Double Naught Spy
New member
Well, it was stated that...
I see or read defensive accounts of shootings and they are not overwhelmingly by .38 revolvers. They aren't even overwhelmingly by revolvers.
Civilian Combat Stats
- Thread starter matthew temkin
- Start date
Well, it was stated that...
I see or read defensive accounts of shootings and they are not overwhelmingly by .38 revolvers. They aren't even overwhelmingly by revolvers.
Deaf Smith
New member
Matt,
It's kind of hard to use stats to decide how much training is enough.
What is more, things like ones size, strength, stamina, skill, speed, money (yea guys, money cause it cost to train alot), plus such things as intrest in training are just some of the factors one has to face when deciding just how much training is enough. Not to mention where one lives, works, drives, and such that expose them to danger. I mean bankers and jewlry shop owners might want and need far more skills than others. It all depends on the individual.
Just how much training is enough for what? Stopping an attack without guns (very much can happen.) Stop an attack inside ones house? Stop multiple attackers? I mean the list can go on. Even the newspapers, for what they are worth, deplict many different types of attacks.
Sure people with no training have sucessfuly stopped BGs, and super experts have failed to stop BGs, but like the saying goes, "the race my not go to the stronger or swifter, but that's the way to bet".
I also caution people here to realise the newspapers are not a super reliable way to get actual incident reports (they get so much else wrong, well....) About the only thing I can say about them is they get the jest of the incident.
There is no defining exactly just how much training is enough. There are exceptional circumstances. I sure would not tell a student, "Just take my SD course and you will be safe on the steets or in your home, guaranteed."
So do you, Matt, guarantee to people you teach that what you teach will stop any attack to happen to them? I mean flat say, "this is enough, it makes you good to go, lean and mean?"
I sure don't. I enourage everyone I teach to go as far in skill building as they can within their means and ability. For it's up to the individual to decide how much training is enough!
matthew temkin
Moderator
I tell my students that if they want guarantees then they should go to Midas Mufflers.
No one can, in good faith, guarantee a win in close combat.
Even W.E. Fairbairn promised his students no more than a fighting chance of coming out victorious.
But most people--especially if they are not in the military/Law Enforcement or high risk civilian employement--have a self imposed limit on just how much training they are willing to invest in.
Naturally I would hope that they practice what I teach them, yet even this is probably not going to happen.
So--for the possibility of the typical armed combat that a homeowner will likely face, just how much--and what type--of training is enough?
Quite frankly I do not have an answer so I would like to hear some instructors chime in on this.
No one can, in good faith, guarantee a win in close combat.
Even W.E. Fairbairn promised his students no more than a fighting chance of coming out victorious.
But most people--especially if they are not in the military/Law Enforcement or high risk civilian employement--have a self imposed limit on just how much training they are willing to invest in.
Naturally I would hope that they practice what I teach them, yet even this is probably not going to happen.
So--for the possibility of the typical armed combat that a homeowner will likely face, just how much--and what type--of training is enough?
Quite frankly I do not have an answer so I would like to hear some instructors chime in on this.
I submit that any instructor who tells you this has his head in a dark, humid place.
The limiting factors are usually time and money. It gets costly to go through some of the training courses and even more to run through better ones.
The few folks I have helped train I told them that I can only help them be better at handling and shooting their guns. That instills some confidence and the more confident you are in your ability to hit your target, the more likely you are to prevail when you must do so.
My thoughts are this --
- Some training is better than none.
- Bad training is worse than no training
- The proper mindset must be taught clearly and concisely.
We don't shoot to win, we shoot to stay alive. - Basic training includes shooting, reloading, stance, ammo management, tactical use of cover or concealment, knowing when to shoot, knowing when not to shoot and control of a situation (surrendered suspect or shooting scene).
- Given the basics, most people will prevail in a fight for three reasons -
A) Surprise - their opponent likely expects an unarmed victim.
B) They have confidence in their ability to use their firearm.
C) Most attackers are not willing to get hurt or die for what they want. - Some "advanced" training builds more confidence in their ability to handle different situations. Here is where you learn to engage multiple targets, moving targets, fire while seated, more emphasis on point-shooting at close range, fast reloading and malfunction drills.
- Some of the "tactical" training is more than is necessary for most "average people" who will never need to perform house-clearings, engage 6 or more people, fight through a street-ambush from windows or similar firefights.
