PDA

View Full Version : Sighted Shooting? Gamers?



Flexmoney
11-21-2004, 02:48 PM
First, I am not here to discredit anybody's beliefs or postions. I'm not here to promote anything that might bring me monetary gain. But, I am here for selfish reasons. There are some pretty smart shooters posting here, ...I want to explore their perspective.

On another thread, Gabe asked for talking points on "Pointing, Aiming, Sight Continuum, Quick Kill".

"...some points on simply shooting (no issues of combatives integration, weapon retention, movement, etc.)"

OK...that is the basis of my posting here.

Gamers

That term gets thrown around a lot. It's not real specific. I mostly shoot USPSA (IPSC). But, there are lots of gun games.

- Bianchi Cup/NRA Action Pistol - accuracy along the lines of bullseye, on the clock...but time is generous, drawing from holster, no movement, no reloading required (to speak of)

- Steel Challenge - Speed, Speed, Speed...but the targets aren't too big. Lots of draws from "hands above shoulders", not much in the way of movement, no shooting on the move, no reloads (unless you miss a lot)

- IDPA - draws, reloads, shooting on the move, strong/weak hand shooting, scoring favors accuarcy

- USPSA (IPSC) - the principles here are Speed..Power...Accuracy. If I'm not moving...I lose. If I'm not fast...I lose. If I'm not accurate enough...I lose. All center hits score the same, full power ammo scores more points then ligher stuff on hits outside the center. Includes draws, reloads, movement...etc.

When I talk about the shooting games, it will likely be from the USPSA perspective.



Sighted Shooting?

I think a lot of us are on the same page, but we are confusing/blending various aspects of the "systems" (I hate to us the term systems...to me that is a bit closed-minded.)

I'll post how I view things, maybe it will help clarify some issues between the camps.

Index - Index, to me, is pointing the gun. It is a bit different from NPA (Natural Point of Aim). NPA is more straight-up, head on. From my NPA, I can keep my feet planted, and turn my body to index to a different target.

Visual Focus - For the quick purposes of this discussion...most would say we could have a target focus...a front sight focus...or a foucs that is somewhere in between. (and, sometimes we don't have much focus at all. ;) )

Deaf Smith
11-21-2004, 04:37 PM
Flex,

I admire you doggedness. No, you are not barking up the wrong tree, but you are barking up trees with one heck of allot of thick.... uh bark. Lots of people here do not seem to subscribe to the theory of 'subconscious' and how your mind can see much more than you think.

They also have no real idea what 'flash sight picture' means. Seems like they feel you are going to 'adjust' the sights like you would doing slowfire NRA.

I find that even if I focus on the target, I still 'see' my sights. They may be blurry, and not perfect, but I see my sights. The sights might be 'out of the notch' for very quick close range fire, or more precise for longer range fire. At the very close range I might not even do more than just 'flip' the gun up to hit, 'seeing' the sights for, oh, 1/20 a second for all I know.

I do know that out to 3 yards, I don't have to do more than raise the weapon past my belly button to hit, 100 percent of the time. Do I see my sights at the belly button range? Nope. I might 'see' the slide of the weapon from peripheral edge of my vision and index on that if I stick it out a bit. I might even just 'see' the back of the slide when doing splits around .19 seconds as the weapon comes back down out of recoil.

Now as for gaming. I get real tired of people who think if they don't see their way, they are 'gamers'. That's BS and a cop out.

Sure I shoot matches. So what? Everyone from Bill Jordan to John Pride to Cirillo to McGee to just tons of LEOs and others shoot matches, does that make them 'gamers'?

The catch is you won't see me in a speed rig. But even Cirillo shot PPC with PPC guns. Again, so what?

It's thinking that if you shoot matches you are a pussy or something that actually IS retro-grade. That's the sad part. You learn so much by shooting different ways than one's narrow idea of 'combat'.

Deaf

B0486
11-21-2004, 05:28 PM
I get real tired of people who think if they don't see their way, they are 'gamers'. That's BS and a cop out.

I don't understand what you mean, please explain this statement.

Lots of people here do not seem to subscribe to the theory of 'subconscious' and how your mind can see much more than you think.

thats not what I see here on this forum, please explain this as well. If you would, can you give us some quotes of those who this fits? I don't understand this either.

I find that even if I focus on the target, I still 'see' my sights.

Are your sights at eye level or below it?

I think it's been stated many times before that in QK you will "see" the end of the barrel in your peripheral, I believe one could also see the sights if they so chose in a similiar way, especially if they were high profile types, pretty hard not to then.

It's thinking that if you shoot matches you are a pussy or something that actually IS retro-grade

I am an ardent pointshooter as you well know, yet I've stated before I have shot for years in steel plate matches, IPSC a few times, bowling pins on a few ocassions as well. I don't think many here fit the mindset you descibe above myself, can you explain why you made that statement, who it pertains to here?

When I shot plates, I pointshot. When I shot a few IPSC matches I used both sighted and pointshooting as it was required. If I need the accuracy/precision for distance or with hostages, I'll go to sights quite easily, when I don't need them, I go unsighted and just switch naturally to whatever is needed to get the job done.

Something along the lines of 7677's sight continuum. I wouldn't want to speak for others here as they are quite capable of that themselves, but I can tell you I've never had a problem using my sights when I thought it was necessary nor have I ever alluded to the idea they weren't necessary.

You learn so much by shooting different ways than one's narrow idea of 'combat'.


Thats why I shot a few games here and there. You do learn. One of the really important things I learned was that in the run and gun type matches, it's real easy to fall victim to the gamesmanship and competition mindset and then start to creat bad habits that can get you killed on the street in order to be expeditious and competitive on the timer that then equates to score.

As I carried a gun professionally, it did not behoove me to get that type of mindset. One bad habit that wins a match can get you killed.

Come to think of it, thats one of the best lessons I learned by playing the different games. That in and of itself was enough to not go further with it than I did.

I have always had a great respect for the gamers. Many of my friends have played for years and spend a lot of money on their equipment to be competitive [ though I know thats changedas well ].

They don't carry a gun for a living, I do. I made the choice to not play them for the reasons stated and a few others. I learned much while I was invovled, you always do if you have half a brain.

Robin Brown

Al Lipscomb
11-21-2004, 07:38 PM
Having read all the threads on point shooting and "gaming" over the last few months I would suggest checking the archives by using the search function.

Endless debates over terminology don't help and many of these things were already defined.

Deaf Smith
11-21-2004, 08:20 PM
Ask Matt, Brownie. I know enough about his views on 'gamers'. Like arl said, do a search.

As for quitting 'games', I sure remember Charlie Askins did the NRA 'games' for many many years and he never complained about it affecting his ability at combat shooting. Same goes for Jordan.

