Reading post 555299 in main thread: Sights or Point Shooting in CQB Situations
November 14th, 2009  
Originally Posted by 5shot
The actual CQ combat hit rate is less than 20% so saying that every shot must be aimed, sounds good, but it's not reality.


Notice how almost all the manuals you reference were from 1917? In 1924 the M1911A1 was adopted and it addressed many of the earlier issues that you are talking about and nobody uses the type of 1911 quoted in those sources. What you are suggesting simply cannot happen and it is not true. Sorry, but people use 1911s all the time and this is just not an issue that comes up. If you think a 20% hit rate when aiming is bad, then just imagine how low it would go if you don't aim. The 20% hit rates stated in the FBI stats also include shots that are fired by wounded officers in full panic mode after having been ambushed. It is quite probable that many of those misses were not aimed shots in the first place (using either technique). The heavy hitters in the MIL/LE community have all made well prepared and thought out arguments backed by real world experience and statistical data against this method. If you want to dicount the experiences of people like Larry Vickers and Massad Ayoob and discount the training practices of the top tactical organizations in the world, then that is on you. Your posts and the "references" that you posted out of context are misleading and wrong. No matter how you cut it, there is a reason why major organizations do not advocate the practice of using point shooting and their reasons are based on real world performance not misleading references from 1917. This former SWAT officers sums up nicely why NOT to use it:$32550

Paul Howe a 20 year vet of special forces who battled his way out of the Blackhawk Down incident and led the team that captured on of Aidid's top guys had this to say about point shooting:

Word renowned pistol expert Col Jeff Cooper stated "the body aims, the sights confirm" and the list goes on and on.

Not to mention that this Staff Sergeant right here has a lot of combat time and won't bet his life on this method. <------ The only time I have engaged the enemy without sights is when firing full auto belt fed weapons with tracers, and then I walk the hits on.

So, in short, I'm trying to be civil but your opinions are not based on facts and your issue with the 1911 is unfounded and just plain not true. The slide stop detent was invented for this exact purpose! The notch cannot align unless you have defective mags with a poorly fit slide and just happen to be pressing really hard with the tip of your finger at the exact moment the slide locks back. There is a time and place for point shooting... that time is when the enemy can touch you with his hands. Oh, and did you read in the article above about how Wyatt Earp used sights? You may remember him winning many a gunfight back in the days when point or hip shooting was in style. He lived to old age, unlike many of his adversaries. Once again, take it from an actual gunfighter. Advocating combat tactics that have not been proven in combat makes little sense.

EDIT: and one more thing, you wouldn't be able to have your index finger on the end of the slide stop and pull the trigger at the same time anyway unles you are left handed (it's pushed out from the right side of the receiver) and it cannot be pushed out while the weapon is in battery. In regards to lights/lasers many of the country's leading departments are going to them, so don't just write them off as an insignifigant number since... umm, I dunno the largest Sherrif's unit in the country with over 9,000 sworn has been using crimson trace grips since 2003...

Gunner COAX troops! Fire and adjust!

Last edited by 19kilo30K4; November 14th, 2009 at 12:51..
Veterans Advantage, Inc.
(c)02-14 - Post # 555299