" Distance--0-10 feet. Most between 6-10 feet.
Duration---actual shooting was over in seconds or a fraction of seconds.
Physical contact rarely involved but when it did was exceptionally "
Given these stats it seems that both formal training and practice sessions should place far more emphasis on point shooting and far less on using the sights.
Duration---actual shooting was over in seconds or a fraction of seconds.
Physical contact rarely involved but when it did was exceptionally "
Given these stats it seems that both formal training and practice sessions should place far more emphasis on point shooting and far less on using the sights.
matthew temkin
Moderator
Oh boy...
Now the fur will really fly!!!
Now the fur will really fly!!!
Deaf Smith
New member
No Hard Ball,
emphasis should be on learning the basics of trigger control. No trigger control and I can guarantee mucho jirking the trigger, and yes you can miss at 2 ft. One police chief here, now retired, was a NYPD undercover cop for 17 years. He once had to shoot at scuffling range (yea 2 ft.) He said he missed! And no he didn't use his sights or Weaver stance or such.
I can see if like in China, where Fairbrain was, where he had only 50 rounds to shoot per recuit per year, very little gun education among them, horriable sights on the guns, etc.... he even pinned down the safeties so they wouldn't fumble with them (wise idea for guys who only shoot 50 rounds per year except for the lawyers we have nowdays!! And that explains Glocks being so popular.)
Crawl before you learn to walk, walk before you learn to run. Learn trigger control, sight alighment, etc... and a form of hip/retention shooting. If you learn the sighted fire well, all you have to do in darkness is to bring the weapon up JUST AS YOU WOULD IF YOU COULD SEE THE SIGHTS and fire. The shot will land very very close to where you shot in the daylight at such ranges at 10 feet! For real close in, a form of hip/retention shooting will do (there are different styles of that to.)
You can verify that by going to any indoor range, shoot some from whatever your favorite sighted fire method is, and then have them turn the lights low and bring that target to 10 ft. Yea you won't have any problems hitting it.
Then if you want to really learn point shooting, I say go ahead. Skys the limit on skills. But if your training budget is above 50 rounds per year, I suggest the basics first, a form of sighted fire and hip/retention shooting.
emphasis should be on learning the basics of trigger control. No trigger control and I can guarantee mucho jirking the trigger, and yes you can miss at 2 ft. One police chief here, now retired, was a NYPD undercover cop for 17 years. He once had to shoot at scuffling range (yea 2 ft.) He said he missed! And no he didn't use his sights or Weaver stance or such.
I can see if like in China, where Fairbrain was, where he had only 50 rounds to shoot per recuit per year, very little gun education among them, horriable sights on the guns, etc.... he even pinned down the safeties so they wouldn't fumble with them (wise idea for guys who only shoot 50 rounds per year except for the lawyers we have nowdays!! And that explains Glocks being so popular.)
Crawl before you learn to walk, walk before you learn to run. Learn trigger control, sight alighment, etc... and a form of hip/retention shooting. If you learn the sighted fire well, all you have to do in darkness is to bring the weapon up JUST AS YOU WOULD IF YOU COULD SEE THE SIGHTS and fire. The shot will land very very close to where you shot in the daylight at such ranges at 10 feet! For real close in, a form of hip/retention shooting will do (there are different styles of that to.)
You can verify that by going to any indoor range, shoot some from whatever your favorite sighted fire method is, and then have them turn the lights low and bring that target to 10 ft. Yea you won't have any problems hitting it.
Then if you want to really learn point shooting, I say go ahead. Skys the limit on skills. But if your training budget is above 50 rounds per year, I suggest the basics first, a form of sighted fire and hip/retention shooting.
+1 Hard Ball.
I think point shooting is much neglected by many of the shooting academys. Close-quarters point shooting should be taught right after the basics of a trigger control and use of the sights. Unfortunately, there is only so much you can do in a limited amount of time.
If you think about it, being able to fire accurately with one hand at close range is important. That thug eyeballing potential victims is more likely to go after someone with one or both hands occupied with packages, a briefcase or their sweetheart's hand.
At close quarters, one must be able to score hits without extending the arm much at ranges up to about 15 feet (about the length of a full sized car). This also allows you to practice a one-handed response at 0-6 feet to simulate when you are under physical attack.
I think point shooting is much neglected by many of the shooting academys. Close-quarters point shooting should be taught right after the basics of a trigger control and use of the sights. Unfortunately, there is only so much you can do in a limited amount of time.