Trick was, they had the common sence to separate their 'games' from their other skills. They just didn't shoot NRA bullseye for 2 years and quit cuase it might teach them the wrong lessons. And they knew better than to keep their off hand in their pocket while shooting for their life.

And as for my sights, sure they are up their where my eyes are. You are talking about 1 to two inches difference of the sight plain.

Even if the sights are just below the sight plain, seeing the sights allows you to 'call the shot' as Akeneys posted. Shooting 'out of the notch' just about demands the sights be just a bit below eye level. They don't have to be square in the notch at all.

What is more, if it's in very low light, you bring the weapon just to the same place you did in daylight and fire. At closer ranges (and at night is it going to be far?) the shots will land at virtually the same place IF YOU HAVE TRIGGER CONTROL. But if all you do is learn 'point shooting' without any grounding on good trigger control you will shoot all over the place. Because it does not matter what kind of 'sight' you use, if you jirk the trigger around the shots will go everywhere.

Trigger control comes from basics of shooting, and that demands sights. Master the basics first. Then you can shoot anyway you want.

Deaf

Ankeny
11-21-2004, 09:02 PM
I don't think Deaf Smith was talking about anyone in particular, he was perhaps just summarizing genralities that seem to keep the two schools at different ends of the spectrum.

"IPSC will get you killed" is one of my pet peeves. I wonder why people think I would stand with my back to three bad guys in the middle of the parking lot, with my hands above my head, spin around, draw and shoot each one twice, reload, then shoot each one two more times. I am much more apt to exit the kill zone with my blaster belching fire while I dive behind the suburban. Oh well. It really does insult my intellegence but that's what makes life interesting.

Deaf Smith:

At close range, you can call the shots without seeing the sights in the notch. You kind of watch the relationship of the bore to the target surface, if it's there, then lifts without disturbance, the shot was fired undisturbed. Of course, the hit then depends on whether or not you saw what you needed to see before the shot broke, lol.

B0486
11-21-2004, 09:45 PM
I sure remember Charlie Askins did the NRA 'games' for many many years and he never complained about it affecting his ability at combat shooting.

Different games, apples and oranges as it were, so it's a poor analogy at best.

Trick was, they had the common sence to separate their 'games' from their other skills

So did I. Didn't say I couldn't or didn't. What I said was "One of the really important things I learned was that in the run and gun type matches, it's real easy to fall victim to the gamesmanship and competition mindset and then start to create bad habits that can get you killed on the street in order to be expeditious and competitive on the timer that then equates to score.


They don't have to be square in the notch at all. In reference to sights. Yes, I would think I know that if anyone here does, don't you?

What is more, if it's in very low light, you bring the weapon just to the same place you did in daylight and fire. At closer ranges (and at night is it going to be far?) the shots will land at virtually the same place IF YOU HAVE TRIGGER CONTROL.

This was germain to your ealier post or my reply how?

Trigger control comes from basics of shooting, and that demands sights. Master the basics first. Then you can shoot anyway you want.

Excuse me while I disgree with that statement. Trigger control or lack thereof is one of the basic ingredients necessary to be proficient with a firearm. It does not come from the basics, it is a basic element.

As well, trigger control has nothing to do with sights. In fact, I'll shoot very effectively without sights and the trigger control will be apparent when the shots are centered on the threat, not off to the left or right of COM.

Master the basics first. Then you can shoot anyway you want.

And you are explaining this to me like I've not mastered the basics. I'm pretty sure I hold more certs than you in shooting disciplines both with long gun and pistols.

"IPSC will get you killed"

The statement was "that can get you killed on the street" by creating bad habits. I never stated "IPSC will get you killed".

"It really does insult my intellegence but that's what makes life interesting"

You have made my point for me without even knowing it. You wouldn't do what you do in the game on the street is your inference. How can you KNOW that to be true? You are training yourself for the games, playing the games and creating habits on the street based on the games competitive nature to win.

That seems like a very absolute statement in direct contrast to what everyone pretty much knows which is you will act as you train. Thats like a mantra here at this sight and others if I'm not mistaken.

It's all well and dandy to say you won't make the same ingrained autonomic response on the street. Yet, the facts bear out the opposite more than not. Perhaps not you, but others at the least of it have fallen prey to bad habits, I think you'd have to agree.

"At close range, you can call the shots without seeing the sights in the notch"

You can also call your shots without sights at all, repeatedly. How fast one can do this is dependant on many factors not the least of which is experience, practice in doing so and ones training to do just that.

I made the statement that the games were leading ME to bad habits on the streets in an effort to "play" the game competitively, no more or less. I never made the blanket statement that "IPSC will get you killed".

In fact I stated "Thats why I shot a few games here and there. You do learn."

Oh well, we digress further into the abys.

Robin Brown

DaveJames
11-22-2004, 02:06 AM
Let me tell you about Col.Askins,about the only reason he shot matches was for the free ammo and booze, he flat loved to shoot, and if ammo was free so be it.He was an outstanding shot,but was quoted several times in saying, police matches will get you killed, I tried ISPC years ago,didn't like it or the silly games they played,weapons used. IDPA is beging to slide down the samr slope, just because you can play Tarzan and swing from a rope and shoot little bitty holes in paper targets with your wiz-bang pistol don't mean dick.As the ole timers used to say "stand and Deliver", YOU FIGHT AS YOU TRAIN.

Celtic Warrior
11-22-2004, 06:01 AM
FWIW...I (like Brownie, who's posts I've always respected) have for my entire professional career (over 20 years) have been against participating in any of the shooting "games" (for various reasons) I carry a gun every day..every where...if I'm outside of my house whether it be to go to work, the mall or to mow my lawn I've got at least one (usually at least two) "fighting" pistols on my person.

I have been trained (and am an instructor) in Israeli Selective Point Shooting (don't use sights within 20 yards or so)...it works for me very well. That is not to say that you won't see the gun, which you will but you don't "use" your sights in the traditional way (taught at most police academies throughout the nation...focus on the front sight, it should be clear and your target should be fuzzy...IMHO if your focused on your target you can't be using your sights as probably taught - even though they will be of use to you!)

I will however be getting into "Cowboy Action Shooting" soon (friends finally wore me down and it has always looked like fun! I think it is more of a true "game" and I won't ever confuse it for realistic training)

7677
11-22-2004, 08:17 AM
Let me tell you about Col.Askins,about the only reason he shot matches was for the free ammo and booze, he flat loved to shoot, and if ammo was free so be it.He was an outstanding shot,but was quoted several times in saying, police matches will get you killed, I tried ISPC years ago,didn't like it or the silly games they played,weapons used. IDPA is beging to slide down the samr slope, just because you can play Tarzan and swing from a rope and shoot little bitty holes in paper targets with your wiz-bang pistol don't mean dick.As the ole timers used to say "stand and Deliver", YOU FIGHT AS YOU TRAIN.

