Talk:Point shooting

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Firearms (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Firearms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of firearms on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Archived discussion[edit]

Archived content may be found at Talk:Point shooting/Archive 1. If there's any discussion anyone want's to pull back to this page, edit that page, select and copy the relevant text, and drop it into this page. scot 03:47, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Merged versions[edit]

OK, I've added my merger of the two versions. I think I've addressed 1 and 2 above fairly well. As for #4, I didn't mention Dorfner specifically, I just put the coining of "Point & Shoot" in the 1950s. If we can come up with a good source showing Dorfner using the term, that would be great, I can credit it to him and nail down the date with more precision. As for references to the other P&S stuff, I think it can all be gleaned from the patent descriptions (I should probalby link to the US Patent Office's entries).

As for #3, I took out the 1942 patent because it seemed redundant. The 1902 patent shows use with a revolver, the 1908 with a shotgun, and the 2000 patent with a semi-automatic, so I think those are all relevant.

Comments? scot 19:04, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

From RES: OK, I have some questions regarding the P&S entry:
1) "...term coined in the 1950s..." cite?
My fault; I was confusing dates. Looks like it should be 1990s. Still trying to track down more info on Dorfner's and/or John's publications, looks like I might have to e-mail the magazines since I can't find the original articles online.
2) Cite for the "two-handed P&S method"?
John's patent description is so far the only reference I've seen to that.
Also, the statement about "questioning the ability to hold the gun steady" isn't the primary objection. The primary objection is the fact that it is an alternate method of operating the firearm, which has been adapted for use as a non-sighted-fire aiming method. Thus, including it as a pointshooting method is highly questionable.Roundeyesamurai 01:00, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
My point of view here is that you first have to define what you mean by "point shooting", and then see how it fits with that definition. So far the most striking difference I've seen to traditional methods of shooting is that of focus; with sights, the focus is on the front sight, whereas with all the point shooting methods the focus is on the target. As far as "alternate methods" go, would you consider CAR an alternate method because the gun is held canted 45 degrees? Get a gun with the right ejection angle, and you could even cause a malfunction that way by dropping an ejected round back into the open slide (a long shot, but I've seen it done on a Beretta .22 that ejected straight up). In fact, by federal law, a handgun is designed to be fired with one hand, which would make all 2 hand methods "alternate methods". The one black-and-white, clear-cut difference I see between point shooting and other methods is the focus. scot 03:36, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

From RES- Correct: pointshooting is best defined as methods of aligning the weapon to the target which rely upon a target focus, rather than focus on an aiming device (sight(s), laser dot, etc.).

The problem that exists with P&S is that the index finger alignment and the use of the middle finger to depress the trigger are two distinct concepts. What defines P&S is the middle finger on the trigger- hence, it is an alternate method of operating the trigger. If the defining characteristic were the index finger alignment, then it would be applicable with any digit of the hand- one could use the index finger to align, and then place the same index finger on the trigger, or one could use it with a rifle by pointing with the index finger of the hand on the forearm, or one could grip the pistol (such as a pocket automatic) with the pinky and depress the trigger with the ring finger, and point with the index and middle fingers in a Bill Clinton-type gesture. For that matter, one could hold the pistol upside-down in the hand, using the index finger to point and the little finger to depress the trigger.

Likewise, if the defining characteristic were pointing with any digit, then thumbs-forward competition shooters (who grip the pistol with both thumbs pointing forward, parallel to the bore) would be said to be "P&S'ing".

Since that is obviously not what John is proposing (and indeed, none of these would present a need or use for John's product, the "aiming aid"), then the defining characteristic- the thing which makes it distinctly its own method, distinguishable from any other method- is the use of the middle finger to depress the trigger. Because of this, it is an alternate method of operating the weapon, which can be adapted for use in (roughly) aligning the weapon to the target.

An analogy: Many shooting schools teach their students to perform speed reloads by keeping the muzzle of the weapon downrange and on the target, while turning the butt inward to allow the other hand to reload. Since the weapon is pointed to the target while this transpires, with the intent of being able to land hits as soon as possible once the reload is complete, a person could come along and proclaim that it is a pointshooting method because the weapon is pointed (as much as possible) directly to the target while reloading.

