"Fighting With a Gun"

[Jay Cunningham]

What is "fighting with a gun"?

The above phrase has become the de rigueur descriptor in AARs and recommendations when attempting to make the point of differentiating from "square range" or "competition/gun game" training.

But what does that phrase actually mean in a training environment? What does training to "fight with a gun" look like compared to training that does not claim to teach you to "fight with a gun"?

[phil_in_cs]

For me, that's learning skills that are needed for a fight that aren't needed for a shooting sport. Malfunction issues, one handed pistol manipulations, scanning, pre and post fight issues, legal aspects of the use of deadly force, mind set, etc.

[Sparks2112]

For me, that's learning skills that are needed for a fight that aren't needed for a shooting sport. Malfunction issues, one handed pistol manipulations, scanning, pre and post fight issues, legal aspects of the use of deadly force, mind set, etc.

+1

[SouthNarc]

This one's gonna' be interesting.

Good question Jay!:)

[YVK]

I've seen it used in so many ways that I don't pay attention anymore, it has become a cliche to me.

Perhaps the most appropriate ones are those who try to imitate and cultivate mindset, behavior and tactics that are expected to win a firefight. There are obvious questions about instructor's credentials, real life experience and generalizability of content.

Then there are ones who teach "correct" technical skills that one is supposed to use in real life engagements, as opposed to competition etc. I always have a question why not to call it a manipulations class, though.

And then I've seen instructors who can't shoot and just call if fighting because it is clearly ain't marksmanship class of any kind...

[JodyH]

Training to "fight with a gun" involves emphasizing manipulating the gun in a manner that promotes heads up awareness and integrating the handgun into an overall defensive skills program.
Basically training the mind to see things from a fighting perspective in addition to a pure shooting skills perspective.
Examples are:

Performing manipulations at eye level rather than at chest or belt buckle level. These methods aren't only faster and more positive, they also help you maintain awareness of your surroundings.
Drawing the gun up to the pecs and then punching out rather than in a straight line from holster to extension. Basically retention position "press out" vs. pure competition speed IPSC draw.
Immediate action drills vs. the old aim in a safe direction and wait 30 seconds before assessing a malfunction.
Shooting on the move and from compromised positions.

[David Armstrong]

I don't know what it means in the context of AARs and such. The context I have understood it in is from my old Israeli instructor and it is similar to what JodyH said. His explanation was they were teaching you "fighting with a gun" as opposed to gunfighting or shooting a gun. The difference was that fighting with a gun meant that one looked as the entire self-protection and personal security paradigm as a unit, and using the handgun was one part of that combative system. Thus one would focus on the handgun within the context of an overall fighting system rather than just its use in the gunfight itself.

[Dropkick]

Some of the previous comments remind me of a quote I once read:

"The first rule of gun fighting is, 'be a gunfighter.' Some people think it's 'have a gun,' but that's wrong. If you want to win the fight you have to be a fighter. Weapons don't win fights; fighters do." - Shane Steinkamp

That's kind of how I look at things... Will this make me a better fighter, or a better shooter? Two different skill sets that can be trained, and also intergrated together.

[Jay Cunningham]

For me, that's learning skills that are needed for a fight that aren't needed for a shooting sport. Malfunction issues, one handed pistol manipulations, scanning, pre and post fight issues, legal aspects of the use of deadly force, mind set, etc.

Have you had training that was *supposed* to be "fighting with a gun" where the above did not get covered?

[Korenwolf]

Tongue in cheek mode/

"Fighting with a gun" can have three meanings:
1. Pistol Whipping.
2. Fighting for control over trigger.
3. Managing recoil.

Tongue in cheek mode off/

Sorry just too tempting ;)

[Dropkick]

That's kind of how I look at things... Will this make me a better fighter, or a better shooter? Two different skill sets that can be trained, and also intergrated together.

Just thought of a simple but great example... The scenario is of Good Guy and Bad Guy faced off at each other. Good Guy is right-handed, and makes a side step to his right. This does the following:

Fighting: Gives better access to the Bad Guy's chin line to throw a good right knock-out punch.
Shooting: Good Guy just "Got off the X" of attack.
Integrated: A 3 o'clock holstered firearm is farther from reach of the Bad Guy.

If you were just a fighter or a shooter, you might know one or the other. Taking the time to train in multi-disciples, and integrated training is where things like that come together and makes sense for several reasons.

[Jay Cunningham]

I've seen it used in so many ways that I don't pay attention anymore, it has become a cliche to me.

Perhaps the most appropriate ones are those who try to imitate and cultivate mindset, behavior and tactics that are expected to win a firefight. There are obvious questions about instructor's credentials, real life experience and generalizability of content.

What are the "obvious questions" about instructor credentials, real-life experience, and generality (I *know* this is a word :p) of content?

[phil_in_cs]

Have you had training that was *supposed* to be "fighting with a gun" where the above did not get covered?

No, but I've had training that was sporting related that did not cover these issues. There is a lot of overlap, much more than the "fighting only" crowd would admit. Being able to hit your target quickly while moving is covered more often in sporting oriented classes, but is still a vital skill in fighting. Conversely, some "fighting classes" talk about "getting off the X" but spend 75% or more of the time working on "stand and deliver" type shooting.

[markp]

What is "fighting with a gun"?

The above phrase has become the de rigueur descriptor in AARs and recommendations when attempting to make the point of differentiating from "square range" or "competition/gun game" training.

But what does that phrase actually mean in a training environment? What does training to "fight with a gun" look like compared to training that does not claim to teach you to "fight with a gun"?

I think it would include using empty hand/edged & expedient weapons before turning the altercation into a gun (solution) fight .

[Mr_White]

Definitely an interesting topic.

To me, “fighting with a gun” implies dealing with hand-to-hand issues (a gigantic, deep, and difficult subject unto itself), dealing with an opposing will, maneuvering against an opponent, dealing with an opponent who will maneuver against you, and managing the space within which the fight occurs.

I will not address the hand-to-hand issues, and instead would simply give TPI my sincere, but inexpert and meaningless, endorsement on that important part of the subject.

Outside of hand-to-hand, I think we are talking about the fairly simplistic management of time, distance, barriers, movement, lighting issues, shot angles, and recognition of emergent and fleeting opportunities to maneuver against a threat and to counter its maneuvers against us.

Distance, barriers, and movement are factors that mostly allow us a little more time to apply our speedy marksmanship to stop the threat, rather than just briefly delaying it by hiding behind a barrier or moving - the benefit of those tactics can be abruptly negated by a threat that maneuvers against us, has a high degree of marksmanship skill, or simply gets lucky - and moreover, to utilize shot angles that increase bystander safety, or create those safer shot angles if they do not exist at the outset. Use of distance, barriers, and movement can put us in a temporary position of advantage from which we may better be able to decisively end the fight.

Force-on-force is one way to train some of the above, but a lot can also be done live fire if the square range is used creatively.

Marksmanship and manipulations need to be unconsciously competent in order to free up the conscious mind to manage the space and manage the opponent(s) as described above.

Just my non-BTDT opinion.

[Jay Cunningham]

Training to "fight with a gun" involves emphasizing manipulating the gun in a manner that promotes heads up awareness and integrating the handgun into an overall defensive skills program.
Basically training the mind to see things from a fighting perspective in addition to a pure shooting skills perspective.
Examples are:

Performing manipulations at eye level rather than at chest or belt buckle level. These methods aren't only faster and more positive, they also help you maintain awareness of your surroundings.
Drawing the gun up to the pecs and then punching out rather than in a straight line from holster to extension. Basically retention position "press out" vs. pure competition speed IPSC draw.
Immediate action drills vs. the old aim in a safe direction and wait 30 seconds before assessing a malfunction.
Shooting on the move and from compromised positions.


Everything you described in your list has been covered in coursework (I've participated in) from civilian instuctors with no gunfight experience, who never claim in their curriculum to teach "fighting with a gun". Did I de facto learn "fighting with a gun" from them? Does instructor background and experience have anything to do with it?

[ffhounddog]

Fighting with a gun...lets see movement and cover while getting to an objective while moving, shooting, and communicating. Gun can be anything from a pistol to a Mk19. After that gun becomes a cannon.

Now Rockets, Missles, and M320/203 rounds can be fighting with a gun as well.

[jetfire]

Training to "fight with a gun" involves emphasizing manipulating the gun in a manner that promotes heads up awareness and integrating the handgun into an overall defensive skills program.
Basically training the mind to see things from a fighting perspective in addition to a pure shooting skills perspective.
Examples are:

Performing manipulations at eye level rather than at chest or belt buckle level. These methods aren't only faster and more positive, they also help you maintain awareness of your surroundings.
Drawing the gun up to the pecs and then punching out rather than in a straight line from holster to extension. Basically retention position "press out" vs. pure competition speed IPSC draw.
Immediate action drills vs. the old aim in a safe direction and wait 30 seconds before assessing a malfunction.
Shooting on the move and from compromised positions.


Those are all things that I've been taught in classes that were specifically geared towards competition shooting.

[JodyH]

Those are all things that I've been taught in classes that were specifically geared towards competition shooting.
I've never shot from retention or the supine position in a class geared towards competition.

[jetfire]

I've never shot from retention or the supine position in a class geared towards competition.

Then you should have been specific and said that, instead of "compromised positions". I've shot from urban prone in at least one "competition" class I can think off the top of my head.

[JodyH]

Everything you described in your list has been covered in coursework (I've participated in) from civilian instuctors with no gunfight experience, who never claim in their curriculum to teach "fighting with a gun". Did I de facto learn "fighting with a gun" from them? Does instructor background and experience have anything to do with it?
It's like trying to define the differences between artistic and obscene pornography... I know it when I see it, it's all subjective and you may not agree with me.
You may take a class and think it was training to fight, I may come away from the same class thinking it was the equivalent of NRA 1st steps.
I think the students background and experiences have more to do with it than the instructors.
I know instructors who claim to teach "fighting with a gun" and never come close, the other side of the coin is I know instructors who advertise a pure skills course and devote significant time to "fighting with a gun".
Then you have students who take things at face value and sometimes miss the underlying lesson in some drills.
There are definitely classes that emphasize the martial aspects of shooting and there are classes that emphasize the mechanics.
Would you get the same material from Southnarc and Brian Enos, or would one better prepare you for a street fight and the other prep you for an IPSC match?

[Wondering Beard]

Fighting with a gun?

Isn't that just using tactics with a specific tool?

[JodyH]

Then you should have been specific and said that, instead of "compromised positions". I've shot from urban prone in at least one "competition" class I can think off the top of my head.
Urban prone isn't supine.
Sorry I didn't write ten paragraphs of minute details, I'll work on my manifesto writing.
:p

[jetfire]

But it is a "compromised position". :cool:

[jar]

To me, “fighting with a gun” implies dealing with hand-to-hand issues (a gigantic, deep, and difficult subject unto itself), dealing with an opposing will, maneuvering against an opponent, dealing with an opponent who will maneuver against you, and managing the space within which the fight occurs.

I will not address the hand-to-hand issues, and instead would simply give TPI my sincere, but inexpert and meaningless, endorsement on that important part of the subject.


Huge +1. To me it means training considered in the context of a real live thinking breathing opponent trying his best to thwart us. It doesn't necessarily have to include force on force, but the material has to be tested in the crucible of FoF and hopefully real fights as well.

[JodyH]

I'm shooting at a close in target and go to slidelock.
One instructor shows me the mechanics of getting a sub 2 second reload.
One instructor shows me the best way to bash a skull in with an empty handgun.

[Joseph B.]

My personal view is that it really boils down to understanding how the training (either it be professional or personal) will translate to being in a gunfight. Competitive shooting (bulls-eye, practical, steel, etc) all have good qualities that translate to skills that will help prepare someone for a gunfight, but being good at one or all will not cover all possible skill sets. Flat or square range training is good for several aspects, but limits the shooter to one directional shooting and gunfights are not all one directional.


I see training as preparing developing ones individual skills, those skills can be to win a match, become the best bulls-eye shooter, or to become more effective in gunfights, etc, etc. Simply put, the way that you training will directly translate to how you will perform in a gunfight.


Example: if you train to stand static and punch holes center of mass all day long, in a gunfight you will most likely stand static and shoot center of mass shots. This may or may not be good, but is very much dependent to the type of gunfight you are expecting to possibly have. A sniper, will (should not) not be doing a bunch of shooting on the move, dynamic shooting, etc. However, the possibility is there, so the sniper should train for both his job (precision rifle engagement and intelligent collection) and the unexpected (defending his position, breaking contact, etc).


The same can be applied to what I was talking about in the other thread regarding headshots, if you do not train to achieve headshots, if you do not train to transition from center of mass to headshots, you will in a gunfight (more than likely not) shoot only center of mass shots.


As trainers, we can’t and should not be caught up into the “what if” or “variables” of gunfights. We have to focus on skills that develop the shooter into a well rounded shooter, a shooter who is skilled in not only accuracy but also all the skill sets that go along with shooting in a gunfight.


Example: being able to shoot from multiple standard and adaptive shooting positions, being able to shoot on the move, being able to run stop and shoot, being able to “properly” use cover. Being able to limit self exposure, while achieving position that allows for accurate fire on the threat, stress shooting, etc, etc.


Any time we can add physical stress to the drills, accuracy tests and or scenario. Adding stress and allowing accuracy to fall is where I think most trainers fall off. You have to require the same standard of accuracy under stress, otherwise the stress training did nothing for the individual student. Pushing that student to perform under physical stress is prepares them for the stress in gunfights, allowing the accuracy to degrade and saying “not bad for x amount of stress” is the worst thing a trainer can do. We have to set that bar high, we have to require the same level in training.


These are just a few of the things I think are different between preparing someone for a gunfight and just teaching marksmanship or skills and or winning the game. I’ll post some more a little later…

[TR675]

In the last few years I've taken classes from some of the best and most renowned pistol instructors out there. They taught manipulations, malfunction drills, shooting techniques, all of which made me far more proficient with a pistol than I was. A lot of instructors paid some lip service to mindset, but at the end of the day mindset was not what they were teaching - pistolcraft was.

Tom Givens is the only instructor who put anywhere near an equal emphasis on preparation and mindset as on pistolcraft. That is absolutely not a slam on anyone other instructor; Tom has a fairly unique curriculum.

Not one of those classes, including Tom's, prepared me, a desk jockey who hasn't been in a fistfight since 9th grade, for an encounter I had with a bad actor a few months ago that was a split-second away from going very, very bad. They may have shown me how to shoot, but not how to deal with someone larger than me at contact distance who is saying things and acting in a way that make me unhappy.

Again, this isn't a slam on anybody. I just don't think that any class, including ones that claim to teach "fighting with a gun" can really teach you how to fight. I think you need to know how and when to fight before you can claim to be a "gunfighter," and that no two day shooting class can train you how to fight.

Having said that, and based in part on a couple of good posts by SouthNarc recently that mirrored and gave impetus to my new thinking, I've made a choice to seek out actual fighting training as best I can.

[TCinVA]

My two cents:

Looking back over the training I've done, it's really hard to define a hard line between "fighting" with a gun and learning to use one really well. I say that because there's a world of evidence out there that exceptional skill with a firearm actually pays dividends when it comes to using that weapon to stop the hostile actions of an enemy. If you look at the units in law enforcement and the military that exist primarily to do battle with evil in a very kinetic sense, all of them tend to have fairly stringent standards for what every member of the team has to be able to do with a firearm on demand. In a class with LAV, for instance, he once related that some of the training standards in his former unit were arrived at because they had to prepare unit members for storming a hijacked aircraft and shooting bad guys over the heads of seated airline passengers.

Certainly there was more to their training than marksmanship on demand...but the core reality is that the ability to close distance with an evil man and end him as efficiently and effectively as possible was a central focus of their training. That meant being well above average at using a gun, which meant a deliberate focus on teaching skills.

There's certainly more to violent interpersonal interaction with a firearm than weapons skill, and it's absolutely true that some aspects of it remain chronically undertrained even among armed professionals. Nevertheless, someone learning techniques that make them faster, more accurate, or more efficient on demand will pay dividends in terms of someone's ability to resolve a violent conflict in their favor. They are learning things that make them better at fighting with a gun.

So to answer the original question, I think the description of a class focused on "fighting with a gun" is a largely meaningless description. If I was to use the phrase, it would be applicable to just about any class that didn't focus on developing strategies for taking down IPSC stages.

Knowing a little bit about AAR's, I strongly suspect that descriptions of a class as a "fighting with a gun" class are frequently more about marketing and packaging than anything else. It may not even be deliberate on the part of the person writing the review, as they may just be reflecting the marketing or packaging the instructor (rightly or wrongly) or others stamped on the training. Still, you can almost get the sense that some people using that description are doing so in an attempt to sound too cool for school. There are certainly some outfits/trainers out there which have built their entire marketing strategy around being perceived as the baddest dudes in the room, typically despite plenty of evidence that they are not, in fact, the baddest dudes in practically any room. They tend to draw a certain type of student who tends to reflect an inappropriate fixation on the whole "fight" angle as a marketing weapon rather than an attempt to legitimately describe the training they received.

Some classes do a good job of teaching people about bad guys and how they work. Some classes do a good job of teaching how to conceal a real handgun on a day to day basis for personal defense. Some classes do a good job of introducing the mindset necessary to prevail over an adversary in violent conflict. Some classes do a good job of exposing someone to a sampling of the stress they can expect in a life or death encounter. Some classes do a good job of teaching weapons skills that will allow the good guy to put a bad guy down quicker. Some classes do a good job of familiarizing someone with the issues they can face in the aftermath of the use of lethal force.

ALL of those classes are likely to leave the person who attends them better prepared for the event in some way than they were before going into them.

[Joseph B.]

Story time.

I deployed to Iraq 04-05 and experienced things I was totally unprepared to experience. None of the pre-Army training and basic/unit level training prepared me very well for what I was experiencing in Iraq. When I finely returned stateside, I went on a quest to learn, hitting up LE schools, private schools and all around trying to find the answers to why I was so ill prepared for the gunfights I experienced. I ended up becoming a pre-deployment advanced weapons and marksmanship instructor, going through all types of shooting schools and really learning how to punch holes center of mass in a controlled setting.

I was at a pre-deployment site preparing for a class, when I had a talk with my NCOIC (a Panama vet) and we discussed how the training was good, but not very combat relevant. I decided that instead of doing the dog and pony show class that I would teach the class with emphases on what my combat experiences were and incorporate the skills of marksmanship into the skills of fighting as we did in Iraq. The class ended up being a hit and with a really good recommendation from that units commander, I was asked to come to our school house to help rewrite some of the programs, to incorporate more combat relevant training. Prior to this, only shooting team guy taught the instructor courses, and they were very much designed to make a competitive shooter/coach.

What I did there was not cut out the shooting or competitive style marksmanship training, but added to it. Little things like putting all your gear on when you train, correcting your own stoppages instead of raising your hand, using a holster and 4 point draw during pistol quals, adding physical stress (PT, run downs, etc) and requiring the same level of accuracy. Learning proper use of cover and how it applies to shooting, taking the standard shooting position and learning how to make them more adaptive, etc.

The end result was extremely more competent instructors going out to pre-deployment sites and training the soldiers who were deploying. This resulted in the USAF and USN sending a lot of their soldiers to our training and requests for training throughout the Army and in LEA.