Dave,
I couldn't have said that better myself.

CarlosDJackal
11-22-2004, 09:48 AM
I heard an alternate description of gamers just last Saturday: "Someone who takes full advantage of the rules to win in his or her sport." There is absolutely nothing wrong with gaming a shooting match. The IPSC, IDPA, or what-have-you should never be considered as a replacement for training nor should it be expected to be "realistic". I always tell my students at the start of my Introduction to the IDPA class that if they want realism then need to go to the nearest large city and start a turf war with the local drug dealers.

The extreme end of the spectrum for gamers are the "Martial Artists". They complain about people not using the same equipment that they use on the street and think that these "gamers" should be penalized for it. They always pre-empt their poor performance in a match with how "unrealistic" the course-of-fire was.

For crying out loud!! It's just a sport!! It's not meant to prepare you for real life - that's what training is for. These games have their place in the overall scheme of things. They provide an excellent place for you to see how that new technique works for YOU under duress. They also provide a great venue to test out your equipment.

For example; I found out that (for me) putting my keys on the strong side pocket of my jacket does not help my presentation at all. I also found out that certain holsters and magazine pouches hinder my ability to draw or conduct reloads. These are but a few of the equipment limitations and obstacles I have run into in IDPA competition. If I run into such problems in competition, chances are I would run into the same problems on the street!!

It is very important for the shooter to be able to differentiate his or her mindset while competing versus the street. I deal with this by using NSRs as much as possible. So what if the course of fire only requires two shots to the body. In my mind I am shooting that target target to the ground with as many rounds as I possibly can. I also maximizes any cover available to me. I don't just hide 50% of my body, as required by IDPA rules. I visualize each and every target as some scumbag who is trying to kill me an use the appropriate amount of cover in teh appropriate way (no ground-hogging).

As far as all the sighted versus point versus indexed versus flash-sight picture. I use what I need to based on the conditions, scenario, and my mental state. If I can get accurate shots off by just pointing the gun, that's what I try to do. If I have to line up the sights to get hits - then that's what I try to do. If I have to blade myself to make a shot (ie: Weaver stance) - that's what I try to do.

If I get penalized, then so be it. When I shoot these matches, I shoot not to win; I shoot to stay alive (in my mind's eye). If I do finish well, then that's just icing on my cake. I also attend these matches for the camardere and the learning experience. This is a great place to see various gadgets, techniques and how well they work. Most shooters are not averse to letting you know what you did wrong - but take these for what they are worth. It is also a great place to learn about various instructors and the relevance of what they teach. It is a great place to see how these instructors do with the techniques they teach in person.

I look at shooting such matches as shadow boxing or hitting the bag under the scrutiny of the clock and other shooters. Most importantly, it is a great way to compete against yourself. Only you will know if you went into a stage or COF with the gaming mindset, or the mindset oif a Warrior. YMMV.

Ankeny
11-22-2004, 11:22 AM
FWIW, the single most practiced skill in either IDPA or IPSC is to draw and get a shot off. That skill is practiced over and over. The draw is performed in the open, while moving to either side, while moving forward, while moving backwards (IDPA), drawing from a seated position, from seated while standing and moving, from behind a barricade or wall, etc. Whenever possible, the draw is always performed from a natural position (natural action stance), that doesn't erode under pressure and requires no consious thought.

In addition to the draw and a single target, transitions to multiple targets is vital. Transitions are practiced in the open, while shooting on the move, from around a barricade as targets appear (slicing the pie), through low ports, from awkward positions, etc. What we do depends on the required task. But above all, the most important skill is the ability to maintain an awareness of what is happening as it happens. I could go on for hours.

On the flip side, how much time do you guys spend in your classes with the student right out in the middle of no where fiddle farting around trying to get a hit on a target at arm's length? Is the majority of your range time spent with the student in a static position without cover? Well, is it?

I have preached until I am blue in the face that IPSC is not training for a gunfight. Anyone who approaches IDPA or IPSC as training for a real life encounter is delusional. On the other hand, anyone who thinks the shooting skills learned in IPSC are counter productive is uninformed. Like so many things in life, the truth is in the middle.

You know who I want to hear form? I want to here from someone like Phil Strader or Ara Maljian. I want some input from someone who is a gunfighter and an accomplished gamer.

Celtic Warrior
11-22-2004, 11:42 AM
On the flip side, how much time do you guys spend in your classes with the student right out in the middle of no where fiddle farting around trying to get a hit on a target at arm's length? Is the majority of your range time spent with the student in a static position without cover? Well, is it?

Ankeny,

I can honestly say no it is not! I have my students moving and shooting from as soon as the pistol clears and they can get on target! They need to move to the appropriate cover (which is placed on the range) and I'll be there behind them yelling if they're not moving to it or standing off it properly (most have a tendency to crowd cover as that's what they were taught at the academy...sometimes using it as a support for their firearm)

But you raise valid points!

B0486
11-22-2004, 11:53 AM
"I have preached until I am blue in the face that IPSC is not training for a gunfight"

And no one here is saying it is training for that. Who are you preaching to?

"the single most practiced skill in either IDPA or IPSC is to draw and get a shot off"

Thats good.

"In addition to the draw and a single target, transitions to multiple targets is vital"

Thats good.

"But above all, the most important skill is the ability to maintain an awareness of what is happening as it happens"

They still give you guys a run through before the shoot don't they?

"On the other hand, anyone who thinks the shooting skills learned in IPSC are counter productive is uninformed"

I don't believe you have heard that here. What you have heard about mainly is tactics and whether one will use the sights or not based on circumstances using something like 7677's sight continuum.

"I want to here from someone like Phil Strader or Ara Maljian. I want some input from someone who is a gunfighter and an accomplished gamer."

Will these people be the definative and final word on the issues being discussed?

Robin Brown

Ankeny
11-22-2004, 12:41 PM
I don't think anyone has the definitive answer. Both Phil and Ara are Grandmaster IPSC shooters. Both of them make thier real living packing a gun. Neither of them is likely to even bother entering into the debate because they know the debate is more about egos, personalities, and personal belief systems than anything else.