Obviously, however, the reload and the pointing of the weapon are two distinct functions which coincide. Likewise, depressing the trigger with the middle finger and "pointing" with the index finger are distinct functions which coincide. Roundeyesamurai 04:18, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I guess the problem I have with this is that I don't see the split between using the middle finger to pull the trigger, and using the index finger to "point" the firearm. The only reason I can see for pulling the trigger with the middle finger would be if you needed the index finger for another purpose, and it'd better be a darned good one to give up the gripping power of that finger.
Maybe a solution to this is to go through the various patents, and try to come up with a different title for the section, one that concentrates on the devices used. It seems to me that the entire concept is a "quick fix" solution; trying to get a "good enough" solution with no training or practice required. I've seen similar methods espoused for shotguns, placing the index finger of the off hand along the forend, parallel to the barrel (might work with doubles, really awkward with a pump, however). scot 03:47, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

From RES- Actually, I don't think "quick fix" is the right term. It takes significantly longer to get to be proficient with the middle finger on the trigger, than the index finger.

Probably the more correct way to describe it, is that it's "different"- it's a concept which resurfaces from time to time, and is brought up by someone who likes it specifically because it is different- and usually (given the number of patented devices for it) they figure they can make a buck off of it, because it is different. In other words, it's a novelty.

As far as the differentiation between the index finger and middle finger functions- as I said before, it's a matter of identifying the one distinguishing characteristic that makes it different from any other possible permutation of the same concept. Since there are a variety of ways to use a digit to align the weapon (which I described before), the defining characteristic can't be "the use of a digit (or specifically, the index finger) to align the weapon"- because such would mean that any and all permutations of that concept would be described as "P&S". Therefore, it has to be "the use of the middle finger to depress the trigger"- because that is what makes it unique.

Unfortunately (for John), this also means that it isn't a pointshooting method in the strictest sense- because the function of the trigger has nothing to do with being a threat-focused methodology. It is more accurately described as an alternative means of engaging the trigger, which can be readily modified to be used in a pointshooting-like manner. Roundeyesamurai 08:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'll think about that for a while, and see if I can get everything summed up in a couple of sentences. scot 16:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Update[edit]

I decided that "novelty" seemed to sum up your statements the best, so I've added that to the argument against. I also looked through the 1902 patent (patented by someone in the Panhandle of the Oklahoma Territory, a little over 230 miles from me) and it referred to the index finger as "primarily to ensure proper aim". Whatever the current P&S school of thought may be, I think that provides a firm historical basis for the use of the index finger as an aiming aid. Reading between the lines, the 1902 patent claims to be a "finger guard", and why would your index finger need guarding if shooting that way wasn't fairly common at the time? Pure speculation, but I do find the history of this pretty interesting... scot 22:47, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

From RES- I like the way it looks.
As far as the assumption that middle finger shooting must have been common- remember, inventors usually have a logic all their own. It seems logical to assume that the "finger guard" was created to fill a public need, but the reality of it is that it was probably invented to facilitate shooting in that manner (and generate interest in shooting that way- i.e. sell the idea on its novelty), rather than to protect the finger of those already shooting in that manner.
Remember also, that it's extremely unlikely that anyone would have already become comfortable shooting with the index finger extended- they'd have burned their finger every time they tried, from hot gases and burning powder escaping the cylinder gap. If someone wanted to "sell" people on the idea of shooting with the middle finger, they'd first have to come up with a way to prevent the index finger being burned- hence, the "finger guard". Roundeyesamurai 18:50, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
That's sort of a "chicken vs. egg" issue; the two concepts do seem pretty tightly bound together. Unfortunately, I don't have a single action revolver handy, or I'd give it a quick test to see how far down my finger reached, to see how likely it was that you could have shot one without a finger guard. With the long cylinders of black powder revolvers, and smaller people 100 years ago, it might have been a close thing. Of course, single actions revolve clockwise to put the fired round under the loading gate, so you'd risk the cylinder eating your finger when you cocked it for the next round... scot 22:25, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

From RES- Go to a gun store and give it a try.

Also, try thumb-cocking while holding the grip with the ring and little fingers.

