The Fallacy of the “Retention Position”

If you are using a 4 count draw stroke, it may be fair to say that by the time the gun is in position 2 one is fairly far along into the presentation. This is true because Count 1 is rather time consuming. However, the time between the end of Count 1 (when the gun actually moves) and Count 2 is quite short. This can be measured. Take a timer, start with your hand in a firing grip, and on the beep, draw to retention and fire a shot. Subtract your reaction time (usually around 0.25 seconds), and that gives you the length of time it takes to complete the entire Count 2. Probably about 1/3rd of that time the gun is still in or pointed at the holster. 2/3rds of that time is probably the theoretical time that you are delaying your shot in order to get to a tight, well protected position with a repeatable index.
I didn't think the OP was talking about shooting before Count 2, though. I thought he was talking about shooting at Count 2, or full extension, or anywhere in between, moving the gun out or in, as circumstances dictate.
 
So what we are left with is that there is NO fallacy to retention position shooting itself. The only OP fallacy is that supposedly there are folks that teach this as an all or none approach. That alone isn't a problem with the approach, but with how it is taught.

We are also left with the problem that apparently because of such obfuscations by folks teaching "retention position" shooting, or how people comprehend what it means, that there is considerable disagreement on what the term means such that not everyone has the same idea in mind.
 
What you do with your feet and hips

is at least as important as what you do with the pistol. Positions are just positions. Look at the Maginot Line....

If you don't practice fluid movement, of the whole body, then positions are only going to give you a momentary edge.

Cheers,

M
 
Learning a set of positions, be it the 4 count draw strok, or 'Weaver' stance, or Stressfire, or just any stance, drawing method, weapon holding method,etc... is not something set in stone.

Same goes for learning a jab, or cross, or uppercut, or back kick, or... well you get the idea.

You learn to adapt and impovise your techniques to the given situation. Maybe you will be lucky and a textbook draw from a IWB works just like you did on the range, but don't count on it. Adapt whatever methods you choose to train on. It might take some quick thinking but I assure you, in a fast paced situation you will be amazed how fast you can think if you are well trained.
 
Yep. Nothing like flame cutting your rib cage.

---

Lest someone get the wrong impression:

Oh, from strong side the distance from where my pistol clears leather to my peck index is approx 2 inches. It is what it is which isn't far to go; by the time I rotate my gun I'm there. First shots come the same whether from there or the quarter hip. They come before half hip times. Mileage varies with builds and speed, of course.

Best.
 
Count 2 is quite short. This can be measured. Take a timer, start with your hand in a firing grip, and on the beep, draw to retention and fire a shot. Subtract your reaction time (usually around 0.25 seconds), and that gives you the length of time it takes to complete the entire Count 2.
I did this experiment today. 5 measurements, average length of time to draw was 0.59 seconds. Assuming my reaction time is 0.25 seconds (an optimistic, but occasionally reached, estimate) that leaves 0.34 seconds for Count 2 to be completed. Probably means I am giving up less than a quarter of a second to wait and fire from a stable, repeatable and practiced index.
 
Just a few notes here...I spent 4 months under the tutelage of Jim Lindell. He was an employee of the Kansas City Police Department at that time. He didn't teach live fire at all. The 'retention' he taught was how to defeat gun grabs from the uniform holster- and he taught it very well.

He also taught defensive tactics and physical training- and he taught them exceptionally well. Lindell's systems were derived from the better principles of several formal martial arts; balance, blinding speed and efficiency of motion to provide power to the block, strike, kick or takedown. The end product was an amazingly fast, simple, and natural library of full-force block/counterstrikes as conditioned responses to an attack from any angle. It is no exaggeration to state that these 'blocks' often stunned or hurt the recipient nearly as bad as the counter-strike.

Jim's approach to training methodology was anything but dogmatic, and an automatic transition to 'Plan B' was built into most of them. A a part of a recruit class, it was impossible to miss the effectiveness of his training methodology. I adopted it at every opportunity when I started teaching firearms, ten years later.

'Speed Rock', 'Yank & Blast', Emergency Action Drills (EAD), Retention Firing or whatever you wish to call it should be taught as a fluid, adaptable 'counterstrike' to deadly threats at close range- which I consider 'inside 5 yards'. I like the term EAD myself because it leaves no doubt that an EMERGENCY is underway NOW and it is time to do nothing but shoot down your attacker. It is commenced one-handed with a transition to two-handed shooting if conditions require (body armor drill) or allow it.

At contact distance the gun is close to the body as the weak hand blocks contact weapons or palm-strikes at the face. The gun is held a few inches further out from the body now that semi-autos are the norm. If an attack moves in from 6-7 yards the handgun can still be deployed one-handed and fast, accurate fire is delivered and maintained- along with balance and the ability to move off the line of attack.

Frankly, I never noticed any 'problem' with teaching this skillset. No conscientious or credible trainer would teach stationary, 'retention' firing as a singular solution to close-range attacks. I have never missed an opportunity to attend or conduct police firearms training in the 28 years since I first stepped onto a firing line. In that time I have never seen it taught as such. Perhaps it is being taught incorrectly 'somewhere' but I learned long ago that since I'm not 'selling anything' my time was better spent worrying about what works and what doesn't. I can tell you with confidence that several officers I have had the pleasure of training have survived deadly attacks (both human and animal) that came from oblique angles, in near-total darkness and from 6 feet instead of six yards. Their account was that they reacted immediately as trained, without conscious thought, and that their fire went exactly where it did during EAD exercises- into the middle of the threat. All but one were moving 'off the line' when they realized that they had been in a shooting- and 'Won!'. I take no credit for their success. I taught them "A" way- not 'the only' way.

Those officers took the initiative to learn it well and they adapted it to the fight they were handed. The good came away unscathed and the 'bad' got stopped. 'Repeat offenders' seem to be missing from the equation. That's a positive training result in my book.
 
Back
Top