FireForged
New member
yeah, he does that and makes it look easy. I usually read his stuff and say "yeah yeah thats what I really meant"
Bad habits can get you killed
- Thread starter Willie Lowman
- Start date
- Status
yeah, he does that and makes it look easy. I usually read his stuff and say "yeah yeah thats what I really meant"
I have had what I thought was some decent training and have learned or tried to learn a bit since, but sometimes I get confused.
One expert says to train until you do things automatically; the next warns against doing things automatically because you might be doing them wrong.
One says you should carry only one gun (or similar guns) because "muscle memory" (aka automatic action) has you used to that gun; another says it is OK to carry a different gun every day of the month because your "muscle memory" will automatically recognize the gun in your hand and adapt to it.
One says to keep the holster in the same place; another says to use a variety of positions (and holsters) to keep flexible.
One says that when taking fire, take cover; another insists you should stand up, face the enemy and adapt the recommended stance for returning fire.
One says that only x training can help anyone win a gunfight; another insists that only y training can do that.
One claims that his "sport" is the perfect training for the real world; another insists that only his sport is worthwhile, anything else is a game and a waste of time.
One says only a .45 1911 is any good at all and claims any other gun/cartridge is for wimps; another insists that .45 auto is worthless, and only .44 Magnum (or something else) can be depended on.
One says any gun, even a .22, can be effective if the shots are placed right; another says the only way an opponent will be defeated with less than a (name it) is if he laughs himself to death.
Did I cover all the disputes? If not, I am sure anyone here can come up with others. Meanwhile, I am still confused.
Jim
One expert says to train until you do things automatically; the next warns against doing things automatically because you might be doing them wrong.
One says you should carry only one gun (or similar guns) because "muscle memory" (aka automatic action) has you used to that gun; another says it is OK to carry a different gun every day of the month because your "muscle memory" will automatically recognize the gun in your hand and adapt to it.
One says to keep the holster in the same place; another says to use a variety of positions (and holsters) to keep flexible.
One says that when taking fire, take cover; another insists you should stand up, face the enemy and adapt the recommended stance for returning fire.
One says that only x training can help anyone win a gunfight; another insists that only y training can do that.
One claims that his "sport" is the perfect training for the real world; another insists that only his sport is worthwhile, anything else is a game and a waste of time.
One says only a .45 1911 is any good at all and claims any other gun/cartridge is for wimps; another insists that .45 auto is worthless, and only .44 Magnum (or something else) can be depended on.
One says any gun, even a .22, can be effective if the shots are placed right; another says the only way an opponent will be defeated with less than a (name it) is if he laughs himself to death.
Did I cover all the disputes? If not, I am sure anyone here can come up with others. Meanwhile, I am still confused.
Jim
zombietactics
New member
One person says the earth is flat, another says it's round.
If a marble and a bowling ball are dropped at the same time from a tall building, one man says the bowling ball will fall faster. Another man says they will hit the ground at the same time.
Sigh ... If only there were a way we could know for sure.
Some things are not matters of opinion.
If a marble and a bowling ball are dropped at the same time from a tall building, one man says the bowling ball will fall faster. Another man says they will hit the ground at the same time.
Sigh ... If only there were a way we could know for sure.
Some things are not matters of opinion.
Last edited:
zombietactics said:
Everything is a matter of opinion.
It could be your opinion that a feather will fall faster than a bowling ball if dropped from a tall building on earth.
It's wrong, but still a valid opinion.
Everyone has an opinion, some people's opinions are just more valid than others due to education, experience, etc.
The trick is in knowing who's opinion is correct.
zombietactics
New member
I think you are confused about the notion of having a right to an opinion, vs. whether or not an opinion is valid.
Your assertion that an "opinion" can be wrong yet still "valid" defies the definitions of the words themselves.
People are welcome to their own personal opinions, but not their own personal facts.
When I say that not everything is a matter of opinion, I'm not saying anything at all about anyone's right (or right to opine) absolute nonsense. They retain that right regardless of whether they are spitting gibberish or imparting wisdom.
It simply means that there is a distinction between facts and opinions. That's a prime distinction necessary to even discuss the two concepts coherently.
Facts are not subject to who holds to them, they remain regardless of anyone's opinion or the logical fallacy of appeal to authority. Facts are what remain regardless of one's belief, or lack thereof.
