| |||||||||||||||
Product Details
Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images?
|
|
Share your thoughts with other customers:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
24 of 24 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Applegate Updated,
By
This review is from: Bullseyes Don't Shoot Back (Paperback)
This book updates the close quarter handgun firing section of "Kill or Get Killed." Point shooting has a couple of advantages over using the sights. Focus on the sights psychologically removes the shooter from the gun fight and can increase accuracy--but the human eye can focus on only one thing at a time. Fratricide (shooting brother police officers) is one of the pitfalls of using your sights. You need target focus if you are to identify your target--and know what your target is doing at the moment you shot. Sight focus is important beyond 25 feet--this varies between people--and target focus is vital at ten feet or less. Most gunfights take place at close range because criminal activity is an anti-social social activity. The book, "Body Language" explains the distances for social interaction and how you can fool almost anybody at 25 feet, but have a lot of trouble doing so at 4 feet. Most of the police officers who died from bullet injuries in the line of duty were shot from distances of less than ten feet--often, by other police officers. Memorizing the grooves in your front sight instead of looking for body language clues when your enemy is close enough to touch is losing situational awareness--you'd have shot already if your target was doing something that justified shooting! The uncertain nature of close quarter encounters is why point shooting must be part of the skill set possessed by every soldier, law enforcement officer, and armed private citizen. Today's handguns have better sights--so low light, stress-induced visual impairment, and the effects of getting a face full of tear gas don't have the same effect as when armed with a M1911A1 issued in 1942. Point shooting is quick to learn, and point shooting skills don't decay as rapidly as using the sights.
It's a choice between target focus and front sight focus. Up close--target focus. At a distance--front sight focus. Applegate's choice of the Glock automatic may surprise some--he chose that pistol for its grip angle and reliable functioning. Many ranges won't permit the use of Vector "low temperature tracer" ammunition because of a perceived fire hazard--in some areas, all tracer ammunition is prohibited. I don't recall Applegate recommending the use of AirSoft guns (with their low-velocity brightly colored plastic projectiles), but the projectile can be observed and corrections made in grip and trigger control when tracers are impractical. Fairbairn and Sykes taught Applegate to fire "bursts" in order to make up for the low power of pistol bullets. The two British police officers were using the .45 automatic with full metal jacketed bullets fighting crime in Shanghai about 80 years ago. Applegate developed the two-shot burst as a fire discipline tool--there's a tendancy to shoot only one time and gape when the target doesn't fall down. There's another problem brought on by "cold ranges" (guns only loaded for a firing string, then loaded and cleared upon command) -- the trainee is trained to empty the magazine each time a target is presented. This creates two problems: fifteen or sixteen bullets go down range in a gun fight regardless of what the target does (the law enforcement officer is concentrating on keeping front sight on target blur) and the shooter now has an empty gun. Point shooting isn't a cure-all. Point shooting is an effective answer to a limited tactical problem. Ignoring point shooting just because you cannot hit a six-inch bull's eye at 500 feet with the technique ignores the fact than most deadly force encounters are within 10 feet and totally ignores the human factors. "Bullseyes Don't Shoot Back" is an excellent primer for point shooting. Get Rex Applegate's video, "Shooting for Keeps" as a companionn to the book. Don't neglect fire using your pistol sights, but practice point shooting.
23 of 23 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Tactical Firing Solution,
By A Customer
Amazon Verified Purchase(What's this?)
This review is from: Bullseyes Don't Shoot Back (Paperback)
I am a recent convert to Applegate. I have been shooting for some time now, with limited results using frontsite focus, controlled breathing, squeeze trigger, be surprised when the round goes off, blah, blah, blah. The problem is...way to much fine motor skill required. When our heart rate goes to 145 bpm ie adrenilin dump, we enter the gross motor skill zone. All the fine motor skill crap will go out the window...Weaver, Chapmann, Iscosoles, all of it, unless you train for hundreds of hours to create 'muscle memory'. Most of us just don't have time, we will go to gross motor skills, as will most of the 'Experts'. That's Applegates entire premise, and he is a true WW II combat expert, what is old, is now new, plus it could save your life! I tried Point Shooting yesterday, fired 250 rounds at 45 feet (beyond the 30' range accuracy of point shooting), it works -BUY THIS BOOK! PS - Applegate does endorse the Iscosoles stance for distance shooting, only if time allows, or whatever type of fine motor skill stance for that matter, but within 30' - Point Shoot.
9 of 10 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars
Missing the forest for the trees.,
By
Amazon Verified Purchase(What's this?)
This review is from: Bullseyes Don't Shoot Back (Paperback)
Although I agree with much of what the authors say, I also believe they fall into the same trap they accuse the "gurus" of, and alternate between valid points and contradictory statements:
1. Gun "gurus" are wrong to emphasize two-handed sighted fire. 2. "Realistic combat shooting technique is a continuum which ranges from extreme close range body point firing to two-handed sighted fire techniques." 3. You should emphasize one-handed point shooting. A better approach would have been to emphasize statement #2 and then show the benefits of one-handed point shooting without trying to make it sound like the "holy grail" of combat shooting. Overall a good book that is worth your time to read. If nothing else, it gives some historical perspective on the evolution of combat shooting and offers old/new ideas for consideration.
Share your thoughts with other customers: Create your own review
|
|
|
Tags Customers Associate with This Product(What's this?)Click on a tag to find related items, discussions, and people.
|
|
This product's forum
Active discussions in related forums
Search Customer Discussions
|
Related forums
|