Now I do not proclaim to be the “guy” who did all of it, I was simply allowed to help in the process and was happy to know that I was helping soldiers be more prepared for the things I was not. I think adding those small aspects does more than all the “what if’s” and or “possibilities” being added into your training program. No gunfight is really the same, everything can and will change when you least expect it to. You have to be able to pull from all types of skills in order to remain effective and aggressive. That said, we were extremely limited by safety and range Nazi rules that restricted the ability to make the training even more relevant. This is probably one of the biggest reasons that civilian trainers and ranges have done so well with training military forces. The skills and or instruction is not different, however the flexibility of making things more relevant is wide open compared to the general military use ranges.

Mindset: I think mindset has a lot to do with being successful in gunfights, but I think a lot of people try to overdo it and or inject too much into the topic. I agree that there are specialized instruction for different aspects, we don’t go to a gunsmith for PTSD, nor do we go to a doctor for legal advice. That said, mind set is pretty simple. You have to determine in your mind that you are willing to do whatever it is you have to do to win, stay alive and survive the situation. Worrying about legal issues, shot placement and or missed shots are all aspects of concern, but you can’t allow them to disrupt the critical thinking in winning or surviving the gunfight. At the end of the day being sued and or dragged though the legal process is better than being dead. My personal experience is that the mindset needs to be one of extremely violent and aggressive response. The more you push the threat, the more aggressive your attack (or counter attack) the better chances you have of pushing the threat on the defensive. The psychological aspects of fighting or gunfighting work both ways, the sooner you can put your adversary into flight mode or “oh shit this is bad” way of thinking the better chances you have winning the fight of your life. I think this concept is lost to many CCW’s and LEO who are overly risk adverse to legal issues and or possibly doing something wrong, etc. You really don’t have time for that kind of thinking in gunfights, you have to act and you have to act with accuracy, sound TTP’s and overwhelming aggression.

I really think training someone for the gunfight (as in preparing someone to use a firearm to fight) boils down to two things, 1) having experienced instructors or an instructor with training from someone with experience in an actual gunfight (learning firsthand from those who have gone and done) and 2) understanding that the training will reflect what you will do in that gunfight. It’s much like a UFC fighter, he may have a game plan, but he knows his game plan may not work. So he focuses on having well rounded skills to ensure that if he is placed in an unexpected situation, he will have the physical skills to adjust and continue the fight. The big difference being gunfights the loser goes home in a body bag, and in any competition you just did not win the prize.

[SouthNarc]

Fighting in my opinion is defined by an opposing will with malevolent intent..

That's extremely rare to see replicated in ANY firearms training course. There is no "spirit of the bayonet" in most firearms training. Technical acumen in marksmanship and gunhandling is generally what rules the day for most programs of instruction. That's needed no doubt. But technicality only goes so far.

The key element of making a fighter is building an indomitable will and a willingness to cause harm to someone. One thing that I find ironic about everyone in the training community who models from ex-SOF guys as the way to train, is that most of those personnel didn't even begin to learn technical shooting skills until they had passed a selection process that would crush the majority of the population. A shooting package at a mil unit isn't what turned them into a "fighter". It was everything else that led up to that guy having the privilege to have that level of firearms instruction.

Show me a firearms course where somebody experiences REAL fear and has to overcome it. Show me a firearms course where somebody feels like puking but still has to perform.

It's ALOT easier for me to turn a fighter into a shooter rather than turning a shooter into a fighter. Calling your left hand a funny name is not going to make you fight like a SEAL but treading water for six hours might be a start. Most shooters don't want to do shit like that because MANY are physically inept, unfit, and lazy. That's why they carry guns to begin with right? So they don't have to do all that fighting shit............:D

[YVK]

What are the "obvious questions" about instructor credentials, real-life experience, and generality (I *know* this is a word :p) of content?

How does he know that stuff he teaches for/against wins/loses a firefight? Has he done it himself, or heard from somebody else, i.e. does he know it intimately or by proxy, or does it fall under "makes sense" category? If he hasn't done it himself, has he received his knowledge as a part of systematic training from people who'd done it? If it was a true personal experience, when did that happen and is it still relevant? Is there at least plausible cause-effect relationship between a specific technique taught and firefight outcomes, or it just happened so that time - which doesn't necessarily mean it would have the same effect next time?

As I said earlier, to me this "fighting" is a cliche. I've taken a number of classes over last 3-4 years, and I cannot make any distinction between "fighting", "tactical", "practical" or whatever they call it. Almost always they come with an implicit or explicit statement that "this is what works in real life", even though people teach opposite stuff. My personal stance is the louder "fighting" advertisement is voiced, the more scrutiny it gets from me.

[Kevin B.]

SouthNarc, good post.

[ToddG]

As many of the previous comments have shown, there is great variance in what people mean by that term.

Some folks have defined it as fight with a gun while others define it as fight with a gun. In other words, some want to focus on combat/defense in general and have some of it involve firearms. Others want to talk about how to employ a firearm in a fight. It's a pretty important distinction and all too often folks looking for one instead find the other and are disappointed.

It's about breadth. By rights, if you consider every aspect that could affect a fight that involved a gun you'd cover:

marksmanship
speed
use of cover
manipulations
shooting while wounded
low-light shooting
contact distance shooting
force on force
weapons retention
concealment
weapon disarms
empty hand skils
verbal judo
awareness & avoidance
mindset
physical conditioning
legal ramifications
how to testify in court
lifestyle choices
home security measures


Seriously, the list could go on forever. How about a class on reading and understanding crime report data? I mean, isn't understanding where threats are greatest an important part of personal defense? How about investment strategies and financial planning. If you don't have enough money you may not be afford to train, practice, get a good lawyer, live in a safe neighborhood... Oh, and how about marriage counseling? Plenty of people get into bad situations because of problems at home. So part of being prepared and being able to avoid trouble would necessarily have to include a perfect marriage, right? It never ends. Someone, somewhere can always find something that is most important that's not being taught by someone else.

I've yet to meet anyone who can teach all or even most of those things at a truly superlative level. I've yet to meet anyone who truly puts equal effort into learning all or even most of them, either.

It's easy to find the numbskull who thinks that "only speed matters" and can't hit a damn thing. It's easy to find the guy who thinks that "room clearing" is the pinnacle of skill but has never actually done it against anything more frightening that pieces of paper tacked to a wall. It's easy to find someone who thinks a gun is the right answer to someone who has you in a bear hug, and it's easy to find someone who thinks jiujitsu is the solution to a guy shooting at your from 100yd away. Maybe you think some of those things yourself.

The only people I really look down on are the ones who claim that they can teach you all of it in a weekend, or worse, "if you just take all eighteen of our integrated classes to become a certified gunjitsudo black belt."

[Joseph B.]

Fighting in my opinion is defined by an opposing will with malevolent intent..

That's extremely rare to see replicated in ANY firearms training course. There is no "spirit of the bayonet" in most firearms training. Technical acumen in marksmanship and gunhandling is generally what rules the day for most programs of instruction. That's needed no doubt. But technicality only goes so far.

The key element of making a fighter is building an indomitable will and a willingness to cause harm to someone. One thing that I find ironic about everyone in the training community who models from ex-SOF guys as the way to train, is that most of those personnel didn't even begin to learn technical shooting skills until they had passed a selection process that would crush the majority of the population. A shooting package at a mil unit isn't what turned them into a "fighter". It was everything else that led up to that guy having the privilege to have that level of firearms instruction.

Show me a firearms course where somebody experiences REAL fear and has to overcome it. Show me a firearms course where somebody feels like puking but still has to perform.

It's ALOT easier for me to turn a fighter into a shooter rather than turning a shooter into a fighter. Calling your left hand a funny name is not going to make you fight like a SEAL but treading water for six hours might be a start. Most shooters don't want to do shit like that because MANY are physically inept, unfit, and lazy. That's why they carry guns to begin with right? So they don't have to do all that fighting shit............:D


I could not agree more with this, you can tell someone “this is how you should think, react or do” but you cannot teach them that internal drive (well not in a few days anyway). The mindset ideology that firearm trainers present is more or less lip-service in that it is probably sound advice but has no real effect unless the person has developed the internal drive to do whatever needs to be done.

Good post…

[theblacknight]

Fighting in my opinion is defined by an opposing will with malevolent intent..

That's extremely rare to see replicated in ANY firearms training course. There is no "spirit of the bayonet" in most firearms training. Technical acumen in marksmanship and gunhandling is generally what rules the day for most programs of instruction. That's needed no doubt. But technicality only goes so far.

The key element of making a fighter is building an indomitable will and a willingness to cause harm to someone. One thing that I find ironic about everyone in the training community who models from ex-SOF guys as the way to train, is that most of those personnel didn't even begin to learn technical shooting skills until they had passed a selection process that would crush the majority of the population. A shooting package at a mil unit isn't what turned them into a "fighter". It was everything else that led up to that guy having the privilege to have that level of firearms instruction.

Show me a firearms course where somebody experiences REAL fear and has to overcome it. Show me a firearms course where somebody feels like puking but still has to perform.

It's ALOT easier for me to turn a fighter into a shooter rather than turning a shooter into a fighter. Calling your left hand a funny name is not going to make you fight like a SEAL but treading water for six hours might be a start. Most shooters don't want to do shit like that because MANY are physically inept, unfit, and lazy. That's why they carry guns to begin with right? So they don't have to do all that fighting shit............:D


This post rules face. You mean I might have to stay awake for weeks on end humping a pack,tripping over bangs and huffing CS gas? This rifle is rubber!

[TCinVA]

I could not agree more with this, you can tell someone “this is how you should think, react or do” but you cannot teach them that internal drive (well not in a few days anyway). The mindset ideology that firearm trainers present is more or less lip-service in that it is probably sound advice but has no real effect unless the person has developed the internal drive to do whatever needs to be done.

Good post…

One could argue on the other hand that the person who shows up to a training course because they want to be exceptionally good if they are called upon to use a firearm to defend themselves, loved ones, or the community in general has already won much of the mental game. Someone who invests time and money training to a high level of proficiency because if they are called upon to use lethal force they want to win (not just survive, but impose their will upon the person(s) who picked the fight) is probably in pretty good shape mentally for most threats they'd face inside the US.

I mean, if we look at Mr. Given's students, you won't find a whole lot of people who could have had a shot at being in a Tier 1 unit...but when they were faced with someone who intended to harm them they handled business and got the job done. The decision to seek out training in the first place is probably a good indicator that those folks were ahead of the game.

[Joseph B.]

One could argue on the other hand that the person who shows up to a training course because they want to be exceptionally good if they are called upon to use a firearm to defend themselves, loved ones, or the community in general has already won much of the mental game. Someone who invests time and money training to a high level of proficiency because if they are called upon to use lethal force they want to win (not just survive, but impose their will upon the person(s) who picked the fight) is probably in pretty good shape mentally for most threats they'd face inside the US.

I mean, if we look at Mr. Given's students, you won't find a whole lot of people who could have had a shot at being in a Tier 1 unit...but when they were faced with someone who intended to harm them they handled business and got the job done. The decision to seek out training in the first place is probably a good indicator that those folks were ahead of the game.


I am a firm believer that training is superior in any type of fighting, H2H, Gunfighting, edged weapon, etc. However, what that person chooses to do with that training in a deadly force situation is something I cannot change with a pep talk on mindset. I have seen the biggest of the bad soldiers, freak the hell out in a fire fight. Some people mentally do not have what it takes to overcome the fear involved with life or death. Their showing up to training and becoming proficient will not change those things. Mental conditioning is possible, but it normally comes from being exposed to levels of stress/deadly situations over long periods of time, and still being required to perform.

I think SouthNarc is spot on with his post, if you look at any of the elite units within the Military, they remain immersed into high stress training. The do it day in and day out, they become masters at accomplishing the most basic of tasks, under the worst conditions, in the worst environments and with extreme levels of stress being imposed on them. That’s really what makes them so elite and or special, being able to perform basic tasks under unbelievable conditions. Can a CCW or LEO do the same, sure! But it’s not going to happen in a 1-5 day course. I also agree with SouthNarc that a lot of CCW’s do not want to be exposed to this type of training; they want to get the knowledge, but not go through the suck to get it.

That said, anyone who is well trained and proficient with the use of a firearm will have a greater chance in winning a gunfight.

[SouthNarc]

One could argue on the other hand that the person who shows up to a training course because they want to be exceptionally good if they are called upon to use a firearm to defend themselves, loved ones, or the community in general has already won much of the mental game. Someone who invests time and money training to a high level of proficiency because if they are called upon to use lethal force they want to win (not just survive, but impose their will upon the person(s) who picked the fight) is probably in pretty good shape mentally for most threats they'd face inside the US.

I mean, if we look at Mr. Given's students, you won't find a whole lot of people who could have had a shot at being in a Tier 1 unit...but when they were faced with someone who intended to harm them they handled business and got the job done. The decision to seek out training in the first place is probably a good indicator that those folks were ahead of the game.

Tim that's well written and to a large extent I agree with you. I hope that no one inferred that I meant one has to be able to pass a CAG selection to win a gunfight. That's not what I meant at all. What I meant was that a winning mindset is not necessarily built through the traditions of marksmanship and gunhandling. William Aprill, a clinical psychologist, who is a friend of mine and Tom's, theorizes that one of the things that Tom does extremely well in his classes is "empowering" (hate that word but it fits) people to shoot another human being via his mindset lectures. That's an integral component of EVERY class Tom does, much like me teaching MUC regardless of whether I'm teaching firearms, empty hand, or knife.

ANY class that bills itself as a "fighting" class should do that somehow some way. Inculcating controlled aggression, building the willingness to KEEP fighting regardless of a failure point, and managing PALPABLE fear, is what an instructor of fighting should do regardless of the modality (rifle, pistol, blade, bar-stool) of the moment.

A weapon is nothing more than a tangible projection and expression of my force of will.

[rsa-otc]

A weapon is nothing more than a tangible projection and expression of my force of will.

THIS - is the reason I joined this forum. While I address the concept in depth to our personnel in training, this statement says it better than I ever could and if you don't mind SouthNarc consider it stolen.

[SouthNarc]

THIS - is the reason I joined this forum. While I address the concept in depth to our personnel in training, this statement says it better than I ever could and if you don't mind SouthNarc consider it stolen.

Steal away dude if you think it'll help somebody!:)

[Magsz]

How do you guys feel about a separation between shooting skill sets and fighting skill sets when it comes to learning basics?

I was at an IDPA match this past weekend and one of my fellow competitors asked me what i recommended for training. He prefaced the question with a statement regarding a suggestion from another peer that he take a krav maga/hybrid shooting class.

My response after lowering my raised eyebrow and wondering why the hell he was asking me what he should take was that he needed a basic firearms fundamentals class before he begins complicating his life. I responded in context after asking him what his primary goal was. He mentioned he wanted to be a better IDPA shooter.

I see a general trend on the lower end of the training spectrum towards "fighting" classes. I regard these trainers as being grossly negligent in their teachings if you even want to call it that and quite frankly, its a little obnoxious at the amount of fantasy camp bullshit being sold to the uninformed public.

Im guessing though that this is nothing new but i have only started looking closely just recently.

[Jay Cunningham]

Looking back over the training I've done, it's really hard to define a hard line between "fighting" with a gun and learning to use one really well. I say that because there's a world of evidence out there that exceptional skill with a firearm actually pays dividends when it comes to using that weapon to stop the hostile actions of an enemy. If you look at the units in law enforcement and the military that exist primarily to do battle with evil in a very kinetic sense, all of them tend to have fairly stringent standards for what every member of the team has to be able to do with a firearm on demand. In a class with LAV, for instance, he once related that some of the training standards in his former unit were arrived at because they had to prepare unit members for storming a hijacked aircraft and shooting bad guys over the heads of seated airline passengers.

Referring to the above in bold: I agree (looking back over the training I've done) which led me to start thinking about this question and posting this topic.



There's certainly more to violent interpersonal interaction with a firearm than weapons skill, and it's absolutely true that some aspects of it remain chronically undertrained even among armed professionals. Nevertheless, someone learning techniques that make them faster, more accurate, or more efficient on demand will pay dividends in terms of someone's ability to resolve a violent conflict in their favor. They are learning things that make them better at fighting with a gun.

I don't think the above in bold can be disputed. At least up to a point - an argument could be made that there are diminishing returns past a certain level of proficiency, but that's not necessarily germane to this topic (or is it?).



So to answer the original question, I think the description of a class focused on "fighting with a gun" is a largely meaningless description. If I was to use the phrase, it would be applicable to just about any class that didn't focus on developing strategies for taking down IPSC stages.

I'm also starting to think the description is meaningless for a pure shooting class. I'm starting to think that these classes really offer, "marksmanship, gun handling, and some advice."



Knowing a little bit about AAR's, I strongly suspect that descriptions of a class as a "fighting with a gun" class are frequently more about marketing and packaging than anything else. It may not even be deliberate on the part of the person writing the review, as they may just be reflecting the marketing or packaging the instructor (rightly or wrongly) or others stamped on the training. Still, you can almost get the sense that some people using that description are doing so in an attempt to sound too cool for school. There are certainly some outfits/trainers out there which have built their entire marketing strategy around being perceived as the baddest dudes in the room, typically despite plenty of evidence that they are not, in fact, the baddest dudes in practically any room. They tend to draw a certain type of student who tends to reflect an inappropriate fixation on the whole "fight" angle as a marketing weapon rather than an attempt to legitimately describe the training they received.

Now you hit on it! This paragraph almost exactly matches what is currently in my head. There are some schools/individual instructors who actively market themselves as teaching "fighting with a gun", but more often (in my experience) where you see this particular phraseology is in AARs and individual recommendations from enthusiastic students. "I really like Trainer Z because he teaches fighting with a gun." The implication being that Trainer X and Trainer Y do not teach fighting with a gun. Is this phenomenon more a result of student ego than instructor marketing?

[Joseph B.]

http://tacticalimmersion.com/pistol.html


This course is designed for individuals who carry a service pistol for the purpose of self defense. Training encompasses the finer points of employment of a pistol under combat conditions where threats must be engaged quickly and with devastating accuracy. This course applies focus to both speed and accuracy, it also focuses on ensuring that speed and accuracy can be applied under physical and mental stress. This is a crawl-walk-run course that will allow the student to refresh and progress, while exploring combat proven techniques. Upon completion students can expect to become fully confident in their capabilities to employ their pistol in deadly force encounter.

This is the course description from my Combat Pistol Immersion course. I think it pretty well sums up the aspects that I teach. I am teaching you, accuracy, speed, employment and techniques that will help you become more prepared and confident in your ability to use your pistol, etc. I would not call it a “fighting” course, because it really is not. It’s a combat orientated pistol class…


http://www.tacticalresponse.com/course.php?courseID=5

The root word to "gunfight" isn't "gun".

It is "FIGHT"!

This is the course everyone is talking about! It is the most comprehensive 2-day handgun class in the world! This course is literally a life saver. Our Fighting Pistol course prepares you to prevail in a real world violent confrontation and many students have gone on and done just that! This intensive course covers an incredible amount of material in just two days and we have been told that it covers more than any 5 day course at the "big schools".
Topics include the role and attributes of the handgun, legal aspects of deadly force, anatomical stopping power, mental conditioning for combat, movement and communication. Live fire drills include both one- and two-handed shooting, shooting on the move, use of cover and concealment, loading and reloading, using both eye level as well as retention techniques, at a variety of ranges and from a variety of body positions. This course is about 40% lecture on mindset, tactics, skill, and legal issues but don’t worry because you will still be shooting a minimum of 750 rounds while you are on the range!

