This all depends heavily on your definition of "point shooting". All shooters are using some sort of visual reference, just not always one as precise as a sight picture. Pineau's video above is a prime example. He says "no way of aiming", which is not really an accurate characterization. You can center the A zone of that target in the frame of that red dot and ensure hits as that distance. I've tried a method where I center the spot from my TLR-1 on a target and get reliable hits at similar distances. And anyone who shoots IDPA has probably made very close range hits without a sight picture. That's all aiming.
I prefer to view it as a spectrum, varying the precision of one's visual indication of point of aim. At closer range, one can get away with very loose indication. At longer range, one needs more precision. How much visual precision is needed depends on many factors--the skill of a well-indexed grip and stance being a major factor, and there are particular grip/stance combinations I believe have been shown more conducive to success with "loose" visual indication. Here's an example (skip to 3:12, but I recommend the whole series):
Some people also shoot from "floated" positions (gun not in the line of sight, not indexed against body). I've seen extremely effective weapon floating at short (zero) distance in force-on-force practice. I believe this is a skill worth training, for SOME people (separate subject). However, I am unconvinced that floating for anything past a few feet is worthwhile for self-defense. I haven't seen it work under pressure, or produce faster/better hits than "sighted" fire. Those who do it well on the range still depend on visual reference, but rely on more precise mechanics across the entire body. Talk about complex motor skills.
So there is a lot of gray area between "sighted fire" and "point shooting", and most utilize the gray area to some extent. But I think the fighting sciences are sufficiently advanced that we can dismiss the "you can't/won't use your sights in a fight" mentality as BS.
I prefer to view it as a spectrum, varying the precision of one's visual indication of point of aim. At closer range, one can get away with very loose indication. At longer range, one needs more precision. How much visual precision is needed depends on many factors--the skill of a well-indexed grip and stance being a major factor, and there are particular grip/stance combinations I believe have been shown more conducive to success with "loose" visual indication. Here's an example (skip to 3:12, but I recommend the whole series):
Some people also shoot from "floated" positions (gun not in the line of sight, not indexed against body). I've seen extremely effective weapon floating at short (zero) distance in force-on-force practice. I believe this is a skill worth training, for SOME people (separate subject). However, I am unconvinced that floating for anything past a few feet is worthwhile for self-defense. I haven't seen it work under pressure, or produce faster/better hits than "sighted" fire. Those who do it well on the range still depend on visual reference, but rely on more precise mechanics across the entire body. Talk about complex motor skills.
So there is a lot of gray area between "sighted fire" and "point shooting", and most utilize the gray area to some extent. But I think the fighting sciences are sufficiently advanced that we can dismiss the "you can't/won't use your sights in a fight" mentality as BS.
Last edited by a moderator: