Anyone Here Tried C.A.R.?

Status
Not open for further replies.
G

Gunnut17

Moderator
Hi, me again. I have been looking around the Internet, mostly youtube and Google searches, learning about a controversial, new-to-me shooting system, Center Axis Relock(C.A.R. for short.). From my somewhat excessive understanding of it, the system utilizes a unorthodox grip and stance to reduce recoil and possibly increase reload time and follow-up shots. The gun is canted any where from around 30 to 180 degrees, and the body is bladed towards the target, reducing the profile of the shooter, and apparently protecting the face. I have seen shooters accurately hitting out to 50 feet. I have even heard people saying the way the pistol is held makes pistol-punching and elbowing a really up-close threat a possibility.

More info on the system here.
Video documenting the grip itself here.

Anyway, my question is, has anyone tried this?
Did it feel any different than other stances?
Was recoil reduced?
Did you "adopt" the system for anything?
Et cetera.

I, personally, think this is going to eventually be my HD and maybe SD stance of choice, it works in vehicles, from cover, can be used with one hand, leaving the other free to open doors and stuff, makes reloads faster depending on the level of training, is fluid in the transition between stances, and allows for quick target acquisition and follow-up shots, which are all pretty important in a SD situation.

So, your thoughts?
 
Guy standing downrange in first video=Dumb. Don't try that at home kids.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
 
Canting the gun about half that much does help with controlling the gun when shooting one handed.
Don't know about it being needed two handed.
One drawback to canting the gun is the sights and point of impact will be to the left on the target.
 
Canting the gun about half that much does help with controlling the gun when shooting one handed.
Don't know about it being needed two handed.
One drawback to canting the gun is the sights and point of impact will be to the left on the target.
Click to expand...

The cant isn't neccessary, but it is supposed to help with the recoil, as well as be more natural of a grip, and this guy even said in an earlier video that he was basing his grip off of other Youtube videos. And, although I am not sure, I am pretty sure that in the high position, based on how the gun hand is across the torso , some of the recoil could be absorbed by the torso if you held the gun arm against yourself. As far as your comment about the sights and POM being to the left of the target, the eye opposite to the shooting hand is the one you sight with, so you will still be able to use the sights and get the result you should expect, especially at the ranges this is meant to be used at, around 1-10 yds.

Why does everyone ridicule CAR? It's not like Weaver, Isoceles, and Chapman are all perfect, the Car system does too, but the biggest one, the lack of really good long range accuracy, can easily be overcome through plenty of training. And without that one thing really in the way, getting past it makes the system inherently superior to traditional stances, IMO.

And above all else, this was just asking if anyone had tried it, not if you thought it was stupid or idiotic or any other negative adjective you can think of. And I bet the one who I quoted, based on the way he worded his post, has not even tried it.
 
Tried it, learning it from a certified C.A.R. instructor a few years back.
Also spoke a bit with Paul Castle.
Has some good applications, but seemed unnatural without any major advantages to how I already shoot.
In my opinion not worth the effort to learn.
 
And above all else, this was just asking if anyone had tried it, not if you thought it was stupid or idiotic or any other negative adjective you can think of. And I bet the one who I quoted, based on the way he worded his post, has not even tried it.
Click to expand...

1. For someone who is "just asking," you sure seem evangelical about it.

2. This topic pops up on every gun board every 12-18 months. "Nothing new, nothing worth adopting" is usually the consensus.

3. If you're truly looking for information, there are plenty of previous threads here and elsewhere that discuss this technique in detail.
 
I don't think so. :confused:

It does nothing better than what I do now.

It seems silly to adopt a shooting stance that works maybe as well as any traditional method (once you master it), but then it sucks for any type of accuracy. A proper grip and technique will mitigate recoil as well.
 
I'll try it next time I'm at the range. It'll give me something new to do thanks

Why were they impressed with his accuracy? I shoot 6" plates at 25-30 yards and generally clean 15/18 ( 3 rounds with 6 plates) and I'm sure there's a ton more on this board that can do better.
 
It seems silly to adopt a shooting stance that works maybe as well as any traditional method (once you master it), but then it sucks for any type of accuracy. A proper grip and technique will mitigate recoil as well.
Click to expand...

I said that it can maybe be as accurate as other techniques, not that it maybe is as good everywhere. Read before you post.

And it works maybe better than others at other things, shooting from cover, really close quarters, and quick target engagement and disengagement are examples.
 
Gunnut17, you say this all because you've done what you claim it can do, or because you read it somewhere or saw some guy on YouTube?

You're asking for inputs from people who've been shooting for decades, and then talking down to us when you don't like our answers.

FWIW, 50ft being towards the outer limit for accuracy brings up two questions:

1) Why would anybody use this method on a target 50 feet away? and

2) Who thinks 50 feet is a long shot (with regard to difficulty from their normal stances)?
 
Gunnut17, you say this all because you've done what you claim it can do, or because you read it somewhere or saw some guy on YouTube?

You're asking for inputs from people who've been shooting for decades, and then talking down to us when you don't like our answers.

FWIW, 50ft being towards the outer limit for accuracy brings up two questions:

1) Why would anybody use this method on a target 50 feet away? and

2) Who thinks 50 feet is a long shot (with regard to difficulty from their normal stances)?
Click to expand...

I did not ask for input, I asked if anyone had tried it. And how was I talking "down" on anyone? If you don't mind me asking.

1) Not many would be willing to, it is just that guys way of showing that it doesn't suck for any kind of accuracy, as Nanuk put it. Most think that CAR is only for really close range.