This is from Tactical Response’s fighting pistol course description; I think it is total bullshit and offering the world in a two day package. I’ll stop there before get in trouble….


I think anyone who believes that they can teach someone all the aspects of gunfighting in a few days is a bit off in the head. However, stating that your class will be helpful to them and build their confidence to perform well in a gunfight is reasonable IMHO…

[TCinVA]

I hope that no one inferred that I meant one has to be able to pass a CAG selection to win a gunfight.

Not at all.

I think many of us are on the same wavelength here even though our descriptions may vary somewhat.

When it comes to the use of violence for self defense, somewhere along the line someone has to make a decision. Mentally they have to cross a line where they say, even if only to themselves, if some scumbag decides to make it him or me, he's got to f**king go. It seems to work out best if that decision is made well in advance of the actual struggle.

Merely uttering that statement is the sort of thing that makes other people look at you like you're some sort of violent nutter. Nice people, after all, aren't supposed to actually act like they want to utterly destroy someone who tries to hurt them or loved ones or teammates because that level of hostile intent towards someone who is trying to take your life seems...well...uncivilized, I guess. So mindset work aimed at getting people to mentally move past our often absurd social conventions about violence is, in my estimation as well, absolutely crucial.



Now you hit on it! This paragraph almost exactly matches what is currently in my head. There are some schools/individual instructors who actively market themselves as teaching "fighting with a gun", but more often (in my experience) where you see this particular phraseology is in AARs and individual recommendations from enthusiastic students. "I really like Trainer Z because he teaches fighting with a gun." The implication being that Trainer X and Trainer Y do not teach fighting with a gun. Is this phenomenon more a result of student ego than instructor marketing?

Those variables may be too confounded to come up with a useful answer. From the instructor angle, there are plenty of guys out there with a provable record of preparing men well for the realities of combat. LAV's accuracy standards are a good example of that...a highly skilled standard that has at it's roots the instructor's understanding of the demands placed on him and others he trained in for-real combat situations. That's legitimately teaching fighting with a gun. It may not be the only way to do things in an objective sense, but it's difficult to argue that his approach isn't a legit one given what it says on his DD-214.

...of course, we also know of some people who have been through a class or two with LAV and think that because he taught them the very basic elements of a broad topic like CQB that they could pinch hit for Delta if they were short a man. When someone has developed a problem in that area it seems, at least in my experience, to be a reflection of a larger personality defect that would be reflected in practically any pursuit. My kung fu is better than your kung fu, real men drive stick shifts on a track, if you aren't doing a full Olympic squat you're worthless and weak, etc.

Again, speaking in my experience here...I've usually found it's pretty easy for me to pick out the reviews which are written to genuinely give an idea of what was presented at the course and some of the why, and the reviews that are written to tell everyone else not to stare directly into the awesomeness of the writer. Honesty...first and foremost with one's own self...tends to help avoid such nonsense, and perhaps that's a reason why some of the reviews I've written up have proven to be useful for more than making me look cool. :)

[Dropkick]

This is the course description from my Combat Pistol Immersion course. I think it pretty well sums up the aspects that I teach. I am teaching you, accuracy, speed, employment and techniques that will help you become more prepared and confident in your ability to use your pistol, etc. I would not call it a “fighting” course, because it really is not. It’s a combat orientated pistol class…

Not having taken your course... but from an outsider's perspective the bolded sounds like you're splitting hairs.

[Joseph B.]

Not having taken your course... but from an outsider's perspective the bolded sounds like you're splitting hairs.

I don’t think so at all. I think it’s adequate in explaining that my course gives you skills and confidence to perform well (i.e. handling, marksmanship, etc) and incorporates combat proven techniques (or tactics, TTP’s whatever you want to call it) with stress. Part of the course is going over mindset, aggressiveness and the will to win. But the focus of the class is learning how to use a pistol and techniques that have been used in combat in the past.

[Dropkick]

Fighting, Combat, Violent Encounter, Deadly Conflict, Physical Assault, etc., etc. all show up under the same entry in a thesaurus.

I guess everyone needs their own marketing buzzword.

[Jay Cunningham]

LAV's accuracy standards are a good example of that...a highly skilled standard that has at it's roots the instructor's understanding of the demands placed on him and others he trained in for-real combat situations. That's legitimately teaching fighting with a gun. It may not be the only way to do things in an objective sense, but it's difficult to argue that his approach isn't a legit one given what it says on his DD-214.

I've never heard LAV use the "fighting with a gun" phraseology. I have read his description of what he teaches as "combat marksmanship", for whatever that's worth.

Is it safe to say that instructors teach "fighting with a gun" based on their own understanding of the demands placed upon them in real combat situations? Does one then need to have experience in real combat situations to teach fighting with a gun?

Are there objective standards? Can there be? Does it matter?

[Joseph B.]

Fighting, Combat, Violent Encounter, Deadly Conflict, Physical Assault, etc., etc. all show up under the same entry in a thesaurus.

I guess everyone needs their own marketing buzzword.


I think you are reading a bit much into it... If I called it a basic pistol class most people would believe it to be a class on basic pistol. If I called it an advanced pistol, people would ask what is advanced. If I called advanced pistol marksmanship, people may wonder what advanced means, maybe it could mean bulls-eye shooting at 50 yards one handed.

I named it combat pistol not for a buzz word, but for an understanding that it’s not a class to learn bull’s-eye shooting, it a class to learn how to use a pistol in combat type conditions. Yes this can be looked at as teach “fighting with a gun” but it is not fighting with a gun, it is learning a pistol and then learning how to employ it into that fight.




I've never heard LAV use the "fighting with a gun" phraseology. I have read his description of what he teaches as "combat marksmanship", for whatever that's worth.

Is it safe to say that instructors teach "fighting with a gun" based on their own understanding of the demands placed upon them in real combat situations? Does one then need to have experience in real combat situations to teach fighting with a gun?

Are there objective standards? Can there be? Does it matter?


I would not want to learn “gunfighting” from a person who has never been in a gunfight. However, that does not mean I will not learn pistol and or rifle or any other weapon system from someone who has not been in a gunfight. Just keep the “in combat, or in a gunfight this is that, etc” stuff out of the class. I have learned a lot of tactics and techniques from LE and Civi. But the first thing to get me not listening to you and calling you a clown, is telling me about gunfighting when you have never been in one.

[Mr_White]

I would not want to learn “gunfighting” from a person who has never been in a gunfight. However, that does not mean I will not learn pistol and or rifle or any other weapon system from someone who has not been in a gunfight. Just keep the “in combat, or in a gunfight this is that, etc” stuff out of the class. I have learned a lot of tactics and techniques from LE and Civi. But the first thing to get me not listening to you and calling you a clown, is telling me about gunfighting when you have never been in one.

Having never been in a gunfight, I tread lightly and respectfully to those who have.

But I have to ask, is it not the case that many individuals who could honestly claim to have prevailed in a real gunfight, did so by screwing up less than the other guy, and not necessarily because they did many things right? And, without the careful review and continued training that you have done, that success simply reinforces all the suboptimal or potentially disastrous things they did, which they may assert as a route to success, but now with the mantle of authority provided by experience?

Mustn't we (whether we've been in a gunfight or not) consider the overall human experience in gunfights, at least as well as we can discern it? Is one gunfight enough to have the experience necessary to teach gunfighting, or must we restrict the pool of eligible gunfight instructors to those who have a statistically significant amount of experience?

The subject of whether a person who has not been in a gunfight can be right or proper or responsible in teaching anything beyond the technical skills of weapons use, has been brought up several times already with different opinions given.

There seem to be people who would reject a potential instructor of "gunfighting" who does not have gunfight experience, and other people who would attempt to judge the content and quality of instruction on its own merits, as long as that content comports with the experience of people who have been in gunfights.

[David Armstrong]

I've never heard LAV use the "fighting with a gun" phraseology. I have read his description of what he teaches as "combat marksmanship", for whatever that's worth.

Is it safe to say that instructors teach "fighting with a gun" based on their own understanding of the demands placed upon them in real combat situations? Does one then need to have experience in real combat situations to teach fighting with a gun?
I would say "no". In order for that to really matter one would need to assume that all "real combat situations" would be much the same, with the same parameters and skills needed and so on. An understanding of what knowledge, skills, and abilities are needed across a broad spectrum of combat can be obtained through researching others experiences. I think BTDT does offer some advantages but the lack is not a fatal flaw. I've been in a number of fights and a fair number of of those included fighting with a gun, but I am not aware of anything in any of them that are unique experiences as it relates to those KSAs. In fact there are some incidents where if I had done the same thing in each of them the results might not have been so favorable. Given the wide area available for combat situations and fighting with a gun I find it much better to teach from "here is what research and study into thousands of fights and decades of psychological and physiological research tell us" as opposed to "gather around, boys, and let me tell you what happened to me."

[Mr_White]

I would say "no". In order for that to really matter one would need to assume that all "real combat situations" would be much the same, with the same parameters and skills needed and so on. An understanding of what knowledge, skills, and abilities are needed across a broad spectrum of combat can be obtained through researching others experiences. I think BTDT does offer some advantages but the lack is not a fatal flaw. I've been in a number of fights and a fair number of of those included fighting with a gun, but I am not aware of anything in any of them that are unique experiences as it relates to those KSAs. In fact there are some incidents where if I had done the same thing in each of them the results might not have been so favorable. Given the wide area available for combat situations and fighting with a gun I find it much better to teach from "here is what research and study into thousands of fights and decades of psychological and physiological research tell us" as opposed to "gather around, boys, and let me tell you what happened to me."

Cross-posted with you, and I pretty much agree, but coming from the non-BTDT perspective. Well said, David!

[Joseph B.]

Having never been in a gunfight, I tread lightly and respectfully to those who have.

But I have to ask, is it not the case that many individuals who could honestly claim to have prevailed in a real gunfight, did so by screwing up less than the other guy, and not necessarily because they did many things right? And, without the careful review and continued training that you have done, that success simply reinforces all the suboptimal or potentially disastrous things they did, which they may assert as a route to success, but now with the mantle of authority provided by experience?

This is where I have issues “what if” or the “possibility” of did you do it right or wrong, etc. I think everyone reviews themselves in their own little way. I know I have, but the underlining issue is did you do what you needed to do. What I find is that people who don’t understand the fear, the decisions that you have to make and speed at which you have to make decisions, end up being the ones who want to look to statistics and or questioning all aspects. Well this guy said he did this, and so did this guy, but this guy is saying this, etc. Everyone deals with it differently and everyone’s perspective will be different, the one thing that seems pretty consistent is that you will rely on your training and how you train directly reflects how you will fight in a gunfight.

Mustn't we (whether we've been in a gunfight or not) consider the overall human experience in gunfights, at least as well as we can discern it? Is one gunfight enough to have the experience necessary to teach gunfighting, or must we restrict the pool of eligible gunfight instructors to those who have a statistically significant amount of experience?

I think if I want to learn about a pistol, I will go to an experienced pistol instructor. If I want to learn about treating a sucking chest wound, I will go to an experienced medic. If I want to know about Karate, I will go to a black belt. If I want to know and learn about gunfighting, I am going to someone who has been in one.

The subject of whether a person who has not been in a gunfight can be right or proper or responsible in teaching anything beyond the technical skills of weapons use, has been brought up several times already with different opinions given.

As I said, I have learned a lot of shooting, tactics and marksmanship from all types, LE and Civi. I don’t have a problem with a person who has never been in a gunfight teaching “tactical” or “shooting” skills or whatever. But I think there is a fine line between educating someone on what to expect, how to control their self and teaching someone a skill to use.

There seem to be people who would reject a potential instructor of "gunfighting" who does not have gunfight experience, and other people who would attempt to judge the content and quality of instruction on its own merits, as long as that content comports with the experience of people who have been in gunfights.


I don’t see how someone can teach something they have no experience in (gunfighting). That doesn’t mean a person is not a good pistol instructor or whatever, just means don’t teach outside of your lane of knowledge. I read a lot of books on human medicine, a lot of statistics and data and I have taken a few first aid and CLS courses. Does that mean I am qualified to teach a bunch of would be doctors?

Again, the biggest thing that shuts me off is the “in a gunfight, do this” types. Instructor creditability is everything, especially when teaching people who do know or who have been there. You may teach the best pistol class ever, but the minute you start talking about shooting people, being in gunfights and the class knows you have never been, you will start losing people (like me).

[Mr_White]

As I said, I have learned a lot of shooting, tactics and marksmanship from all types, LE and Civi. I don’t have a problem with a person who has never been in a gunfight teaching “tactical” or “shooting” skills or whatever. But I think there is a fine line between educating someone on what to expect, how to control their self and teaching someone a skill to use.

...

Again, the biggest thing that shuts me off is the “in a gunfight, do this” types. Instructor creditability is everything, especially when teaching people who do know or who have been there. You may teach the best pistol class ever, but the minute you start talking about shooting people, being in gunfights and the class knows you have never been, you will start losing people (like me).

I realize that this discussion was started partly to explore definitions, and I have to ask you about that here.

What do you mean by "tactics", that were right and proper for a Civilian or LE with no experience to teach? Can you give an example? And can you give an example of the "in a gunfight, do this" instructions which are not proper for a Civilian or LE with no experience to teach?

Thanks Joseph!

[Aray]

Can someone please define gunfight for me? Is it kicking down doors and clearing structures, is it static long range volleys of fire from an entrenched position? Are those equivalent?

Does storming Omaha Beach, or fighting in the jungles of Vietnam prepare you to teach home defense more effectively than being a beat cop for 15 years who never fired a shot in anger? Does "barfighting" experience translate into this at all?

[Joseph B.]

I realize that this discussion was started partly to explore definitions, and I have to ask you about that here.

What do you mean by "tactics", that were right and proper for a Civilian or LE with no experience to teach? Can you give an example? And can you give an example of the "in a gunfight, do this" instructions which are not proper for a Civilian or LE with no experience to teach?

Thanks Joseph!

I don’t really follow the part you’re asking about tactics, but I’ll answer what I think you’re asking.

I learned most of the low light skills I have from LE, than adapted them to fit what I was doing in the Army. This worked out very well and greatly helped me. I learned some valuable surveillance tactics from a Walmart loss prevention guy. However, I have also had Civi’s and LE try to teach me about tactics that are used in the Army, and they were normally way off the mark. So teaching tactics that you know is good to go in my book, but teach what you know and only what you know. If you never served in a tactical small unit (i.e. SWAT, MIL, PSD, ect) you probably have no idea about small unit tactics and have no business teaching them.

“In a gunfight do this” I remember being on a range where I was shooting “bullethole drills” (putting 5 rds through one hole) at 7 yards. A CHL instructor was teaching this dude to shoot next to me and made the comment “you see that’s just bullseye stuff, this is combat” and then he proceeded to place a buck shot pattern on his B27 at 7 yards shooting as fast as he could pull the trigger, pretty sure not even aiming (if he was I don’t know what the hell at). I stood back and laughed, the poor guy he was teaching was buying it hook line and sinker.

Another time I was sitting in a “tactical rifle” class taught by an LEA that will remain names less. The instructor had no idea what he was teaching, but kept bringing up “when you’re involved in a shooting, this will happen” I was really turned off by what he was teaching, big waste of money on my part. Later talking to some of the other LEO’s from the same agency, the instructor’s only shooting involved shooting a dog. To add injury to insult, this guy had only been trained on the carbine a year prior (explaining his lack of knowledge).

So what I am basically getting at, it’s one thing to say “stats say this happens in a gunfight, but I don’t know because I have never been in one” it’s another thing to say “this is combat shooting, from my experience in shooting” when all you did is shoot horribly or your shooting involved shooting a dog.

[jthhapkido]

It seems to me that many people often confuse "experience" with "knowledge".

Some people, through their experiences, have actually gained knowledge of defense situations, their permutations, and their consequences. That knowledge can then be transferred, when they teach other people. So now, other people have that knowledge.

Oh wait---those students don't have the experience, so does that mean they can't have the knowledge? Or maybe, just maybe, the knowledge is what is important. (Otherwise classes and preparation would be useless.) There IS a reason we are looking (for example) at the NYPD research on situations, right? So that people can be more effectively trained?

There are other people who have been in defense situations, who thus have gained experience---but who did not gain knowledge. Some people bumbled to success through pure luck. Others had the one singular attacker who was a complete moron who did everything wrong---and thus their experience bears no relation to the vast majority of other defensive situations. Is this "experience" valid?

How can you tell the difference? By paying attention to the similarities in findings between the defensive situations. By taking the sum of the knowledge gained from the experiences of people.

Will that knowledge directly impart the feeling of fear, of anger, of stress? Of course not. Can we know about it and attempt to inoculate students to that feelings so that they perform in spite of it? Certainly. That is the point of any training, right? To prepare?

So is merely "having experience" sufficient?

Not remotely. Knowledge is necessary. Because quite frankly, very few people have been in sufficient situations for their experience to be sufficient to actually teach a well-rounded class. (Though certainly, there are many people out there who know a LOT about specific situations, and can (and should) teach classes about specifics, like military-style room-clearing.)

So, in my opinion, is experience necessary? Of course not.

Can it help? Certainly.

Does it always help? Not at all. (Ex: was taught "self-defense tactics" from an instructor in a correctional setting. The instructor was 6'4", 280 pounds. He was teaching a class of people which included several smaller-framed men and women, and what he was teaching was all the techniques that had worked for him over the years. The techniques he taught were perfectly fine, as long as you were 6'4" and 280 pounds. They were laughably wrong for more than half the class, however. Experience, at times, teaches you very wrong things. He was teaching the required curriculum---but his experience hadn't let him have the knowledge required so that he could show people without his stature how to make the techniques work.)

Experience---often useful. Necessary? Obviously not, in my opinion.

[Mr_White]

So what I am basically getting at, it’s one thing to say “stats say this happens in a gunfight, but I don’t know because I have never been in one” it’s another thing to say “this is combat shooting, from my experience in shooting” when all you did is shoot horribly or your shooting involved shooting a dog.

I think that's perfectly clear and perfectly fair, and I would agree with you. Thank you for the clarification!

[Mitchell, Esq.]

This is from Tactical Response’s fighting pistol course description; I think it is total bullshit and offering the world in a two day package. I’ll stop there before get in trouble….


Fighting Pistol lived up to the description...so I disagree with your assessment of bullshit.