Ankeny
11-22-2004, 12:55 PM
Celtic Warrior:

sometimes using it as a support for their firearm That would even make an IPSC shooter cringe, yikes. What I was getting to with the static position thing is most folks teach many of the techniques used in support of the fundamentals, like grip, stance, balance, and the draw from a static position. I don't know of any school that takes a rank beginner and teaches the fundamentals while the shooter is on the move or from behind cover. Maybe I am wrong about that. In any event, I have never heard anyone say developing technique on a square range is suicidal. I assume it's because we all hope anyone with a brain can apply the techinques in a dynamic situation. That is anyone except an IPSC shooter. :D

Deaf Smith
11-22-2004, 04:37 PM
Brownie, what makes NRA bullseye 'different' than IPSC or IHMSA or whatever? They have rules in NRA bullseye, IHMSA, and all the others and people try all kinds of tricks to win that. Cirrillo shot PPC with bullbarrel PPC guns. So? He a gamer to?

As for Askins, so he shot for booze and ammo. Hell, that's a good reason to me! And you can't say it hurt his shooting.

I have his book, "The Art of Handgun Shooting", Capt. Charles Askins, Jr. and he shows some pretty NRA, hands in the pocket, shooting. He also has a section on combat shooting IN THAT BOOK, so I kind of figure from what I've read in his book you can do both and do ok.

Nothing in his book says you will DIE if you shoot matches. He just says to keep prespective. I've known a few DPS troopers here that shoot NRA bullseye matches and they seem to know the difference (and we have two FBI agents that shoot in our IDPA matches and they seem to know the difference.)

Deaf

Celtic Warrior
11-23-2004, 06:17 AM
Ankeny,

I must have misunderstood...I didn't realize we were talking about rank beginners? Although I have this argument with a good friend who's in charge of teaching academy recruits...I think he focuses too much on static range concepts and should incorporate some of the other issues even into recruit training (as a later step certainly...but target shooting only does them a disservice in my opinion) My biggest problem with the competetions is that their use of cover is often not tactically sound (to gain time to win) This (IMHO) reinforces bad tactics...I'm in no rush to poke my head out or run in the open and get shot at (it's happened on a few occassions and I haven't liked it so far!) :eek:

On the point re: Mr. Jim Cirrillo...let me preface this by saying I have the utmost respect for him and his accomplishments, but let me also point out for those who might not be familar with anything but his reputation...he worked on the NYPD's Stakeout Squad...they would go into target prone environments and set up in advance...planning fields of fire, etc... (also known as an ambush - which to me does not connote a bad thing, just a fact! I've done it myself on occassion) However this type of gunfighting is vastly different from reacting to a sudden dynamic attack (in this case how the people on the receiving end would have acted!) :D

DaveJames
11-23-2004, 07:51 AM
Deaf, he never said it was bad as long as you understood where it stopped helping, he shot the matches they had to offer at the time, and would more than likely have liked IDPA, IPSC would have pissed him off. He liked matches for improveing the basic "sight,press,kill the bastard". Still all in all, having studied with him, I will tell you as others have said, he was one that would and could kill you standing flat foot in a blowing gale,, because he had the mindset, and no thought about death.,, THere are truly some amazing shootest that play the games, and some very few would be killers,most aren't. Cause lets face it traing to be a so called "Gunfighter" is training to be a killer of human kind,and not all the people involved in games have the stomach for it.

CarlosDJackal
11-23-2004, 10:01 AM
...On the point re: Mr. Jim Cirrillo...let me preface this by saying I have the utmost respect for him and his accomplishments, but let me also point out for those who might not be familar with anything but his reputation...he worked on the NYPD's Stakeout Squad...they would go into target prone environments and set up in advance...planning fields of fire, etc... (also known as an ambush - which to me does not connote a bad thing, just a fact! I've done it myself on occassion) However this type of gunfighting is vastly different from reacting to a sudden dynamic attack (in this case how the people on the receiving end would have acted!) :D
Not meaning to start a flame war but I'll have to disagree here. If you've ever been on a stakeout of any kind you'd understand just how much easier your guard is let down after a few hours' worth of just sitting there. I find myself a lot more alert when I'm in a crowd out in the open than just sitting around waiting for some "action". Add to this the fact that not all of the stake-outs conducted by the NYPD Stakeout Squad resulted in any action.

I had a brief conversation with Mr. Cirillo about his experiences with this unit at teh NRA Convention (Pittsburgh. PA), and he told me that he only joined the squad because his partner had convicned him that the chances of getting into a gunfight was pretty slim.

Stakeouts are just like guard duty, they are long, tedious and boring. It is very hard to stay alert for an extended period of time and the length of time you can stay alert is directly proportional to the level or alertness you try to stay in. Military ambushes are exactly the same.

As far as having pre-planned fields of fire, this is something I have always done whenever I am out and about. It doesn't matter if I am in a courtroom, posted at an entrance, at the Jail's Sallie Port, at a crowded restaurant, walking around in Wally World, or working Security at a football stadium occupied by 63,000+ fans.

I plan my fields of fire, escape routes, and support routes (to my fellow LEOs) by "wargaming" (aka: "what-ifs"). It helps me identify choke points that can work for or against me and most likely avenues of approach for any threat. It also helps me identify any cover available. Anyone who does not do this is asking to get blind-sided. Live in yellow, die in white!! JM2CW.

Ankeny
11-23-2004, 02:52 PM
But until Enos, Letham and other shooting masters have survived a few gunfights then I will take what they preach with a grain of salt.

I guess that's why those guys don't teach strategy and tactics. They teach simply shooting and leave it up to the individual how they want to apply those skills.

I can see it now, the morning briefing at the Office of Spooks and Operators in Quantico Virgina.

"Guys, we are bringing in the most accomplished pistol shooters in history for a little seminar. Rob Leatham and Jerry Barnhart will be two of the presenters on Friday."

The guys all respond, "Screw that, they have nothing to offer. Now if one of them will go out and shoot someone Thursday night we will listen." :D

Deaf Smith
11-23-2004, 04:40 PM
And Bill Jordan wrote that competition is a game.
A game of things that might happen, but seldom does.
For the record...I have nothing against competition.
If it feels good then do it.
But until Enos, Letham and other shooting masters have survived a few gunfights then I will take what they preach with a grain of salt.
After all, Cirillo, Askins, Jordan and others are not revered for their competition feats, but rather for what they did when shooting for keeps.

Matt, they are revered their competition feats to an extent. Cirillo's book, "Guns, Bullets, and Gunfights" has mentions his awards (page XII). He also mentions that Al Syage and Frank May of the NYPD "thank you for teaching me and encouraging me to shoot in competition. You allowed me to win my biggest prize.. my life."

Even Jordan's book, 'No Second Place Winner' mentions Jordan was NRA Life Time Master with pistol, big bore rifle, small bore rifle, AA skeet and trap shooter, and Distinguished Marksman. It also talks about his EXHIBITION feats.

Why in Askin's book, 'The Art of Handgun Shooting" on second page shows Askins with his match .45 and 'National Individual Pistol Match' Trophy. Heck, most of the book shows Askins in NRA match gear! On page 47 it shows him with a whole table full of trophies! He looks like Enos or somebody with all those trophies!

