Bad Practice!

[zincwarrior]

The range where I shoot has several self (?) defense classes, and many students share range time with me. I have observed two practices that, to me, could prove fatal. In both practices, the shooter is wearing the gun butt to the rear, on his right hip for a right handed shooter.

The first has the shooter facing the target, or assailant, full on. He then draws, right hand for a right handed shooter, from the near hip position and brings the gun up to a point just in front of the breast bone, while bringing his left hand to grip the gun. He then thrusts the gun forward bringing it up to eye level, and fires two quick shots.

The second has the shooter face the target. He then makes a fist with his left hand and clasps it to his right
shoulder, sort of like the old Roman Centurian salute. He then draws one handed, thrusts his pistol forward at eye level and fires two quick shots.

Both of these practices are time consuming. I daresay I could draw my .44 Single action and get off at least two shots before they fire.

Who is teaching this kind of gunfighting?

Bob Wright

I am trying to understand what the issue is. One is fast point shooting. The other is single hand point shooting. Single hand shooting is designed for practice in case one arm is injured or you are shepherding someone (inversely holding off someone else). How exactly are these bad, and how exactly are they different than you drawing a hogleg, cocking it and shooting it?

 

[zincwarrior]

If my post was misunderstood let me be clear. I stated I revisited the type of training described and I did not find it practical for me. I also stated that I was less informed than many hear. My purpose for carrying is not to show off my hobby, nor for work. It's only for protection and I practice according to what I feel would work for me and what's in my comfort zone. Its a personal choice I made / make, I also stated that practice in itself builds memory that will help should the need arise.

It seems as others dislike criticism. That's ok. Like I have stated many time sd is as much about staying away from places not in keeping with me having a good experience so to that end I'll pack my guns and go. I leave to the know it all hobbyist among you.

Happy Shooting, see you at the rodeo.

That was a bit...strange.

 

[jimbob86]

It seems as others dislike criticism.

When someone who hasn't been to school criticises what has been taught in school, and proven successfull for decades, yeah, it's going to go over like a kindergartener giving a critique of a basic algebra lesson: "They were plussing LETTERS to NUMBERS! Everbody know you use just the NUMBERS in math!"

 

[Jammer Six]

A friend's daughter came home from her first day training at McDonald's and stated that she was going to make suggestions to improve McDonald's methods.

This thread reminds me of that.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...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....

I find this completely unintelligible. Exactly what are you trying to say?

If your message has something to do with the fact that sometimes people think up what they think is a good idea, and that idea works in come contexts but not in others, that's certainly not a new or novel insight. If you're claiming that somehow the difference is what you call common sense, how about providing some evidence?

...Yet, woe unto you if you dare to attempt shooting with just one hand, for all the reasons offered in this and other threads....

And that is simply not true.

There have been numerous threads here in which the importance of being able to shoot one-handed, either dominant hand only or non-dominant hand only, has been pointed out. One-handed shooting is also commonly included in good defensive pistol training.

But it has also been demonstrated that if one knows what he is doing and has the opportunity to use it, a proper two handed grip facilitates recoil management and will allow quicker, accurate follow-up shots.

...Don't say you never dropped a gun in practice...

Actually, it's quite true that I've never dropped a gun, in practice or otherwise.

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

Yes, and some have survived and some haven't. Do you think, perhaps, that more and better training might have helped more survive?

...it isn't an impossible thing to learn, fast and smooth shooting, even with one hand....

No it isn't an impossible thing to learn. In fact, we continually encourage people to learn and practice it, both with one's dominant and non-dominant hand. And one will learn it better and more easily by training with a good instructor.

A friend's daughter came home from her first day training at McDonald's and stated that she was going to make suggestions to improve McDonald's methods....

Is there some kind of problem with that? Surely it's just a matter of common sense? Why would she need any experience or knowledge?

 

[redstategunnut]

Every good trainer I have trained with has told me that what they were about to teach me was "a way" not "the way" and that I should take from them what worked for me and compare it to what I know now and learn in the future and keep what works. Every good trainer I have ever trained with was also a professional student, never too proud to learn from another.

That said, none of them ever taught me to walk around with a preconceived idea of what the fight of my life would be, how it would unfold, and how a cowboy gun would save the day just as I imagined it would without ever once having been to a professional tactical training class.

Imagine that.

 

[hey.moe]

Seems to me the modern pistol technique is so widely accepted as the "industry standard" that it would be difficult for anyone who's been shooting handguns for any appreciable length of time to be unaware of it.

I couldn't help but think that the OP was just pulling everyone's chain and having a good chuckle at our expense.

-Stan-

 

[Vireye]

I've had limited exposure to self-defense classes, but I have qualified several times with a handgun for the military**.

In those cases, we were taught a similar method of draw (Strong side to chest and then out to target).

When I was taught, I was told that one of the primary reasons we were learning to draw like that was that it actually provides three areas to shoot from.

