Talk:Point shooting

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Firearms; If you would like to join us, please visit the project page where you can find a list of open tasks. If you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked

Contents 1 Archived discussion 2 Merged versions 3 Update 4 Category 5 Revision 6 Revert 7 Fairbairn, Sykes, and Applegate

[edit] Archived discussion

Archived content may be found at Talk:Archive1/Point shooting. 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)

[edit] Merged versions

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)

[edit] Update

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)

[edit] Category

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)

[edit] Revision

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)

[edit] Revert

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:

[edit] Fairbairn, Sykes, and Applegate

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)