Stupid Training

G

garryc

New member
In the last few years my department has gone from training Weaver stance to Col. Applegate point shooting. As anyone that has been in shooting combat over the last 50 years or so knows you are supposed to have the off foot forward and bend the knees. This places the body balance between the feet and is stable. Not in my department. They simply have you squat with the feet in line with each other. It's a weaver with a squat! That places the body's balance on the balls of the feet or even forward of that. So you're trying to balance yourself and shoot.

That's stupid!!!
 
Before going to 'Nam, . . . lotsa guys were "trained" that if their bayonet stuck in the guy they harpooned, . . . pull the trigger, the concurent effects of knockdown and recoil would get your bayonet out and ready for the next VC. :barf:

Those of us who planned on living long enough to see CONUS again answered with their required answer, . . . then shook our heads and agreed that if there were any bullets left in our rifles, . . . there wasn't going to be any of that bayonet crap going on with us, . . . :D

Maybe you need to do the same, . . . give them lip service, . . . but do what you need to do to stay alive. Truly, . . . I doubt that if the bullets start being sprayed around, . . . one of them will come running out from behind his desk to correct your stance. Remember, . . . he's gotta lay down that doughnut first, . . . and what's the chances of that happening????:eek:

May God bless,
Dwight
 
Ohio Law says this:


109.801 Annual firearms requalification program.
(A)(1) Each year, any of the following persons who are authorized to carry firearms in the course of their official duties shall complete successfully a firearms requalification program approved by the executive director of the Ohio peace officer training commission in accordance with rules adopted by the attorney general pursuant to section 109.743 of the Revised Code: any peace officer, sheriff, chief of police of an organized police department of a municipal corporation or township, chief of police of a township police district police force, superintendent of the state highway patrol, state highway patrol trooper, or chief of police of a university or college police department ; any parole or probation officer who carries a firearm in the course of official duties; the house of representatives sergeant at arms if the house of representatives sergeant at arms has arrest authority pursuant to division (E)(1) of section 101.311 of the Revised Code; any assistant house of representatives sergeant at arms; or any employee of the department of youth services who is designated pursuant to division (A)(2) of section 5139.53 of the Revised Code as being authorized to carry a firearm while on duty as described in that division.

(2) No person listed in division (A)(1) of this section shall carry a firearm during the course of official duties if the person does not comply with division (A)(1) of this section.

(B) The hours that a sheriff spends attending a firearms requalification program required by division (A) of this section are in addition to the sixteen hours of continuing education that are required by division (E) of section 311.01 of the Revised Code.

(C) As used in this section, “firearm” has the same meaning as in section 2923.11 of the Revised Code.

Effective Date: 03-19-2003; 09-16-2004; 03-14-2007

And this:

109.743 Administrative rules.
The attorney general shall adopt, in accordance with Chapter 119. of the Revised Code or pursuant to section 109.74 of the Revised Code, rules governing firearms requalification programs that are required by section 109.801 of the Revised Code. At a minimum, the rules shall prohibit a firearms requalification program from being used to fulfill the requirements of section 109.801 of the Revised Code until after the program is approved by the executive director of the Ohio peace officer training commission pursuant to section 109.75 of the Revised Code.


So I'm wondering if OPADA is aware of this alteration of the program. Maybe I'll just get that can of gas back out and fire this issue up. A little complaint to OPADA might get some attention.
 
Practical and Logistical considerations:

Garry, you might also consider the geography of some ranges.

One of the reasons range officers want all toes on the line is so no one is behind (or forward of) the person next on the line.

You're right, things ain't always as they should be. However, the reality is, the range people have to get all those officers through the qualification course in this length of time. Probably only running a relay of three or four officers might lend a greater level of authenticity to the course, but it's usually not possible based on scheduling.

I'm not suggesting you forget about it or ignore it, but there are many considerations in this sort of nonsense. Especially with a department and a state oversight agency.
 
When I went this year we started at about 9am and finished at about 10:45 with 10 shooters. We didn't get off until 2pm. That was both handgun and shotgun with about a 30min break between. Of course we did not clean the weapons and they went to the armory dirty, dirty just like we got them. Filthy to the point of malfuntion.
 
Gary, get a dozen copies of Stressfire by Ayoob and send them to your union leaders. I know he has taught LFI in Ohio and you will have many compatriots.
 
You must do it like this!

I fell afoul of every Firearms Instructor in all the Police Dept's, for 100 miles around.

I ran my own training facility for 23 years, never was trained to teach.

I started by examining every shooting in the past ten years, measured what kind of training was required to win those actual encounters, and built a program to suit that. In submitting the lesson plan to the Police Training Authority the criteria was all from the holster, or the odd time, from the ready position.

The stance was whatever you came with if it worked! If not we changed it, Pistol, Rifle or Shotgun, same fight developed stance, aggressive, tight.

