Bad Practice!

[Powderman]

You will fight in the same manner that you train. This has been proven over and over again throughout the ages.

Having in your mind what you will do in a gunfight is nothing new. Expecting to do the exact actions you are thinking about is wishful thinking at best--because (as it also has been proven), the best battle plan goes straight to hell when the first shot is fired.

So, how should you train?

Train so that you can draw your weapon, under any circumstance that you can duplicate, and put accurate rounds on target as fast as it is possible to do so.

Practice your draw stroke. The part where you move your hands to your chest was meant to get your hand out of the way of your own gun. It does you no good to shoot yourself as you draw.

The method of placing a closed fist next to your chest is meant to try to maintain your balance while firing. This is like boxing--only you're punching with your handgun instead of your fist.

Practice while standing. Practice while walking. Practice from the ground--prone, rollover prone, side, strong hand, support hand.

Your body is the platform--just as the cannon on a main battle tank, you serve at that time as a platform for your weapon, and you are servicing targets.

Practice both instinctive and sighted shooting.

And--practice a LOT. Get your holstered pistol, clear ALL ammunition from your area, put a target on the wall, and draw. Do it slow--but make it steady and smooth. Steady will be smooth. Smooth will turn into fast.

Try to practice your draw 100 times a day--nonstop--for 30 days. When your holster gets soft and floppy, get a good, quality holster, and practice with it.

After you practice that draw stroke, head to the range. Load with one round at a time, and draw and fire on a target at about 50 yards away.

Why so far?

If you can hit the target at 50 yards, you'll be able to write your name at 7 or 10.

Do all of that as you study your State's law, contact your local prosecutor for explanations concerning self defense.

And hope fervently that you never, ever have to draw a firearm on another human being with lethal intent. Remember well the phrase: Si vis pace, para bellum.

 

[Jammer Six]

If I'm ever in a gunfight, it would be almost too much to hope for that my opponent will be using a single action revolver.

 

[BlueTrain]

In some ways, this is an entertaining thread. If someone dropped in out of the past, say 1960, he would swear you all had been talking about a walk and draw competition. You younger folks probably don't know what I'm talking about.

Tell me this: do any trainers ever recommend another trainer or another school? My impression from reading what some of them have written is that their way is the only way. Another impression I have is that no one has any common sense all on their own and it takes a week's worth of training before anyone is trained enough to even touch a real weapon.

I'd say it would take a lot of humility for any instructor to admit that an individual could actually come up with a good idea all on his own, yet I have read of at least one who did make a compliment about someone who developed a carry method that was suited to his own circumstances.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...Tell me this: do any trainers ever recommend another trainer or another school?...

IME, the good ones sure do.

...impression I have is that no one has any common sense all on their own...

On the other hand, a lot of so called "common sense" is "nonsense" -- e. g., the "common sense" gun control of the Brady Bunch.

Common sense is a poor substitute for knowledge. Common sense might tell you to put on the breaks when your car starts to skid, but knowledge will tell you not to.

 

[Jammer Six]

I recommend other instructors and other ranges to every class I teach, and I tell every class that trying to introduce someone to shooting by taking them to a range is like trying to introduce someone to the ocean by taking them to a small lake. The world of shooting is huge, and sometimes I list a few (or a dozen) different examples.

Then I tell them that if they take lessons from other instructors they will quickly realize how limited my field of expertise really is.

Someone who tells you their way to shoot is the only way is marking themselves as someone to avoid.

 

[BlueTrain]

Okay, folks, you read it here first: leave your common sense at home.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Okay, folks, you read it here first: leave your common sense at home.

I guess you're using your common sense instead of your reading skills.

 

[zombietactics]

Okay, folks, you read it here first: leave your common sense at home.

Nobody said any such thing, so please resist the temptation to build strawman arguments.

There is such a thing as "common sense". It's roughly what would be commonly apparent to someone reasonably well-versed in a topic or field of endeavor.

People often leave out the reasonably well-versed part, and substitute a kind of "I am smart/cool/awesome/tough enough to figure it out without actually knowing anything" attitude. This is often little more than a thin veneer of bluster painted over a surface of raw ignorance.

Tell me this: do any trainers ever recommend another trainer or another school?

Many do. It's hard to miss that if you look into the subject much. I know that James Yeager, Gabe Suarez, Rob Pincus, Tom Givens, Travis Haley, Chris Costa, Mas Ayoob, Paul Howe, Larry Vickers, Dave Spaulding, and a whole host of lesser-knowns have been quite open about this. Many make it a point to train with other companies several times a year.