As far as the cylinder turning and catching the finger- that's more of a concern while wearing gloves (that the gloves would get caught). Hot gases and burning powder flakes escaping from the cylinder gap would also destroy the fingertip of a glove pretty fast. Roundeyesamurai 01:56, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Category[edit]

The user "Linas" put the article into the "guns" category, and I wondering if the article can be placed in multiple categories, so that we can also put it under "firearms" (which appears to be a separate category).

Yes, mulitple categories are fine. Might also fit under "martial arts", and there may be others. scot 15:10, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Revision[edit]

I have removed the Youtube videos and "bibliography" posted by Mr. Veit ("5shot"). Once again, and as stated before, Wikipedia is not a place for personal promotion. A brief description of "point and shoot", which already exists, is sufficient. The "point and shoot" material, which is nothing more than a footnote in the realm of pointshooting, should not dominate the article in terms of size. Roundeyesamurai 00:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Revert[edit]

I have reverted the edit made by "Thumperward". His edit was made, according to him/her, because the line removed "was not interesting". Roundeyesamurai 23:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

And "not sourced". I'm removing this again. This is the equivalent on jotting notes in the margins, and unless it's sourced it's worthless to an encyclopedia. Chris Cunningham 00:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
"This is the equivalent of jotting notes in the margins..." in your OPINION. Please, start an edit war and get the page locked from further editing, over one sentence. Jesus christ. Roundeyesamurai 11:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
This is unsourced, pointless trivia, and unsuitable for inclusion. Mind your attitude. Chris Cunningham 12:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's an idea: Instead of editing the article to read the way *you* want it to read, why not rewrite the line so as to make it viable? Or, you could continue to do what you're doing now, which is being asinine. Roundeyesamurai 04:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

As far as sources goes, A quick search of the web shows both "FSA" and "FAS" used for Fairbairn/Sykes/Applegate methods. I'll see if I can pick a couple of links to show this. Since Fairbairn and Sykes were associated long before Applegate came along, "FSA" certainly has the stronger claim to legitimacy. On the other hand, I don't like the fact that the sentence is just tacked on the end--it just seems awkward like that. How about the head of the section be changed to:

Fairbairn, Sykes, and Applegate[edit]

The methodology established by Fairbairn, Sykes, and Applegate (abbreviated FSA or sometimes arranged FAS)...

...and add a footnote after each abbreviation providing a suitable reference? I think that would address all three concerns--desire for the information to be included, desire for references, and desire for a better flow of text. scot 14:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. This is the most obvious (and least sociopathic) solution. Chris Cunningham 15:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch, Scot.

Also... "sociopathic"? Wait, nevermind, it's not worth getting into a psychological discussion with someone who spends the majority of his time on Wikipedia. Roundeyesamurai 17:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Added historical info[edit]

1/24/09

I recently added some historical info as to Point Shooting and its early use: The documentation in support of the entries can be found at www.pointshooting.com/1835.htm and www.pointshooting.com/1911.htm

They provide a factual basis for the historical info provided.

I also read above that the page controller or editor in cheif may be interest in verification of Walter J. Dorfner's paper and publication. I have a copy of Walter's original paper and I made the digest of it that has been published.

The digest is available on my site www.pointshooting.com/pands.htm Walter said that he had it published in the VSP magazine and I had it published as well.

All the material on my site is open source material, written by experts and/or approved of by those experts, or stuff written by me based on my investigation and experimentation. There also are pics and videos to back up what is said.

Though I do not think that I should have to do anything more than anyone else to "be heard," if you are an editor or controller of this page, and you want me to send you a scanned page or two of an article that I have had published in paper form and as mentioned in my bio info on my site, send me an e-mail : okjoe at aol dot com, and I will try to do that. My bio info is linked to near the bottom of my site.

Best regards,

John Veit

5shot (talk) 20:13, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

On 4/2/2009, I noticed that a major edit to the page effectively erased the entries RE P&S.

I added them back in.

If someone has a problem with that, please let me know. My name is John Veit. My e-mail is: okjoe@aol.com

All of the informtion is available via my web site which has been getting over 1 million hits per year, and I have had articles on P&S and other Point Shooting methods published in a variety of police and private pubs.

