it totally makes sense to me, and as i wiggle my middle finger i believe you may also find it's actually possible to actuate that finger in a trigger action at a noticably faster rate.
it seems to me it would be logical to incorporate this into the handgrip design of a gun, you could even use a small ring opening along a short section of the aiming guide to help improve defense against disarming, as something you can then close your index finger back and further increase resistance against the weapon being pulled away or to the sides (towards the inside of the hand is the easiest way to grab a gun as the wrist is weaker in the direction it is more flexible)... it could also enable a more ergonomic placement for a secondary trigger for multi barrel, combination guns or grenade/shotgun under-barrel configurations, especially since highly accurate aiming is less important for these types of weapons.
My index finger is my trigger finger. So as soon as I shift my finger to the trigger, I begin to lose the alignment. Or I can point with my off-hand index finger, in which case, I have to learn an altered grip. OK.
Now, I can see that this might work in your everyday pistol fight, where the bullet is going to go more or less where you're pointing. But the narrator specifically mentions this working with rifles. Well, no. Because rifles are typically usd at ranges where sight alignment has to compensate for bullet drop and so forth. Finger alignment is going to have to compensate, too. The shooter is going to need to learn that however he aims.
This rail thing isjust a crutch to get people point-shooting quickly. But for anything but in-your-face ranges, the shooter still needs practice to learn where the bullets go in different conditions and at different range.Personally, I prefer spending lots of time sending lots of lead downrange, and getting the feel for where the bullets will go. I don't have to alter my handgun or my holster. And I'll had more fun.
It isn't necessarily a bad idea for getting started, but mostly it seems... (a-hem) pointless.
Nonsense. I use point and shoot almost exclusively and do not need any addition to my gun. All it takes is a little practice and trusting your very NORMAL tendency to point and shoot.
I can pick up almost any gun and point shoot immediately. If I can reach the trigger, I can shoot it without sights at close range.
www.tacticalshooting.com/showthread.php?t=219
D. R. Middlebrooks has perfected a system using point and shoot and a natural, ergonomic grip that makes shooting simple and practical for people of all ages, and all physical conditions.
Maybe I'm turning into a real 'mudge here, but not only do I seriously doubt the core, essential claim on its face, but I also fail to understand just why some people continue to think that sighted fire is such a risk as needs a "fix". After all, the reason that people use the sights now, is that when analysts got together years ago to see what worked the best in direct competition (people could try whatever equipment and techniques they wanted), sighted fire ran away with the results, and has ever since. I'm not aware that any of our current practical shooting sports actually require people to use the sights, so anyone who wants to go clean up on either the speed or accuracy games with point shooting should be able to make their case rather easily...anyone here know of a single such champion, or even a serious competitor?
I dunno, maybe it's the telltale fatuousness of the hackneyed "1911 design flaw!" claim, maybe it's watching the video and thinking "neither the rate of repeat shots nor the acquisition of target that I'm seeing here, seems to represent any sort of improvement", maybe it's my familiarity with opinions like Massad Ayoob (who has repeatedly addressed such claims before and AFAIK is still awaiting response to his open calls for the point-shooters to prove themselves in person)...or maybe I just can't stomach the safety thought of not seeing the entire path of travel in the cone of my vision, in re Rules Two and Four (and Rule Three by definition, but that presumes sighted fire). That latter is more 'mudge than critic, sure, but I'm just not seein' the value-add.
I'm happy to go with someone to a range and experiment, but I really doubt it's gonna hold up against the clock and ruler.
Jon, thanks for the link, whatever you yourself may think of it. :-)
One of the articles there begins thus:
Do you have a death wish?
If you seriously plan on using the sights to aim with in a close quarters self defense situation, you may have one.
Scientists have established that in close quarters life threat situations, your ability to focus on near objects like the sights, will be lost.
This will come as an enormous surprise to the legions of people who have done exactly that, and saved their lives.
Looking further, this may be just exactly one of the online sources that Mas Ayoob was referring to in his treatment of this subject in the 2007 Gun Digest Book of Combat Handgunnery.
That's a very old system, going back at least to the 1850's. It works, and if the gun you are using is comfortable being held in that configuration, is reasonably accurate.
However, a different drill became far more popular during and after the Civil War. That drill is well described by Mike Jennings in his book, "Instinct Shooting."
Long out of print, there may be a few affordable copies in used book stores near you.
My Dad always taught me to always use a 2 hand grip, and point with the fingers of both hands. Then move my trigger finger to the trigger when ready to fire, while maintaining the point with my off hand. Works great in any situation where I need to shoot center mass, quickly.
Worth experimenting with.
ReplyDeleteI like the idea of the trigger finger and the impudent digit being the same, considering the political climate.
it totally makes sense to me, and as i wiggle my middle finger i believe you may also find it's actually possible to actuate that finger in a trigger action at a noticably faster rate.