[KravPirate]

What is a "gunfight"? For most of us (everyday citizens), a gunfight is not a Michael Mann flick. A gunfight is more than likely a "real street fight" with another variable added (gun). Either you are taken by surprise and the attacker has distance between you and his gun, or you are already engaged in a clinch fight and the attacker accesses their firearm. It is fast and brutal and their is no way to replicate the adrenaline rush in a somewhat safe training environment. Sure, one can run drills to simulate the scenarios and I don't discredit that type of training. I do it every week in weapons training/Krav Maga/BJJ. Any type of heavy physical training will put you at a greater advantage over someone who just talks and doesn't engage in physical training. However, defending against weapons and learning how to win a "gunfight" is all theory unless you have actually experienced it. That's why it is very important to train hard to the best of your abilities, whether it's BJJ, Krav Maga, MMA, etc. and when seeking firearm instructors be sure to do your research. SouthNarc comes to mind as one of the best. His evolutions really raise the bar and you get a good sense of that adrenaline rush. My head instructor made a good point the other day: If you know that you are going to a fight that involves weapons and you have the option of taking with you an expert self defense instructor that trains and teaches weapons defenses everyday or Randy Couture, who do you choose? The choice should be Randy Couture. Not because he knows weapons but because he knows what to do with someone once he gets his hands on them. I'll close my thoughts by stating that a fight is just a fight and weapons are added variables. Training should be well rounded. Don't think going to the range every week and shooting thousands of rounds and practicing manipulation drills makes you a "gunfighter".

[sm0kyjoe]

As a beginning shooter for the most part. If I'm heading to a class that claims to be a fighting with a gun class. The instructor needs to have the creds. To back up his knowledge, first. Then I expect to learn about what it takes to stop a threat with a gun. Not just shoot them but stop them. Anatomy should be touched on. I want emphasis on shooting from concealment, cover, akward positions, mindset and uncommon weapons manipulations. I want explanations why these things will either keep my alive, effectivly stop a threat to my life, or both. I should be put under tress in the course. And be forced out of my shooting comfort bubble. Part of these things involves making you a better shooter. I took a weekend course last spring that did exactly that. In 2 days they gave me a better understanding of why I may need to do things ways they showed me. They taught the class and didn't run us through a practice session, but gave you the info you need to build a set of skills in your practice sessions. I didn't leave there a better shooter, but I knew why I needed to be and what skills I needed to work on. Ill be back to PFT for there advanced classes.

Sent from my SPH-D700 using Tapatalk

[David Armstrong]

Can someone please define gunfight for me? Is it kicking down doors and clearing structures, is it static long range volleys of fire from an entrenched position? Are those equivalent?

Does storming Omaha Beach, or fighting in the jungles of Vietnam prepare you to teach home defense more effectively than being a beat cop for 15 years who never fired a shot in anger? Does "barfighting" experience translate into this at all?
Good points all, and important ones. One can often determine outcomes by restricting definitions. I like and tend to use the older NYPD definition which was something along the lines of a felonious assault during which both the perpetrator and the member of the service fired their weapons at each other. But I also worked with an old sheriff who would say he had been in about two dozen gunfights but only had to shoot the BG in 7 of them.

[Jay Cunningham]

It seems to me that many people often confuse "experience" with "knowledge".

Some people, through their experiences, have actually gained knowledge of defense situations, their permutations, and their consequences. That knowledge can then be transferred, when they teach other people. So now, other people have that knowledge.

Oh wait---those students don't have the experience, so does that mean they can't have the knowledge? Or maybe, just maybe, the knowledge is what is important. (Otherwise classes and preparation would be useless.) There IS a reason we are looking (for example) at the NYPD research on situations, right? So that people can be more effectively trained?

There are other people who have been in defense situations, who thus have gained experience---but who did not gain knowledge. Some people bumbled to success through pure luck. Others had the one singular attacker who was a complete moron who did everything wrong---and thus their experience bears no relation to the vast majority of other defensive situations. Is this "experience" valid?

How can you tell the difference? By paying attention to the similarities in findings between the defensive situations. By taking the sum of the knowledge gained from the experiences of people.

Will that knowledge directly impart the feeling of fear, of anger, of stress? Of course not. Can we know about it and attempt to inoculate students to that feelings so that they perform in spite of it? Certainly. That is the point of any training, right? To prepare?

So is merely "having experience" sufficient?

Not remotely. Knowledge is necessary. Because quite frankly, very few people have been in sufficient situations for their experience to be sufficient to actually teach a well-rounded class. (Though certainly, there are many people out there who know a LOT about specific situations, and can (and should) teach classes about specifics, like military-style room-clearing.)

So, in my opinion, is experience necessary? Of course not.

Can it help? Certainly.

Does it always help? Not at all. (Ex: was taught "self-defense tactics" from an instructor in a correctional setting. The instructor was 6'4", 280 pounds. He was teaching a class of people which included several smaller-framed men and women, and what he was teaching was all the techniques that had worked for him over the years. The techniques he taught were perfectly fine, as long as you were 6'4" and 280 pounds. They were laughably wrong for more than half the class, however. Experience, at times, teaches you very wrong things. He was teaching the required curriculum---but his experience hadn't let him have the knowledge required so that he could show people without his stature how to make the techniques work.)

Experience---often useful. Necessary? Obviously not, in my opinion.

What an extraordinary post - lots of stuff to carefully consider. I need to chew on this one a bit.

[TCinVA]

Experience---often useful. Necessary? Obviously not, in my opinion.

Great post.

As I'm fond of telling people, having done it doesn't mean you did it right or did it well. There's no Highlander moment after somebody survives something unpleasant.

Violent conflict has so many variables to it that it's rather difficult to reduce it all to a scientific formula. You can do everything wrong and still win. You can do everything right and still lose. The best that can be done is blend research with experience to try and figure out what works most of the time.

[Joseph B.]

What is a "gunfight"? For most of us (everyday citizens), a gunfight is not a Michael Mann flick. A gunfight is more than likely a "real street fight" with another variable added (gun). Either you are taken by surprise and the attacker has distance between you and his gun, or you are already engaged in a clinch fight and the attacker accesses their firearm. It is fast and brutal and their is no way to replicate the adrenaline rush in a somewhat safe training environment. Sure, one can run drills to simulate the scenarios and I don't discredit that type of training. I do it every week in weapons training/Krav Maga/BJJ. Any type of heavy physical training will put you at a greater advantage over someone who just talks and doesn't engage in physical training. However, defending against weapons and learning how to win a "gunfight" is all theory unless you have actually experienced it. That's why it is very important to train hard to the best of your abilities, whether it's BJJ, Krav Maga, MMA, etc. and when seeking firearm instructors be sure to do your research. SouthNarc comes to mind as one of the best. His evolutions really raise the bar and you get a good sense of that adrenaline rush. My head instructor made a good point the other day: If you know that you are going to a fight that involves weapons and you have the option of taking with you an expert self defense instructor that trains and teaches weapons defenses everyday or Randy Couture, who do you choose? The choice should be Randy Couture. Not because he knows weapons but because he knows what to do with someone once he gets his hands on them. I'll close my thoughts by stating that a fight is just a fight and weapons are added variables. Training should be well rounded. Don't think going to the range every week and shooting thousands of rounds and practicing manipulation drills makes you a "gunfighter".

Spot on post!

[jetfire]

By following that argument logically, if I'm going to a fight I'd rather take a platoon of Army Rangers. Better yet, I'm not going to go to the fight.

The whole "you must have experience to teach X" is also silly, experience != knowledge. Just because I landed a lucky jab-hook combo on a football player once doesn't mean I'm qualified to teach people how to defend themselves in hand to hand combat against a larger attacker. There's a huge gap between "experience" and knowing how to teach something.

[Tamara]

What is a "gunfight"? For most of us (everyday citizens), a gunfight is not a Michael Mann flick.

You're treading on my dreams.

Next thing you know, you'll be telling me that time doesn't go into slow-mo and there's no awesome choreographed soundtrack thingy, either.

[jthhapkido]

You're treading on my dreams.

Next thing you know, you'll be telling me that time doesn't go into slow-mo and there's no awesome choreographed soundtrack thingy, either.

Hey, don't joke about "no soundtrack" ---- the fantasy I've got in my head CLEARLY contains the world's coolest soundtrack.

[KravPirate]

By following that argument logically, if I'm going to a fight I'd rather take a platoon of Army Rangers. Better yet, I'm not going to go to the fight.

The whole "you must have experience to teach X" is also silly, experience != knowledge. Just because I landed a lucky jab-hook combo on a football player once doesn't mean I'm qualified to teach people how to defend themselves in hand to hand combat against a larger attacker. There's a huge gap between "experience" and knowing how to teach something.

Knowledge is OK if I am learning how to target shoot. If I am learning techniques for real world life or death scenarios I want my instructor to have both knowledge and experience.

[jetfire]

So, explain to me then what techniques exactly are good for "real world life or death" scenarios that you must have knowledge and experience to teach? Also, that kind of wrecks your whole Randy Couture analogy, since even though Randy is one of the greatest stars of the octagon ever, he's also a sport fighter. By your very own metric, he doesn't have "experience" in "real world life or death" techniques.

That's where the "must have experience" argument breaks down for me. An MMA fighter could go their entire life without ever throwing a punch in a "real world life or death" situation, but no one in the right mind would suggest that an MMA fighter cannot teach a person to fight even if they don't have "real world" fighting experience.

[KravPirate]

So, explain to me then what techniques exactly are good for "real world life or death" scenarios that you must have knowledge and experience to teach? Also, that kind of wrecks your whole Randy Couture analogy, since even though Randy is one of the greatest stars of the octagon ever, he's also a sport fighter. By your very own metric, he doesn't have "experience" in "real world life or death" techniques.

That's where the "must have experience" argument breaks down for me. An MMA fighter could go their entire life without ever throwing a punch in a "real world life or death" situation, but no one in the right mind would suggest that an MMA fighter cannot teach a person to fight even if they don't have "real world" fighting experience.

Caleb, you are missing the point. Train to the best of your abilities. Any training is better than nothing and certainly physical training is something you must do if you want to prepare for the worst. Shooting on the range is not enough. I support everyone that wants to be better at something but don't think attending a "gunfighter" class prepares you for a fight. BTW, although Randy Couture is a "cage fighter"' his techniques are street proven. I train extensively with folks that compete and I want them on my side when it gets bad versus someone that knows how to shoot well. Why? Because as I stated before, when the fight goes down chances are it is in clinch range and those that train physically from that range have the advantage.

For weapons training there are various folks at the top my list and hopefully I can work all of them in someday because they all have their strengths: Todd Green, Northern Red, Kyle Defoor, Viking Tactics, Tigerswan (done and look forward to more), SouthNarc (Done and can't wait for more!). I am probably missing a few but that gives you an idea. Weapons training for me is ink its infancy but I understand that I need it to be well rounded and to increase my survivability chances.

[Joseph B.]

I think some of you are failing to identify how experience becomes knowledge and the two work with each other. Knowledge comes from experience, even if you are the most knowledgeable person on teaching gunfighting with “zero” experience. You had to have gained that knowledge from someone right?

How do you think “tactics” have evolved over the years?
How did firearms “evolve” over the years?
How did “practical shooting” come about?

Simply put it comes from “Lessons Learned” it comes from those experienced people coming back and saying “this is what we need, this is what we need to change, this works better here, this is how we should train, etc, etc." The idea that someone got lucking and jumped out in front of the world of firearms and or firearms training and changed it is not how it works. Data collected from several people, several different performances and put together to continue to develop and adapt doctrine.

Why is it that the military values experience so much? Why do they take experienced service members and make them instructors? Why does the state of Texas recommend that anyone teaching TX-LEO’s have a minimal of 5 years experience in the topic in which they are instructing?

Again I don’t think you have to have been in a gunfight to teach shooting and or tactics, I think “knowledge” from experienced individuals can be passed on to others. However, if the option is available to have an “experienced” gunfighter teaching you vs a “knowledgeable” person, I personally will go with experience. If I wanted to become a GM in USPSA, I am not going to a person who is “knowledgeable” about USPSA, I am going to a GM who has won several matches (i.e. the experienced USPSA shooter).

[TGS]

Very well said, Joe.

A "4000 year old mind" is important, no doubt. We can learn from the experienced and still effectively teach....but experience needs to be directly injected into training in order to make that 4000 year old mind as relevant and effective as possible.

Aside:
The Imperial Japanese Navy had a very rigid structure of hierarchy in WWII, even among pilots. If you had experience, you stayed in the fight and got the good missions until you died. Generally, there was no rotating home to train the new guys. The instructors took great pride in their trade, but they generally didn't have kills under their belt.

The US Navy, however, rotated pilots back to be instructors after they got some time in combat.

For some strange reason over the course of the war, the new Japanese pilots sucked. The new US Navy pilots didn't. Without getting into specifics, there's a causal relationship there that isn't too hard to identify.

Food for thought.
_____________________________
1) Just because you have experience doesn't mean you're the best teacher.
2) Just because you don't have experience doesn't mean you can't be a great teacher.
3) All else equal, my money is going to the experienced guy.

[KravPirate]

Well stated Joseph.

[GJM]

Seems like there are three elements at play here -- mindset, shooting skills and tactics. Mindset is something you are either born with or get with a few hints. Shooting skills are, or should be, at the core of most training, with the ideal being Bill Rogers' training to shoot at a (regular) human's physiological limits. Tactics are something that are very subjective, very specific, and can go on forever. Courses, such as described as fighting with a gun, generally trigger my BS meter because the trainer is either a phony, the tactics are not relevant to me, or it gets down to an individual instructor's opinion.

For example, besides the typical CCW concerns, I live around dangerous animals, but do not plan on assaulting a cave in Afghanistan anytime soon. Right now, it is all the rage for civilians to get training from high speed, low drag SF types -- ideally focused on the "shoot house" as oppposed to a square range. If they know something about shooting, I am interested. If they really don't have great shooting techniques, and don't understand what it is like to be an armed civilian, then their training is probably an exercise in ego, unless you really want an opportunity to wear your Crye Precision and SOE gear and pretend you are a soldier.

I have become keenly interested in what facility or equipment the trainer has, after experiencing the Rogers reactive target system, and realizing the immediacy of feedback that is so integral to learning. While they need not have reactive targets, they should at least have some steel and a timer. Last spring, I attended a three day "Advanced Carbine" class with a respected trainer. We shot from 3-50 yards, had no steel, and only taped hits outside the A zone. This was essentially worthless as a shooting class beyond learning to manipulate your carbine.

At this point, I am interested in instructors that can improve my shooting, and can discuss tactics relevant to my life. For example, I am much more interested in TLG's theory of appendix carry, than the latest in assaulting a terrorist compound. If the instructor knows something about bears they get an extra point.

[Jay Cunningham]

I have come to a working hypothesis that gunfight training consists of marksmanship, gun handling, tactics, preparedness, and technical knowledge. This is what shooting instructors teach, all to varying degrees.

Fighting with a gun is a different animal, and is taught by some instructors.

Mindset cannot be taught, it can only be cultivated. Mindset mainly involves a never-quit attitude and a will to win. Mindset is rarely a factor in gunfight training (despite the lip service) but becomes a significant factor when training to fight with a gun.

A combat-experienced instructor is not necessary to teach gunfight training, but is a nice added bonus. The various gunfight training curriculae are shaped by these experienced individuals, but they are not required to convey the info.

As I mentioned, a working hypothesis. Open to examination, refutation, and interpretation.

[Kevin B.]

TGS makes a good point about the impact experience has on the quality of instruction. That observation is not limited to the U.S. Navy in WWII. I would add that when referring to experience we need to differentiate between an experience and a body of experience.

There is a pattern of some instructors exploiting the general public's lack of understanding about the current conflict to create the perception that the instructor has a much more substantial body of experience than he does, in fact, have.

[jthhapkido]

BTW, although Randy Couture is a "cage fighter"' his techniques are street proven.

No. This is non-gun-related, but I had to say something here.

This isn't anything against Couture, who is a remarkable fighter who _thinks_ and adapts. And of course he would be more effective in a self-defense situation than a standard guy-off-the-street.

However, none of that makes the techniques he uses "street proven". (Unless your idea of "street-proven" is consensual fights outside of bars, which since they aren't remotely self-defense situations, I don't.)

Yes, some of the techniques that are used in the ring work perfectly well in self-defense situations. (After all, a good straight right is a handy thing.) However, many of the techniques and tactics used in the ring are perfectly wrong for self-defense situations, even though they are optimized for the ring, and work very well there.

Saying that any MMA competitor's techniques are "street proven" brings back memories of when BJJ was touted as the world's greatest self-defense art, which is total nonsense.

How many people will tell you that IDPA is good self-defense firearms training? All too many. Are they correct? No. Are there actions in IDPA that are useful for self-defense training? Yep.

In a similar fashion, MMA competitions do _not_ teach self-defense techniques and tactics. Are there actions in them that are useful for self-defense training? Yep.

I note that given a choice of who to pick to watch my back in a hand-to-hand self-defense situation, I think that Couture would be a good choice also, because he is tough, a good fighter, but most importantly, is smart enough to know what techniques he has that will be applicable for the situation. (Which isn't most of what he uses in the ring.)

[jthhapkido]

TGS makes a good point about the impact experience has on the quality of instruction. That observation is not limited to the U.S. Navy in WWII. I would add that when referring to experience we need to differentiate between an experience and a body of experience.


Precisely. This is one of the things that seems to often be missed by people looking for effective training (in anything)----the difference between someone who has "experienced" a situation, and someone who is "knowledgeable" about a situation. Experience obviously gives you a direct data set about your specific experience. However, without looking at the sum total knowledge (based on a body of experience) you won't actually know if your specific experience is actually relevant.

Now, you take someone who has had basic training in an area, gained experience in that area, and also has taken the time to research the knowledge available about that area---then you've got something.

Any one person's experience----really isn't much. Multiple people reporting the same thing---that'll make a difference. (Which, if I recall correctly, is precisely what the military uses for changes in its curriculum, yes? While one particular person can be the impetus to change, that one person's experience isn't sufficient reason by itself, correct?)



There is a pattern of some instructors exploiting the general public's lack of understanding about the current conflict to create the perception that the instructor has a much more substantial body of experience than he does, in fact, have.

Sometimes, a particular singular event in that instructor's life didn't really suddenly made them an expert on the whole of firearms training.



At this point, I am interested in instructors that can improve my shooting, and can discuss tactics relevant to my life. For example, I am much more interested in TLG's theory of appendix carry, than the latest in assaulting a terrorist compound.

Agreed. Locally, there is a guy here who teaches various levels of pistol classes, and throughout, he continually notes how since he is an EMT attached to a local SWAT team, that he has been through a number of Strategos International's SWAT firearms courses, and it really taught him about how guns should be used in self-defense.

[sigh] Really? A SWAT entry class informs you on how a CCW individual will react and deal with a self-defense situation?

Unfortunately, since Call of Duty came out, everyone thinks they have a SpecOps commando inside them, and they don't know enough to realize that training is completely different for completely different situations. (And, of course, that they are wrong. :) )

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9yzeCsv-qrM&feature=related

As a comment regarding the difference between "knowledge" and "experience" --- how many Olympic coaches were Olympians themselves? How many coaches of national-class teams (for any sport) were national-class competitors themselves?

[KravPirate]

No. This is non-gun-related, but I had to say something here.)

I agree with you 100%. I wasn't referring to all of his techniques. I will not add anymore regarding this topic because it could be its own thread. All good points made by everyone. Train Hard.

[Joseph B.]

I have come to a working hypothesis that gunfight training consists of marksmanship, gun handling, tactics, preparedness, and technical knowledge. This is what shooting instructors teach, all to varying degrees.

I tend to agree with ToddG, that that list can go on and on, depending on the audience being instructed or the course POI content.

Fighting with a gun is a different animal, and is taught by some instructors.

I would agree.

Mindset cannot be taught, it can only be cultivated. Mindset mainly involves a never-quit attitude and a will to win. Mindset is rarely a factor in gunfight training (despite the lip service) but becomes a significant factor when training to fight with a gun.

