Is Duane Thomas a knowledgable gunwriter?
- Thread starter threegun
- Start date
- Status
trigger happy
New member
he's my favorite gunrag writer 
Mannlicher
New member
He has a lot of real world experience, and has written articles for many years. I bet he knows more than most of us.
Duane Thomas used to write LOTS more articles,10 or 12 years ago, and then was dormant for a while, although I've seen his byline in "Handguns" Magazine a few times recently.
About 10 years ago or so he wrote a book called THE TRUTH ABOUT HANDGUNS that had some interesting observations.
About 10 years ago or so he wrote a book called THE TRUTH ABOUT HANDGUNS that had some interesting observations.
On another chat site with some extremely smart and competent gun guru's a question was asked something like (are shooting schools needed). I responded by saying that if one could afford school go for it however it was not needed to become proficient in the art of defensive shooting. I added that one could be better served shooting Action Pistol, IDPA, IPSC, Threegun matches provided they also learn the proper tactics through books, friends who have attended a formal course, video's, these websites, ect. Match shooting gets you as close to the stress level one can be expected to feel during a gunfight as possible, I added. I was lambasted by these guys and called everything in the book. Many asked for my credentials to be saying such things while posting their laundry list of schooling. Finally I had enough and forced moderators to ban me. Then I read Duane Thomas's article, the one in the April/May issue of Handguns titled "Are you ready for a gunfight?". In this article he agrees that people who shoot competitively are more prepared for a gunfight than people who simply attend gun schools. He repeated almost word for word my postings. That is why I wanted to know if Duane knows his stuff. I found it odd that so many very smart guys failed to see the value of competition. Anyway I feel better knowing that I was vindicated. I just hope some of them (yes you G.M. and D.A.) read this article and understand that my attack was uncalled for.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
Folks can go to Glock Talk and read the debate in their tactics forum.
One point is that there are courses and courses, exercises and exercises. Matches are great and most of the high level folks do them. However, there is universal agreement in civilian training, police and military circels that students of the art need some serious FOF.
The level of pressure in those far exceeds any match.
No IDPA or IPSC match has opponents that shoot back from 360 degrees. No match leaves you with significant bruises and bleeding. You don't see serious stress reactions in an IDPA match.
I'm not putting down matches but I don't buy the match stress level being close to a real fight.
Even in FOF, you know it's not real but you can get hurt some.
Never in an IDPA match, have I had to shoot a charging bad guy with a ball bat at 3 feet and then get shot in the back by his girl friend, who I then shot at retention. It was ruled that I was killed but I went for it to the end.
In an IDPA match, you don't stand on line in the Stop and Go and the dude in front of you shoots the clerk and you engage him and then his secret backup starts shooting at you.
You learn alot from those. Matches also don't have serious room negotiation with opponents.
I could go on.
Matches are great fun and have some utility in training. There is more. The IDPA journal has made this point repeatedly.
I'm doing a regional match in a month and will do some local matches before. However, I'm doing a class with Givens for more skill development.
I suggest a regimen of both, if one can afford it. However, if I had some decent guns, before I bought another expensive one, I would take a good tactical course.
One point is that there are courses and courses, exercises and exercises. Matches are great and most of the high level folks do them. However, there is universal agreement in civilian training, police and military circels that students of the art need some serious FOF.
The level of pressure in those far exceeds any match.
No IDPA or IPSC match has opponents that shoot back from 360 degrees. No match leaves you with significant bruises and bleeding. You don't see serious stress reactions in an IDPA match.
I'm not putting down matches but I don't buy the match stress level being close to a real fight.
Even in FOF, you know it's not real but you can get hurt some.
Never in an IDPA match, have I had to shoot a charging bad guy with a ball bat at 3 feet and then get shot in the back by his girl friend, who I then shot at retention. It was ruled that I was killed but I went for it to the end.
In an IDPA match, you don't stand on line in the Stop and Go and the dude in front of you shoots the clerk and you engage him and then his secret backup starts shooting at you.
You learn alot from those. Matches also don't have serious room negotiation with opponents.
