"Tactical Reality" by L. Awerbuck

M

Matt VDW

New member
This message is a review of the book "Tactical Reality" by Louis Awerbuck.

It's also a rant because I don't think the book is worth the $26 I paid for it. Instead of getting some fresh insights from a man who's reputed to be an excellent trainer, what I got was a poorly edited collection of magazine articles with the valuable ideas hidden in the mess.

Some suggestions for Mr. Awerbuck:

1) Hire a proofreader. If neither you nor Paladin Press can afford one, mail me a copy of your manuscript and I'll look it over for free.

2) Learn the difference between "amount" and "number" and when to use each.

3) Provide an index. Creating one with current word processing software isn't a big job.

4) Organize your material and present it in a logical order.

5) Don't cover the same topic in two different chapters.

6) If you're going to cite incidents, explain to the reader what happened in each case and what the reader can learn from the situation.

7) If you're going to provide pictures of a smokestack stoppage, show an empty case rather than a loaded round caught between the slide and the barrel hood.

8) Beware of cliches and mixed metaphors.

9) Cut the "cute" language by half.

10) If you're going to warn against using gizmos on a defensive firearm, explain what a "gizmo" is and then justify the numerous modifications shown on your tricked-out, cut down Remington 11-87.

11) Do some research. Sun Tzu wasn't Japanese and the shooters of 1899 weren't all deadly marksmen with great tactical skills.

Those are the main gripes I wanted to get off my chest. I'll be glad to rant some more if anyone's interested. :)
 
I've got the book (that's my "tricked out snubbie") back up in the photos. True, there are some misspells and editorial goofs in there, but they are misses by the editors. There are many such by other authors of articles in SWAT & SOF, not their faults, but by "editing."

Louis is extremely articulate and well educated. I agree with Erik, his writing style follows his spoken word. It does help "the (Southafrican) translation" if you've had his training.

See also "HIT OR MYTH" by Awerbuck. Only writings I've seen that really address the real reasons good guys miss in gunfights, FIGHTS, not target shootings.

Excellent instructor, helluva man, been there, done it.
 
Just a comment on the book, 'Hit or Myth'. I got a copy some years back when I was doing a lot of LEO firearms training. I agreed with his premises that the unexpected and awkward was the norm in real life, but never could figure out what kind of equipment he was using to train for it. The upshot was that it sort of left you hanging. I thought the whole thing was rather poorly done. He may be very good in person.

------------------
 
The basic premise for HIT OR MYTH is that training on a big ol' B27 is not like in real life, and sets us up to fail when it's for real.

Some improvement can be made by folding targets, making 'em 3D by bending, angles, "negative" shooting, etc. All these are easily set up and cheap, as opposed to a moving 3D anatomically correct opponent, which hasn't been perfected, yet.

Just some pretty good suggestions to liven up range training and make one a better FIGHTER, rather than a paper puncher. Some more tools for the toolbox, so to speak.
 
I'm curious, what is Mr. Awerbuck's background. I saw the book and thought of purchasing it but I don't know much about him.
 
It is interesting that when someone doesn't agree with someone they attack things like spelling etc. I find each day errors in our major daily newspaper.
As an author and magazine writer and former daily newspaper reporter I know the problems with such things. Even modern PC software will allow errors to take place. Printed word is a long series of minds and hands on involved and errors happen regardless of source.
Also I'd be interested in the CONTENT more than the trivial errors. Terms in advertising like , " Got milk" must drive some language specialists nuts.
I got an F in every english class I ever had but I have no trouble getting published. That is what editors are for. Editors edit. I use two of them and software prior to submission and errors still get past everyone.
My daily newspaper editor once said, " you aren't good at basic english but you sure tell a story." I also typed 100+wpm with few errors.
I am trying to track down a copy of this book as it seems to be more common sense then the typical gun rag logic we see prevailing. I have been told he is my kind of guy and I suspect that from just the few notes on it here.
Self-defense shouldn't be a fashion statement.
 
Pluspinc: I didn't criticize Mr. Awerbuck's book because I disagree with him. I pointed out some problems BECAUSE I agree with him and was disappointed by the sloppy presentation of his ideas.

Those who wish to be taken seriously should treat the communication of their ideas as a serious business. I don't expect perfection, but writing at the level of Bill Jordan, Massad Ayoob or Jim Cirillo seems to be a reasonable standard.

I think you'll find "Tactical Reality" interesting. Mr. Awerbuck cites some of the same statistics you use (such as an 80+% miss rate in gunfights) and shares your opinion that most training is unrealistic but he has a different prescription for reform.

Try http://www.paladinpress.com to order the book.
 