I agree.

A combat-experienced instructor is not necessary to teach gunfight training, but is a nice added bonus. The various gunfight training curriculae are shaped by these experienced individuals, but they are not required to convey the info.

Again I believe this is dependent on the audience being taught and the course POI’s content. I think a “specialist” instructor can teach his knowledge to anyone; however, he must be careful in how he presents it to some audiences.

Example: grandmaster X is teaching pistol techniques around the use of cover to a group of Navy SEAL’s. If he is drawing from his knowledge and experience through competition, he needs to be clear that this is for winning matches, etc. However, if he fails to state this and asserts that this is good for combat, he is now setting those SEAL’s up to use a technique that may not be correct for a combat situation.


As I mentioned, a working hypothesis. Open to examination, refutation, and interpretation.

Based on my opinion, I think you are on the right track…

[SLG]

I think a very important aspect of this discussion has been downplayed a bit too much, and that is mindset. Most people (no one?) is born with it, and it can definitely be taught.

Mindset (as it relates to CCW, which is all I will address here) involves a lot more than the will to win. As a coach once said, the will to win is meaningless without the will to prepare to win, or something like that.

Another aspect under the broad heading of mindset is awareness, and the cultivation of it is essential. Miss the cues, and your never say die attitude will never see the light of day.

Another is the development of a trigger, something that tells you it's ok to hoist the black flag.

There's more still, but I have to go now.

[ToddG]

Something to think about regarding experience, skill, etc.

If an armed invader breaks into my house tonight and I shoot him with my shotgun, I will be an experienced shotgun "combatant."

Would I suddenly be more qualified to teach shotgun than pistol?

[David Armstrong]

Something to think about regarding experience, skill, etc.

If an armed invader breaks into my house tonight and I shoot him with my shotgun, I will be an experienced shotgun "combatant."

Would I suddenly be more qualified to teach shotgun than pistol?
Something else to throw into the equation; the exact same tactics and response that probably saved my hide in one shooting would have probably gotten me killed and certainly opened up some nasty legal questions in the next one. And certainly the experience of my friend who spent the last couple years as part of a team going door-to-door engaging terrorists in some dump in the 3rd world is valuable experience, but I'm not sure how it relates to defensive tactics for the typical CCW encounter or home invasion.

[Dr. No]

I think you're all forgetting the one big reason why a lot of people want to learn from someone who has been a victor in real combat:

Inside, they all fantasize about being that person themselves. They dream about being the action hero. They love zombie scenerios because they then get to play out their inner fantasy about pulling the trigger. They want to know if they really have it in them to do so in a real human conflict.

Rubbing elbows with someone who has done so excites them because that person embodies what they secretly would like to be. Many who want to take the "War Fantasy Camp" classes for that very feeling. They get to play warrior/killer/hunter, get called 'brother', and go home dirty and bleeding after a weekend of 'intense' training.

All that being said, I do see value from learning from violent encounters. We all move forward when we learn from the past. I have watched hours of video on violent encounters and seen Officers miss clear signs that they were about to be subjected to an attack that I would never had learned about had it not been brought up by these personnel. In turn, it has allowed me to stop attacks before they occur.

In a way, a person who has been in a violent encounter has passed the 'ultimate test' of fighting with firearms. In our culture, that earns respect.

[Al T.]

What an excellent thread! Pure class... :)


Example: grandmaster X is teaching pistol techniques around the use of cover to a group of Navy SEAL’s. If he is drawing from his knowledge and experience through competition, he needs to be clear that this is for winning matches, etc.

Reportedly, one of the shooting masters was invited to Delta to teach. His opening remarks were something along the lines of "I do not have the expertise to teach you guys how to fight, but I think I can teach you how to shoot faster and better".

To me, the aggressive mindset as described by Col. Cooper in "Principals of Personal Defense" covers a lot of what we call mindset.

http://www.amazon.com/Principles-Personal-Defense-Jeff-Cooper/dp/0873644972

[jthhapkido]

Reportedly, one of the shooting masters was invited to Delta to teach.

Yep. That instructor was Jerry Barnhart, and Shannon Smith was there at the time. Here's a post I wrote for a different forum where there was this huge kick of "don't practice that competition stuff, it'll get you killed on the street!" with one particular local instructor stridently calling for all serious defensive tactics students to "never do competitions!" The instructor also had plenty of "none of that competition BS" statements on his advertising, wording that started right after another instructor (who also taught competition shooting) started advertising classes.

The mouthy guy was the one who talked about how since he worked with SWAT teams, he knew how to teach CCW courses.


I'm going to chop parts of this, because they are irrelevant to the story, but the main point is regarding just plain old shooting technique:

--------------------------

SmittyFL posted in the BrianEnos forums back on July 29th, 2003:
"I was in the military a few years back, this was before I started shooting competitions. It was in a special operations unit, so we did a lot of shooting, and a lot of tactics training. I was just learning about IPSC and steel matches when the higher ups at our unit said they were bringing a professional shooter (civilian no less) to teach us for a week. A small group of us were selected to attend the training. Many in the group weren't too excited to have some guy we didn't know try to teach US how to shoot. When the time came, we learned this guy's name was Jerry Barnhart. I had vaguely heard of him, and I was looking forward to it, but as I said many of the guys were skeptical.

He may of sensed this, or just knew it because of his training experience with tactical type units. But his opening introduction I think put all of our guys at ease and is my definition of practical shooting.

He said "I have no background in the military, I've never been in law enforcement, I will not try to teach you anything about tactics. What I do is shoot guns fast and accurate, and I'm one of the best in the world at it. Do you guys think learning to shoot faster and more accurately will aid to your training?"

It was a great week, and everybody was all ears. We learned a lot and became better marksman because of it.

Being able to hit what you're shooting at extremely fast.....is practical."

---the guy who posted this is Shannon Smith, who just won the Limited division at the USPSA Nationals this year.

Shannon Smith bio:
"Shannon Smith is a USPSA Grandmaster and IDPA Master competition shooter competing in 10-15 major matches per year around the country. The top ranked shooter in Florida, 7 time and current USPSA State Champion, 2 time and current IDPA State Champion. Regular top 10 finisher at National level matches. Shannon finished 3rd in the world at World Shoot XV in Bali, Indonesia 2008. He also was a member of the gold medal winning US team.

Owner and lead instructor with FAST academy, LLC, his tactical background includes six years in special operations with the US Army’s 2nd Ranger Battalion at Ft. Lewis, WA. Serving as team leader and squad leader; qualifying expert in all aspects of special operations. He attended numerous schools relating to special operations, small unit tactics, leadership, firearms and ground fighting while in the Army. He brings this experience as well as a sense of humor and ability to relate to the student to his teaching style."

[snip]

Another comment from him on the FAST website:
"Working with Military
Posted by Admin | Posted in Training | Posted on 21-07-2010

Had an awesome week with elements of the 101st Airborne this month. I was fortunate to teach an M9 course with a select group of senior NCO’s and a couple officers. What an honor to work with our military. Hopefully I will have similar opportunities in the future. All feedback was positive and I think the boys got some great training.

This goes with anything I suppose but you just don’t know what you don’t know. I wish I had been smarter about training when I was in the military. There used to be a lot of talk in the ‘tactical’ world about competition shooting teaching bad or even dangerous habits that would ‘get you killed’ on the street.

I think most trainers have realized that is not the case any longer. Many elite military units as well as law enforcement departments have been hiring top competition shooters for some time now because frankly they are the best shooters on the planet.

Once you allow yourself to get away from the square range mindset and employ techniques that are second nature to competition shooters you realize what can be accomplished. Training becomes much more realistic, not to mention just plain fun also.

I was presented a coin from the Battalion Commander and a certificate of service and kick ass tee shirt from the Battalion Sergeant Major. As I stated, it was an honor working with these men and I wish them safe travels wherever they may go.

For more information on FAST academy’s work with military and government units, contact us here."

When I asked him for permission to quote what he said, in addition to giving permission, he said:

"Hell it's not really even up for debate now a days. That quote was 8 years ago and the incident was 13 years ago. With the war for the last decade I guarantee the top tier units in the nation hire the top competition shooters to teach them how to shoot better. Local LE units don't do it as much due to budget constraints but most the federal units including all your tier one SOCOM units do it. I promise.

I train competition shooters as well as tactical shooters. What I try to stress is you have to disconnect "shooting" from "fighting with a firearm". They are two different skills that should be learned separately then joined together.

The competition background shooters aren't there to teach you tactics or how to fight. They (we) are there to teach you how to run the gun to the best of it's and your ability. How to shoot Fast and Accurate.....period."
-----------------------

So there is one viewpoint regarding learning about shooting. As separate from "fighting with a gun."

I also agree that those are two different things. :)

I do still disagree that it is necessary that an instructor has to have been in firefights to effectively teach fighting with firearms. That being said, there are a LOT of people out there who claim to teach "fighting with firearms" who not only have no experience, but they really seem to have no knowledge, either, and that IS a serious issue in my eyes.

Speaking off cross-training (which we weren't, but it was the best segue I could think of) how many people do you know who teach civilian CCW tactics classes, whose own actual training was all military? And more importantly, who teaches their class as if military tactics and civilian CCW are the same thing? The first situation isn't a big deal---again, because I don't think direct experience is nearly as important as solid knowledge. The second situation, on the other hand---sets me off. :)

(Same situation as how being an LEO automatically makes you capable of teaching CCW classes. [sigh] )

Plenty of military and LEO folks have the requisite knowledge to teach really good CCW classes, including ones that are past "basic" and into "fighting." However, just having been in the military or an LEO doesn't give the knowledge to do it---the people who are good at it have spent time learning about CCW tactics, laws, and situations. They aren't the same

Okay, that's enough topics for one post---and probably more than enough thread drift. I don't even know what I'm talking about anymore. :)

[Joseph B.]

SLG, I would not say that mindset is being down played but more brought into perspective as to how it is developed. Will a 2 day class that covers shooting, handling, tactics, and mindset prepare someone to for a shooting? Maybe, but to believe that an individual can develop the mindset aspect after a 30 minute pep-talk is a bit much IMHO. I personally believe that some of it is individually based and some of it is individual development. Having a never quit - fight on and do whatever needs to be done mindset is just as important as all the other aspects, but I do not believe it to be something that can be taught in a class. I think it’s something that needs to be developed, understood and built into a life style. I fully agree that awareness is huge part of the mindset.

ToddG, I think if you were involved in a shooting you would have some added experience to draw from. Will that change how you currently teach? I don’t know, I personally have changed the way I have taught things over the years, based on learning from others experience or knowledge as well as my own personal experience. Do I think being involved in a shooting brings more creditability to the instructor? Yes, but that is not to say that someone who has not been in a shooting is not a top notch instructor. It simply gives the position of “I have the knowledge and the first hand experience” of what I am teaching, etc.

David Armstrong, I think any experience gained in deadly force situations adds to the instructor’s knowledge and ability to pass on the knowledge. Will being a HSLD doorkicker alone make someone a great CCW instructor? No, becoming a great instructor is being able to take the knowledge, experiences and couple it with having the ability to transfer them to the student. If a doorkicker spent a lot of time developing himself to become a knowledgeable CCW instructor, and then used past experiences of doorkicking to accommodate the instructional/learning process, I believe that it will have a direct relationship with many of the aspects.

Dr. No, sadly I think you are correct about this. A lot of people simply just want to experience what it is like and feel like they were somehow associated with their dream of being Rambo. There are however, several people who seek training to prepare themselves for anything that comes their way.

Al T, I strongly believe that competitive shooting helps to develop gunfighters, but as you pointed out in your post it needs to be kept in perspective of how to apply it.

Jthhopkido, I do agree that simply being a MIL or LE trained instructor is not sufficient to be a good CCW instructor. However, I do think the experiences and knowledge gained from both professions can directly relate to teaching CCW.

A few questions for the masses…
How would you state that MIL or LE experience, knowledge and or training does not relate to civilian defense situations?
What do you feel from MIL and or LE does directly relate to civilian defense?
Do you believe that competitive shooting directly relates to MIL, LE or Civi shooting or gunfighting?

[Tamara]

How would you state that MIL or LE experience, knowledge and or training does not relate to civilian defense situations?
Because engaging Republican Guard dismounts with a 240 Bravo or clearing houses as part of a SWAT team has practically no overlap with staring down a mugger in your living room with a Glock while you piss on your shoes?

While I am not checked out to perform either of the former, according to this thread I am totally certified to teach classes in the latter.

[Joseph B.]

Because engaging Republican Guard dismounts with a 240 Bravo or clearing houses as part of a SWAT team has practically no overlap with staring down a mugger in your living room with a Glock while you piss on your shoes?

I think it's a bit off to think that soldier are only shooting dismounts with a machine gun, or that SWAT cops only clear houses. But I would say being able to clear a room has a direct overlap for a CCW clearing his/her house when they heard a window/door crashed, etc.

While I am not checked out to perform either of the former, according to this thread I am totally certified to teach classes in the latter.

I am not sure where in this thread is states that simply being in a shooting will "certify" someone to teach a class on the subject.

[Tamara]

I am not sure where in this thread is states that simply being in a shooting will "certify" someone to teach a class on the subject.
I was attempting to be funny. Sorry.

Being totally serious, however, suppose some 11B was in the first Operation Desert Dust. He shot up some RG dismounts from 400 meters with a 240. Other than that, his training had been limited to rifle ranges and a bit of MOUT stuff. He has experience and training with the M9 that barely qualify as fam-firing. He does his four years and is out.

He has seen the elephant. He is an infantry combat veteran. What, if anything, has he learned that is in any way useful to me? I don't clear rooms, and if I did, I certainly wouldn't lob a frag into my living room before going in to see if the cat had knocked something over or there was a bad guy hiding under the sofa.

[Joseph B.]

I was attempting to be funny. Sorry. lol no worries.

Being totally serious, however, suppose some 11B was in the first Operation Desert Dust. He shot up some RG dismounts from 400 meters with a 240. Other than that, his training had been limited to rifle ranges and a bit of MOUT stuff. He has experience and training with the M9 that barely qualify as fam-firing. He does his four years and is out.

He has seen the elephant. He is an infantry combat veteran. What, if anything, has he learned that is in any way useful to me?

I would agree, not much. However, most soldiers are a lot more experinced in this day and age.

I don't clear rooms, and if I did, I certainly wouldn't lob a frag into my living room before going in to see if the cat had knocked something over or there was a bad guy hiding under the sofa.

We don't lob frags into every room and we do have several tactics within the military to deal with all types of situation regarding close combat, clearing a room, defending a room, and or killing that badguy hiding under your sofa.:)

[SLG]

[QUOTE=Joseph Bell;39542]SLG, I would not say that mindset is being down played but more brought into perspective as to how it is developed. Will a 2 day class that covers shooting, handling, tactics, and mindset prepare someone to for a shooting? Maybe, but to believe that an individual can develop the mindset aspect after a 30 minute pep-talk is a bit much IMHO. I personally believe that some of it is individually based and some of it is individual development. Having a never quit - fight on and do whatever needs to be done mindset is just as important as all the other aspects, but I do not believe it to be something that can be taught in a class. I think it’s something that needs to be developed, understood and built into a life style. I fully agree that awareness is huge part of the mindset.

I agree, and hope nothing I said came across as otherwise. I would go a bit further and say that mindset development, "mental toughness", if you will, which covers a lot of ground, is almost entirely an individual development. A good instructor can show you the way ("it can be taught"), but it is up to you to train it and nurture it, so that when you need it, you have it. Much like any other skill.

[TCinVA]

SLG, I would not say that mindset is being down played but more brought into perspective as to how it is developed. Will a 2 day class that covers shooting, handling, tactics, and mindset prepare someone to for a shooting? Maybe, but to believe that an individual can develop the mindset aspect after a 30 minute pep-talk is a bit much IMHO.

...and yet there are a fairly significant number of people who have showed up to a Rangemaster 2 day class and have then gone on to drop some violent scumbag who threatened their life.

"Mindset" is critical...but let's examine reality for a second:

There are people who show up to classes because shooting is fun.
There are people who show up to classes because they want to look cool on the internet.
There are people who show up to classes because it's a chance to hang out with cool people.

Then there are people whose motivation to show up for a class is because they've decided in the core of their being that if someone threatens their life they are going to shoot that guy in the face...and they want to ensure that they have more than sufficient skill to accomplish that under any circumstances. Nobody likes to spell it out like that because it sounds ugly and unpleasant and like a plot point for a Charles Bronson movie, but when all the politically correct artifice is stripped away that's what you're left with. Some people are at a class trying to learn shooting skills so they can intelligently direct bullets into the anatomy of people who deserve to have their vital organs prolifically perforated by virtue of their criminal aggression.

"Mindset", at least as far as it goes for most police officers and ordinary citizens, is nothing more than recognizing that there are people out there who will end your life without a second thought and resolving internally that should such a person insist on making things lethal that you will kill him. Perhaps the prism of my personal experience is different than everybody else's, but I've spent a little bit of time on the range and so far the vast majority of people I've been in classes with haven't been on that line because they were primarily interested in winning their next IDPA match. Most of them were there because they wanted to learn to use the tool of personal defense well because they'd rather not figure it out while someone is trying to kill them. They want to learn the skills because they want to win. Winning in a violent conflict means the other guy is laying on the ground too broken to continue (or fleeing in absolute terror) while hopefully you're still standing. Nobody may verbalize that explicitly, but I've yet to see many discussions of self defense where the participants were picturing shaking hands with the bad guy and bidding him a fond adue.

Somebody who has made that decision mentally may be physically weak. They may be fat. They may have no idea that there is a boathouse at Hererford, much less know what color it is...but if they have access to a reasonable tool of self defense the numbers say that they're highly likely to successfully defend themselves from bad people.

If they've made that decision they don't need hours of mindset lectures to convince them that they really should make that decision. What they need are skills and direction in how to go about solving the sorts of problems that come up in violent conflict. They need to learn how to spot a bad guy that's sizing them up for an attack. They need to learn how to see the world like a predator sees the world and to use that to avoid bad situations or to even turn things to their advantage. These things are not divined from nowhere...they are lessons that somebody else learned the hard way and hopefully somebody is teaching them so that others can learn them the easy way.

In practically every course I've been to, there has been an abundance of lessons somebody learned the hard way. Since I mentioned LAV earlier, I'll mention him again: He had a teaching point in one of his carbine classes about dumping partially loaded mags willy-nilly. That teaching point emerged from the adventures our forces had in Mogadishu. Now while it's highly unlikely that I'll ever find myself in a similar situation, I recognized instantly that I was receiving the benefit of a lesson somebody learned the hard way and that as such I might just want to keep that bit of knowledge handy because in real life most people probably do have a very limited amount of ammo on them to solve a problem with dimensions they won't truly know until it's all over.

Now in that one teaching point there's a hell of a lot for somebody to consider if they're smart enough to pay attention...and if they combine those things they start to get a better idea of what reality actually looks like so that they're better prepared for it should it ever arrive.

Is it the same level of preparation that the person would get if they are immersed in an SOF unit for 10 years? Of course not. Is it "good enough"? Difficult to tell that without a crystal ball. Does it leave the student better off than before they knew that? Hell yes...and that's the point.