If you "know" something because of "who is correct", you really don't know much. C.S. Lewis (and many others) demonstrated quite clearly how an "appeal to who" is really just a statement about who you like, and not much more.
If you "know" something, and can demonstrate it experimentally or logically, absent appeal to someone else's rank, social status, credentials or personality ... you know something indeed.
Your assertion that an "opinion" can be wrong yet still "valid" defies the definitions of the words themselves.
People are welcome to their own personal opinions, but not their own personal facts.
When I say that not everything is a matter of opinion, I'm not saying anything at all about anyone's right (or right to opine) absolute nonsense. They retain that right regardless of whether they are spitting gibberish or imparting wisdom.
It simply means that there is a distinction between facts and opinions. That's a prime distinction necessary to even discuss the two concepts coherently.
Facts are not subject to who holds to them, they remain regardless of anyone's opinion or the logical fallacy of appeal to authority. Facts are what remain regardless of one's belief, or lack thereof.
If you "know" something because of "who is correct", you really don't know much. C.S. Lewis (and many others) demonstrated quite clearly how an "appeal to who" is really just a statement about who you like, and not much more.
If you "know" something, and can demonstrate it experimentally or logically, absent appeal to someone else's rank, social status, credentials or personality ... you know something indeed.
Last edited:
I can't get past the 'quick draw is a fallacy' part...
If I'm in a gunfight (god forbid) I will hope to be the first to clear leather and put a meaningful round on target; what ELSE would I hope for?
And if that's the case, the 'quick draw' is completely relevant. Always will be, unless we start walking around with slung weapons...
Larry
If I'm in a gunfight (god forbid) I will hope to be the first to clear leather and put a meaningful round on target; what ELSE would I hope for?
And if that's the case, the 'quick draw' is completely relevant. Always will be, unless we start walking around with slung weapons...
Larry
Frank Ettin
Administrator
DT Guy said:
What it comes down to is really not a question of quick draw for its own sake. It's a question of how long it can take us to perceive the threat, determine the need to fire, deploy our gun and engage the threat with accurate fire, having made the decision that shooting is warranted.
How much time will we have in which to do all of that? I have no idea and neither do you. It's going to all depend on what happens and how it happens. We might have lots of time, or we might have very little. We simply can't know in advance.
If we can't get done what we need to do in the time circumstances allow us, we will not be happy with the outcome. Good training and diligent practice can help reduce the time we need to be able to effectively do what we need to be able to do. And since I can't know how much time I'll have, I'd rather not give up time if I can avoid it.
FireForged
New member
So armed conflict always starts with both the attacker and defender having holstered pistols?
Perhaps the badguy already has his weapon exposed
Perhaps the badguy has already begun an attack
Perhaps the badguy has already fired shots
Draw speed is a very limited element in a very dynamic encounter. Can it be the deciding factor?..sure. Is it likely to be? Probably not.
Deaf Smith
New member
Just depends folks. Alertness no doubt overall is more important, but drawing speed is part of the skill set just as marksmanship, and skill, like alertness, is vital.
Learn to draw fast and shoot strait, and then keep your eyes peeled and wits about you.
Deaf
Well, as a CHL holder, I'm VERY likely to start any encounter with a holstered pistol; while I was taught as an LEO that the best place for your weapon during any potential encounter is your hand, as a CHL holder I don't have that option.
So yes, I'll be drawing my pistol to start just about every defensive situation I'll ever (hopefully, NEVER) be in. That said, a speedy draw seems relevant to all that follows, no?
Larry
So yes, I'll be drawing my pistol to start just about every defensive situation I'll ever (hopefully, NEVER) be in. That said, a speedy draw seems relevant to all that follows, no?
Larry
Seems that there are a couple of opposing opinions on the value of a fast draw here. It's either "hogwash" or it's important. I personally have a hard time believing that using a timer to improve and validate my draw speed / effective first hit performance relative to others is "hogwash". Nonetheless, everyone is entitled to their opinion.
zombietactics said:
DT Guy said:
Deaf Smith said:
Frank Ettin said:
IMHO, as a CCW permit holder, if you need your gun, you'll need to draw it under pressure, and speed may be very important (though it might not)...... ask yourself this:
"Would it be better to have practiced your draw to the point that you can do so reflexively, such that you can draw and present the gun as fast as possible ....... or not?"
