What is this "Threat Focused" Stuff?

Training Training and Tactics
1

I have read about a few methods of instruction that frankly, I find to be a bit fanciful. In reading some threads on various gun forums that I don’t really post on, I’ve come across some common themes:

There are a few instructors teaching a system known as “threat focused”. These guys tend to like to reference old Army “Quick Kill” techniques and seem to be discipiles of Applegate, Sykes and Fairbairn.

Many times, “center axis relock” is lumped in with this type of “reflexive” or “point shooting” training. Everything that I have read on this goes against my own instincts and how I have been trained to date. While I understand the need for retention techniques and “point shooting” as Ken Hackathorn refers to it (“flash” sight picture, i.e. superimpose sights onto threat at ranges inside 10m) I do not understand the rest of the justification for unsighted fire.

The instructors for these techniques invariably cite near miraculous results in short periods of time with their students, running and gunning one-handed getting “90% hits” on targets…

If anyone has any experience with what I am referring to, please feel free to share.

2

My take and experience with “point shooting” is that it has it’s place and like other things, has it’s limitations.

I believe that the shooter should be trained appropriately --and also possess the ability to reason and know to manage their sights or not at all.

This whole topic is a can of worms

Mark

3

Does can of worms = shouldn’t be discussed?

4

Oh, no, it’s interesting to see the difference in idea’s.

I’ve heard the arguments that you will only do one or the other. I say that’s a reflection in training levels. I’ve heard the “you will only point shoot anyhow” arguement more. I don’t believe that. Then there’s places that will only teach sighted fire only because they’re so liability conscience.

5

And there are places and people who teach sighted fire because it works.

6

I’ve heard some good things about Roger Phillips point shooting classes. I’ve never been, but a friend is signed up for one his classes early next year.

7

I’ve taken a few different classes at a few different schools, and in one of the classes, the instructors “exposed” us to “point shooting” from contact distance out to about 3 yrds. From about 3 to 5 yds, we used a “soft” sight picture (focus on target, sights are in your line of sight, but not in focus) from 7+ yards, sights are used.

Rational given was you use each “technique” based on how much time you have / how critical the threat is.

8

The simple fact that the instructors go to great pains to avoid admitting that they are teaching “point-shooting” is a big turn-off to me. Just say what it is. Let me decide if I wwant to take a point-shooting class (though I do not).

Nobody that I would enter a building with is formally taught or practices “point-shooting”.

Soft-focus / flash sight picture are a different animal.

9

One of my instructors referred to it as “Combat Focus”. Is this the same thing as “Threat focused”?

10

ability to reason and know to manage their sights or not at all.

I think that sums it up

11

Here are some quotes I have gathered from an instructor of this type of technique; these are very recent and appear to be typical of others who instruct this type of technique:

Fairbairn and Applegate of WW2 special operations fame were firm believers in the following…

1)Fast rate of fire.
In fact Fairbairn wrote that the more his pistol sounds like a submachine gun the better he liked it.

2)Moving into the enemy while rapidly shooting if the range is close and no cover is available…as is so often the case in a surprise handgun assult.

So…what we have is a tactic in which you charge in while yelling, screaming, cursing, and, most vital, shooting…which means that you are using your bullets as cover.
Moreover…Fairbairn also wrote that a man shot in the stomach area will usually clutch his midsection, thereby dropping his weapon…a good reason ( amongst others) to shoot “low.”
Of couse, nothing would prevent you from starting “low” and zippering your way up…
Fairbairn also wrote that at the exact impact of your bullet the BG was incapable of pulling his trigger for a second of so ( not sure why, but it is what he observed with the SMP) so the faster you hit him the more time he is not likely to return fire to you.
Which gives light to another saying popular in Special Ops teams…
“Sometimes the BOLDEST action is the safest action.”

The ability to shoot while rapidly moving in any and all directions–but especially in–is something that can be learned withing an hour or so.
Especially when used in conjunction with point shooting.
And with 100% accuracy–and by that I mean tight center mass hits from a distance and head shots when the range rapidly shrinks.
Remember that most gunfights happen very close and, if taken by surprise, cover is rarely an option. You either shoot while planted or you move.
So…which way can you move when we are talking about very close range? And probably in very tight quarters?
I submit that into the threat–especially when facing multiples–is the most effective–and safest–option.
I was taught how to do this by quite a few combat veterans, just two of which were Col. Applegate and my dad, who was a WW2 Ranger
****…you are dead wrong that shooting while moving is not accurate and I am willing to prove it when you come to NYC during the winter.
My favorite story concerning this comes from a student of mine, who was with the 82nd Airborne Division in the early 1990’s.
His unit was taking a very through two week handgun course, taught by a grizzled Special Forces Sgt.
After it was all over he stated to the students,
“Guys…after all of this training I will leave you with this…If it comes to handguns this is all that you will actually have time to do…”
He then proceeded to charge into the target, all the while shooting, screaming and cursing.

