"As they say in Italy, Italians were eating with a knife and fork when the French were still eating each other. The Medici family had to bring their Tuscan cooks up there so they could make something edible"
For those of you who are interested in the historic development and use of Knives and firearms for the clandestine service. We have Ed Harris writing some guests articles on the subject.
The guy is a wealth of knowledge, he not only knew the persons responsible for the developments and who used the items in the field, he participated in the testing.
On the knife designs he brings to light why certain things were added and or removed from knives to make them "Mission Feasible" even cooler he still has some of the stuff.
The knife portion should be out by Sunday, it is interesting how and why they developed certain blades, they went from a killing approach to more multi-purpose as things got more advanced, IE using aircraft etc
That was great stuff,and the reason I bought a Beretta 70S = if it good enough for the Mossad .Thank you for that write up and I look forward to more of that quality.
I think their main problem with Jeff Cooper's method must have been the Weaver stance and the use of the sights, as opposed to the point shooting approach of Fairbairn and Applegate.
I think their main problem with Jeff Cooper's method must have been the Weaver stance and the use of the sights, as opposed to the point shooting approach of Fairbairn and Applegate.
The F & A point-shoot system works for extremely short ranges where even that extra fraction of a second can be too long. Hell even I can shoot from the hip at point blank. The Weaver system - both eyes open and focussed on front sight - will give better accuracy at longer ranges. Irregardless of what system you use, there is no substitute for practice, practice, practice, practice, practice..........
"The boys down at “the farm” never accepted Cooper’s so-called “modern” technique of the pistol"
What was Cooper's technique?
Gunfighters of the old west, and real gunfighters with documented success to this day use the point shooting technique.
E. A. Sykes and W. E. Fairbairn, of the Shanghai Municipal Police before the Japanese occupation, are generally acknowledged as the fathers of modern point shooting development along with Colonel Rex Applegate who was a military officer with the Office of Strategic Intelligence (OSS - Precursor of the CIA)
However persons like Bill Jordon of the Border Patrol and Jelly Brice, of the FBI and Chick Gaylord just to name a few were using the method during the same time period and all had no idea who the other person was or that they were using the same method until their later years. Do not confuse point shooting with quick draw, they are separate animals.
So the reality is that the system was being employed all over the world since the invention of weaponry that shoots a projectile. We have just had individuals who develop their own style IE some stand erect, some crouch, etc but the method of aiming the gun in point shooing is the same.
All of these men also knew and know there is a need for sighted fire at over 15 yards, and stated that on many occasions. They were and are not against sighted fire, they just do not believe that it fits in all situations. They are and were 100 % Correct.
During WWII training of OSS agents in firearms was limited, so they had to pick the best system to train their operatives. Point shooting was the best because it offered the fastest result for people who had never used and some who had never even seen a handgun, in the least amount of time. Sometimes before sending a person off they may only have had a matter of hours to get them semi-competent with the use of a handgun. You can do this very effectively with point shooting.
Cooper on the other hand was a Marine Corps officer and was used to having all of the time he needed to train persons for their intended mission.
He played with his concepts for years and was back and forth. Not because he was indecisive, if he observed something he liked or felt it worked better than what he was teaching he used it.
It is also no secret that use of sights will give you a better score or more consistent and accurate hits. But it is slower to teach, and takes more time to get your gun on target.
It can also keep you from hitting the bad guy in certain conditions and in certain circumstances.
Remember bad guys are not paper, they move really fast and use things like darkness and surprise attack to gain the advantage.
So you have two different schools of thought, both have there strong and weak points both have their uses, and both need to be practiced.
You cannot say one is better than the other. You can only say one works better than the other under certain conditions.
I agree 100% and would only amplify one point and add another.
I would say there is a need for sighted fire before you ever get to 15 yards, like maybe 8 yards. Maybe that is just my lack of skill, but I don't feel too confident about point shooting anything at over 7 yards. (I will get to try this out today! )
So I am emphatically confirming what Jeff Cooper would argue, and by doing so I don't think I'm contradicting Applegate.
The point I would add is that not only are murderers apt to behave differently from targets at the range, and not only are you likely to encounter them under significantly worse conditions for shooting. It is also true that the situation tends to render one ham-fisted and half-blind and anything but deliberate in one's actions.
Adrenaline simply annihilates fine motor coordination in favor of gross motor activation and close vision in favor of far, not to mention deliberate thought in favor of instant action, whether it is right or wrong.
So in that moment when suddenly some Orc is actually attempting to murder you, a lot of fine skills can go straight out the window.
Of course, I am sure that if Jeff Cooper got hold of you for training, he'd subject you to lots of induced ("simulated") stress to desensitize you to the kind of stimuli that cause adrenaline dump and ruin your aim.
The Applegate et. al. approach, on the other hand, is to assume that you're going to get the adrenaline dump anyway, which is quite possible in close quarters, no matter your training. So they developed a system (or systems) that you can use when your body is functioning this way.
That to me is the main difference between the two approaches.
Me, I wouldn't mess with either Applegate or Cooper.
I agree with all the posts here,and would add that of the many I have met who had to fire in the LOD or for S/D - they all agree that they did NOT see their sights.Some of these were not only well trained men,but firearms instructors.So I took a page from their book and I practice BOTH disiplines .At close range I go for point and if I have the TIME I use the front sight.BUT realize that its is almost impossible to intergrate realism to the point of incoming fire that will take your life.Aye there's the rub,thats when we show what we will really do,and as stated the aforementioned LEO's etc - under fire reacted with instinct and fired point shooting.