Unfortunately, the 1911 had/has a design flaw that is mechanical in nature. It excludes the use of a shooting method with the 1911 that is natural, fast, automatic, and accurate, and that in turn, may prove fatal to a user.I occasionally need to reiterate that this is a gun rights blog, not a gun blog. This is such a time, and I am providing this link without further comment.
I leave it to you to examine the thesis and offer your opinions.
Interesting read but none of the links work... I just picked up my Glock 21 and tried to aim with my forefinger/trigger-finger. I know this isn't a 1911 but I wanted to see how it would work. It seems to me that at about 10 feet I might shoot a few inches over what I'm aiming at using the forefinger aim method.
ReplyDeleteThen again, I'm just a rookie.
Good read, thanks WoG.
Just noticed that about the links after you mentioned it. I just tried copying and pasting a couple of the text urls he provides into the browser address box and was able to access them that way.
ReplyDeleteI don't know about anyone else, but my .45 points as naturally as my index finder. And my index finger as trigger finger seems to isolate motion of other fingers that could wiggle the gun. May be the training and I could learn to do the same with the middle finger, but it sounds odd to me. I've watched ex-Delta guys in competition and they weren't middle-finger men. I'm open to opinions and new ideas, though.
ReplyDeleteI'm inclined to believe that Mr. Browning didn't consider it a flaw.
Interesting idea, but not all 1911s have this problem. I installed an ambidextrous slide release on mine, and the right side of the release is held in place with a hex-head screw. I could push on it all day and it wouldn't slide loose. Then again, it wouldn't give me problems anyway - I'm a left-handed shooter.
ReplyDeleteHowever, there is a general problem with this technique when used with semiautomatics - your index finger would be dangerously close to the slide, and on some semis it could get caught, sliced, or otherwise hurt.
Another way around this could be to paint a straight fluorescent line along the top of the slide, from sight to sight. Might work, might not, but its something worth considering. Regardless, the best way to aim better is to practice, no matter the weapon.
david hardy made a post just the other day about recoil management that might as well make these kinds of heuristics moot -- so long as you have good sights.
ReplyDeletehttp://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2008/06/recoil_reducer.php
nobody's quite sure of the truthiness of it, but were it legit, combined with sights like these:
http://www.suresight.com/
...i can't see you getting better results from a "shooting method" that's really just adding your finger (or a flourescent line) to the system. but that's just an example, not a plug to go out and buy something you don't need, it just makes my point easier.
a "shooting method" should be something you can practice, as matt said. breathing, focusing, feeling the break -- not doohickeys or meat substitutions thereof. nothing can come close to a firearm that has become an extension of your will.
Yawn...
ReplyDeleteRead Ed McGivern's book.
He point shot just fine with his revolvers using the index finger.
to give a good example that i think explains what i'm saying better, i recall jeff cooper has a "program" one might refer to as a shooting method described in his book to ride, shoot straight, and speak the truth.
ReplyDeletehe trains the body not to fire until the front sight is "correct" in the FOV, and to always fire when that condition is met. there is no thought put into the trigger finger, it obeys the mind's criteria for "shoot now." breathing may be involved, clearly you would want them to converge at the same time, but this is more or less what i remember of it.
you can see how the question of point shooting or sight shooting can be asked independently of this method -- they're really just a question of what physical devices you will use in order to measure your FOV for the "shoot" condition.
or, maybe it's just a dumb semantic argument. either way, i just think this guy didn't research what other people have actually done about BAR. in the martial arts, we have "programs" very similar in design to cooper's (as i recall it) for dealing with sudden physical violence.
Maybe that would work with the old flintlock style pistols but I doubt you could hold a modern firearm with just two fingers and still keep the sights steady. Bullseye pistol shooters certainly have learned to make them shoot where they're pointed. It's all about trigger control anyway.
ReplyDeleteWrist strength, finger strength,length of digits, thickness of them, etc, ad nauseum means no two people shoot the same way when attempting "trick" shots such as point shooting. One of the best pistol shots I knew could, up to the 900 inch line, actually fire with more accuracy when using his thumb on the trigger. In combat you learn your way to get 'er done. Do it often enough, and are favored by random chance enough, and you can squeeze off accurate rounds as well as anyone but the trick shooters. Who by the way didn't learn on a two-way range.