Nobody shows up to a 2 day class a frightened sheep and leaves a stone cold killer. Nobody has ever argued that...but if the instructor is worth a damn they do leave having been exposed to more of what reality looks like than they were when they showed up and there's evidence out there that the exposure leaves the person better prepared for dealing with reality.

[Joseph B.]

TCinVA, I do not disagree with anything you posted.

[Dropkick]

Most of them were there because they wanted to learn to use the tool of personal defense well because they'd rather not figure it out while someone is trying to kill them. They want to learn the skills because they want to win. Winning in a violent conflict means the other guy is laying on the ground too broken to continue (or fleeing in absolute terror) while hopefully you're still standing.

How I see it:
The best violent conflict is the one I'm never in.
The best outcome to being in a violent conflict is surviving (with minimum injuries to myself.)
Only Charlie Sheen is "Winning!"


Just to bust your balls. ;) You going to be at Culpeper in March?

[Al T.]

I almost want to hit the print button for this thread. :cool:


How would you state that MIL or LE experience, knowledge and or training does not relate to civilian defense situations?

Frankly, most of what I learned in the .mil and what our states LEOs learn is outdated crap. I have a range session scheduled soon with a recent academy graduate to get him up to speed on the basics. He was disgusted at the training he received compared to what we went over at the range prior to his going to the academy. He was worried about qualifying, so wanted some pointers. Turns out that the four count draw was never mentioned nor were various other TTPs that we would consider basic.

So one of his classmates is going to be ahead of an enthusiast who has been to several training courses? Think not, even though he may have the mantra of being an LEO.


What do you feel from MIL and or LE does directly relate to civilian defense?

Mainly (.mil) is the will to win. Many LEOs I've met seem focused on the "survive" as opposed to "win" attitude. Senior officer here in Columbia told me his sidearm was only there to get him home safely. Huh, guess that old "serve and protect" motto is dead and gone.


Do you believe that competitive shooting directly relates to MIL, LE or Civi shooting or gunfighting?

In context, absolutely. While NRA Hi Power Rifle matches may not be much of a reflection of a two way rifle match in Iraq, having the ability to hit small targets at range and manipulate your weapon skillfully is a good thing. When IPSC and later IDPA first started, the 2700 crowd did better at speeding up on the close targets than the non-2700 shooters did on hitting the smaller targets at range.

[David Armstrong]

from J. Bell:
A few questions for the masses…
How would you state that MIL or LE experience, knowledge and or training does not relate to civilian defense situations?
I believe it all relates. The issue is knowing what relates when.

What do you feel from MIL and or LE does directly relate to civilian defense?
Marksmanship and gunhandling skills. Assorted tactical issues such as use of cover, awareness, and so on can directly relate, again given the ability to figure out what is relative at any given time.

Do you believe that competitive shooting directly relates to MIL, LE or Civi shooting or gunfighting?
It can. I used to shoot competitively and recommend it to others for a shooting skills test. I think the problem comes when someone thinks that just because something is good for competition it will also be good for an actual fight.

[jetfire]

Interesting hypothetical exercise - assume for the moment that two shooters have both attended Gunsite's 250 course and an Aim Fast Hit Fast. However, one of those shooters is also an IDPA Master level competitor who frequently wins local matches and places well in state and national level matches.

Which would you say has a better chance of prevailing in a fight, all other possible variables equalized?

[ToddG]

Which would you say has a better chance of prevailing in a fight, all other possible variables equalized?

Lacking any other information, the guy who has demonstrated skill both in terms of range drills and performance under stress at major matches would definitely seem to have an advantage. But for all we know, the other guy is even better, he just doesn't compete.

[jetfire]

And I'm not trying to actual use that as a point in debate, because as well as anyone else I understand that all the variables I'm eliminating with a bit of rhetorical hand-waving can't actually be eliminated. Rather, trying to point that out someone who has attended a 250 and an AFHF (or SOM/Speed Kills) and shoots IDPA has both knowledge of tactics and self defense, and experience at using a gun under simulated stress. But just because he has those things doesn't mean that a person is qualified to teach.

I've had gun school classes from good teachers and bad teachers. I've taken classes from shooters who are much, much better than me where I've not learned very much because despite their best intentions they didn't have a good teaching style. I've taken classes from instructors that I could and did outshoot in the class, but learned a lot because they understood how to teach well.

In this discussion about teaching fighting with a gun, I feel like everyone is focused on the fighting part and not on the teaching part. I could go to a high speed low drag class that everyone says is teaching "fighting with a gun" and come away with a completely different lesson because the instructor couldn't communicate effectively with me, or because as a student I was interested in something else.

[Dr. No]

I am somewhat biased in this respect, so I'll put that bias out first before I answer.

I came from a competitive shooting background. I started with IDPA and I'm an A-class going on M USPSA shooter and 3 gunner. I'm also a 6 year cop and now a SWAT team member.

In reference to "Do you believe that competitive shooting directly relates to MIL, LE or Civi shooting or gunfighting?"

I have been involved in numerous incidents where I have employed a firearm in an aggressive manner. Clearing buildings, dealing with armed suspects, OIS's, felony takedowns, vehicle pursuits, and a long foot pursuit and fight in multiple locations. I have never fired a single shot.

What I have gained from competition? My pistol tends to 'magically' appear in my hand in times of stress. I have been at a dead run and realized I just cleared my holster and have a gun in my hand. I have a distinct memory of coming up on an target armed with a knife and I can distinctly remember focusing on my front sight as I watched the hammer cock as I prepped the trigger.

Numerous times I have been able to give verbal commands or otherwise look at my scene and make adjustments or direct other persons because running the gun was subconscious. I have gone safety off, red dot on hairline on an armed subject while giving verbal commands. I was scoped up on an armed subject as he pointed a gun at my teammates and did not take a shot because I saw other tac members in the background and realized my backdrop was not clear.

Numerous times in simunitions training I have engaged suspects with accurate fire and done a reload without thinking about it, even on a platform I was unfamiliar with.

I can give numerous other examples of extremely stressful scenes where employing a gun or running a gun became second nature, all of which I can attribute to shooting thousands of rounds a year and competing on a regular basis. I find that when "the gun comes out" I generally do not have more stress .... because I have the confidence to know that I can employ it well as I have proved numerous times in competition.

When I teach classes, I tell people - I am here to teach you to shoot. You should go to someone more experienced than I to learn tactics. However, the more you practice and push 'shooting' into your subconscious .... the more you will be able to absorb tactics and succeed with them by making accurate hits under stress.

My .02$

[Joseph B.]

I guess I could answer my own questions with my opinions as well.

How would you state that MIL or LE experience, knowledge and or training does not relate to civilian defense situations?

I honestly do not see where it doesn’t. Some aspects such as using machine guns, explosives, etc, may not transition over to civilian self defense. But that is not all soldiers or LEO’s do, we are also trained to defend ourselves from all forms of attack, either it be an unarmed attack, restraining someone, using deadly force, etc. I would never say that all soldiers/officers are qualified to teach these things, but I do feel soldier/officers who have spent several years teaching other soldiers/officers, who hold several certifications to teach such things are very qualified to teach civilian self defense.

What do you feel from MIL and or LE does directly relate to civilian defense?

I feel that the training I have received from both the Army and the many LE classes I have attended has greatly prepared me to face all type of situations. I view “self defense” in the mean streets of America no different than being on a patrol in down town Baghdad where someone might attack me at a moment’s notice, where I may be kidnapped, where I can be robbed or disarmed and assaulted. Is there a difference between shooting someone with a rifle or a pistol? I really don’t know, every shooting I was involved in was with a rifle. However, being a very competent pistol shooter, I tend to believe it will not be much different. Looking at myself, I have stacks of certifications, a list of instructor schools, 3 years experience teaching deploying soldiers (who successfully faced the enemy), training other instructors how to train soldiers, writing a good amount of the doctrine currently used and 2 deployments of my own where I successfully faced the enemy. I would say that I am more than qualified to teach a civilian self defense, with and without a weapon.


Do you believe that competitive shooting directly relates to MIL, LE or Civi shooting or gunfighting?

I absolutely feel it directly relates. Anytime you are developing skills that require speed, accuracy and stress through time constraints, you are preparing yourself. Do I feel all aspects of competitive shooting relate, no. The tactics and techniques used in winning the match vs what should be used in real life are very different. Blowing past cover, half-assing the use of cover, balancing on one leg to make the far cover shot, standing in doorways and running around shooting 2 rounds in a target as fast as you can do not relate to gunfighting IMHO. I would go as far to say that they are bad habits that could get you killed in an actual gunfight. $.02

[Dr. No]

Do you believe that competitive shooting directly relates to MIL, LE or Civi shooting or gunfighting?

I absolutely feel it directly relates. Anytime you are developing skills that require speed, accuracy and stress through time constraints, you are preparing yourself. Do I feel all aspects of competitive shooting relate, no. The tactics and techniques used in winning the match vs what should be used in real life are very different. Blowing past cover, half-assing the use of cover, balancing on one leg to make the far cover shot, standing in doorways and running around shooting 2 rounds in a target as fast as you can do not relate to gunfighting IMHO. I would go as far to say that they are bad habits that could get you killed in an actual gunfight. $.02

Funny note to what you said .... All of the armed encounters I have been in have been without any available cover except for one with a knife - who I put a kitchen bar in between myself and the suspect. I actually had to pass an open area to more effectively engage the suspects and to allow my partners to get into the fight.

Paul Howe actually talked about "owning your battle space" without using cover so you have better visual orientation of what is going on. An interesting concept... and a viable one at times. It won't ALWAYS work.... but there obviously are many situations as to when it will.

[Joseph B.]

Funny note to what you said .... All of the armed encounters I have been in have been without any available cover except for one with a knife - who I put a kitchen bar in between myself and the suspect. I actually had to pass an open area to more effectively engage the suspects and to allow my partners to get into the fight.

Paul Howe actually talked about "owning your battle space" without using cover so you have better visual orientation of what is going on. An interesting concept... and a viable one at times. It won't ALWAYS work.... but there obviously are many situations as to when it will.

I would agree that there are some situations where not using cover has its advantages, primarily when working with a team, where someone else is providing supporting cover by fire, etc. You are very correct that not all situations afford cover; however, if it was available I personally would use it, especially if I was working solo.

I am interested in the context in how Paul was explaining “owning your battle space”. Was it in reference to CQB, clearing rooms, etc?

[Dr. No]

I would agree that there are some situations where not using cover has its advantages, primarily when working with a team, where someone else is providing supporting cover by fire, etc. You are very correct that not all situations afford cover; however, if it was available I personally would use it, especially if I was working solo.

I am interested in the context in how Paul was explaining “owning your battle space”. Was it in reference to CQB, clearing rooms, etc?

All my experience in these situations have been in team environments. Whether it is other officers clearing a structure with me or apprehensions.

I would like to preface the following with saying: I am not Paul, and I do not pretend to have insight into every nuance in his brain. I am merely repeating what I remember him talking about.

I attended his Rifle Instructor school recently. In it, he gave a block of instruction on working barricades. He spoke to using a kneeling position and how he could pop out from behind cover and quickly get a good shot on a small target. He then talked about holding that position for an extended time so that he could survey his battle field. He said "if people are shooting, that's fine. If he's chipping concrete at me - then it's time to GTFO and find another place to engage him from. Until then, I own this space.". In his book "The Tactical Trainer" he talks about this very situation with his involvement in the battles in Mogadishu. He spoke to using an aggressive mindset and tactics to win the fight rather than using cover in a defensive way.

A very big departure than most of my normal training. A very interesting perspective.

[Joseph B.]

All my experience in these situations have been in team environments. Whether it is other officers clearing a structure with me or apprehensions.

I would like to preface the following with saying: I am not Paul, and I do not pretend to have insight into every nuance in his brain. I am merely repeating what I remember him talking about.

I attended his Rifle Instructor school recently. In it, he gave a block of instruction on working barricades. He spoke to using a kneeling position and how he could pop out from behind cover and quickly get a good shot on a small target. He then talked about holding that position for an extended time so that he could survey his battle field. He said "if people are shooting, that's fine. If he's chipping concrete at me - then it's time to GTFO and find another place to engage him from. Until then, I own this space.". In his book "The Tactical Trainer" he talks about this very situation with his involvement in the battles in Mogadishu. He spoke to using an aggressive mindset and tactics to win the fight rather than using cover in a defensive way.

A very big departure than most of my normal training. A very interesting perspective.

I am familiar with the theory of “once you take the ground hold it” in reference to use of cover, clearing corners, etc. It was not brought to terms as in this explanation (as in do so even when taking fire), but I understand the intent. There are several techniques used to draw fire and in order to PID a enemy position and then allow your team to suppress and move a person into position to make the kill, that’s pretty common stuff. I am wondering if this is the context in how he was meaning it.

I am all about being the aggressor on the battle field, but I have also been pinned behind cover before. Popping out and holding the open ground was the farthest thing from my mind at the time, not to say it’s not valid (if Paul says it I would say it’s would be true). I guess I am more Infantry minded, in that the only time I am leaving good cover, is to another pre-planned position of good cover, or to close in on the enemy (hopefully with some cover along the way lol).:D

[GJM]

Interesting hypothetical exercise - assume for the moment that two shooters have both attended Gunsite's 250 course and an Aim Fast Hit Fast. However, one of those shooters is also an IDPA Master level competitor who frequently wins local matches and places well in state and national level matches.

Which would you say has a better chance of prevailing in a fight, all other possible variables equalized?

The one carrying a handgun, and ideally a full size service pistol as opposed to a J frame and no reload.

In just the last 12 months I have been to the Rogers School twice, AFHF and an EAG carbine class. Bumping into other participants off the range, in restaurants and hotels, more seemed to be unarmed than armed. Unarmed folks run the gamut from members of prestigious Federal tactical teams, contractors, to just "regular" civilian attendees.

[Tamara]

There's another important distinction in mindset between .mil, LE, and civilian CCW:

As an infantryman, your job is to close with and destroy the enemy by means of fire and maneuver. You carry a rifle to kill people and fuck up their shit.

As a police officer, your job is to uphold the law by apprehending the suspect. You carry a gun to protect yourself and the community if the suspect is violent.

As Jane Q. Public, my job is to keep my ass at 98.6°F, and if that's easiest accomplished by running away, then that is my first and best option. The reason I carry a gun is so that if I can't run away, then brother, you picked the wrong person to back into a corner tonight.

[Dropkick]

You carry a rifle to kill people and fuck up their shit.

You have a way with words, Tamara.

[Al T.]

Duty vrs. responsibility. Yep.



fuck up their shit

That's not the job, that's a bonus. :D


Good post on Tam's blog along the same lines:

http://booksbikesboomsticks.blogspot.com/2011/12/qotd-oh-grow-up-edition.html

[Joseph B.]

I think that is a very narrow view into the job descriptions of both professions. They are correct in that yes those are the primary mission statement, however, very limited detail on the actual duties and responsibilities of each profession.


There's another important distinction in mindset between .mil, LE, and civilian CCW:

As an infantryman, your job is to close with and destroy the enemy by means of fire and maneuver. You carry a rifle to kill people and fuck up their shit.

We also uphold rules and laws, conduct police actions, defend innocent people from terrorist, insurgents and common criminals. We can be used to crush an uprising or another military force, or we can be used to provide security for a population. We carry a rifle (along with a few more toys), and that rifle is used to enforce what our mission requires us to enforce. The mindset is to do whatever it is we have to do to complete the assigned mission.

As a police officer, your job is to uphold the law by apprehending the suspect. You carry a gun to protect yourself and the community if the suspect is violent.


Officers also protect the public, stop criminals, resolve conflicts, provide protection for those in need, etc. Their primary goal is to uphold the law, but it goes much deeper than that. I have a great respect for their profession because it does take a person who is willing to put their own life on the line to protect others. Their mindset is to do whatever it is that needs to be done to enforce the law and protect the people of their community.

As Jane Q. Public, my job is to keep my ass at 98.6°F, and if that's easiest accomplished by running away, then that is my first and best option. The reason I carry a gun is so that if I can't run away, then brother, you picked the wrong person to back into a corner tonight.

Defending your self is just that, awareness, avoidance, conflict resolution, and when necessary controlled violence of action.

Something else to keep in mind is that both soldiers and police officers do in fact take their uniforms off and deal with all the same possible threats as every other citizen. Criminals don’t inspect ID cards prior to conducting an assault or robbery, we face the same threats as everyone else.

[jthhapkido]

There's another important distinction in mindset between .mil, LE, and civilian CCW:

As an infantryman, your job is to close with and destroy the enemy by means of fire and maneuver. You carry a rifle to kill people and fuck up their shit.

As a police officer, your job is to uphold the law by apprehending the suspect. You carry a gun to protect yourself and the community if the suspect is violent.

As Jane Q. Public, my job is to keep my ass at 98.6°F, and if that's easiest accomplished by running away, then that is my first and best option. The reason I carry a gun is so that if I can't run away, then brother, you picked the wrong person to back into a corner tonight.

And that right there is incredibly important, because goals dictate tactics. These different groups of people have very different rights and responsibilities in their respective areas. As such, what choices are available to them (related to their goals) are very different. In addition, what situations are the most common for each are very different.

Take "cover" for example. Standard home defense scenario---not even CCW. How much cover is actually in your house? I don't know about you, but every house I've lived in only had real cover in the basement between rooms (due to brick walls). Anything above ground might contain a couple of objects useful for cover---but only a few. Concealment, sure---but certainly not cover.

Someone mentioned (I don't recall who, sorry folks) how military house-clearing training can be useful for people defending their own homes. Really? In the entire scheme of things, isn't house-clearing by yourself pretty much the last thing you ever want to do, because FOF training (by people who seriously know what they are doing) shows that your chances are horrible? That citizens in their own home should go with just about anything else possible instead of house-clearing by themselves?

Cue the people going: "But what if you HAVE to? What if your kids are in the basement/your baby is in a room far away/there's a sound in the basement and you don't want to call the cops?"

Your kids are in the basement and able to move around, and are scared because a Bad Guy is in the house. Your choice is to do solo room-clearing? How about instead spend some time practicing emergency drills with your family, so they know to get out. If the bad guy is already there, you don't have a room-clearing problem, you have a hostage situation. How's your training for that?

Your baby is in a room far away? Move them closer. (What, your house layout is such that the bedrooms are at opposite ends? That's a little different.) How about you make sure that the baby isn't next to the entrances. Among other things.

There's a sound in the basement and you don't want to call the cops, but you don't want to ignore it? Then buy a $50 video baby monitor and put your lights on remote.

I know sometimes solutions aren't that simple. However, that doesn't change the fact that what is necessary knowledge for military house-clearing teams is just about useless for civilian home defense. Seriously---you have limited resources for training. Given limited time and money, and an actual need to for self-defense skills, plus a realistic view of what self-defense actually entails---is learning military room-clearing even remotely on the list of the top 10 things you can do? (C'mon, military/LEO folks---what do they tell you about attempting room-clearing by yourself?)

Now, if you are IN the military, or a LEO who might have to do it with backup or for a team---sure! That's a different situation. Or maybe you just think it'll be interesting and fun---go for it!

But for civilian home defense, why would military (or even LEO) room-clearing be useful, other than giving you a false sense of skill because an instructor told you that "you weren't bad" in his class?