I have been teaching point shooting for over 17 years–police-SWAT-Military–security and armed citizen–and most end up shooting better with one handed point shooting while in motion than even with two handed aimed fire while planted.
Not to mention the added benefits of speed, surprise,and taking the fight to the bad guy–that shooting while moving in provides.
Those who say that it can’t be done well have not had the proper training.
I learned this from several sources–including Rex Applegate himself–and I am amazed at how quickly nearly anyone can pick this up.
To answer **** question…shooting the bad guy to the ground while moving in may just mess up his accuracy.
I suggest to move in quick, shoot him hard, fast and often and then use the empty gun ( along with empty hand/foot blows) to finish the fight.
So ****, in the words of extensive combat veteran Phil Singleton, tell me where I am wrong and please provide some alternatives.
Remember–we are talking very short range where cover is not an option.

Any opinions on what this guy is saying? I have my own, and I’ll get to them later. I will say that these claims sort of leave my head spinning…

12

I am interested in the discussion here as well. I am concerned a bit by this quote: “I have been teaching point shooting for over 17 years–police-SWAT-Military–security and armed citizen–and most end up shooting better with one handed point shooting while in motion than even with two handed aimed fire while planted.”

I just find it hard to believe that. Maybe I am reading too much into it, but when statements such as that are made it just causes me to discount the rest of the person’s statements. Am I wrong?, probably.

M_P

13

I have a hard time point-shooting. No matter how hard I try, for some reason I just bring the sights up to a target. It actually takes me more mental coordination to just shoot the shot point shooting than to align the sights and then take the shot. Is this weird? I’d imagine it would happen to most people who shoot handguns enough?:confused:

14

Tape your sights.

15

If you’re referring the “Combat Focus” as taught by Rob Pincus of Valhalla as a point shooting system I think you might not understand what he’s teaching.

What he’s teaching is essentially shooting from the subconscious. Everything you do can become a subconscious action or reaction. You’re not born a great shooter/driver/fighter etc. It’s all a learned skill. Take for instance driving a vehicle with a manual transmission or a motorcycle. Once you’ve done it a while you don’t have to think “hey I think I should upshift/downshift but before moving the shifter I need to depress the clutch”. Once you’ve done it enough times it becomes automatic and you do it without conscious thought. You know when to shift by how the vehicle sounds and feels all subconsciously.

Or like when shooting your AR at speed. You know that your rifles run dry and the bolt locked back by that extra felt recoil into the shoulder. So you either transition or reload automatically.

Sometimes in shooting you can shoot targets without perfect sight pictures or sight pictures at all. It’s all a balance of speed and accuracy. It’s just like in competition. You’ll know when you can go balls to the wall fast and still make sufficient hits. Sure they won’t be tiny little groups but they will be COM hits. Hitting a wide open IPSC/IDPA target at 3yds is a whole lot easier than hitting an 8" plate at 20yds. With lots of experience shooting under stress (real or just a timer) one will know subconsciously when he/she can go fast on the close targets and when to slow down for the far ones.

16

Many years ago (1990-1992) myself and some Army buddies would go shooting with some old Rhodesian conflict folk - they had use using “instictive shooting” over our (rifle) sights out to 100m with good result – but it took time and efforts.

Ken Hackathorns (as I understand it) point was that at close distance you will be primarily looking at your tgt - not at your sights – even though your looking thru or over your sights.

As for unsighted fire – the only time I will use unsighted fire is during the draw stroke - where inclose you may need to start shooting as soon as the gun clears the holster. Even with the taped sights drill your still indexing the pistol - and its not truley unsighted.

I dont really like at lot of the quoted text.

17

Allow me to interject my high-drag, low speed, unprofessional opinion on a few items that Jay quoted for us:

The ability to shoot while rapidly moving in any and all directions–but especially in–is something that can be learned withing an hour or so.

I have a feeling a lot of instructors would disagree with that statement. Mr. Vickers springs to mind right away based on what I’ve seen at his courses with box drills, figure eights, and other shooting and movement drills.