It's better to have a skill, and not need it, than need it and not have it.
Practice what you might need.
"Would it be better to have practiced your draw to the point that you can do so reflexively, such that you can draw and present the gun as fast as possible ....... or not?"
It's better to have a skill, and not need it, than need it and not have it.
Practice what you might need.
zincwarrior
New member
As a CHLer, I've drawn twice (both against loose pit bulls strangely enough).
I practice drawing quite a bit, as I compete (badly). Its so ingrained now that both times I didn't realize I'd drawn until I had the lead pit's head lined up.
I practice drawing quite a bit, as I compete (badly). Its so ingrained now that both times I didn't realize I'd drawn until I had the lead pit's head lined up.
zombietactics
New member
You do a tremendous job of not understanding what is actually written. Nowhere did I say that a fast draw itself is "hogwash" or of no value. I did however, refer to the "Cowboy Quick-draw Myth", which is something entirely different: The notion that a super-fast draw is THE thing that will determine success in a self-defense encounter. The distinction is fairly clear.
It's getting to be hilarious. Again, I never said that using a timer for draw practice was "hogwash". I went so far as to note that I personally use a timer for draw practice.
Frank Ettin and FireForged seem to have grasped the concept and explained it pretty well.
Last edited:
zombietactics
New member
I would humbly suggest that drawing a gun without realizing it might be a problem. IMHO, the decision to draw should always be a conscious and deliberate one ... and as fast as can be done efficiently and safely.
You might even practice that with a timer, and that would not be "hogwash".
I would consider drawing without realizing a range scar of some kind or another.
zincwarrior
New member
I should clarify. My mind thought threat, and I didn't have to consciously waste time drawing to deal with that threat. Practice allowed me to deal with the threat without "taking time off" to think about doing it. I could focus on handling the potential threat itself. This enabled me to safely back the dogs off with verbal commands (read verbally raging at them like an old silverback gorilla).
I'll note a counter example. I'm not as proficient with pepper spray. In a third instance after, instead of already having the pepper spray out and ready to go, I fumbled, got tangled up, slightly sprayed myself, and ended with my own dogs being attacked*. I have since corrected that.
*Protip. If you're going to jump someone going for a walk, be it person or dog, think about it first. Old part caucasian mountain dog and wiener dog ambushed by pit bull equals very bloodied pit bull. There's a life lesson there.
I'm not getting what the argument here is. If you have to think through everything step by step, you're wasting time and brain watts vs. dealing with the sitation itself. You don't think through braking a car. You just brake.
I'll note a counter example. I'm not as proficient with pepper spray. In a third instance after, instead of already having the pepper spray out and ready to go, I fumbled, got tangled up, slightly sprayed myself, and ended with my own dogs being attacked*. I have since corrected that.
*Protip. If you're going to jump someone going for a walk, be it person or dog, think about it first. Old part caucasian mountain dog and wiener dog ambushed by pit bull equals very bloodied pit bull. There's a life lesson there.
I'm not getting what the argument here is. If you have to think through everything step by step, you're wasting time and brain watts vs. dealing with the sitation itself. You don't think through braking a car. You just brake.
Wow...serious misunderstanding of the goal of weapons handeling training and practice.
The ultimate result of weapons manipulation training is to become Unconsciously Competent with those skills. If weapon skills are ingrained to a level of subconscious action, that leaves the conscious thought process free to make the tactical decisions. Things like WHEN to shoot, WHERE to move, SCANNING for additional threats all require conscious thought.
Drawing the pistol, performing a reload, clearing a malfunction SHOULD all be reflexive.
I dont say this as a result of being a highend tactical instructor for 20+ years (i have been)... I say this as someone that has been in numerous armed encounters. Both in the US and overseas.
I can say that in NONE of those encounters did i have to think about drawing my pistol or mounting my rifle. Those things happened on "auto-pilot" upon recognizing a threat.
zombietactics
New member
Meh ... we're probably just mincing words. I certainly don't think you need think through it (and write a term paper) step-by-step, lol.
If you perceive a threat and make the conscious decision to draw ... that's all I'd suggest. From there it's pretty much game on.
- Status