If you think about it, being able to fire accurately with one hand at close range is important. That thug eyeballing potential victims is more likely to go after someone with one or both hands occupied with packages, a briefcase or their sweetheart's hand.
At close quarters, one must be able to score hits without extending the arm much at ranges up to about 15 feet (about the length of a full sized car). This also allows you to practice a one-handed response at 0-6 feet to simulate when you are under physical attack.
matthew temkin
Moderator
I concur with both Hardball and Bill CA.
I am pleased that Ron is able to get Combat Focus/Unsighted fire into the mainstream and I notice that Bob Talburt is doing a class at Sig Arms academy in the Applegate/Fairbairn point shooting technique.
These men have the gravitas to get a lot of important people to take notice of the important concept of point shooting.
I am pleased that Ron is able to get Combat Focus/Unsighted fire into the mainstream and I notice that Bob Talburt is doing a class at Sig Arms academy in the Applegate/Fairbairn point shooting technique.
These men have the gravitas to get a lot of important people to take notice of the important concept of point shooting.
David Armstrong
Moderator
When in doubt, look at what history has shown us. And it is pretty clear that while lots of training in sighted fire is nice, a whole lot of people in a whole lot of places that have seen a whole lot of fighting have found point-shooting to be the way to go if you want to make it home from the bad streets. Sighted fire is great if one has the time and can keep their cool, but target focus shooting wins the day for most CCW events. With limited training resources target focus shooting brings one up to an acceptable lev el of training faster and will be retained longer.
matthew temkin
Moderator
I could not agree with Dave more.
Good hearing from you again.
Stay safe and have a great Holiday season!!!!
Good hearing from you again.
Stay safe and have a great Holiday season!!!!
Deaf Smith
New member
Sure ain't what Tom Givens advocates, and considering over 40 of his students in Memphis have been in gunfights, well I sure see why he says what he says.
Just like the MT, whatever the stance, you bring the gun up just as IF you could see the sights and fire. Ingrained response will take care of the rest.
Just like the MT, whatever the stance, you bring the gun up just as IF you could see the sights and fire. Ingrained response will take care of the rest.
matthew temkin
Moderator
I do not see Tom Givens as the final authority on gun fighting.
Yes, 40 gunfights is nothing to sneeze at, yet compared to some of the men who trained me--in both point and sighted shooting--40 is just a drop in the bucket.
This is not, BTW, a snipe at Tom Givens. I met Tom at his range in early 2005 and was very impressed with him not just as an instructor, but as a man as well.
But his views on point shooting is something that we will have to agree to disagree on.
So Deaf, let me get this straight...
If a sighted only trained shooter brings his gun up to eye level but can't see his sights and then hits his target---- is he using sighted fire or point shooting?
Sounds to me that you accept the concept of point shooting but differ on the teaching vehicle...as well as the term.
Yes, 40 gunfights is nothing to sneeze at, yet compared to some of the men who trained me--in both point and sighted shooting--40 is just a drop in the bucket.
This is not, BTW, a snipe at Tom Givens. I met Tom at his range in early 2005 and was very impressed with him not just as an instructor, but as a man as well.
But his views on point shooting is something that we will have to agree to disagree on.
So Deaf, let me get this straight...
If a sighted only trained shooter brings his gun up to eye level but can't see his sights and then hits his target---- is he using sighted fire or point shooting?
Sounds to me that you accept the concept of point shooting but differ on the teaching vehicle...as well as the term.
Deaf Smith
New member
Matt,
The MT, as well as other sighted fire methods, all require only ONE way besides a form of retention shooting. You use your sights, and if you can't see the sights you still use that same method of bringing the weapon up to the same positions. I have postes on GlockTalk about my experiments at an indoor range in the dark about this before.
You are not trying to point and ignore the sights, you are doing as if you could see the sights. And if you had night sights, you would use them to. The nice thing about it is if you become target focused you still have the weapon in the same position as if you could see the sights (and thus the same outcome.)
This simplifies training as less number of positions are required, no switching between target focus and front sight focus, and more time and ammo can be spent on each type of fire.
The thing about point shooting is they have several types (quarter hip, half hip, 3/4 hip, etc..) PLUS you learn a way of sighted fire (one presumes both two handed as well as one.) That takes up alot of training (or like Fairbrain you disable the safeties and just shoot 50 rounds a year cause that is all you have to work with.)