I guess Matt, you never knew they were that good in matches, did you?

What is more Matt, they all used 'match' guns in those matches. Accurized 1911s, BO-MAR sights, etc.. and I have no doubt they spread their shots out to match the time allotted for each stage (in NRA Bullseye.) Every see a PPC holster Matt?

Thing is, they all knew it was a game but it did get their ability to shoot very strait well honed.

DaveJames, Askins, and Jordan, lived in a time when questioning a Border Patrolman about what he did as not high on the list among officials. They had some leeway. Plus, it was a very dangerous job. I have no doubt they would not hesitate in the slightest. That is how they survived. But they did shoot matches all the time and they encouraged it among the other patrolman. Their caution was that one should not take matches to seriously and to try not to make some bad habits out of it.

Deaf

DaveJames
11-23-2004, 07:35 PM
Deaf pretty much what I posted, and at the time it was about the only way to get them to practice.

But haveing studied under Askins and Bryce, I know what they thought,and it wasn't always printed or spoken in public.

Celtic Warrior
11-24-2004, 05:57 AM
Not meaning to start a flame war but I'll have to disagree here. If you've ever been on a stakeout of any kind you'd understand just how much easier your guard is let down after a few hours' worth of just sitting there. I find myself a lot more alert when I'm in a crowd out in the open than just sitting around waiting for some "action". Add to this the fact that not all of the stake-outs conducted by the NYPD Stakeout Squad resulted in any action.

Won't start a flame war...Been on many, many stakeouts and while your guard may go down it should perk up everytime that store door opens and someone comes in...especially when they start acting hinky - so I don't buy that argument unless the person is sooooo careless they certainly shouldn't be on a stakeout or even in police work! (Talk about miserable...sitting in a walk in cooler for several nights or a field getting eaten alive by "critters" is not fun!)



he told me that he only joined the squad because his partner had convicned him that the chances of getting into a gunfight was pretty slim.

I would have thought he'd have checked their stats...I knew more about them then he did at the time is how I read this (and I doubt that!)


Stakeouts are just like guard duty, they are long, tedious and boring. It is very hard to stay alert for an extended period of time and the length of time you can stay alert is directly proportional to the level or alertness you try to stay in. Military ambushes are exactly the same.

I would agree (but reference above, when you see or hear something you better kick back in) but that does not discount the fact that the person in the ambushing position is more prepared and has the upper hand (advantage of surprise...hopefully!) Especially if the person planning the ambush has taken the appropriate steps to gain the advantage



As far as having pre-planned fields of fire, this is something I have always done whenever I am out and about. It doesn't matter if I am in a courtroom, posted at an entrance, at the Jail's Sallie Port, at a crowded restaurant, walking around in Wally World, or working Security at a football stadium occupied by 63,000+ fans.

Which is what sets you apart from many others who carry a gun (whether for the job or just because) and probably why you're here! :D This is as it should be and it means you're doing good work!!!

Back to the original point...springing an ambush (again...NOT a bad word - there is nothing wrong with taking advantage if you can) is much different than reacting to an attack!

Deaf Smith
11-24-2004, 04:11 PM
If any of you guys have ever deer hunted, you know that if you are in a stand, and you see the game at a distance, and having to wait some before the game comes into range (and I bow hunt, and boy do you have to wait), you know that the more you wait to spring your 'ambush', the harder it gets. Buck fever is no laughing matter.

When you hunt by stalking you many times have a surprise meeting with the deer, and the shot is so quick you don't have time to be nervous.

I've always found martial arts tournaments stressful (as well is big matches) because you have to wait so long.

The one time I had to wait for a burglar we suspected was coming to break into my parents house (back in collage) we were full of anticipation (yep, we caught him), yet in the Virgin Islands, when my wife said pointed out the purse snatcher and I ran after him (yep, we caught him), I and no time to think of what could happen.

I have no doubt stakeouts are very stressful, maybe more stressful than any sudden encounter.

And Matt, are you saying Applegate wrote one thing but said another in private?

7677
11-24-2004, 06:10 PM
Hey Deaf,
Deer don't shoot back :eek:

Deaf Smith
11-24-2004, 07:53 PM
Hey Deaf,
Deer don't shoot back :eek:

7677 not only am I is saying this from my experiences (and others I know) but from such as:

"No Second Place Winner", by Jordan. Page 104. "Almost invariably a man, provided he does not have to much time to think, will automatically do as he is trained to do."

And then in "Guns, Bullets, and Gunfighting" by Cirillo, page 96. "If you turn a corner and walk right into a gunfight, you will most surely react as you have been trained" and then farther on the same page, "If, prior to your first gunfight, you expect that gunplay is imminent, it can be the most horrifying experience." Cirillo went on to talk about his first gunfight and how he kept self-doubting himself because he was on a stakeout and he knew he was about to have a gunfight.

Waiting is always hard 7677, it give time for self-doubt and anxiety to creep in.

7677
11-24-2004, 08:42 PM
Deaf,
I was not trying to be smart. Think about what I said "Deer do not shoot back" and put this into what you have said. I have learned not let my mind get nervous and think thoughts of self doubt but instead I keep my mind busy gaming out the way I want things to go.

MarkP
11-24-2004, 10:05 PM
And Bill Jordan wrote that competition is a game.
A game of things that might happen, but seldom does.
For the record...I have nothing against competition.
If it feels good then do it.
But until Enos, Letham and other shooting masters have survived a few gunfights then I will take what they preach with a grain of salt.
After all, Cirillo, Askins, Jordan and others are not revered for their competition feats, but rather for what they did when shooting for keeps.

About a week ago , the local tv station covered Rob Leatham at the Area 2 championship in Mesa , Az.
The major emphasis of the story was how Rob's talents were used by a local PD to compliment their training program.

One of the LEO training officers was quoted as saying :
" If you can't do it here ( on the IPSC range ) , what makes you think you can do it on the street?"

Until that day

Mark

7677
11-25-2004, 08:59 AM
I think my point was completely missed. Waiting is not easy that is for sure but do you control your mind or does your mind control you? You have to keep your mind occupied and not let it dwell on the task at hand. Rather it is on surveillance, conducting a ambush in the military, deer, boar hog or coyote hunting it is very easy to get buck fever but after you had it once (experience) you learn how to deal with it. In my case, I keep my mind busy.

Ankeny
11-25-2004, 09:18 AM
I know this has nothing to do with gunfighting, but I particiate in coyote calling contests. I am the long distance shooter and my partner is the short distance gunner. If they keep coming, he whacks them, when they hang up, I smoke them.

When the old dog comes loping over the horizon and we see him at a distance, we are clam, collected and calculating. We kill him.