P&S has been squelched deliberately via traditionalists who believe that Sight Shooting is superior accuracy wise. At distance and/or when not used for self defense in life threatening situations, that is the case.

However Sight Shooting fails to be used in close quarters life threat situations due to the stress of those situations. And the science based literature supports this.

The supression of P&S over the years which in my opinion was mainly due to a simple design flaw of the 1911 and 1911A1 (if the slide stop pin is depressed by the index finger when the gun is fired, the gun can jam), and which could have been fixed easily, has resulted in thousands and thousands of casualties of U.S. armed forces members and Police Ageny members over the past 100 years, as they were/are denied via that design flaw, of using a natural, fast, and accurate method of shooting in close quarter life threat situations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 5shot (talkcontribs) 01:53, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

A separate page for Info on P&S or inclusion of more specifics on it and other point shooting methods which could get out of hand.[edit]

I proposed a new article on AIMED Point Shooting or P&S, which was not accepted.

I asked that it be reconsidered for acceptance, and received this response:

You should raise your concerns (in more compact manner and possibly one by one to avoid tl;dr issues) on the talk:point shooting page, as this is the general topic of your draft. Effectively all your concerns can be addressed by editing the point shooting article, so there is simply no need in separate article on topic. P.S.: please, keep the discussion in one central place. Just use ERROR: Please enter the username parameter when using the {{Talkback}} template - thus {{Talkback|<username>}}. template to inform other discussion participants of your comment. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:00, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

My original article is posted below as is my reconsideration request which may be a bit lengthy, but to those involved in the area of shooting, may be of interest.

As to including the "new" article content and ref's within this current Point Shooting article, I will try to do that in the near future. Also I have been reading the prior talk entries and will try to respond to the questions asked. One in particular is about the origin of the term AIMED Point Shooting or P&S. I coined that expression to differentiate the method of shooting where the index finger is placed along side the gun and used for aiming. Other Point shooting methods use body indexing, a stiff arm, or placing the gun muzzle at a specific point in the target, etc..

Declined submission Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Aimed Point Shooting or P&S[edit]

5shot (talk) 00:40, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

So I hope that you will reconsider your declination of the article on AIMED Point Shooting or P&S, and open it for review and comment. Over time, it may need to be removed given changes in the main Point Shooting article.

Thanks for your consideration.

If I should be addressing this to another party please let me know. Thanks. I also will add this request to my talk page.

John Veit 5shot (talk) 23:41, 29 July 2012 (UTC) ................... ................... 5shot (talk) 02:18, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Removed huge copy-paste of declined article, reverting additions[edit]

John, there is no need at all to copy-paste the entire declined article here, when you can just type Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Aimed Point Shooting or P&S and anyone who wants to see it can click there. Accordingly I've added the link, and removed the text, as it was taking up the vast majority of this page.

Your manual merge of this data has been quite problematic, and has really cluttered up this article, which was already not in the best of shape. You really need to read up on the basics of Wikipedia editing, as the vast majority of the information you've added is simply not how things are written or presented on Wikipedia. I'm taking a look at the extensive amount of work it would take me to get it close to Wikipedia-appropriate phrasing, citation format, etc. I ended up deciding that the article should just be reverted to the June 2012 version of the article. It simply isn't fair to drop in massive amounts of material that just isn't properly prepared, and leave it for other people to shape the peg to fit into the hole.

It's not that you don't have some useful material, but the presentation has not even slightly taken into account Wikipedia's WP:Manual of style, proper use of WP:Tone, etc. It's basically just written as though this were part of your personal website and there were no formats or guidelines to follow. As just one of many examples, how does a section title "C-A-U-T-I-O-N" even remotely resemble the writing style of anywhere else on Wikipedia?

I understand, from your above posts, that you may be considered among the experts in writing on this field, however in the same way as any book or magazine publisher has particular editorial methods used internally, so does Wikipedia, and your current edits simply aren't conforming with those.

Accordingly I'm reverting back to the version predating your July 2012 merge. I'll post some further suggestions on your Talk page. MatthewVanitas (talk) 23:58, 30 September 2012 (UTC)