Still, as I have also posted a bunch of times, after one has master a form of sighted fire (one and two handed) AND a form of hip/retention shooting, then one can branch out and learn whatever they want, and that very much includes point shooting.
Point shooting is the 'extra', sighted fire and retention shooting is the must have and not the other way around.
The MT, as well as other sighted fire methods, all require only ONE way besides a form of retention shooting. You use your sights, and if you can't see the sights you still use that same method of bringing the weapon up to the same positions. I have postes on GlockTalk about my experiments at an indoor range in the dark about this before.
You are not trying to point and ignore the sights, you are doing as if you could see the sights. And if you had night sights, you would use them to. The nice thing about it is if you become target focused you still have the weapon in the same position as if you could see the sights (and thus the same outcome.)
This simplifies training as less number of positions are required, no switching between target focus and front sight focus, and more time and ammo can be spent on each type of fire.
The thing about point shooting is they have several types (quarter hip, half hip, 3/4 hip, etc..) PLUS you learn a way of sighted fire (one presumes both two handed as well as one.) That takes up alot of training (or like Fairbrain you disable the safeties and just shoot 50 rounds a year cause that is all you have to work with.)
Still, as I have also posted a bunch of times, after one has master a form of sighted fire (one and two handed) AND a form of hip/retention shooting, then one can branch out and learn whatever they want, and that very much includes point shooting.
Point shooting is the 'extra', sighted fire and retention shooting is the must have and not the other way around.
matthew temkin
Moderator
If someone is shooting from retention then, at least IMHO, he is point shooting.
Ditto if the gun is being fired without any type of sight or visual reference.
But before I go any further with this I must ask just how do you define point shooting?
Perhaps we are saying the same thing but it is our semantics that is causing confusion?
For the record I define point shooting as shooting while totally focused on the target ie: the exact spot that one wishes to hit.
This would be true no matter what position the gun is at..be it retention, hip level, chest level, chin level or eye level.
Hopefully Ron Pincus will come in on this one.
Ditto if the gun is being fired without any type of sight or visual reference.
But before I go any further with this I must ask just how do you define point shooting?
Perhaps we are saying the same thing but it is our semantics that is causing confusion?
For the record I define point shooting as shooting while totally focused on the target ie: the exact spot that one wishes to hit.
This would be true no matter what position the gun is at..be it retention, hip level, chest level, chin level or eye level.
Hopefully Ron Pincus will come in on this one.
Deaf Smith
New member
Matt,
If you want to consieder the one postion, the hip/retention, as point shooting then, yes it is point shooting. But that's only a small part (important but small part) of the equation.
All other postions, quarter hip, half hip, 3/4 hip, etc.., are not part of it.
Again, not saying one can learn the other types, but one can do without and still do fine.
At the indoor range I kind of show off by hip shooting IDPA targets at 7 yards (that laser glock and AACK .22 unit sure comes in handy to perfect this), and even hip shoot to the left and right while standing 90 degrees to the target (firing under my left arm when the left side is toward the target, right arm with firing with left) and get center hits at 5 yards.
But that takes mucho practice, and that is the point. For those who have limited time and budgets it's not a necessary thing.
Oh, and it's Thanksgiving guys. Sit back with the family today. I'm going to a family reunion with some cousins I haven't seen in 20 years. Enjoy the day Matt. I'll be back in the evening.
If you want to consieder the one postion, the hip/retention, as point shooting then, yes it is point shooting. But that's only a small part (important but small part) of the equation.
All other postions, quarter hip, half hip, 3/4 hip, etc.., are not part of it.
Again, not saying one can learn the other types, but one can do without and still do fine.
At the indoor range I kind of show off by hip shooting IDPA targets at 7 yards (that laser glock and AACK .22 unit sure comes in handy to perfect this), and even hip shoot to the left and right while standing 90 degrees to the target (firing under my left arm when the left side is toward the target, right arm with firing with left) and get center hits at 5 yards.
But that takes mucho practice, and that is the point. For those who have limited time and budgets it's not a necessary thing.
Oh, and it's Thanksgiving guys. Sit back with the family today. I'm going to a family reunion with some cousins I haven't seen in 20 years. Enjoy the day Matt. I'll be back in the evening.
matthew temkin
Moderator
All I can say is that the other positions---half and 3/4 hip--are not positions at all but what many shooters resort to without any training in the subject.