Wanna see a real cluster. That's when we bag it. Stand up, to go to the next set, and a pair pops up over the ridge on a dead run right at us 25 yards away. Now that's a rush. ;)

Ankeny
11-25-2004, 12:02 PM
BUT...are there any examples of competition shooters without such practical experience who were able to put their competition honed skills to the ultimate test?

Sure there are competiton shooters who have been in a deadly encounter and lived to see the sunrise. I know a couple of them as a matter of fact. There are also a lot of people who shot for blood and survived who can't even spell IPSC. I doubt if they ever heard of Cirillo, Jordan, or Matt Tempkin either.

I have no idea why a law enforcement agency would enlist the aid of a bullseye shooter. That one is a mystery. I do know why they would ask Rob Leatham to stop by. I am not making a connection between the bullseye shooter and Robbie. It's apples and oranges.

FWIW, on Brian Enos' little forum, Leatham's user name is TGO and he has an unusual tag line or whatever you call it. You know, it's the little saying under the user name. His line is "Looks at Target". Just in the interest of history, Leatham got a lot of funny looks from the hard core IPSC shooters back in the 1970's. You see, Rob Leatham came right out and told the old "front sight press" crowd that he didn't necessarily use the sights at all, he focused on the targets. You see, out there on the "playground" Rob Leatham is the King of index shooters, or what many of you call point shooters. ;)

MarkP
11-25-2004, 04:13 PM
BUT...are there any examples of competition shooters without such practical experience who were able to put their competition honed skills to the ultimate test?

The department that uses Rob L. has had some of it's officers in real life gunfights - the skills they learned from TGO were put to the test on the street and were succesful.

Many of those same officers make the local matches as their schedules permit.

Until that day,

Mark

Ankeny
11-25-2004, 04:40 PM
Oh, hi there Mark. I didn't know you hung around here. Took me a minute to figure out who you are. Slaps forehead.

MarkP
11-25-2004, 05:14 PM
Hello Ankeny ,

I don't visit here as often as I'd like - just check in on occasion.

IIRC ,

The ARMY Marksmanship Unit was using some of their team members in both HG and LG disciplines to train up units heading over to the sandbox.

It's all about getting the hits....

until that day,
Mark

Deaf Smith
11-25-2004, 06:50 PM
7677,

The deer hunting is an analogy as to the discussion earlier in this thread as to weither 'ambush', as Cirillo did, was different or harder than sudden encounters. Just an analogy as it's not combat (except on the deer's side of the issue, is it life-and-death for him.)

Cirillo and others, as I posted, felt waiting was harder and once the ball started rolling, if your training was good and thorough, you would do as you were trained and do it well.

And as for Rob teaching a LEO organization, depends on what he teaches. If it's 'how to win a IPSC match', well I don't think that would help. But if it's how to quickly fire fast and accurate shots, he undoubtably knows a thing or two on that subject.

Unless the LE department he went to are complete idiots, I think they know what they want out of the session.

To decry them for letting a 'gamer' show his stuff smacks on myopic idiocy. Like I said, I don't think they got him there to learn IPSC.

And for the girl who shot Bulleseye, trigger control is extreamly importrant with any form of handgun shooting. Without mastering that, it becomes very easy to jirk or spray shots all over the place. So maybe she gave them insights on that. Why not talk to the LE department in question and ask what she taught them? Might get some interesting answers.

MarkC
11-25-2004, 11:30 PM
The best advice I was ever given was that "Professionals are always worth talking to, it doesn't matter what they do, you can always learn something."

Years ago I sat in on a lecture by Don Nygord, who was lecturing on bullseye shooting, a discipline I don't practice. There were some great insights on the way the eyes work, the importance of the width of the light bars and a number of other things. Only small things maybe, but cumulatively well worth the trip and some of which I was able to incorporate into my own shooting.

It's what you make of it. As Bruce Lee said, you 'take what is useful and discard the rest.'

If you've closed yourself off so much you can no longer do that then, maybe it's not everyone else that has the problem.

Ankeny
11-26-2004, 08:37 AM
So tell me...how does one without practical combat experience decide just what will, in fact, work in a life or death battle?

The "expert presenters" without practical combat experience, teach the mechanics of shooting. It's up to you to decide what will or will not work. If you are tired of listening, that's cool. Your point about listening to someone with the "experience" is well taken. That's why the modern IPSC hot rocks who also have experience in law enforcement are so well received. Some things never change.


But be warned..quite often the advice given by the two camps differ widely

I think that point is well taken. But, there are a lot of things the "two camps" have in common. The sighting continuum is a perfect example. As I mentioned before, 7677's sighting continuum is exactly the same thing the IPSC guys preach, and they preach it hard. The difference? I need an A hit, 7677 needs "combat accuracy". Yes, the difference in time between that A zone hit and an "acceptable combat hit" for new students is enough time to get them killed. That's why Robin teaches PSing as the primary tool for CQB. For me it's a natural by-product of the sighting continuum.

I visited with 7677 for a long time on the phone. I have also corresponded with Brownie off forum. I now know we do the same thing when going fast at CQB distances. The similarities are just astounding. I also know we came about things from different ends of the spectrum. The big difference is how we apply the techniques and mechanics of shooting to our individual needs. The time to the end goal and the learning curves are also different.

My advice, FWIW, is this. If you just care about gunfighting go take a class from someone like Gabe. Learn how to be the best gunfighter you can be with the skills you have. Develop your skills from the ground floor up with gunfighting as the end goal.

If you have an unquenchable thirst for shooting knowledge (a sick addiction to trigger time like me) and if you want to have a deep understanding of the current knowledge about the mental and biomechanical aspects of just shooting fast and accurately, there are sources for that information outside of the strictly gunfighting community. If you don't care, well just blow it off. It isn't worth fighting over.

MarkC
11-26-2004, 01:21 PM
So tell me...how does one without practical combat experience decide just what will, in fact, work in a life or death battle?
In other words, it is kinda hard to take what is useful if one does not know what useful is.
Ditto for an instructor who either has never been in combat or didn't learned from someone who has so been.
Which is exactly what Cirillo--someone who the gamers love to quote so often concerning his views on competition---has written in the past.
I must admit that I do, in fact, have a problem.
I can no longer sit through an 8 hour class of BS to absorb the one or two grains of gold that may come about.
Hell, even a broken clock is correct twice a day, but it is impossible without other feedback to know exactly when that is.
Nor do I get my jollies by learning nothing except what not to do, as some gunwriters have written about the joys of being stuck in a class where everything is BS.
Like it or not certain lessons can only be learned in actual combat and I have choosen to seek out these men as my instructors.
Which I have been doing--and continue to do so--for over 34 years.
Others are free to do otherwise.
But be warned..quite often the advice given by the two camps differ widely---as quite a few of those who have experienced FOF have reported here.
Choose wisely.