As soon as it clears the holster, the barrel (and your arm) are turned parallel to the ground. If the BG is closing in, you can shoot from that position with relative stability (maybe not awesome accuracy without practice, but relative stability).

When you bring the weapon to your chest, now supported by your off-hand, you can still shoot from that position. Maybe not comfortably, but you know what I'm getting at.

Then, if the target is still a "safe" enough distance, you bring the weapon out into a good isosceles stance.

As far as the one-handed shooting, I do that routinely for practice, both strong- and off- hand, for some of the reasons stated above. God forbid I have someone with me that I need to shield, or I've been injured myself, I'm holding off another BG, etc.


**I'm a reservist, so I dont get nearly the training with a handgun I'm sure the active guys do/did, so hopefully someone else can chime in. I do alot of training on my own with my own handguns and AR-15, so I'm sure not everything I do is "proper", as it were. Personally I wish the reservists would do much more shooting that we currently do...

 

[45_auto]

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

Do you realize that people have gone into combat with ZERO firearms training and practice?

Some people survive or die by pure luck. I don't know how to control that. But you'll find that as a general rule that your survival rate will be inversely proportional to the amount of training and practice you've had.

 

[BlueTrain]

Inversely proportional?

The point of my comment was that it was not always possible for some to receive more than the training they did receive, chiefly because there was not enough time. It was hardly the ideal but other things also matter. One will never be totally prepared and one will never be at the peak of perfection. That does not mean, however, than you can't be "in good training," physical limitations notwithstanding.

Some training programs are based on the requirement to train people quickly, others more to take advantage of fewer limitations of time and expense. But there are always some limits.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...The point of my comment was that it was not always possible for some to receive more than the training they did receive, chiefly because there was not enough time. It was hardly the ideal but other things also matter. ....

Some training programs are based on the requirement to train people quickly...

So what? What does a military need for expediency and to sometimes put troops on the ground quickly have to do with the subject of this thread?

 

[BlueTrain]

Because non-military people may not have unlimited resources either. Your resources may vary.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Because non-military people may not have unlimited resources either. Your resources may vary.

But --

1. Your personal decision is still your personal decision. There are many ways to learn. You decide how and what you want to learn and how to use your resources. What you choose not to learn, you won't learn; and what you choose not to know, you won't know. And, as with anything else, there may be consequences to those choices.
   
   
2. That's all no reason to be critical of, or denigrate, those who have more resources or choose to use their resources differently from you -- such as to acquire certain knowledge or skills.
   
   
3. In any case, this thread isn't really about levels or quantity of training. It's about clearing up a lack of familiarity with currently taught defensive pistolcraft doctrine.

 

[jimbob86]

My resources are limited, as are most peoples ...... some more than others.

I may not be able to go to Gunsite or Thunder Ranch just now, but I CAN read. Great volumes of information are free in a public library ..... being as how Cooper's writings are near 60 years old, and so many others have written on the subject ...... it's just one more example that proves to me that "There is little functional difference between those who can not read, and those who do not.".......

 

[BlueTrain]

I am not criticizing those who have greater resources than I, nor those who choose to employ them differently than I. In fact, to an extent, I envy them. I do remember Elmer Keith's comment: I'm always learning (or words to that effect). I also recall some of the books published by Cooper back when I first started reading gun publications in the late 1950s. And by the way, how much longer will his New Technique be...well, never mind.

There was a time also when I was expending much more of my resources than I am on shooting exercises, which contributed to much of my thoughts and opinions on the subject. But priorities do change and other expenses loomed high for a while. So resources were allocated to more important projects. We now have two children who have finished school (from a school named after their great-great-great-great-great grandfather, on their mother's side, you understand). We also just finished marrying one of them off (remember the daughter-got-married thread) and we have zero debt.

I probably talk too much about my kids.

 

[rodeo roy]

Thought I was done, but...

If anyone cares to read my original posts #24 & #25. I made my point clear or so I thought. I have sought out the type of training described and it did not work for me. I have developed what I think works for me and practice / train that with the time I have. I do not shoot for sport, don't work in LE, not a hobbist, so I do what I think would help me in sd; not saying what else may help just what helps me.

The method of training described is not the only method. While it may be in the mind of some the best or most widely used by expert marksman and trainers, it may not work for everyone. Not all so-called expert trainers have the teaching tools to modify the method to help those that may use IWB carry at say 4 o'clock or something outside of what they teach normally. In my case I was trained by some one with not much intrest in helping me learn. Rather than listen to my needs, concerns and finding out a way to reach me where I was, they just went full steam ahead with this method is the way and you must adapt to it. In the second set of classes I took it was one on one, I insisted in paying by the hour and had 4 sessions, plus at home practice and it did not improve my comfort level.

At the start of this thread it seemed to me, that the position of B. Watson was being tossed aside in a way that seemed intolerent to the idea that the method and training he saw was not to his liking, his opinion. Other posters took the chance to extoll the virture of the training while suggesting that others have less training, knowledge than they do, so how could any one else know better. Will I for one know myself better and what works for me may not be for you. It seemed that persons so invested to this method have taken offense, and anyone that does not align themselves with the method is to be tossed out.