For example in my armed guard classes I only teach one and two handed shooting from the Isoc. stance, yet in the FOF/role playing part of the class I notice all of them go into some type of hip shooting when the distances are close.
Actually, Deaf, we are not that far apart as to what type of shooting techniques that should be taught within a limited time frame.
When training time is short I teach aimed fire first, followed by one and two handed point shooting from the same Isoc. stance that I use to teach basic shooting.
I have found this greatly simplifies things for all concerned.
For retention shooting I have settled on the N.Y.P.D. method of resting the magazine base against the ribs, with the gun canted somewhere between 45-90 degrees.
I now consider formal training in classic point shooting to be an advanced skill that I reserve for either a one or two day program.
I have also gone away from teaching the WW2 format and now blend the concept of point shooting with whatever techniques the student already owns.
Hey Deaf, you enjoy the day as well.
I'll be spending mine with a bunch of gun hating liberals but hey, we are all JETS fans and will have fun watching Dallas kick our butts once again.
For example in my armed guard classes I only teach one and two handed shooting from the Isoc. stance, yet in the FOF/role playing part of the class I notice all of them go into some type of hip shooting when the distances are close.
Actually, Deaf, we are not that far apart as to what type of shooting techniques that should be taught within a limited time frame.
When training time is short I teach aimed fire first, followed by one and two handed point shooting from the same Isoc. stance that I use to teach basic shooting.
I have found this greatly simplifies things for all concerned.
For retention shooting I have settled on the N.Y.P.D. method of resting the magazine base against the ribs, with the gun canted somewhere between 45-90 degrees.
I now consider formal training in classic point shooting to be an advanced skill that I reserve for either a one or two day program.
I have also gone away from teaching the WW2 format and now blend the concept of point shooting with whatever techniques the student already owns.
Hey Deaf, you enjoy the day as well.
I'll be spending mine with a bunch of gun hating liberals but hey, we are all JETS fans and will have fun watching Dallas kick our butts once again.
David Armstrong
Moderator
With all due respect to Tom, who I do respect as an instructor, if yo wnat to compare numbers I'm sure we can come up with a lot more folks who have won their fights that have had target focus training than otherwise. After all, it has worked pretty good for over a hundred years. And of course Tom's students, as mentioned before, would not be considered typical CCW users.
Given that the overwhelming amount of evidence available to us indicates that sights are rarely used in a gunfight, and that the distances involved in the typical gunfight do not require much in the way of any real necessity for precise sighting, just the opposite is true. Point shooting will suffice for most defensive situations and sighted fire is the little extra.
I think this is where we have the disconnect. See, I get my first-time shooters doing the same thing (although at 5 yards) within their first hour of shooting. We don't consider it showing off, we consider it a basic skill, being able to hit a close-range target without sight-aiming the gun. They do it from a low retention (hip) right up to an eye-level position. So I'm not sure why you think it takes so much practice.
Tom Givens
New member
David-
Thanks for the kind words about me as an instructor. I would point out, though, that most of my students are, in fact, the absolutely typical CCW holder. Over the past 11 years, my school has put 22,000 students through the Tennessee handgun carry permit training. A much smaller number have gone through more advanced training, such as the two day and three day classes we do on the road. Most of the students involved in shootings have had only the handgun permit class, or maybe one additional class after that. The shootings involving students have included students that were white, black, male, and female, from all socio-economic levels.
The techniques we teach work, and that is born out in the 4-5 student involved shootings we average each year. Our students always win. In fact, the ONLY two students of ours killed or seriously injured on the street were both caught without their guns. Hard to gunfight without a gun.
Thanks for the kind words about me as an instructor. I would point out, though, that most of my students are, in fact, the absolutely typical CCW holder. Over the past 11 years, my school has put 22,000 students through the Tennessee handgun carry permit training. A much smaller number have gone through more advanced training, such as the two day and three day classes we do on the road. Most of the students involved in shootings have had only the handgun permit class, or maybe one additional class after that. The shootings involving students have included students that were white, black, male, and female, from all socio-economic levels.
The techniques we teach work, and that is born out in the 4-5 student involved shootings we average each year. Our students always win. In fact, the ONLY two students of ours killed or seriously injured on the street were both caught without their guns. Hard to gunfight without a gun.