The one you are describing sounds like the old FBI stance, the problem with that stance, you are not in a ready to go position! You want to fly forward, or to either side! You are stuck. One extra split second, you are dead.
 
They simply have you squat with the feet in line with each other. It's a weaver with a squat! That places the body's balance on the balls of the feet or even forward of that. So you're trying to balance yourself and shoot.
Click to expand...
First, a feet-in-line squat should not place you off-balance if done right. Try thinking of a martial arts "horse stance" position instead of a weight-forward ball of feet position. Second, IMO you shouldn't practice a single static position anyway, which might be the more important point, one to make with your superiors.
 
and agreed that if there were any bullets left in our rifles, . . . there wasn't going to be any of that bayonet crap going on with us, .
Click to expand...

That is the way the SEALs think. While they do train in some H2H, they are all for blasting the enemy first and last. They will get down and dirty once the bullets run out.

you shouldn't practice a single static position anyway, which might be the more important point, one to make with your superiors.
Click to expand...

Stances are to lean to shoot with. One HOPEs they can get into a 'stance' when the fur flys, but no doubt they will have to adapt their 'stance' to the situation. Still one does learn the stance, just like a karate 'horse' stance. You have to crawl before you can walk.
 
IF you're being required to shoot with both feet in line (assuming any tactical thought), why teach a Weaver hold?

In such a position, an Isosceles hold can provide better control over larger (40 is large?) calibers, faster shot times, and allow for cross-dominance of the shooter.

I'm not trying to start a "prefered method" war, but I think the point holds that if you're being trained to stand square to a target, which will train you to be a wider target under fire, you might as well have a grip that will perform best with that stance.

Granted, I'm no expert, but I do shoot competitvely locally. Under stress (from the clock ;) ) I sometimes find my Iso slipping more towards a Weaver, but I invariable lose the control (I shoot 40) and eye-dominance benefits I get from Iso.
 
I'm not trying to start a "prefered method" war, but I think the point holds that if you're being trained to stand square to a target, which will train you to be a wider target under fire,
Click to expand...

Well, if you are wearing body armor, then you are taking the most advantage of it in a squared stance. The more you turn, the more you expose the weak part of your armor, the side. Many many officers have been killed by taking a round in the side while turning from the threat.
 
Personally, I train to shoot with my feet in all sorts of stances, my body in and out of balance, leaning, bent over, etc. I also train shooting on the move. Why? Because I probably won't get to be in my ideal position during a crisis. I need to be able to shoot well regardless of where my feet are when I start shooting. I really doubt that I will be able to shoot well in an "off balance" stance if I don't train for it.

The same goes for weaver, isoc., strong hand, and weak hand.
 
we, too, received academy training to square up, mostly due to the body armor. but we also received a little nugget for real gunfights. If you're stance is good, you're not moving and finding cover.
 
I suggest grabbing a copy of Col. Applegate's book Bullseye's Don't Shoot Back. You'll find out from the Col himself why the stance is like it is and the research he did as part of OSS that led him to it.

Essentially the entire point shooting stance he taught is based on your body's natural response to a threat. You will automatically stand square to the threat. From this position it is also easier to move laterally either right or left. Putting your off foot forward makes quickly moving laterally in that direction almost impossible. It might work for shooting at the range but is not a good idea in a SD situation.

You can get the book for less than $20 at half.com, Amazon.com, etc. It's worth reading.
 
If you're fighting from "Horse Stance" you're doing it wrong. Even karateka do not fight from horse stance unless they've been trained badly.

If there's a logical reason to spend effort on keeping your feet lined up, that's fine, but "because it's like Horse Stance" is not it.
 
Agreed, but my point is that one should not learn a single stance during training, but instead should learn to utilize different stances.
Click to expand...

And hence I said 'stances', as in plural. Long time ago Ayoob showed in his book how you could go from a Weaver to a Iso to a Chapman just by swinging your arms around. That was a very good thought he had.

If you're fighting from "Horse Stance" you're doing it wrong. Even karateka do not fight from horse stance unless they've been trained badly.
Click to expand...

Don, while I'm not a fancier of the Israeli method of shooting, they do use a horse stance (rather deep one to.) And I can't say the Israelites don't know a thing or two about combat shooting.

And martial artest do use the horse stance. They may kick or punch from a boxing stance but when they land they may very well be in a horse stance so as to deliver a very wicked step-through side kick, back kick, or shuffling kick. Even a spinning backfist can be delivered from the horse stance. They transition from one stance to another as the situation dictates. The stances may not be picture perfect, but they do flow from one to another.
 
In his book KOGK Applegate warns against the "straddle stance" for combat shooting.
I must disagree slightly.
Be it aimed or point shooting I teach from the straddle stance position since I find that the student has an easier understanding of the concepts from this position.
I do, however, lead them into having one foot forward ASAP--usually when they are getting good hits.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top