Pulling a trigger while moving isn’t hard…but getting good hits while moving is another thing altogether.

That also leads me to question:

And with 100% accuracy–and by that I mean tight center mass hits from a distance and head shots when the range rapidly shrinks.

Yes, you can certainly reach a level where head shots can be done at closer distances with good accuracy…but even when using my sights I can’t guarantee that kind of performance on a routine level.

Jay can verify that I’m not exactly a slow poke when it comes to using a handgun. He saw that while I’m no threat to Todd Jarett, I’m capable of dropping poppers and clearing plate racks at a pretty good clip…

I SINCERELY doubt there is a point shooting technique that is going to allow me to make head shots on the move 100% of the time.

I submit that into the threat–especially when facing multiples–is the most effective–and safest–option.

That’s what I was taught early in my training journey…I was taught that mainly by guys who are a part of a team that is used to doing the door kicking thing while suited up in all the cool ninja gear.

In fact, it still shows up in my shooting despite having learned better. One of the problems I had during the low light class was a tendency to charge the target, especially when I was having equipment issues.

Things that work great as a part of a team might not be the best approach when it’s just you by your lonesome.

…you are dead wrong that shooting while moving is not accurate and I am willing to prove it when you come to NYC during the winter.

I don’t know anyone that argues you can’t be accurate while moving. You certainly can if you exercise proper trigger control and proper movements. I don’t know many guys that can get tight center mass groups while at a full run, but using the groucho walk you can still move reasonably quickly while making good shots.

So…what we have is a tactic in which you charge in while yelling, screaming, cursing, and, most vital, shooting…which means that you are using your bullets as cover.

I’m known to talk to myself on the range especially when I am short-busing, but I’ve never heard it preached as a combat tactic before.

Fairbairn also wrote that at the exact impact of your bullet the BG was incapable of pulling his trigger for a second of so ( not sure why, but it is what he observed with the SMP) so the faster you hit him the more time he is not likely to return fire to you.

That’s a new one on me. I’ve never heard someone claim that a hit that doesn’t disrupt the CNS is going to reliably produce a temporary incapacitation of an opponent.

That certainly may happen and I’ve no doubt that it has happened before, but equally true is that there are guys who don’t even know they are hit until the fight is over.

The basic point of getting hits on a threat as soon as possible is perfectly reasonable, but I don’t think one can reasonably argue that every bullet you put on the target buys you one second of non-hostile behavior from the threat.

I suggest to move in quick, shoot him hard, fast and often and then use the empty gun ( along with empty hand/foot blows) to finish the fight.

I’m hoping there is some context I am missing here, because the idea of charging a guy while hosing him until your weapon is empty and then beating him with the empty weapon is just…well…f**ked up. Perhaps this is a statement that is meant to be more about mindset than tactics.

Personally I think one would be better served to shoot the threat until he no longer poses one, and if empty to get his weapon back into working order again as quickly as humanly possible while at the same time looking for other potential threats. (Bad guys travel in numbers sometimes…)

Anyway, that’s just my uneducated, non-professional, non-gunfighter opinion. I’m sure as hell not an expert and I haven’t even stayed at a Holiday Inn in almost a month, but there seems to be some issues with some of what is being articulated in those quotes Jay provided.

If I am out of my lane here I will happily shutup and delete everything I just posted.

18

I understood it the exact same way…

Namely trying to get people out of the mindset of looking for that bullseye sight picture for every shot in every situation and to teach them that a flash sight picture or even simply indexing the handgun can be sufficient to get decent hits at close range.

19

You ain’t the only one.

Maybe I am reading too much into it, but when statements such as that are made it just causes me to discount the rest of the person’s statements. Am I wrong?, probably.

There are some possible explanations I can think of.

Firstly, if I take someone with little or no formal training who has never done anything like tactically oriented training before and I teach them anything, they are likely to experience an improvement in their shooting.

If, for instance, I take guys who don’t have any formal training and do work on their trigger control, stance, etc and then tape up their sights and have them shoot and then shoot on the move, odds are that their performance is going to be markedly improved over what they could do even with their sights before the class started.

The trick is to repeat the same feat with guys who have a lot of solid training and see if you get the same results.

20

Well said. In the last several months during practice I’ve had to move full size targets out to 15-20yds or use much smaller downsized targets or target orange dots because I was finding myself focusing on the target and not on the front sight.