Well, I've only got thirty years in, five of those were in our Tactical Response Group. I've seen bad guys shot and I've seen police shot. So, what do you mean by 'practical combat experience' Matt? 'Combat' denotes military experience to me and quite frankly that's very different to the police experience. Is working a fifty from the top of a Bradley practical combat experience? What about kicking a door in, throwing in a frag, then brassing the room up? Not uncommon in the military, contra-indicated with police. I have been in shootings, I don't think I'd choose to call those events combat!

I probably chose a bad example with Nygord as you've taken that to mean having to sit through a formal lecture every time. The original quote was, 'Professionals are always worth talking to....' I stand by that, and all that was meant was that you can learn a helluva lot by talking to professionals about the way they do business.

If you've found the grail and nothing else is worth your attention that's fine. As for force on force, we run it twice a week, forty eight weeks of the year, for any thing up to thirty officers per day. You're welcome to have look any time you're down this way and see what you think.

Choose wisely? I hope so Matt. It may surprise you to know you're not the only one that wants to teach people how to survive and I've been an instructor since 1977 with that thought in mind. I'm not bound by any particular dogma. I'm not a gamer, though I have shot competition in the past.

FWIW, I'll happily talk to competition shooters any time because there are insights about sighted fire they've developed that no one else has and as the PS'ers are at pains to point out, they do use sighted shooting as well over the longer distances.

And yes, we teach point shooting Matt. It's used during FOF all the time, it may differ a little from yours but that's what it is, nontheless.

<<So tell me...how does one without practical combat experience decide just what will, in fact, work in a life or death battle?>>

Since a lot of the shootings I go to involve a great deal of luck on the part of the participants, it's an interesting question. I know people who have been there and survived and will swear blind that a particular way of doing things saved their lives. The objective evidence is that they should never buy another lottery ticket in their lives because they got through by sheer dumb luck! But, they've now got practical combat experience. How much store do we put in what they tell us as a basis for training?

This is not a shot at people like Gabe, Jeff Gonzales and the like, these are true professionals. It's more a comment on just what can constitute 'experience'.

7677
11-26-2004, 09:15 PM
I think some things need to be put in perspective and addressed here.

The technique of point shooting is quite old and I doubt anyone could trace the lines back to just one inventor. However, most known of the point shooting techniques was developed by Fairbairn and Sykes in the 1930's. Fairbairn and Sykes were training soldiers and police officers in point shooting way before Enos and IPSC ever existed. Also along this time Quick Kill was being taught. This is why the point shooting side of the camp gets so irritated when the competition side says Enos came up with type one and type two focus. When Enos's Grandfather was going off to war, he was probably taught point shooting and type one and two focus by the masters themselves. I have not read any of Enos's books so I cannot say for sure where or how Enos came up with type one or type two focus. He may have came up with it trying to explain the concept to another person.

That is the same reason why I came up with the sight continuum to explain when one uses unsighted and sighted fire in a gun fight. The continuum is not shooting technique but a guide when to use a particular shooting technique. This is the core to a integrated gunfighting that includes both sighted and unsighted shooting styles.

Both the camps have a similar mission, to win, however the means to the end are different. In competition whoever is the fastest and gets the most A hits wins. However, this not the same with the street as there is more to survival then shooting fast.

Survival starts with situational awareness. You must have your antenna up and looking for potential threats. You must be able to identify threats and then take the appropriate action to deal with identified threats. The difference between competition is you start with a buzzer and the match has started. However, in real life the starting point is not so defined. The attacker set the rules and most of the time has the tactical advantage. This is were judgement and training become so important. One can identify a potential threat and at this time the person has to use their judgement rather or not to draw ones weapon. Most of the time a criminal is not going to give you justification until it is to late. They are going to try and close in on you and get in close. They commonly use ruses such as what time is it or I'm lost can you give me directions. They will do their best to find or get you off guard before they make their move. Because of these close quarters the use of sights are not recommended because you are going to be reacting to them and to bring the weapon up for the use of sights will only give them the opportunity to grab your gun. When the person decided to go guns, rather it be reacting to a criminal drawing a weapon or assault with a weapon.

To increase your odds of survival one has to move off line while drawing and fire at the criminal. You have to make the criminal react to you and you have to take the fight to them. Depending on the circumstances you can flank to the left or right or move in towards the criminal while firing. This is the integrated tactics and techniques what has been left out of police training due to square range training.

About three years ago, I wrote about my observations from simunitions training I was a part of and how those that stopped, drew and aimed were the ones that were getting hit and the ones who moved, drew and used point shooting had a much higher survival rate. Since I have made these observations about the simunitions training, Gabe created a FOF class with air soft and those that have taken this class such as Sweatandbullets saw for themselves first hand what I have been talking about for years. As the ability to conduct FoF becomes readily available more and more people will see the light and the need for a integrated tactics and techniques which includes both sighted and unsighted shooting skills as well as H2H skills.

The "Sight Continuum" is the guide to which shooting tactic and technique they will use.

MTS
11-27-2004, 06:12 AM
http://www.glocktalk.com/images/smilies/goodpost.gifCould have used a few paragraph breaks though.:)

DaveJames
11-27-2004, 09:09 AM
7677, very nice ;)

Ankeny
11-27-2004, 09:57 AM
Brian Enos didn't invent any types of shooting focus. I don't recall saying he did. Will someone point me to the post where someone said Enos invented shooting focus? That would be like saying he invented shooting. Perhaps some folks are creating demons where none exist?

What Brian did was analyze and put on paper what he experienced. Brian changed his mission from one of shooting to one of teaching. In order to teach what he knows to others he had to call his focus types something didn't he? He defined his focus types, he didn't invent them. When I tried to explain what I "see" when I shoot, I used his works as a reference because I am intimately familiar with his work. I used his focus types as a learning tool so people could compare and contrast systems in order to discover the similarities and differences. That only works with people who want to find similarities. Unfortunately, I think some people are too occupied with finding fault.

Just as shooters were experiencing different types of focus long before Brian came along, he wrote and taught about focus types long before 7677 coined the term sighting continuum. As an educator that tells me something. It tells me different people, with different goals, came to similar conclusions at different points in time independently. This only adds to the credibility of the "system" regardless of which set of definitions you choose. As for Brian Enos, I really do feel like crap for even mentioning his name.

fastbolt
11-27-2004, 12:28 PM
Lots of semantics being argued over ... but lots & lots of good observations and explanations resulting from what's one of the more professional debates on these subjects to be found among the forums. I'm surrounded by my betters, to my good fortune, and I know it ...