To me, one of the biggest differences between teaching a "shooting class" vs a "fighting with a gun" class has to do with whether or not the instructor understands the goals necessary for the type of class he is teaching. Fighting with a gun entails knowing the goal of the situation (ex: staying safe and alive in a self-defense situation) and thus the tactics useful for it. (Ex: running the heck away if you can). You can see on YouTube tons of videos with "self-defense instructors" teaching you to "win the fight," "overcome the enemy," "destroy the threat" and other various emotionally laden terminology---and you know what? In self-defense, your goal is to stay safe and unharmed (along with the ones you are in charge of protecting). Running away is a great tactic. Works fantastically given the choice. And yet, how many of those videos show any instructor talking about how to disengage, how to create an opening and escape, how to take advantage of position to LEAVE?

Nope---they are all about "destroying the threat!"

Yeah, well, self-defense class isn't the military. Our job isn't to kill people. (Yes, I know, that isn't exactly the military's either, just a byproduct.) Our job isn't to capture and secure people, either. (No, you don't get bonus SD points by taking the bad guy down to the precinct, throwing him in front of the desk sargent, and declaiming "I caught him, now throw him in jail!")

Different goals. Different tactics. VERY different reactions.

I personally think that military and LEO experience (due to LEO and military training) can sometimes help in people's understanding of shooting technique. (Though quite frankly, the majority of military and LEO folks I've met could use more firearms training. There are plenty of both who are REALLY good with firearms. However, the majority of both groups aren't. At least, not compared to the skill level I would expect of an instructor.) That isn't about combat experience (or in the LEO case, street experience).

One thing where experience is useful, is merely knowing how it feels to have someone trying to kill you. (Which both LEOs and military folks can get.) Because then you realize some of the physiological reactions that occur during and after stressful situations, and that can indeed help you teach a class.

But other than that---no, I don't think military training and combat experience, or LEO training and street experience, helps you teach a civilian self-defense class that focuses on fighting with a gun. (LEO street experience might help, given the right kind of street experience, but that will be more about recognizing Bad Guys, setups, and escalating situations, not the actual shooting part.) Other than the shooting technique part, there really isn't a whole lot of similarity.

And you can take shooting technique classes elsewhere.

(Last comment---almost done!) This doesn't mean that LEO and military folks can't teach seriously good civilian SD classes. However, the people who do that are GOOD at it are good because they have taken significant amounts of time to study the situations, the legal aspects, the differing goals, and ALSO have good shooting technique that matches the situation at hand. They aren't good at it just because they are military or LEO.

Actual last comment: This exact same situation occurs when martial arts instructors claim to teach "self-defense" in their martial arts schools. Some do it very well. And others---are teaching how to use techniques for completely different goals that would only work in completely different situations.

[jthhapkido]

I think that is a very narrow view into the job descriptions of both professions. They are correct in that yes those are the primary mission statement, however, very limited detail on the actual duties and responsibilities of each profession.


And yet, it very succinctly shows the difference between the rights and responsibilities of the three groups.



Defending your self is just that, awareness, avoidance, conflict resolution, and when necessary controlled violence of action.

Something else to keep in mind is that both soldiers and police officers do in fact take their uniforms off and deal with all the same possible threats as every other citizen. Criminals don’t inspect ID cards prior to conducting an assault or robbery, we face the same threats as everyone else.

And when you are a soldier in a personal self-defense situation out of uniform, if you react like a soldier in a war, you are going to get yourself in trouble. (LEO, not as much, because most of their job doesn't change whether they are in uniform and "on the clock" or not.)

You added a lot of other descriptive comments about the roles of the military and LEO--and in each case, what you said actually underscores Tam's point---in that the goals of each of the groups are VERY different. And in each case, the choices available to each group is very different.

(Also note: soldiers are not cops. Very different mindset and reaction categories. Both work very well in their respective areas. However, cop reactions and soldier reactions are different.)

[Mitchell, Esq.]

Too many people think of self defense as a tactical matter – the use of force. Maybe it’s aftermath.
That’s how people always end up thinking of scenarios in which “So, I’m minding my own business when this guy…and then I shoot him…if I’m totally justified, do I go to jail?”

It should be thought of in a strategic manner.

Self defense is having a house with good locks, sturdy door frames, windows that have an anti-shatter film on them, motion sensitive lights and maybe a camera so you can see what’s going on outside…so you don’t have to clear it to save the day…
And going to Shivworks AMIS class to know what to do if you need to do it.

It’s more fun spend the money you would have to use to secure your house on the 4th M-4 (the piston upper in 6.8spc is a just HAVE TO BUY!!) than it is at home depo…but if you want to make an investment in self defense, then it’s going to look a lot more like a trip to home depo than to a school on house clearing.

[Joseph B.]

Well before this thread gets further drifted into a debate of Mil or LE vs CCW or self defense I am going to leave a few tid-bits for some of you to think about.

1: If you have never served in the military or law enforcement and do not have firsthand knowledge of the TTP’s used, you should probably refrain from posting as if you have knowledge of such. It frankly makes you look foolish.
2: There is good reason to learn from all aspects and verities of TTP’s, either it be MIL, LE, Private sector, Martial Arts, etc. The more you learn, the more you have to draw on in life for all situations.
3: Taking a stance that this or that is not good for this, etc, is not what I would recommend. However, everyone has an opinion and are very much entitled to such. I would only say be careful how and who you share them with, as in this subject life and death are very much the end result.

Some of the information posted in here I agree with and very obviously some of it I do not, I don’t see the point in debating each aspect of what I disagree with and I feel I have given some good information in this thread, so I will leave it where it is.

[LOKNLOD]

This thread has covered a lot of interesting ground, and there have been some thoughtful replies. Although I think the experience vs. skill discussion becomes a bit of a lost cause since, despite everyone's best intentions, parties on both sides can easily let it become a personally emotional argument. (Kudos to maintaining civility in this thread, it could have gotten ugly elsewhere.)

It's possible someone has phrased it this way already, but "fighting with a gun" is using a gun to hurt/kill another human being who's intent on hurting you back. It's that simple, and it's that hard, apparently. Even around devoted life-long "gun folks" there are an awful lot who freak if you mention that you have/carry a gun to shoot someone if necessary, and that you practice your ass off to make sure you do it fast, hard, and against all odds against you. When you have been inundated in a culture of guns being no more than sporting goods like fishing rods and golf clubs (because we're so afraid someone is going to look at them negatively and try to take them away), then it can be a huge shift in mindset to take that perspective.


...that one of the things that Tom does extremely well in his classes is "empowering" (hate that word but it fits) people to shoot another human being

I thought this was as good of an explanation of a "fighting" class vs. a "shooting" class as found in the thread. Fighting ultimately becomes about shooting at someone. Different methods of manipulations, etc. all come about because of that fundamental change in why you're doing what you're doing.



Another is the development of a trigger, something that tells you it's ok to hoist the black flag.


To me, this is the huge, ominous black question mark hanging over one's head, especially as a private citizen in a self defense situation. Hesitate, and you might only have the rest of your life to catch up; too early, or mistakenly, and you'll have the rest of your life to regret it (and pay for it). Serious stuff, not much room for error.

[Tamara]

To me, this is the huge, ominous black question mark hanging over one's head, especially as a private citizen in a self defense situation. Hesitate, and you might only have the rest of your life to catch up; too early, or mistakenly, and you'll have the rest of your life to regret it (and pay for it). Serious stuff, not much room for error.
This is why it is of utmost importance for any CCW carrier to always be aware of The Way Out no matter where they are, because if some goblin gets between you and it, you may have to kill that fucker to get there.

[JodyH]

I've found that whatever background the trainer comes from is the one that he thinks has the most pieces of the puzzle.
There are very few trainers who can set aside their ego and acknowledge that the pieces of the puzzle they can provide, no matter what it's based on, are just a few pieces out of thousands.

[peterb]

I've found that whatever background the trainer comes from is the one that he thinks has the most pieces of the puzzle.
There are very few trainers who can set aside their ego and acknowledge that the pieces of the puzzle they can provide, no matter what it's based on, are just a few pieces out of thousands.

Or put another way......http://pistol-training.com/archives/5065

[jthhapkido]

Or put another way......http://pistol-training.com/archives/5065

I remember that one. :) Posted the link everywhere.

I'm always impressed most by instructors who never stop their own learning. Always looking for new information, new understanding---trying to make sure that what they are teaching is the most effective it can be towards the goals of the class, based on the best information available.

[Mitchell, Esq.]

To me, this is the huge, ominous black question mark hanging over one's head, especially as a private citizen in a self defense situation. Hesitate, and you might only have the rest of your life to catch up; too early, or mistakenly, and you'll have the rest of your life to regret it (and pay for it). Serious stuff, not much room for error.

I think that's an issue of people lacking background information on how their actions will be reviewed and when it is and is not acceptable to lay down hate on another person.

People spend a lot of time on the skills, not enough time learning the contextual elements of when to use what skillset.

[jthhapkido]

People spend a lot of time on the skills, not enough time learning the contextual elements of when to use what skillset.

Agreed. Good self-defense instructors actually teach self-defense, not just gunfighting. However, most people don't think they need self-defense classes, because they think that "gunfighting" classes teach everything they are going to need to know. (Then again, many people think that Brazilian Jiujitsu is a great self-defense art for streetfights. People tend to not really know what self-defense means, and they think that "fighting" is the same as "self-defense.")

Note: this isn't anything against classes that specialize in gunfighting. (Or BJJ. :) )If they are advertised as gunfighting, and people learn gunfighting, then they are getting exactly what they asked for.

Now, if a class is advertised as "self-defense with a gun" then it should probably include more than gunfighting techniques. (Considering that "self-defense" mostly isn't about fighting techniques it is often hard to sell such a class, though, because people don't want to have to think about it.)

[Mitchell, Esq.]

I actually just got a call from someone who read my name in the Combat Handgun magazine article and wanted to know more about self defense laws in CT.

He started asking if he could enact a citizens arrest on someone who assaulted him...I told him he needs to lock that shit in the same box as Hilary Clinton & Janet Reno getting it on then offering to let him in.

Looks like I have another for Sunday...

He's trained with a local, well regarded instructor...I have no doubt he's probably able to draw safely and hit what he needs to...but as to knowing local rules of engagement...

Oh, boy...

[jthhapkido]

Hilary Clinton & Janet Reno getting it on then offering to let him in.

That------is just RONG. With a capital W. (That was so wrong the w wasn't merely silent, it was embarrassed enough to be invisible.)

(Off to go find some bleach to clear my brain of that image.)

[Mitchell, Esq.]

Clear your mind with buckshot...

(He didn't like the image either...)

[Jay Cunningham]

One unique aspect of firearms are that they allow the physically feeble to defend themselves against disproportionate threats.

Of course it would be wonderful if all able-bodied adults lifted weights, ran, trained in MMA, and all the other things that people "should be doing" besides worrying about the fantasy camp gun stuff... except there are 95 lb. women, 87 year old men, and people confined to wheelchairs who might raise an eyebrow when someone advises them to take up knife-fighting and krav maga so that they can be "well-rounded".

I think it is safe to suggest that "gun fighting" has some unique aspects to it not directly applicable to fighting with body parts or contact weapons.

[David Armstrong]

I've found that whatever background the trainer comes from is the one that he thinks has the most pieces of the puzzle.
There are very few trainers who can set aside their ego and acknowledge that the pieces of the puzzle they can provide, no matter what it's based on, are just a few pieces out of thousands.
Jim Crews uses a term that I really like, and it became part of the title to his excellent series of training manuals "Some of the answer":
Some Of The Answer: Advanced Handgun
Some Of The Answer: Urban Carbine
Some Of The Answer: Urban Shotgun
IIRC that came from a phrase he used during lecture, something along the line of "I can't give you all of the answer or the ultimate answer, all I can give is some of the answer."

[jar]

One unique aspect of firearms are that they allow the physically feeble to defend themselves against disproportionate threats.

Of course it would be wonderful if all able-bodied adults lifted weights, ran, trained in MMA, and all the other things that people "should be doing" besides worrying about the fantasy camp gun stuff... except there are 95 lb. women, 87 year old men, and people confined to wheelchairs who might raise an eyebrow when someone advises them to take up knife-fighting and krav maga so that they can be "well-rounded".

I think it is safe to suggest that "gun fighting" has some unique aspects to it not directly applicable to fighting with body parts or contact weapons.

That's absolutely true but both "gun fighting" and empty hand and contact weapon fighting are both subsets of self defense. The thing that happens all too often is giving people the impression that gun fighting is a replacement for all other self defense skills.

It's all about priorities and cost/benefit analysis. If you're physically limited by age, genetics, or disease, fine. Learning to shoot beats the hell out of doing nothing. But, if you're 50 lbs overweight and get out of breath tying your shoes, what's going to most increase your life expectancy, your 3rd carbine course in case the Chinese invade Kansas, or getting some exercise?

[jthhapkido]

The thing that happens all too often is giving people the impression that gun fighting is a replacement for all other self defense skills.

+1

(Gun fighting---or any physical fight skill. Most "self-defense skills" aren't physical ones. It is just that the physical ones are the most fun to practice. :) )

[Tamara]

That's absolutely true but both "gun fighting" and empty hand and contact weapon fighting are both subsets of self defense. The thing that happens all too often is giving people the impression that gun fighting is a replacement for all other self defense skills.

It's all about priorities and cost/benefit analysis. If you're physically limited by age, genetics, or disease, fine. Learning to shoot beats the hell out of doing nothing.

I'm no ninja; I'm just some crippled-up over-the-hill middle-aged chick. If some goblin is between me and the exit and I have a gun, I'll shoot his ass. If all I have is a can of OC, then I'll squirt it in his face. If I don't even have that and there's nothing large and heavy or small and sharp to hand, then I'll try and take his windpipe in my teeth if he won't let me leave. But that takes us back to the big difference in "mindset" between me and a cop or soldier: My first priority is to get the heck out. :eek:

[Al T.]

Hilary Clinton & Janet Reno getting it on

Chelsea's parents... :eek:


over-the-hill middle-aged chick

Smirk. Want me to post a certain picture? :p Not hardly.

[Mitchell, Esq.]

Smirk. Want me to post a certain picture? :p Not hardly.

YES.

:o

[jthhapkido]

YES.

:o

+1!!

[Pistolero]

Lots of good thoughts and ideas in this thread! However, I’m not going to focus upon the, ‘mechanical requirements’ of gunfighting. Instead I’m going to focus on the psychological aspects of surviving an armed confrontation. First, you have to be able to, 'read' other people well; Yes, you’ve got to be faster and more accurate than most; and, in my opinion, you also have to understand, ‘Why’ you never want to be the second person to draw and fire. So, I'd have to say that being able to, 'see it coming' is a highly desirable personal attribute for surviving a gunfight.

Once you realize that you're in physical danger - danger from someone who might be bigger, stronger, younger, or has an equal ability to reach out over distance in order to strike you dead - then you have to possess the inherent ability to mentally and emotionally, 'go cold'. I'm sure that different people accomplish this in different ways. Me? I'm a very passionate person; I feel my emotions quite strongly; consequently, when I get mad - I really get mad! (I think it’s the Sicilian in me!)

Personally, this reactionary state causes me to identify emotional, 'passion' as the single most important motivational factor behind, 'going cold' or divesting yourself of any sense of, either, duality-in-thought or hesitancy-in-action. A hesitant or distracted mind does not a good gunfighter make! Anyone who intends to survive a gunfight needs to be able to swiftly push aside many of the customary moral and political considerations that all of us usually carry around inside our heads.

In all of the discussions, in all the gun forum threads I have ever read or participated in, never once have I noticed anyone (other than on occasion, myself) disagree with the strong political axioms: 'Thou shalt not shoot first!' or, ‘Thou shalt not be the aggressor!’ (You want to stay alive, right!)

In today's often overwhelming and always politically correct western world any sort of self-defense behavior like this simply isn't publicly tolerated; and, yet, without the willingness to shoot first - to strike the other guy BEFORE he's achieved that physical presence or position from which he is, both, confident AND comfortable to strike out at you - other personal attributes like: being able to, 'read' other people well, being practiced, accurate, and competent with a firearm, or being able to, 'keep your wits about you' in the midst of real physical danger, all, mean next to nothing.

Remember, there's no advantage to driving a Lamborghini roadster if all you ever do is drive it slower than 35 miles per hour. 35 MPH does not win auto races; neither does any strict adherence to modern political correctness tend to keep you alive in a CQB pistol gunfight!

At the same time I do not think a successful gunfighter needs to be a, 'saint'. There is little, if anyplace, in CQB pistol gunfighting for what I will refer to as, 'the noble virtues'. Anything that slows you down - i.e.: an unwilling (perhaps moral) hesitancy to kill, a rational (perhaps habitual) tendency to control your temper, an active (and consequently restrictive) sense of personal guilt, or a strong fear of either getting caught or ultimately having to face the presumed consequences of surviving the event - is very likely to get you suddenly wounded or killed inside of a CQB gun battle.

A skillful CQB pistol gunfighter has to be, both, willing and able to instantly act beyond the normal societal rules - Rules which usually govern all interhuman social behaviors and of which, albeit by varying degree, all of us are rationally aware and habitually obedient to.

A good CQB pistol gunfighter needs to be unfettered by any extraneous (outside) intellectual considerations; he is ready, able, and willing to end life in, (literally) 'the blink of an eye'. You don't have to be particularly smart; you don't have to be particularly honest; and you don't have to be especially morally inclined. However I like to think that, at one time or another, in addition to being a competent gunfighter I have, also, been all of these other things - Just not while I was gunfighting. (I think it’s called, ‘staying alive’.)

Neither do I believe that a competent gunfighter is, of necessity, a man of good character or strong personal conviction. Strong personal conviction helps; it'll certainly allow you to, 'get some sleep' the night before going into action; but a, 'cold mind' a steady hand, and an unfettered willingness to take life continue to predominate. To paraphrase Dr. Walter Prescott Webb’s sage aphorism; 'It is the absence of fear rather than the presence of courage that universally characterizes a true gunfighter.'

One thing's for certain: All guns have the real world ability to reach out and kill very quickly. Nobody is going to last very long at the gunfighting game if he prefers to wait before taking decisive action or has an (habitual) inclination to generally allow the other guy to make up his mind for him - In other words to give his opponent the opportunity to begin the fight.

Calling a, ‘spade a spade’: Either intense personal alarm, (fear) or strong personal rage (anger) are both highly effective motivators of successful self-defense behaviors; and every skillful CQB gunman should always remember to recognize these necessary emotional characteristics as such! At risk of contradicting Dr. Webb's comment: In a CQB pistol gunfight, if you aren’t genuinely afraid, if you aren’t very angry, then you are going to be fighting at a distinct disadvantage.

Now, while I would be (and, I hope, am) among the last people to advocate any sort of immoral behavior - individual action(s) devoid of moral consideration - at the same time I fully realize that a personal willingness to allow time to pass, or a hesitant and waffling mentality are antithetical opponents to successfully surviving a gunfighting. The key - the secret - to successful CQB pistol gunfighting is to be able to (perhaps, instinctively) present a clear and instantaneous mental and emotional focus.

Fear is actually OK as long as you control it. Anger, while perhaps atypical for you, is also acceptable. Again, focus on the threat and control your emotions. The only other thing I’ll add is that every morally inclined gunman needs to know when to let his (useful) combat emotions go and stop shooting.