My pardons if I misunderstood. Don't expect someone in a gun related business to be a Hemmingway. Such books are often self produced (as mine are from now on) and there isn't the money for extensive editing and printing methods. Many of the best books I have are don at Kinko's. A literary masterpiece they aren't but they get the message across.
As for other authors, I find constant errors and poor english in them. It is like watching a movie made by someone like Steven Speilberg. You do catch errors no matter who makes them.
It sounds like he and I agree on most things. He just thinks asprin will cure it and I'm a Tylenol fan. The idea is to get rid of the headache and both can cure it. What is amazing is that miss rate still haunts us and nobody has a solution except the worn cliche "more training" but never say how much or what kind. More of what we have been doing isn't the solution. We know the failure rate that has with the best of em.
Awerbuck and Applegate for two will never be a legend. They don't walk the company line. Toss in Bill Jordan to the above and I think your library would be well served. They all have one thing in common. REAL experience vs a theory.
 
You make reference to his way being Aspirin & your's being Tylenol. That said, what is
Your Way? I've seen your posts for several years, on rec.guns and here, however, I've
yet to see a definition of Your Way. Please, can you articulate Your Way? Perhaps, a
format / outline to follow would be way the LTC Cooper has outlined The Modern Techique.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
By saying Tylenol I say the results are the same. KILL the pain and both are close in how they do it. There are many of those in the training field that subscribe to the non-complex BASICS vs the formal target shooting community who think you can take complex methods and make them work in the street in real life. Dream on. Facing a cardboard target isn't like real life.
I think Awerbuck and myself are probably close on what we do and I would probably endorse most of what he says. I am waiting for his book and will mail him a copy of mine now out and the next one out in a few weeks.
I simply took what I saw in real life and on videos and decided that is where we need to be. Not pulling off crap that looks more like a Chuck Norris movie.
21 feet, low light/darkness. It is that simple. That is 90% or more of all shootings.
It is THEE foundation we must MASTER and continue to MASTER year after year. That is the exact situation we fail at 92% of the time IF we shoot. 88% will die with the gun in the holster. I decided I had to find out why that is. I didn't blow it off with old worn cliches like, "we need more training." I looked for a study or proof that training means survival. It ain't their boys and girls. In fact life is littered with the dead and wounded that were damn fine shots etc.
Failure to perform is a result of a total understanding of shooting situations and how they form and take place and what to do about it. Everyone is hung up on guns and bullets. Very ill placed efforts.
Our program is so simple it is hard to explain and few care until I get them on a range and turn them into a street animal in 45 mins or less. So far the performance of the students is pristine. Might be a failure down the road, but haven't seen one yet. If a student does fail I won't blame the student. That is the trend in shooting instruction. I will have failed. I'll take the blame. We are now switching to SCORING our shooting program. No more "pass/fail." No more dodging the legal bullets. We'll face them head on and send our students out into the street with a 90%+ rating no matter what it takes. Someone has to put their name on the training and stand behind it. I have the legal resources to tackle any challenge to it. I have that confidence in what I do and my students. Obvious others don't. If they do then let them start scoring.
Bill Jordan said, "there are no second place winners." Some still think he was wrong. I don't settle for second place on the street.
 
You make reference to his way being Aspirin & your's being Tylenol. That said, what is
Your Way? I've seen your posts for several years, on rec.guns and here, however, I've
yet to see a definition of Your Way. Please, can you articulate Your Way? Perhaps, a
format / outline to follow would be way the LTC Cooper has outlined The Modern Techique.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
By saying Tylenol I say the results are the same. KILL the pain and both are close in how they do it. There are many of those in the training field that subscribe to the non-complex BASICS vs the formal target shooting community who think you can take complex methods and make them work in the street in real life. Dream on. Facing a cardboard target isn't like real life.
I think Awerbuck and myself are probably close on what we do and I would probably endorse most of what he says. I am waiting for his book and will mail him a copy of mine now out and the next one out in a few weeks.
I simply took what I saw in real life and on videos and decided that is where we need to be. Not pulling off crap that looks more like a Chuck Norris movie.
21 feet, low light/darkness. It is that simple. That is 90% or more of all shootings.
It is THEE foundation we must MASTER and continue to MASTER year after year. That is the exact situation we fail at 92% of the time IF we shoot. 88% will die with the gun in the holster. I decided I had to find out why that is. I didn't blow it off with old worn cliches like, "we need more training." I looked for a study or proof that training means survival. It ain't their boys and girls. In fact life is littered with the dead and wounded that were damn fine shots etc.
Failure to perform is a result of a total misunderstanding of shooting situations and how they form and take place and what to do about it. Everyone is hung up on guns and bullets. Very ill placed efforts.
Our program is so simple it is hard to explain and few care until I get them on a range and turn them into a street animal in 45 mins or less. So far the performance of the students is pristine. Might be a failure down the road, but haven't seen one yet. If a student does fail I won't blame the student. That is the trend in shooting instruction. I will have failed. I'll take the blame. We are now switching to SCORING our shooting program. No more "pass/fail." No more dodging the legal bullets. We'll face them head on and send our students out into the street with a 90%+ rating no matter what it takes. Someone has to put their name on the training and stand behind it. I have the legal resources to tackle any challenge to it. I have that confidence in what I do and my students. Obvious others don't. If they do then let them start scoring.
Bill Jordan said, "there are no second place winners." Some still think he was wrong. I don't settle for second place on the street nor should I ask my students to.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top