I could go on.
Matches are great fun and have some utility in training. There is more. The IDPA journal has made this point repeatedly.
I'm doing a regional match in a month and will do some local matches before. However, I'm doing a class with Givens for more skill development.
I suggest a regimen of both, if one can afford it. However, if I had some decent guns, before I bought another expensive one, I would take a good tactical course.
I am not sure it is relevant, but I once knew a pro football player, a big guy and very athletic. Used to pound quarterbacks into something that looked like hamburger. Got the hell beaten out of him in a street fight with two guys who didn't together outweigh him.
There is a difference between games and the real world and there is no one to throw a flag in the real world.
Jim
There is a difference between games and the real world and there is no one to throw a flag in the real world.
Jim
Glenn, You once told me that the 25acp was adequate for the everyday concealed weapon carrier for most situations. The senarios you describe are excellent training and every LE officer should attend it. Not needed for the average concealed carrier however.
FOF training is not real either. Unless that man charging you with a stick is going to crack you skull open full force if you miss, the training won't rise to the level of a life and death struggle. Plus many FOF schools require that basic and intermediate courses be taken first.
I have had FOF training in martial arts and it was great. It didn't make my knees knock as bad as the actual tournament that we were preparing for though. I have to respectfully disagree in the order you have FOF and competition. Duane Thomas has my back on this one and he has attended both.
We agree here 100 percent. Just don't discount that guy who couldn't afford it but has learned the curriculum taught by most of those schools. FOF is a great bonus but one weekend of it won't help much a couple of years later.
FOF training is not real either. Unless that man charging you with a stick is going to crack you skull open full force if you miss, the training won't rise to the level of a life and death struggle. Plus many FOF schools require that basic and intermediate courses be taken first.
I have had FOF training in martial arts and it was great. It didn't make my knees knock as bad as the actual tournament that we were preparing for though. I have to respectfully disagree in the order you have FOF and competition. Duane Thomas has my back on this one and he has attended both.
We agree here 100 percent. Just don't discount that guy who couldn't afford it but has learned the curriculum taught by most of those schools. FOF is a great bonus but one weekend of it won't help much a couple of years later.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
Whatever, threegun - if you want to replay the past arguments - enjoy - they are all on Glocktalk to be read. Look, dear reader for Glock'n'himer.
Duane having your back - fine. Chose him - I'll chose Yeager, Farnham, Givens, Rehn, the entire NTI, Stanford, Moses, Gonzalez, Gomez and others on the utility of FOF training. I would repeat also that the IDPA organizational folks don't regard matches as really tactical training.
As far as the scenarios described not being relevant to a civilian - huh? Being a convenience store robbery or a guy attacking you a bat?
Never happens in real life.
Duane having your back - fine. Chose him - I'll chose Yeager, Farnham, Givens, Rehn, the entire NTI, Stanford, Moses, Gonzalez, Gomez and others on the utility of FOF training. I would repeat also that the IDPA organizational folks don't regard matches as really tactical training.
As far as the scenarios described not being relevant to a civilian - huh? Being a convenience store robbery or a guy attacking you a bat?
Never happens in real life.
Sure they happen very rarely. About as rare as the need of said civilian for something larger than a 25 according to you guys. Besides FOF courses taken once in a lifetime are about as useful as tactics learned but not practiced.
All awesome teachers but they have a financial bias in promoting training. Duane and others (friends) who have no vested interest one way or another and who have attended both disagree. My personal expierience with the only FOF training I have had (karate)vs pistol competition and I felt the stress more in the competition. Thats why I agree with Duane. Are we right......don't know. I can tell you that guys that have taken both say that I would do very well in anything they have attended. In fact I beat most in competition. We have disgused tactics as well. I have given and taken information that helped both parties.
Sometimes you have to consider the bias of a source. In this case those you mentioned make a living by you attending their schools. The good thing is all professional training is great. Competition is great (greater to me). There are no losers in either group. Who's right? If someone isn't willing to learn proper tactics on their own, then the school is best. For those who already understand tactics, competition is the best tool to keep them sharp (in my opinion).
