Was talking with some buddies about current fashion in combat shooting.
In particular the way that pistol marksmanship is taught compared to the way that pistols are actually used in combat.
A quick history. Before WWII everyone bought into the thinking that instinctive shooting (point) was the best way to engage targets with a pistol. The US Marine Corps was a big booster of this concept. The following is from Wikipedia....
Another of Applegate's training innovations was the use of particularly intense combat firing ranges, which he called the "House of horrors". A cross between an obstacle course, a haunted house, and a shooting range, it used a three dimensional layout with stairs and tunnels, pop-up targets, deliberately poor lighting, psychologically disturbing sounds, simulated cobwebs and bodies, and blank cartridges being fired towards the shooter. The range was designed to have the greatest possible psychological impact on the shooter, to simulate the stress of combat as much as possible, and no targets were presented at distances of greater than 10 feet (3.0 m) from the shooter.A couple of things.
Applegate also used his house of horrors as a test of the point shooting training. Five hundred men were run through the house of horrors after standard target pistol training, and then again (with modifications in the layout) after training in point shooting. The average number of hits in the first group was four out of twelve targets hit (with two shots per target). After point shooting, the average jumped to ten out of twelve targets hit. Further shooters trained only in point shooting, including those who had never fired a handgun before receiving point shooting training, maintained the high average established by the first group (FMFRP 12-80, p. 286). Similar methods were in use as early as the 1920s and continue to this day, for example the FBI facility called Hogan's Alley.
First, I've never seen a "kill house" or "house of horrors" that meets Applegates standards. Next its obvious that Applegate didn't just put forth a theory of point shooting but he also tested the concept.
That alone is refreshing but it also proves that his method works.
The next question you should be asking is where aimed pistol shooting came from. The answer is Col. Cooper. I love the guy. He was a true great but in this case he might have been wrong. I point to police shootings as the case in point. During shooting incidents, police have a horrible record. Civilians in the same circumstances have a much higher hit rate.
I contend that the difference is that civilians are depending on instinctive (or point) shooting while police are using aimed shooting techniques.
More to come on this subject.
UPDATE: Patrick pointed me to an article that is a must read (here) that basically boils this down quite nicely. In it they state that traditional aimed shooting, press shooting (front sight aiming) and instinctive shooting all have their places. If you're an armed civilian using his weapon as a defensive tool then I would recommend you practice instinctive shooting. Most of your combat will take place in close quarters, low light and happen extremely quickly. But read the article for yourself and make up your own mind.
