5shot wrote:There even is a video on the web of it being used by Jack Ruby when shooting Oswald. Both parties were moving, the target area was small, Jack was not in contact, and he had his right index finger (some say it was missing, but that was his left hand index finger, and his finger print chart confirms that).
As mentioned in a previous post, even if Ruby did it, Ruby is hardly what anyone would consider to be an expert on shooting, his point contact shot only just nicked Oswald's mesentery artery and a half inch either way Oswald would have survived. Cite McGivern espousing it and you might have a case, but Ruby was a relative non-entity who shot his way to fame on live tv.
And there is also the simple fact that the few grainy frames of Ruby doing his deed don't conclusively show Ruby firing with his middle finger, in one of the frames it even appears that the finger is outside the front of the trigger guard, a common practice I have found among neophyte shooters that I have taught and coached - when they couldn't get all of their fingers gripping the butt, instead of letting the little finger dangle below, they moved their grip up and pointed out their middle finger, somewhat like Ruby appears to be doing in the picture.
5shot wrote:The other side of this coin, is that there is no proof that traditional sight shooting works in CQ SD situations. There should be hunderds if not thousands of pics and videos since its been taught for 100+ years, but they are like pics and videos of flying saucers. Some good minded folks attest that they indeed exist and that they have seen them. Science says it will fail due our fight or flight response that kicks in in CQ SD situations, and police combat studies confirm that. That it may be used in some cases, is most probably true, but that will not be the case for the run of the mill mortal.
And what has traditional sighting got to do with the "finger alongside" position you say will be a fatal error if using a 1911?
I have a lot of pics and videos of fellow shooters doing just fine at contact distance using their index fingers to pull the trigger.
5shot wrote:Here is something of interest that deals with CQ SD situations.
. . . Treatise about point shooting . . .
Waiting until you are in a real CQ life threat situation to learn it, could be terminal.
While I agree that learning point shooting is essential, I still see no reason to believe that putting the index finger in danger has anything to do with improved accuracy or effective point shooting.
5shot wrote:And here is the stuff on the index finger method which works with and can enhance instinctive point shooting as mentioned in the tests. I could give you the edge in a terminal confrontation. IMHO, in a lead exchange, it would be better to give than receive.
As to using the index finger along the side of the gun for aiming each and every shot, and using the middle finger to pull the trigger, which I call AIMED Point Shooting or P&S, and which is effective at close quarters:
1. The US Military manual on the 1911 that came out in 1912, cautioned against using it:
..."(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."
Now, by cautioning against its use, the manual "officially" recognized that P&S did exist and that it was in use.
In formal debating this would be known as a logical fallacy: Saying that the military cautioned against it, therefore they must have sanctioned its use previously is not supported factually and is a defective conclusion. Point and shoot did exist, and maybe some relatively untrained recruits used an index finger alongside, therefore the military cautioned against it, would be an equally valid argument. Since it was mentioned, probably someone tried it, but that is by no means proof that it was in common use or that a paradigm change in shooting was needed.
5shot wrote:2. The following is the URL to an article that talks about the use of P&S by the Chinese military in the early 1900's when shooting the C 96:
http://www.iar-arms.com/mausereview1.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Already covered, not proof, not even really a c-96.
The web site seems to be yours, and it hardly is surprising that it would contain information supporting your thesis.
Same as above.
5shot wrote:5. I was told by a WWII Sgt to use P&S when shooting my grease gun from the hip.
I am assuming you are referring to the M3 or M3A1, and I just looked it up in my FM/TM and couldn't find any recommendation for shooting it this way, so your "Sgt" was probably teaching off the page, which does nothing to enhance your argument beyond adding to the word count. The M3 was equipped with rudimentary sights at best, it was meant for close combat, and, due to its simplistic design, had an awkwardly placed trigger, which may indeed have been easier to grip and fire with the middle finger, especially for people with large hands, but the Army didn't teach it that way. When I was teaching shooting in the Navy, I taught the "Weaver Stance" (and BTW, Weaver used his index finger on the trigger too) but it was not in any of my manuals, the Navy still taught "stand and deliver" one hand behind the back shooting with the handguns, but that did not make me right. I also taught M1A1 and M3A1 Submachineguns using the index finger on the trigger and never had a problem.
5shot wrote:6. Walter J. Dorfner, the long time lead firearms instructor for the VSP, developed and experimented on its use. Walter felt it was going to be the next step in the evolution of survival shooting. He wrote a paper on it, and I made a digest of it which we both had published. The method was not part of the official curriculum at the academy, but Walter introduced it to recruits. Walter has since retired, and is now deceased.
Here is a link to the digest:
http://www.pointshooting.com/pands.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
P&S is natural, instinctive, fast, accurate, requires little cognitive thinking, and it is not dependant on fine motor skills and being able to focus on the sights as is the case with Sight Shooting. P&S also requires no special body index, or stiff arm, or Isso grip, or some practiced "Zen" like ability to make hits. All you need to do is grab your gun and point-n-pull, point-n-pull.
P&S also provides the firer with an automatic and correct sight picture.
And using your words to prove your words does nothing to prove them. What is "VSP", Vermont State Police?
5shot wrote:Now, it is quite understandable that some to many do not know about P&S. That is probably because of the US Army cautioned against its use with the 1911.
The 1911 was the standard issue sidearm of the US Military from 1911 to 1985, so and as such, the P&S method was not used for 70+ years by the military and Police. And the 1911 is still carried by some forces and Police.
The reason for cautioning against the use of P&S, is that if the slide stop pin is depressed when the 1911 is fired, the 1911 can jam.
And now you attempt to use your original thesis to prove itself. Circular reasoning also does not work.
.................
5shot wrote:As to the military manuals that reference P&S, there is a listing of them and links to them an this article on my site.
http://www.pointshooting.com/1911.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; The publications have recently been digitalized by Google as part of its effort to make old publications available to the widest audience.
Sorry for the book.
Sorry, I thought it was your site, but didn't actually have it confirmed until here.
Google will "digitalize" anything, right or wrong, like my local public library having a copy of Bellesiles' book doesn't make it right.
Reference military manuals that actually teach the technique you espouse, and you will be doing a lot better. It's no wonder your articles are not well received.