ReplyDeleteit seems to me it would be logical to incorporate this into the handgrip design of a gun, you could even use a small ring opening along a short section of the aiming guide to help improve defense against disarming, as something you can then close your index finger back and further increase resistance against the weapon being pulled away or to the sides (towards the inside of the hand is the easiest way to grab a gun as the wrist is weaker in the direction it is more flexible)... it could also enable a more ergonomic placement for a secondary trigger for multi barrel, combination guns or grenade/shotgun under-barrel configurations, especially since highly accurate aiming is less important for these types of weapons.
found a website.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.pointshooting.com/1aar.htm
My index finger is my trigger finger. So as soon as I shift my finger to the trigger, I begin to lose the alignment. Or I can point with my off-hand index finger, in which case, I have to learn an altered grip. OK.
ReplyDeleteNow, I can see that this might work in your everyday pistol fight, where the bullet is going to go more or less where you're pointing. But the narrator specifically mentions this working with rifles. Well, no. Because rifles are typically usd at ranges where sight alignment has to compensate for bullet drop and so forth. Finger alignment is going to have to compensate, too. The shooter is going to need to learn that however he aims.
This rail thing isjust a crutch to get people point-shooting quickly. But for anything but in-your-face ranges, the shooter still needs practice to learn where the bullets go in different conditions and at different range.Personally, I prefer spending lots of time sending lots of lead downrange, and getting the feel for where the bullets will go. I don't have to alter my handgun or my holster. And I'll had more fun.
It isn't necessarily a bad idea for getting started, but mostly it seems... (a-hem) pointless.
Roger Phillips wrote the book on point shooting...literally.
ReplyDeleteOnce I started training with Suarez International, I never looked back.
http://fightfocusedconcepts.com/home
www.suarezinternational.com
Nonsense. I use point and shoot almost exclusively and do not need any addition to my gun. All it takes is a little practice and trusting your very NORMAL tendency to point and shoot.
ReplyDeleteI can pick up almost any gun and point shoot immediately. If I can reach the trigger, I can shoot it without sights at close range.
www.tacticalshooting.com/showthread.php?t=219
D. R. Middlebrooks has perfected a system using point and shoot and a natural, ergonomic grip that makes shooting simple and practical for people of all ages, and all physical conditions.
Oh boy, David, I think I need boots.
ReplyDeleteMaybe I'm turning into a real 'mudge here, but not only do I seriously doubt the core, essential claim on its face, but I also fail to understand just why some people continue to think that sighted fire is such a risk as needs a "fix". After all, the reason that people use the sights now, is that when analysts got together years ago to see what worked the best in direct competition (people could try whatever equipment and techniques they wanted), sighted fire ran away with the results, and has ever since. I'm not aware that any of our current practical shooting sports actually require people to use the sights, so anyone who wants to go clean up on either the speed or accuracy games with point shooting should be able to make their case rather easily...anyone here know of a single such champion, or even a serious competitor?
I dunno, maybe it's the telltale fatuousness of the hackneyed "1911 design flaw!" claim, maybe it's watching the video and thinking "neither the rate of repeat shots nor the acquisition of target that I'm seeing here, seems to represent any sort of improvement", maybe it's my familiarity with opinions like Massad Ayoob (who has repeatedly addressed such claims before and AFAIK is still awaiting response to his open calls for the point-shooters to prove themselves in person)...or maybe I just can't stomach the safety thought of not seeing the entire path of travel in the cone of my vision, in re Rules Two and Four (and Rule Three by definition, but that presumes sighted fire). That latter is more 'mudge than critic, sure, but I'm just not seein' the value-add.
I'm happy to go with someone to a range and experiment, but I really doubt it's gonna hold up against the clock and ruler.
Jon, thanks for the link, whatever you yourself may think of it. :-)
ReplyDeleteOne of the articles there begins thus:
Do you have a death wish?
If you seriously plan on using the sights to aim with in a close quarters self defense situation, you may have one.
Scientists have established that in close quarters life threat situations, your ability to focus on near objects like the sights, will be lost.
This will come as an enormous surprise to the legions of people who have done exactly that, and saved their lives.
Looking further, this may be just exactly one of the online sources that Mas Ayoob was referring to in his treatment of this subject in the 2007 Gun Digest Book of Combat Handgunnery.
That's a very old system, going back at least to the 1850's. It works, and if the gun you are using is comfortable being held in that configuration, is reasonably accurate.
ReplyDeleteHowever, a different drill became far more popular during and after the Civil War. That drill is well described by Mike Jennings in his book, "Instinct Shooting."
Long out of print, there may be a few affordable copies in used book stores near you.
Stranger
My Dad always taught me to always use a 2 hand grip, and point with the fingers of both hands. Then move my trigger finger to the trigger when ready to fire, while maintaining the point with my off hand. Works great in any situation where I need to shoot center mass, quickly.
ReplyDelete