2) Not many do that either, it is still just a way of saying that CAR is good for something other than distances where you are sharing air with the other guy. And for a bunch of guys who may have expected the holes to be in the backstop, it was a long shot.
 
Hi, me again. I have been looking around the Internet, mostly youtube and Google searches, learning about a controversial, new-to-me shooting system, Center Axis Relock(C.A.R. for short.). From my somewhat excessive understanding of it, the system utilizes a unorthodox grip and stance to reduce recoil and possibly increase reload time and follow-up shots. The gun is canted any where from around 30 to 180 degrees, and the body is bladed towards the target, reducing the profile of the shooter, and apparently protecting the face. I have seen shooters accurately hitting out to 50 feet. I have even heard people saying the way the pistol is held makes pistol-punching and elbowing a really up-close threat a possibility.

More info on the system here.
Video documenting the grip itself here.

Anyway, my question is, has anyone tried this?
Did it feel any different than other stances?
Was recoil reduced?
Did you "adopt" the system for anything?
Et cetera.

I, personally, think this is going to eventually be my HD and maybe SD stance of choice, it works in vehicles, from cover, can be used with one hand, leaving the other free to open doors and stuff, makes reloads faster depending on the level of training, is fluid in the transition between stances, and allows for quick target acquisition and follow-up shots, which are all pretty important in a SD situation.

So, your thoughts?
Click to expand...
Emphases added

I would guess since you stated you have an excessive understanding of the system without having tried it, pitched your own thoughts based on not having tried it, and then asked for peoples thoughts, that you asked for input beyond just those that have tried it.

Whether or not CAR has merits as a system, I think it has low potential to become widespread with the founder of the system being dead.
 
Emphases added

I would guess since you stated you have an excessive understanding of the system without having tried it, pitched your own thoughts based on not having tried it, and then asked for peoples thoughts, that you asked for input beyond just those that have tried it.

Whether or not CAR has merits as a system, I think it has low potential to become widespread with the founder of the system being dead.
Click to expand...

That was a bad choice of words, I had asked the questions I meant to before I was finished talking, and felt the need to redirect anyone who read back to the original intent of the thread, answering the question(s) I asked.

[Rant mode: on]

Look, I get that I may have offended or annoyed some people, But do you expect me not to take offense to Nanuk calling it "silly", which is a slightly nicer way of saying "stupid"? It seems a little like a double standard, if you ask me, which you won't, because I apparently cannot express my opinion.

[Rant mode: off]

Would whoever is a moderator for this forum close this please? It's beyond repair, and in the mean time I will consider finding a new place on the internet to stay.
 
Gunnut17 said:
...I, personally, think this is going to eventually be my HD and maybe SD stance of choice,...
Click to expand...
I think before making that kind of a decision, you'd do well to get some good training in the fundamentals and more traditional techniques. Whatever and however you might choose to shoot, a solid foundation will be a big help.

I'm not so sure that the thread is beyond repair. What I see here is that a bunch of folks are skeptical. So am I.

Since the OP asked for "thoughts", here are a few of my "off the top of my head" thoughts:

  • I'm skeptical of system that seems to rely too much on a very specific body orientation. If one's interest is in defensive handgun, nasty events take place in three dimensions, so one must he somewhat flexible. One great benefit from USPSA/IDPA competition as a learning/practice tool is that it can force one to shoot from unconventional position.

    Both the Weaver and Modern Isosceles rely primarily on upper body orientation and allow considerable flexibility in foot position.

  • Accuracy is primarily a function of trigger control, not stance. If you have good trigger control, you can get good hits standing, sitting, on your knees, on your belly, on one foot, with one hand, etc.

    The primary function of stance with both the Weaver and the Modern Isosceles is recoil management.

  • The extreme bladed posture is strong front-to-back, but less stable side-to-side. A less bladed posture (say from 30 to 60 degrees) offers more flexibility. It is stable in more directions, allows a range of turning motion and is better suited to movement and a more dynamic response.

  • Watching the videos, I didn't see anyone performing better than I've seen shooters perform using Weaver or Modern Isosceles.

    And I'm sorry the video showing the speed shooting and speed reloads for time didn't also show the hits. The times (mid-four seconds for six shots with tow reloads) could be impressive, but only if the shooter was getting good hits.

    On the other hand, I've seen quite a few eight to ten second El Presidentes (twelve shots over three targets at ten yards, albeit with only one reload but starting facing up range with a holstered gun) with all "A" zone hits (or maybe dropping one or two points).

  • All that said, I think one should know and practice a variety of stances and be able to use what might be best in particular circumstance. There's no reason why C. A. R. shouldn't be in someone's toolbox. But it's just not a final answer.
 
A lot of C.A.R. seems to be designed around specific, but fairly common problems encountered by LE. The stance is similar to "field interview" position, for instance. If one trains left/right well enough, it appears to be an excellent tool for rounding corners as well. It certainly provides some retention advantages also.

This isn't surprising since Paul Castle was quite focused upon improving the survival rate of officers in the field. Not everything in C.A.R. has a ready application for those acting in citizen-self-defense or military applications.

As such it provides an excellent tool for some things, but it's not the final word on anything.
 
I said that it can maybe be as accurate as other techniques, not that it maybe is as good everywhere. Read before you post.

And it works maybe better than others at other things, shooting from cover, really close quarters, and quick target engagement and disengagement are examples.
Click to expand...

I did read, I also watched the video, so by internet standards that makes me an expert.

It may offer advantages, it may not. Shooting from cover? No, you do not crowd cover, its a good way to get hurt. Really close quarters/retention, realistically? No, for that you will have more control keeping the gun lower closer to your midline.

You ever make it to the upper midwest we can go to the range and see.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top