Sure they happen very rarely. About as rare as the need of said civilian for something larger than a 25 according to you guys. Besides FOF courses taken once in a lifetime are about as useful as tactics learned but not practiced.
All awesome teachers but they have a financial bias in promoting training. Duane and others (friends) who have no vested interest one way or another and who have attended both disagree. My personal expierience with the only FOF training I have had (karate)vs pistol competition and I felt the stress more in the competition. Thats why I agree with Duane. Are we right......don't know. I can tell you that guys that have taken both say that I would do very well in anything they have attended. In fact I beat most in competition. We have disgused tactics as well. I have given and taken information that helped both parties.
Sometimes you have to consider the bias of a source. In this case those you mentioned make a living by you attending their schools. The good thing is all professional training is great. Competition is great (greater to me). There are no losers in either group. Who's right? If someone isn't willing to learn proper tactics on their own, then the school is best. For those who already understand tactics, competition is the best tool to keep them sharp (in my opinion).
Sure they happen very rarely. About as rare as the need of said civilian for something larger than a 25 according to you guys. Besides FOF courses taken once in a lifetime are about as useful as tactics learned but not practiced.
All awesome teachers but they have a financial bias in promoting training. Duane and others (friends) who have no vested interest one way or another and who have attended both disagree. My personal expierience with the only FOF training I have had (karate)vs pistol competition and I felt the stress more in the competition. Thats why I agree with Duane. Are we right......don't know. I can tell you that guys that have taken both say that I would do very well in anything they have attended. In fact I beat most in competition. We have disgused tactics as well. I have given and taken information that helped both parties.
Sometimes you have to consider the bias of a source. In this case those you mentioned make a living by you attending their schools. The good thing is all professional training is great. Competition is great (greater to me). There are no losers in either group. Who's right? If someone isn't willing to learn proper tactics on their own, then the school is best. For those who already understand tactics, competition is the best tool to keep them sharp (in my opinion).
Sure they happen very rarely. About as rare as the need of said civilian for something larger than a 25 according to you guys. Besides FOF courses taken once in a lifetime are about as useful as tactics learned but not practiced.
All awesome teachers but they have a financial bias in promoting training. Duane and others (friends) who have no vested interest one way or another and who have attended both disagree. My personal expierience with the only FOF training I have had (karate)vs pistol competition and I felt the stress more in the competition. Thats why I agree with Duane. Are we right......don't know. I can tell you that guys that have taken both say that I would do very well in anything they have attended. In fact I beat most in competition. We have disgused tactics as well. I have given and taken information that helped both parties.
Sometimes you have to consider the bias of a source. In this case those you mentioned make a living by you attending their schools. The good thing is all professional training is great. Competition is great (greater to me). There are no losers in either group. Who's right? If someone isn't willing to learn proper tactics on their own, then the school is best. For those who already understand tactics, competition is the best tool to keep them sharp (in my opinion).
I don't esp. care for Thomas, but I believe the general point of his article was that the progressive steps from 1) no practice to 2) range practice to 3) formal training to 4) competitive shooting to 5) real gunfights built upon one another, not that one stage in the progression was superior to the other on its own.
Roger that- particularly the last line.
Thomas is evidently an excellent shot. I read an article by him a few years ago where he advocated 'gamesman' matches as decent preparation for an armed encounter. He shot them with his Sig 226, and the leather he carried it in daily. Makes sense.
He ain't Skeeter, Long Bill, Charley Askins, Jeff Cooper, or Jim Wilson though. People who pack a gun regularly in harms way, usually take a more pragmatic approach to the problem. You will find them less concerned with tenths of a second or "Comstock Count" than with situational awareness, and the ability to commit to shoot when the situation calls for it.
I have worked with several such men over the past 30 years, and known a few more. I can't see any of them writing the kind of stuff that Thomas writes.
My advice to anyone perusing the work of any gunwriter, is simple. If what they advocate is uncomplicated, requires common sense, and does not require special equipment- pay attention. If they have survived for a long time in unfriendly environs with a gun on their belt- pay more attention. Then if wwhat they write appeals to you, try it in a safe environment- and see if it allows you to operate safer/faster/easier with your gun and equipment. By then you might be about ready to decide whether to give it a try 'for real.'