Some of the head-nodding, assenting thoughts I've had while reading this thread so far ...

Ankeny, you don't have anything to apologize for because you used Enos' name. It's actually a compliment to him, and your points were well explained, distractions aside. Your good intentions were obvious.

Many deadly force "survival" situations really do occur at 0-5 feet, and PS really does have a place of merit in the tactical response training regimen.

Movement on the part of the suspect is something that appears to be occuring more often than some instructors are willing to acknowledge, and remaining stationary while attempting to react and address such a threat elevates the danger to the victim. Shooting & moving, and shooting-while-moving are requisite skills. The "foundation mechanics" of these skills can certainly be found within the sporting venues ... maybe not the best integration of them "tactically-speaking", but the foundation is arguably there. The foundation can be used to build upon by anyone, for most any purpose, but the foundation skills have to be present in the beginning.

A lot of folks survive "combat situations" ... the skillful and the inept. Luck runs to both extremes, too, and doesn't seem to show any particular inclination of why it favors one or another (being the skillful & inept). I've always hoped that being more on the "skillful" end of the spectrum may at least permit me to better recognize whatever "luck" comes my way, and take advantage accordingly.

The description of the "Sight Continuum" helps focus and simplify many of the issues. I like it, and recognize where I find myself within it at different times and circumstances. A lot of folks are familiar with the concept of a force continuum from L/E work ... but sooner or later someone's going to decide to try and reintroduce the concept as a "Sight Matrix".;) The important thing is that while many folks may describe things differently, most of the better skilled & experienced folks seem to have arrived at the same conceptual understanding even while taking different paths, and even if they use different words. What's wrong with that?

My wrist angle and position also changes somewhat as my weapon moves within the "use arc" of just clearing the holster (1-handed), all the way out to 2-handed, deliberately aimed distance shooting. (It also happens when using edged weapons, from small folding/fixed blades to swords, so I'm not surprised it happens with a handgun.) The "technique" I've arrived at over the years for PS uses a wrist/grip angle I refer to as "shaking hands" as its foundation. It works for me, and I find it useful & practical from 0-7 yards. I'm hoping for continued refinement and evolution, and don't consider it as "the answer".

"Survival starts with situational awareness." Yep. Helps mitigate the luck aspect ...

Whenever I have the opportunity to actually work with folks who participate in IPSC, IDPA, Steel Challenge & the Bianchi Cup, I spend more time watching and listening than I do talking and "demonstrating". They generally don't "need" my skills and thoughts ... I need to better understand theirs. It's never been a waste of my time. My survival in a deadly force encounter is more important to me than "pride".

I think we saw a better level of "foundation skills" among L/E folks, especially when it comes to trigger control, when we used revolvers and emphasized bullseye shooting. Don't get me wrong ... I'm NOT implying that we should return to static-line bullseye training ... but there IS a place in our world for the foundation skills resulting from aimed bullseye shooting.

"As the ole timers used to say "stand and Deliver", YOU FIGHT AS YOU TRAIN." The final arbiter of what's "proper training" for any individual ultimately rests with the individual. Hopefully, the individual will have made the best, most informed choice possible. Also hopefully, your chosen training won't be found wanting when it's put to the test.

I've been shooting longer than I've been involved in martial arts. However, in my 33 years of involvement in the arts I haven't strictly limited myself to only a single art. Sure, after the first few years my primary focus became rooted in a couple of arts, and has remained there, but I've also spent most of those years exposing myself to many other arts, as well. I've taken what I've found useful and incorporated it as it seemed appropriate ... But none of this would've really been effective without a good foundation from which to start, and the willingness to continually "perfect" my foundation as my involvement in the arts evolved.

EGO won't save your life ... and it might get you killed.

If someone's "selective perception", resulting from looking through the self-imposed lenses of EGO, results in not recognizing a valuable skill, technique, tactical response, etc., etc. ... then the whole concept of accepting individual responsibility for our actions may become that oft-discussed 2-edged sword.

I've really enjoyed much of what's been discussed in this thread, and won't intrude again. I'm simply not as qualified nor in the same realm as most of you.

Thanks though ... to most everyone ...

7677
11-27-2004, 05:34 PM
As for Brian Enos, I really do feel like crap for even mentioning his name.
Ron,
No need to feel like crap. I was just describing a progression of how we got the terms we have today. I cannot speak for Enos but I suspect the reason why he came up with type one and type two focus was to explain the concept to others. This is the same reason why I came up with the sight continuum. I guess if I had read Enos, there would have been no reason to reinvent the wheel. However, the sight continuum does more then explain focus it also gives guidance on what technique to use when combined with outside factors. There is always a progression of skills and when terms need a definition some us are at the right place at the right time to give explanation/definition of a term and it sticks. The discussion of Enos is very appropriate to this discussion.

MarkP
11-28-2004, 04:01 PM
From Jeff's book p.71

"I subscribe to Brian Enos' sight focus and have adapted it to fit my neeeds".

just a fyi ,
MP

Deaf Smith
11-28-2004, 06:03 PM
Don't confuse them, Mark.

Deaf

7677
11-29-2004, 07:29 AM
Even Deaf is unsure about what he is talking about.
Remember what you said about the lack of common sense in a lot of square range training?
WHOOP..THERE HE IS.....
Ohhhhh my...I just spilled my morning coffee down the front of my shirt...that was too funny...funny but appropriate!

Gabriel Suarez
11-29-2004, 07:50 AM
Gents,

The advantage of terminology is that it draws pictures in our minds based on how we associate the words used. The word Continuum denotes a continuity, and not seperate techniques.

The types of focus we are discussing are a progression from one end of the spectrum to the other, not Technique One, Technique Two, etc.

As far as Enos, he has made some good contrbutions to the art, as have men like John Boyd, Applegate, Cooper, and even Chuck Taylor. No need to feel bad about bringing his name up. Some other names....maybe not :D

Ankeny
11-29-2004, 09:15 AM
I agree vision is a complete spectrum. Brian makes that clear in his book. He breaks vison down into discrete units so he can teach people in steps. Kind of like Gabe did in his opening post. Heck, the draw is a continuum but I see that task broken down into steps all the time.

If you really want to muddy the water, Enos isn't even talking about consiously thinking and processing what you see, he is talking about your visual awareness in relation to inputs from the gun as they happen while you are shooting. If you have to consiously think about what you are doing you are too slow. Vision drives the gun just like we drive a car. If you hit a slick spot and have to think, "Uh oh slick spot.." as the rear end skids to the left, then think, "Ok now don't hit the brakes, steer into the skid, counter that in the opposite direction if a secondary skid happens..." you will be in the ditch. On my playground shooting is the same, you just drive the gun. Of course, some folks are just better drivers.