight line between the eye and the desired point of impact) and engage.

Natural point of aim plays a small part of the equation, in my opinion. This works great on the range, but it is a whole lot different in a house when you find yourself standing on one of about a dozen stolen cell phones strewn on the floor and the first contact appears at a 45-degree angle.

To that end, my response is to teach aimed fire and practice aimed fire, but don't be too surprised if you never see your front sight at extreme close range....

At first glance that seems to be an appropriate response, but on closer examination, if one trains to use aimed fire period [Sight Shooting], then how can one justify shooting if and when for whatever reason, they can not see the sights, except in a situation where they are at physical contact distance.

We are dealing with the application of deadly force, so stating in an off hand manner that you may not use aimed fire, just some other "untrained-in" and "defaulted to" method in a life threat situation involving you, or your family, or an associate, is a bit ingenuous to my way of thinking.

And particularly in light of the oft repeated saws such as, "train as you fight, fight as you train", and "you will default to the level of your training", and "front sight press - front sight press", and etc. ad nauseam.

From a liability standpoint, I am sure that one could rationalize and say that "I trained to use my sights, I qualified using my sights, I always use my sights, so I am sure I used my sights as always."

And chances are that the sights would be or may be in rough alignment due to much Sight Shooting practice.

But again we are talking about the application of deadly force in a life threat CQ maximum stress situation. And the police armed encounter hit rate of < 20% in those situations, shows me anyway, that the accuracy of traditionally trained shooters is terrible.

This is not to take anything away from the sincerity and beliefs of traditionalist Sight Shooters. But the reality of what happens in real time threat encounters, vis a vis, FOF training, and statements like "my response is to teach aimed fire and practice aimed fire, but don't be too surprised if you never see your front sight at extreme close range," evidence a real a need for Point Shooting training to fill in the void that exists between physical contact range shooting and shooting with the aid of the sights.

Trusting in luck and some "un trained" in skill when your life is on the line, just doesn't make sense, and by extension, it could jeopardize your life as well as the lives of loved ones and others.

Point Shooting Alternatives

The "Applegate" Point Shooting method, Quick Kill as taught by Robin Brown, and Paul Castle's CAR are three Point Shooting methods that can be used to Point Shoot effectively at CQ distances.

And there also is AIMED Point Shooting or P&S which I favor and which can be used as a stand alone CQ method, or to enhance those other Point shooting methods, and Sight Shooting as well.

Given what the literature, stats, videos, and FOF results tells us happens, both mentally and physiologically in life threat CQ situations, I opt for the simplest possible method both mentally and physically. And I believe that is P&S.

P&S allows you to aim a gun fast, automatically, and accurately by utilizing your natural and instinctive pointing ability, and without use of the sights. You just point-n-pull.

Of course, if the sights can be used given time and circumstance, they can best assure one of accurate shot placement, as long as the rigid tenants of marksmanship are adhered to, such as a specific and practice grip, proper stance, breathing rhythm, sight alignment, and trigger squeeze, and if they are used. Accuracy is not chance or luck driven.

P&S is AIMED Point Shooting. It is not stance or position dependent, employs mainly gross motor skills, can be used naturally when standing still or moving, in most any environmental condition, and in bad light or when one can't see or use the sights for whatever reason.

Best of all, it requires little if any thought (cognitive), driven hand eye coordinative action/actions, and as such, it leaves the mind free to focus on the target, and make life critical shoot - no shoot decisions.

And P&S really works at CQ distances. That is attested to by the gun test info on this site, which includes videos of it being used at the range and while moving.

In a dynamic CQ situation, P&S could/would give you the shooter, the edge, and also the assurance that any shots made without the use of the sights, were AIMED naturally, automatically, and accurately.

Many guns are not constructed to facilitate the use of P&S. However, I expect that will change in the near future, as Point Shooting becomes more and more popular and shooters seek to gain an edge in life threat situations.