Under stress, you will do what is second nature. If training or tactical theory is to benefit you, it will have to become ingrained into your subconscious, to be available when needed.
David Armstrong
Moderator
I think that pretty much says it all. If you'd had enough all you had to do was quit posting. That you would now jump up and say something like you forced the moderators to ban you is just one more of those wild claims you tend to toss around. As for the facts, Glenn has pretty well coverd the high points so I won't repeat them, other than to suggest that finding one mid-level gun writer who agrees with you really doesn't do much about the fact that most knowledgable writers, trainers, and practitioners disagree.
Last edited:
Shawn Dodson
Moderator
I thought Thomas was okay until I caught him plagiarizing Ayoob, word for word, in the early 90s, in a Handguns magazine article.
Does Thomas "know his stuff about combat tactics?" You be the judge: http://www.firearmstactical.com/pdf/tools_of_tactics.pdf
Does Thomas "know his stuff about combat tactics?" You be the judge: http://www.firearmstactical.com/pdf/tools_of_tactics.pdf
The primary purpose of FoF training is to develop experience-based "been there, done that" decision-making skills: to mentally, emotionally and psychologically program the mind for success. Hence training scenarios must present realistic behavioral threat cues, under highly stressful, realistic conditions so the student can learn how to recognize threat indicators, interpret them, and apply appropriate tactics. They must be tightly scripted to force the student out of his comfort zone - compelling him to make decisions under extreme psychological and emotional duress - and to ensure that the student's reactions are the only variable. Under these conditions it's not unusual for students to mentally freeze or to make "stupid" decisions with deadly consequences.
Last edited:
Shawn,
Can a weekend course once in your life make that much difference? I found that to gain a level of competence with any new tactic, repetition was a must. In my experience, I went from punching small groups in paper to shooting Police pistol combat matches. My groups opened way up at the same distances at first. The only difference was competition. Once I had PPC down pat I tried IPSC, again my nerves got the best of me and my shooting suffered. Now I shoot several different matches and while I always get nervous, I have learned to overcome it and shoot well. This is why I believe that Thomas is correct. FOF is great but it is difficult to get the expeirience enough to make it effective. I had FOF in karate and if I only had one session it would have been useless. We did it over and over for a reason.
David, No comment about the financial bias from those who push training as the "only" way to go? Glenn go running to you buddy LOL?
Tree, I agree. When my post was blasted on glock talk, I clearly posted that proper fundamentals and tactics should be learned first. I was blasted because I believe that thunderranch is not needed to achieve them. Schooling are great but not necessary. Duane Thomas's article better explained my belief that competitors would fare better than the academician in an armed confrontation.
Can a weekend course once in your life make that much difference? I found that to gain a level of competence with any new tactic, repetition was a must. In my experience, I went from punching small groups in paper to shooting Police pistol combat matches. My groups opened way up at the same distances at first. The only difference was competition. Once I had PPC down pat I tried IPSC, again my nerves got the best of me and my shooting suffered. Now I shoot several different matches and while I always get nervous, I have learned to overcome it and shoot well. This is why I believe that Thomas is correct. FOF is great but it is difficult to get the expeirience enough to make it effective. I had FOF in karate and if I only had one session it would have been useless. We did it over and over for a reason.
David, No comment about the financial bias from those who push training as the "only" way to go? Glenn go running to you buddy LOL?
And allow you to call me stupid for saying that the 25acp was less effective than the 45acp in stopping an attack.....no way. Somethings just cannot be tolerated. You won't get under my skin again however. I now understand your game, your front, your secrets.
Tree, I agree. When my post was blasted on glock talk, I clearly posted that proper fundamentals and tactics should be learned first. I was blasted because I believe that thunderranch is not needed to achieve them. Schooling are great but not necessary. Duane Thomas's article better explained my belief that competitors would fare better than the academician in an armed confrontation.
- Status