 

[BlueTrain]

On the other hand, a lot of so called "common sense" is "nonsense"

 

[Frank Ettin]

On the other hand, a lot of so called "common sense" is "nonsense"

Yes, I wrote that. And it is a true statement. I illustrated the truth of that statement by pointing out that the Brady Campaign frequently refers to the "common sense" of their gun control proposals.

zombietactics very nicely expanded on the point when he wrote, in post 48 (emphasis by underlining in the original, emphasis in bold added):

...There is such a thing as "common sense". It's roughly what would be commonly apparent to someone reasonably well-versed in a topic or field of endeavor.

People often leave out the reasonably well-versed part, and substitute a kind of "I am smart/cool/awesome/tough enough to figure it out without actually knowing anything" attitude. This is often little more than a thin veneer of bluster painted over a surface of raw ignorance....

When one is reasonably well versed in something, he has an appropriate and adequate foundation of knowledge or valid data relating to that subjuect. He can then apply a rational process to to that knowledge or data and reach conclusions. The rational process some people will call logic, and others, perhaps, common sense. But whatever it is called, it will produce valid or useful conclusions only if the foundational knowledge or data itself is valid.

But some folks don't bother actually learning anything, or acquiring actual knowledge, or finding and validating data. They seem to believe that they can figure everything out and wind up applying what they call common sense to guesses and untested assumptions. And that produces nonsense.

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

There is such a thing as "common sense". It's roughly what would be commonly apparent to someone reasonably well-versed in a topic or field of endeavor.

People often leave out the reasonably well-versed part, and substitute a kind of "I am smart/cool/awesome/tough enough to figure it out without actually knowing anything" attitude. This is often little more than a thin veneer of bluster painted over a surface of raw ignorance.

That is one of the best, most instructive, truest posts I've seen in a good, long while.

 

[Mello2u]

Bob Wright

I have a pretty good concept of how a potential hold-up/car jacking attempt might unfold in my area, none of which invloves an assailant displaying a gun from eight or ten feet away from me and allowing me the luxury of a methodical draw, rotate, thrust and fire technique.

You either misunderstand or mischaracterize the technique's "presentation" as having a methodical draw, which infers slow.

Fast and slow are somewhat relative.

Many good shooters using the modern technique can do the Dozier Drill in 3 seconds. The Dozier Drill consist of starting with the shooter facing away from 5 Pepper Poppers which are 5 yards away. On a random signal the shooter must turn and knock down all 5 targets. Time starts on the signal and ends on the last shot. Three (3) seconds to turn, draw, and fire 5 aimed shots. Part time is 5 seconds. Three seconds is fast, to me.

Bob consider how long it took you to gain the skill you have now with a single action handgun. I am guessing you have practiced for at least one hundred hours? If you put in a couple of dozen hours trying a different technique you could begin to see whether it has some value for you.

I admit I'll never approach the speed of Bob Munden who is an incredible shot with a single action handgun. I think he gets off two shots in under 0.50 seconds. But he does not used a rig for concealed carry.

 

[p loader]

Consider this: I am, or have pumped gas, and am standing beside my Jeep. I am approached by a would be robber/car jacker. He keeps his gun behind his thigh out of my view, then suddenly thrusts his gun in my face. I have not signaled that I am armed, then push aside his gun while drawing and firing one shot, or follow up shots as required.

Push aside the gun, draw your own and take a shot? Good luck with that Dirty Harry. Maybe you should have kept your head on a swivel and avoided the entire scenario in the first place.

This whole thread is rather entertaining.

 

[iraiam]

Are these novice or experienced shooters?

A novice shooter will need to be taught all the fundamentals before speed can be safely achieved.

Whenever I take on a new drill, I do it slowly and methodically at first. Once I get the fundamental down, I can work on increasing the speed of the drill.

 

[BlueTrain]

I think there's a difference between common sense and "reason."

A person can sit and ponder a problem, in this case firearms related, and come up with a reasonable solution. In a perfect world, it works just fine. It is perfect at the pistol range, it works well in competition and it brings home the ribbons, the trophies and praise from well-wishers. But it's not a perfect world and the only thing that's wrong here is that in the real world, it lacks common sense.

People frequently make posts about how an automatic pistol must absolutely, positively and without fail, always be carried with the chamber loaded. Why? Because you are (evidently) not expected to have the use of your other hand just when you need it to charge your pistol. Yet, woe unto you if you dare to attempt shooting with just one hand, for all the reasons offered in this and other threads. After all, the target is only eight inches wide, the width of a typical five years old waist level.