ReplyDeleteIf you're worried about those situations then Crimson Trace (tm) and Lasermax (tm) have the solution for you. Put the red (or green) dot on your target and pull the bloody trigger. Otherwise, get the sights up into your FOV. We are responsible for where the pointy things go.
ReplyDeleteThe publication was "digitalized"?
ReplyDeleteDoes this guy get his writinating skills from Fark?
This author hints darkly at all sorts of mysterious conspiracies designed to keep people from hitting their targets, but fails completely to mention that every single instructor who has ever tried to teach any form of "point shooting" has succeeded only in ripping up target frames and wasting ammunition.
ReplyDeleteThe reason most people don't use point shooting is because the gun industry invented sights.
This kind of crapola shows up somewhere in the gun press about every two to five years, and it's the gun literature equivalent of crabgrass.
Greetings, David. My first posted comment, after lurking for a good while. Fantastic rights site.
ReplyDeleteI'm a bit surprised that nobody has really covered the complete Jeff Cooper angle on this yet...there's a part of me that suspects that a few of you may already know all this, but I'll bite and tell it as I know it, cause, well, I'm like that.
Way I've heard it, Jeff Cooper and John Plähn set up a series of open competitions in the 1950s, specifically to determine what the most effective means of manipulating a defensive handgun might be. The organizing principle was purpose: improvised defensive scenarios all had the common goal of placing accurate, powerful shots as quickly as possible. Minimal restrictions were placed on equipment and technique so that the best answers could reveal themselves through performance.
And, they did. What is now called The Modern Technique is the direct result of this study. The use of sights and the flash sight picture, the compressed surprise break, the Weaver stance, the heavy-duty, major-caliber pistol, and the technique of presentation (to which Jonathan alludes) were the techniques that won in these matches, proving themselves reliable, performable and adaptable to changing scenarios and demanding challenges. Other techniques were certainly tried, including point-shooting, but these were the ones that rose to the top, and Col. Cooper made them the cornerstone of his teaching. Last I checked, his students had a pretty good track record at staying alive in fights, and they speak conspicuously of seeing their sights at the moment of discharge.
Incidentally, the presentation technique Jonathan refers to, which is described in To Ride, Shoot Straight, and Speak the Truth, can be employed effectively whether or not you can actually see the sights; one Cooper exercise actually has you close your eyes as your hand hits the pistol...you complete the draw stroke to hammer fall, exactly the same way as when you do have your eyes open. It works.
There have certainly been some amazing point-shooters out there, and I don't want to detract from those who have honed that skill to perfection. But unless I'm rather severely misreading the result data, for most of us, if you want to hit, you use the sights.
Frankly, I think that any of us could answer this question for himself by simply taking an equivalent-length course (say, 3 days) from a respected instructor in each discipline, in whatever order you choose, and put the skills to the test side-by-side, against the clock, from arm's length to a considerable distance (for most of us, 25 yards is a long way, but it's certainly within the realm of a possible defensive scenario). You'll figure out quite quickly which one you'd use to save your own life. (Remember, "you can't miss fast enough to win.")
I won't begrudge anyone who honestly hits better without sights than with (it's a free country, right?), but I suspect that list is not very long.
Which brings us, finally, to the idea of the 1911's protruding slide stop pin being a "design flaw":
Oy.
I guess some people just specialize in making noise. This rather strikes me the same way as all sort and manner of other modern revelations that tell me that I should never have survived my own childhood. (Seriously, how have any of us managed to live this far?)
Finally, if you haven't read Cooper's work, you are missing much of value. Start with Principles of Personal Defense, continue with To Ride..., follow that with The Art of the Rifle, and, well, don't stop there. :-)
This fellow posts regularly at the Suarez Int'l Warrior Talk Forums under the name of '5Shot'. He keeps trying to sell "his" method of shooting using the middle finger and so far hasn't had any takers.
ReplyDelete