Posts and posters have been dissected line by line and rebuffed or rebuked in a manor the denotes that the dissector has a answer / explantion for everything. In my opinion thats what I call know it all-ism. not debate or even disagreement. We all come to this at different levels so can we be tolerent to others views without needing to be condescending. If persons don't like to be criticized then it's best to keep your views quiet, cause the second you let it out, somebody is gonna have a different view and say so. To me it seems persons don't like or don't want any other ideas mentioned here outside of what they themselves present.

I will crawl back to cover and let you all continue to duke it out.

 

[zombietactics]

... And by the way, how much longer will his New Technique be...well, never mind ...

The techniques presented by the OP are far from new, and in fact quite old. They are standard techniques and manipulations which have been taught for over a half century.

Given the simple fact of this, it staggers the imagination that someone would deign to comment on them as though they are even novel, much less faulty or dangerous.

... At the start of this thread it seemed to me, that the position of B. Watson was being tossed aside in a way that seemed intolerant to the idea that the method and training he saw was not to his liking, his opinion.

He did not appear to be offering simply an opinion, but rather an assessment . He offered that "I have observed two practices that, to me, could prove fatal". He asked "Who is teaching this kind of gunfighting?" He went on to detail his experience as an instructor. I think that's part of what some of us find to be a head-scratcher regarding this conversation: How does someone consider himself to have the experience or knowledge to offer "opinions" on the matter, when the nature of his observations indicate that he has no idea what's been going on for the last 50 years? Not preferring something on the basis of having tried it is one thing. Not liking something based upon a simple, range-of-the-moment perception is still another. Not being at all aware of something so common is in a whole category by itself.

That is not adequately explained by noting that "not everyone is equally trained".

 

[BlueTrain]

Let me put in a good word in defense of instructors, especially for those who are not present to speak for themselves. I refer to all of them, commercial, police, military and your friends at the range.

Some will for sure be better than others--at teaching. Teaching is an art apart from their skill in the subject being taught. And like everyone else, they have limited resources to work with. Even at a top school like gunsite, they don't pick their students, or at least I assume not. The students show up with whatever abilities they were given and still retain at that moment in their life. And like it or not, not everyone has equal ability, so we can presume not everyone is going to be equally trained. They may go through the same course but not everyone is going to get an A+.

 

[rodeo roy]

It was not made clear to me who was / is or is not a pro trainer or who has what level of training, I admit I don't pay attention to that. I just want to read what one has to say without the filter of that's so and so with this distinction or those letters behind their name. I read the post with a prospective of this is another shooter's opinion based on what he saw, does or did. I approach all post that way and want mine given the same respect, just another opinion form somebody with one. Some in this fourm think only this gun is the gun this way to carry is the way etc. I just think in this matter persons forgot that one size does not fit all.

 

[Frank Ettin]

....I have sought out the type of training described and it did not work for me. I have developed what I think works for me and practice / train that with the time I have....I do what I think would help me in sd;...

Yes, but how do you know? How have you tested what you do?

As others have pointed out, it's not a matter of there being "one way." The core of today's defensive pistolcraft evolved from the days the Modern Technique was first emerging from the leather-slap matches put on by Jeff Cooper, Ray Chapman, Thell Reed, Michael Harries (of the Harries flashlight technique), Bruce Nelson, and others in the late 1950s in the mountains above San Bernardino, California. However, the major schools, like Gunsite and Thunder Ranch, and major instructors, like Larry Vickers, Tom Given, Massad Ayoob, Louis Awerbuck, Walt Marshall and others add their unique perspectives.

And what we learn today is not the product of one person's ratiocination. The current major teachers learned from those of the past and they learn from each other. What they teach is tested, through their teaching, through competition and through analysis of after action reports of actual defensive gun usage.

When I took my first class at Gunsite, my instructors included someone with 30 years experience in law enforcement, including as an instructor, someone with many years experience in Army Special Forces and as a police SWAT office, someone also with many years experience in law enforcement and Jeff Cooper. And today, the instructors at Gunsite also have many years experience actually having put to use in real life the things they are now teaching.

....Other posters took the chance to extoll the virture of the training while suggesting that others have less training, knowledge than they do, so how could any one else know better. Will I for one know myself better and what works for me may not be for you....

The real point is that not all opinions are equal. I'm sorry, but I'm more inclined to pay attention to the opinions of those people, like the qualified instructors I've had, who have the demonstrated knowledge and experience to back up those opinions.

...In my case I was trained by some one with not much intrest in helping me learn....

And it's too bad you've had some poor instructors. There are some out there. But that doesn't mean that there aren't some instructors who could teach you things you don't know and teach you things that would improve your performance.

And I've also noticed in my training experience that it's important to come to class with an open mind. Each class I've taken has exposed me to some things new to me. Even when something new contradicted something I'd learned before, or thought I knew, there was benefit in accepting and finding value in the new material.