Likewise, all of those comments about fast draw, you know, for the walk and draw that all armed encounters begin with, or so I am led to believe. Actually, not many descriptions that I've read sound too unreasonable but they will all usually be accompanied by more than a few dry runs, typically with a few fumbles. Don't say you never dropped a gun in practice or crashed a few gears learning to use a manual gearbox. I did find out, though, that I could learn to drive a right hand drive, six speed manual gearbox, while driving on the left hand side of the drive way in about a half-mile. Nothing to it. Of course, I didn't have to double-clutch and I did on the vehicle I drove for four years.

Do you realize that people have gone into combat with little more than a couple of days of firearms training and practice?

I think you should generally accept that you won't be a trick shot, though no doubt many trick shooters read this forum, but at the same time, it isn't an impossible thing to learn, fast and smooth shooting, even with one hand. I, too, believe you may only have one hand available when the time comes. Now if I just figure out how to make sure it will always be my right hand!

One more thing: don't try holding speedloaders in your mouth.

 

[zombietactics]

... People frequently make posts about how an automatic pistol must absolutely, positively and without fail, always be carried with the chamber loaded. Why? Because you are (evidently) not expected to have the use of your other hand just when you need it to charge your pistol. Yet, woe unto you if you dare to attempt shooting with just one hand, for all the reasons offered in this and other threads.

I think you're mixing your metaphors, so-to-speak. The prevailing opinion regarding carrying with one in the pipe (as I understand it) has more to do with time and efficiency, than the required use of two hands to rack & load. There is little to be gained by carrying "unloaded", and potentially much to be lost. There are no one-size-fits-all solutions, but generally speaking, loaded makes more sense and costs one nothing. I am unaware of anyone making both claims in a contradictory fashion such as you propose. If so, let's just charitably suggest that they think it through a bit better, or perhaps train until forever disabused of these notions.

I've yet to hear anyone really claim that ONLY two-handed shooting is effective, or the only skill ever required. It's certainly not a generally accepted notion. How could it be? A moments reflection will reveal that in some cases it would be the only thing possible. As such it appears to be a strawman argument, or perhaps based upon isolated incidents of those lacking suitable common sense.

... Do you realize that people have gone into combat with little more than a couple of days of firearms training and practice? ...

Of course, and their entire operational framework is quite different than that of a lone citizen at the gas station. I'd not be concerned at the Circle K for much of anything, if I were accompanied by even a minimally-trained, platoon-sized entourage carrying select-fire M4 carbines. I can expand on this if you like.

 

[p loader]

Do you realize that people have gone into combat with little more than a couple of days of firearms training and practice?

And those type of people have been fodder for professional Soldiers since the beginning of time. Only overwhelming strength in numbers can *somewhat* level the playing field.

 

[BlueTrain]

Thank you for your kind remarks. I was actually making reference to many points often brought up in this forum, though not necessarily or directly in this forum. Yet people do seem to be quite dogmatic about many of those points. I am even surprised at the frequent references to the unreliability of automatic pistols here generally. I hope I am not at grave risk by only owning pistols and no longer any revolvers. Moreover, I have not suggested that carrying chamber empty is either a good or bad idea. There are good reasons for either method. They, and just about every other point, has been covered here time and again.

And speaking of isolated incidents, virtually all incidents in which a non-law enforcement individual is engaged in the use of a firearm in self-defense is pretty much an isolated incident, is it not? I realize that might be a major point of contention and will separate the believers from the true believers.

 

[zombietactics]

Thank you for your kind remarks. I was actually making reference to many points often brought up in this forum, though not necessarily or directly in this forum.

Ahh, makes much more sense in that light.

I am even surprised at the frequent references to the unreliability of automatic pistols here generally.

I find this puzzling as well. ;-)

And speaking of isolated incidents, virtually all incidents in which a non-law enforcement individual is engaged in the use of a firearm in self-defense is pretty much an isolated incident, is it not? I realize that might be a major point of contention and will separate the believers from the true believers.

Scale, perspective and point-of-observation are important.

The numbers are such that all such incidents are "isolated incidents", when viewed against the backdrop reality that the vast majority will never experience them. That holds true true for LE as well as "mere citizens", BTW. It also holds trued for almost every terrorist incident, automobile accident, railroad disaster or outbreak of disease.

Against the backdrop of all such incidents, patterns tend to emerge. Viewed as such, they are less isolated and more open to both qualitative and quantitative analysis.

If the underlying assumption is "it will never happen to me" or perhaps some entirely imaginary notion of what could happen, that invariably leads to a different set of conclusions than "If it happens to me, how best can I be prepared given the likely range of variables?"

 

[Onward Allusion]

Wow. 3 pages and still going, even though it was explained by the 5th post. Wow. Some of you guys really need to take a class or at the very least watch some training videos.