Here, you can read the whole story about many of the old west's most famous (or infamous) gunfighters. Truly, by no stretch of the imagination were any of them, ‘saints’ - We’re talking about: cold, hard, cruel, CQB pistol gunfighting; and even the very best of today’s modern pistoleros should seek to avoid it whenever possible.

http://www.darkcanyon.net/gunfighters_of_the_old_west.htm

[MechEng]

My Plan A has always been awareness & avoidance.
Plan B is Run Like Hell. "Cardio, Cardio, Cardio."
Plan C to Z would all be situation dependent.

[NETim]

My Plan A has always been awareness & avoidance.
Plan B is Run Like Hell. "Cardio, Cardio, Cardio."
Plan C to Z would all be situation dependent.

It's always good to have a plan.

Cooper always advised righteous anger as a reaction if one is forced to fight. I'll go with that should it ever happen.

[Tamara]

Pistolero,

I don't mean to be snide or confrontational, but the whole "silverback" beard-stroking, pipe-tamping tone strikes me as a little out of place here. Some posters here have given a moment or two's thought to the mechanics of armed confrontation before. :o

[HeadHunter]

And then I've seen instructors who can't shoot and just call if fighting because it is clearly ain't marksmanship class of any kind...

There's more of that than many want to admit. Frequently accompanied by "gungames" comments.

[jthhapkido]

There's more of that than many want to admit. Frequently accompanied by "gungames" comments.

I've got a local one of those---he _is_ actually a decent shot himself, and teaches a decent basic technique class, actually---but the minute he learned I was teaching shooting classes also (and I do decently at competition shooting) his advertising all turned into "none of that sport shooting stuff--that'll get you killed!"

[sigh]

Even better, he is trying to learn/teach a CQT course when he doesn't really have the background---one of the "me and some guys got together and mixed it up and found that XX technique REALLY WORKED at close quarters" types of things.

He then says "that martial art stuff will get you killed" right after he shows the new "move" he has learned which is a badly-done version of a misunderstood martial arts technique that he says is great.

[double sigh]

[HCM]

Here, you can read the whole story about many of the old west's most famous (or infamous) gunfighters. Truly, by no stretch of the imagination were any of them, ‘saints’ - We’re talking about: cold, hard, cruel, CQB pistol gunfighting; and even the very best of today’s modern pistoleros should seek to avoid it whenever possible.

http://www.darkcanyon.net/gunfighters_of_the_old_west.htm

The Gunmen Of El Paso
by Skeeter Skelton

"Today's handgunners could skunk any of the oldtimers. Slick, accurate, double-action guns, scientifically designed belts and holsters, a plentitude of practice and ammunition - all these factors make the handgun man of the present easily the master of the best of the 19th-century gunfighters. But turn the Selmans, Hardins, Stoudenmires, and Outlaws loose in the same wild border town against any of today's civilized sixgun experts, and I submit that there would soon be no experts. the reason is one that many of today's antigun fanatics fail to grasp. A shooter and a killer are two different things."

http://www.darkcanyon.net/gunmen_of_el_paso.htm

[jetfire]

beard-stroking, pipe-tamping

Fetch me my smoking jacket!

[HCM]

your 3rd carbine course in case the Chinese invade Kansas, or getting some exercise?

我们来为你的jar

[Tamara]

But turn the Selmans, Hardins, Stoudenmires, and Outlaws loose in the same wild border town against any of today's civilized sixgun experts, and I submit that there would soon be no experts. the reason is one that many of today's antigun fanatics fail to grasp. A shooter and a killer are two different things

That doesn't take into account the fact that we've had two wars going on for the best part of a decade. That forum poster or Taurus-Judge-praising bag boy so easily mocked at the Kroger's may have busted a cap into Maryam's little boy's face as little as three months ago. :o

[TCinVA]

The Gunmen Of El Paso
by Skeeter Skelton

"Today's handgunners could skunk any of the oldtimers. Slick, accurate, double-action guns, scientifically designed belts and holsters, a plentitude of practice and ammunition - all these factors make the handgun man of the present easily the master of the best of the 19th-century gunfighters. But turn the Selmans, Hardins, Stoudenmires, and Outlaws loose in the same wild border town against any of today's civilized sixgun experts, and I submit that there would soon be no experts. the reason is one that many of today's antigun fanatics fail to grasp. A shooter and a killer are two different things."

http://www.darkcanyon.net/gunmen_of_el_paso.htm

I disagree with that sentiment entirely.

Yes, there's quite a line of separation between shooters and "killers", especially the outlaw killers of the old west. The citizens of Northfield were certainly not "killers"...but they seemed to fare pretty well against the James-Younger gang.

No sane person should ever aspire to be a "killer" in the mold of the drunken murderers that the old west "outlaws" actually were. Criminals in the old west were not fundamentally different than criminals today are in behavior or temperament. Shooting an unarmed bank clerk is murder whether it was done yesterday or in 1876. There are plenty of successful stories of self defense to demonstrate that even fairly unskilled people who are scared out of their mind are plenty capable of pulling a trigger and putting younger, fitter, meaner men down if left with no other choice. Loose those old west outlaws in a town filled with IDPA or 3 gun competitors today and I doubt any of the outlaws would make it out alive.

The central question is whether or not someone is willing to pull the trigger. There are lots of people who are plenty willing to pull the trigger to save innocent life. They're just not willing to pull the trigger for any other reason. That's the line that separates a "killer" from those who aren't murderous scumbags.

[aboveandbeyond]

我们来为你的jar

We're coming for your jar?? I'm surprised someone can write/speak chinese on here like me.

[Matt O]

We're coming for your jar?? I'm surprised someone can write/speak chinese on here like me.

Considering “我们来为你的jar" doesn't really make sense grammatically or contextually, I'm guessing that was likely google translated and was supposed to mean: we're coming for you Jar. In fact, 我们来为你的jar actually sounds somewhat like 我们为你而来的 which actually means they've come to support jar rather than arrest/grab him ;)

[Al T.]

I'm surprised someone can write/speak Chinese on here like me.

After four drinks, I'm good to go in Cantonese, six drinks and Mandarin is simple.

:D

[Tony Muhlenkamp]

Good thread, lots to consider. Thanks

[Laramie]

Hi all, new member, first post. I feel glad that I know I am a fighter. BTDT in H2H situations on many occasions. In a 3-on 1 scenario where my opponents were armed with 2 beer bottles each (Michelob bottles to boot, which on my very subjective 'skull meter' are the hardest of all) I took the initiative away from them and ultimately the fight. So I am squarely of the belief- fighter first- mastery of tools to follow. I can see lots of sheep that believe the gun solves or equalizes the problem. (Didn't Samuel Colt make it so?) Not if they fall behind the curve and can't catch up. Sheep hesitate, maybe because they cannot believe this is happening to ME! Becoming a fighter is hard to achieve if you lack the temperament. Ask any mother with more than one child and you will hear how early temperament appears. Some are born sheepdogs, some are born sheep and perhaps some of the sheep can be taught to use their "teeth". This is not a slam on sheep, most all of my friends are sheep and I love them. They just live different internal lives. For them, others like them and myself I CCW and only my intimates know, the rest are blissfully unaware. So give me a fighter with a knack of assessing situations which through experience has gained that knowledge and let's teach him pistolcraft and the laws that apply. I read in a karate magazine when I was 7yrs old: "Hit Hard, Hit Fast, Hit First" and it seems to apply to our topic as well.
Thanks for a great thread.

[5shot]

Another newbee here, often derided in other places, but then there is always hope in one's future.

My interest is not in attitude, willingness, marksmanship, etc., only in hitting what one is shooting at, and if the method employed to do that, will work in a real life or death CQ encounter when one's life is on the line.

If one will fight as they train, or something close to that, then IMHO one should train based on the findings of studies or real life threat encounters, and what science has established regarding those situations.

To not do that, is to set yourself up, or your charges, to be killed.

Per the NYPD's (old but still good), study of 6000+ Police combat situations, SS was not used in > 80% of them, and Officers fired with the strong hand with few exceptions. The necessity for rapid reloading to prevent death or serious injury was not a factor in any of the cases, and in close range encounters (under 15 feet), a reload was never reported as necessary to continue the action.

Also, in CQ life threat situations, our "Fight or Flight" response will kick in according to science, and that will result in the loss of near vision which is needed for focusing on the sights.

So........

I'm looking for studies, videos, and pics of Sight Shooting or FSP being used in CQ life threat self defense situations where most all gunfights occur, and where if you are going to be shot and/or killed, there is the greatest chance of that happening.

Since millions of students have been trained to use SS or FSP in CQ for more than 100 years, there should be hundreds to thousands of them.

But they are rarer than hens teeth.

And lacking them, the question that comes to mind is what do trainers who teach SS or FSP, base their teaching on: hearsay, opinion, or just what ?

To cut to the chase, so to speak, if you know of videos or pics of SS or FSP being used in a real CQ life threat self defense situation/s, or verifiable studies that support their use at CQ, please provide link/s. Thanks.

And lacking pics/video inputs, looks like Point Shooting (QK, P&S, Applegate, CAR), or something close to them would be what one should train in and at 21 feet or less. NO MORE, no less.

[jthhapkido]

Another newbee here, often derided in other places, but then there is always hope in one's future.

Ah yes, I remember when you came to our local shooting forum and starting posting point-shooting commentary along with promoting your website and your little point-shooting gadget. If I recall correctly, you mostly kept saying the same things without actually having much data to back up what you said.


My interest is not in attitude, willingness, marksmanship, etc., only in hitting what one is shooting at, and if the method employed to do that, will work in a real life or death CQ encounter when one's life is on the line.

Hitting what one is shooting at is marksmanship, and whether or not it will work is based on attitude and willingness to do so.



If one will fight as they train, or something close to that, then IMHO one should train based on the findings of studies or real life threat encounters, and what science has established regarding those situations.

To not do that, is to set yourself up, or your charges, to be killed.

Per the NYPD's (old but still good), study of 6000+ Police combat situations, SS was not used in > 80% of them, and Officers fired with the strong hand with few exceptions. The necessity for rapid reloading to prevent death or serious injury was not a factor in any of the cases, and in close range encounters (under 15 feet), a reload was never reported as necessary to continue the action.

Actually, there are several newer studies on similar situations that are just as good. Plus, of course, that police combat situations are not the same as non-LEO defensive situations.

And of course, police firearms training wasn't very good at the time, which is why those studies were done (so as to improve training), which has been changed significantly due to those findings---though oddly enough, it wasn't changed into point shooting training, it was changed into training in which people would actually use the sights, given that poor training and point shooting caused a dismal hit percentage.



Also, in CQ life threat situations, our "Fight or Flight" response will kick in according to science, and that will result in the loss of near vision which is needed for focusing on the sights.

No. That is flatly incorrect.



So........

I'm looking for studies, videos, and pics of Sight Shooting or FSP being used in CQ life threat self defense situations where most all gunfights occur, and where if you are going to be shot and/or killed, there is the greatest chance of that happening.

Since millions of students have been trained to use SS or FSP in CQ for more than 100 years, there should be hundreds to thousands of them.

But they are rarer than hens teeth.

Nope.

Also-as we didn't have a whole lot of video or pictures 100 years ago (or even 30 years ago), that's an ridiculous question to ask. (Note: in actual logical arguments, use of hyperbole doesn't work.)



And lacking them, the question that comes to mind is what do trainers who teach SS or FSP, base their teaching on: hearsay, opinion, or just what ?

To cut to the chase, so to speak, if you know of videos or pics of SS or FSP being used in a real CQ life threat self defense situation/s, or verifiable studies that support their use at CQ, please provide link/s. Thanks.

And lacking pics/video inputs, looks like Point Shooting (QK, P&S, Applegate, CAR), or something close to them would be what one should train in and at 21 feet or less. NO MORE, no less.

Many of the people on this forum have direct experience as shooters, and as trainers of shooters, who have used sighted fire at those distances.

However, as this whole thing is just another one of your ways to stir up interest in your website, and your little gadget (which I'm sure you'll be posting links for later) I'm thinking that instead it would be better for people to ignore your posting until you shelve your agenda.

[5shot]

Per jthhapkido:

"Hitting what one is shooting at is marksmanship, and whether or not it will work is based on attitude and willingness to do so."

--It's my understanding that the hit rate is still only about 20%, so something is still amiss, and I don't think that most folks don't want to hit what they are shooting at.

"Actually, there are several newer studies on similar situations that are just as good. Plus, of course, that police combat situations are not the same as non-LEO defensive situations."

--Got links, dates, names, places?

"And of course, police firearms training wasn't very good at the time...... it was changed into training in which people would actually use the sights, given that poor training and point shooting caused a dismal hit percentage."

--Again, it's my understanding that the hit rate is still only about 20%, so something is still amiss, and I don't think that most folks don't want to hit what they are shooting at.

--Re your comment on the loss of near vision in CQB situations, you say:

"No. That is flatly incorrect."

--Science says that in a CQ life threat situation, our "Fight or Flight" response kicks in automatically and instinctively. One result is a dump of adrenaline into the blood stream which causes the cilliary muscle of the eye to relax and the lens of the eye to flatten which enhances far vision to focus on the threat, and at the expense of near vision which is needed to focus on the sights. And the lens stays "flat" until the adrenaline is flushed from one's system.

"However, as this whole thing is just another one of your ways to stir up interest in your website, and your little gadget (which I'm sure you'll be posting links for later) I'm thinking that instead it would be better for people to ignore your posting until you shelve your agenda."

--Actually, as of July 4, 2011, site hits in the last 24 months were 4 million+. And they are from all over the world, so there is interest in the material presented.

--The reason I commented here, is that people keep putting out the same old, same old, with no proof or facts to back it up.

[Tamara]

...people keep putting out the same old, same old, with no proof or facts to back it up.

Alert the department of irony. :rolleyes:

[joshs]

Please do not turn this thread into a discussion of point shooting. If you would like to further discuss the merits or weaknesses of point shooting, please start a new thread or post in one of the threads addressing that topic. Thank you.

[Dr. No]

Per jthhapkido:

"Hitting what one is shooting at is marksmanship, and whether or not it will work is based on attitude and willingness to do so."

--It's my understanding that the hit rate is still only about 20%, so something is still amiss, and I don't think that most folks don't want to hit what they are shooting at.

"Actually, there are several newer studies on similar situations that are just as good. Plus, of course, that police combat situations are not the same as non-LEO defensive situations."

--Got links, dates, names, places?

"And of course, police firearms training wasn't very good at the time...... it was changed into training in which people would actually use the sights, given that poor training and point shooting caused a dismal hit percentage."

--Again, it's my understanding that the hit rate is still only about 20%, so something is still amiss, and I don't think that most folks don't want to hit what they are shooting at.


I realize my experience in real life shootings is not a case study, however:

In the last three OIS I have been closely associated with / present for:

1: Suspect was shot from 90 yards away by an Officer who was standing unsupported. 4 rounds fired, 3 rounds hit (rifle).

2. Suspect was shot from 5 yards by an Officer as the suspect drove away. 16 rounds fired, 14 rounds hit the vehicle (pistol).

3. Suspect was shot from 35 yards while shooting at the Officer. 1 round fired, 1 hit (pistol).

Those are damn good hit rates.



--Re your comment on the loss of near vision in CQB situations, you say:

"No. That is flatly incorrect."

--Science says that in a CQ life threat situation, our "Fight or Flight" response kicks in automatically and instinctively. One result is a dump of adrenaline into the blood stream which causes the cilliary muscle of the eye to relax and the lens of the eye to flatten which enhances far vision to focus on the threat, and at the expense of near vision which is needed to focus on the sights. And the lens stays "flat" until the adrenaline is flushed from one's system.



I can vividly recall my clear sight picture and my suspect with her 12" kitchen knife standing up and moving towards my partner as I pulled the slack out of my trigger and watched my hammer retract to the rear. I can also firmly recall stepping in front of my partner who had moved in front of me so that I would still have priority of shot since I had made the decision to shoot.

In a separate OIS I clearly watched the suspect raise his weapon at my partners and get hit multiple times, fall to the ground, and start his death roll. I also remember seeing a bright flash from another partner of mine as he approached the subject and instinctively activated his flashlight.



--The reason I commented here, is that people keep putting out the same old, same old, with no proof or facts to back it up.

Ask and ye shall receive.

[JB326]

I can recall an AAR that I got to sit in on one time where the officer involved stated that he focused on his front sight so hard during the encounter that he later remembered thinking to himself "I don't remember that knick in my front sight being there!"

Not scientific, but there is another case for you.

[jthhapkido]

Per jthhapkido:

"Hitting what one is shooting at is marksmanship, and whether or not it will work is based on attitude and willingness to do so."

--It's my understanding that the hit rate is still only about 20%, so something is still amiss, and I don't think that most folks don't want to hit what they are shooting at.

....so doesn't that part about "not wanting to hit what they are shooting at" have to do with attitude and willingness?

As for the hit rate, that rather depends on where you get your study.



"Actually, there are several newer studies on similar situations that are just as good. Plus, of course, that police combat situations are not the same as non-LEO defensive situations."

--Got links, dates, names, places?

Search is your friend. Matter of fact, on this forum several have been given recently, and we've had some good discussions of them.

[snip]



--Re your comment on the loss of near vision in CQB situations, you say:

"No. That is flatly incorrect."

--Science says that in a CQ life threat situation, our "Fight or Flight" response kicks in automatically and instinctively. One result is a dump of adrenaline into the blood stream which causes the cilliary muscle of the eye to relax and the lens of the eye to flatten which enhances far vision to focus on the threat, and at the expense of near vision which is needed to focus on the sights. And the lens stays "flat" until the adrenaline is flushed from one's system.


True, if you understand what "near" and "far" vision means for these statements in terms of actual distances. In addition, there is an important and non-subtle difference between "harder to do" and "impossible to do". Your statement said impossible, which is flatly incorrect.



--The reason I commented here, is that people keep putting out the same old, same old, with no proof or facts to back it up.

Yes, some people certainly do.

As has been said, if you want a thread on point shooting, you should start one. (Please, by all means do so.)

[5shot]

Thanks for your comments.

Did not plan on a highjack here.

Will make a search on Point Shooting and go from there. Thought I had made a quick check.

As to my comment, I felt it was appropriate.

As to vision, I stated: "Also, in CQ life threat situations, our "Fight or Flight" response will kick in according to science, and that will result in the loss of near vision which is needed for focusing on the sights."

Perhaps I should have added the word defensive. Sorry about that.

[Dropkick]

One unique aspect of firearms are that they allow the physically feeble to defend themselves against disproportionate threats.

Of course it would be wonderful if all able-bodied adults lifted weights, ran, trained in MMA, and all the other things that people "should be doing" besides worrying about the fantasy camp gun stuff... except there are 95 lb. women, 87 year old men, and people confined to wheelchairs who might raise an eyebrow when someone advises them to take up knife-fighting and krav maga so that they can be "well-rounded".

I think it is safe to suggest that "gun fighting" has some unique aspects to it not directly applicable to fighting with body parts or contact weapons.

I've seen a number of 95 lb. women at self defense classes. In talking with some of them, they're typically there because they know the dangers are real. None of them expect to be able to walk into an octagon and wreck house, but many gain the confidence and a technique or two to fight back if they have to.

Could they (or anyone else) buy a gun? Of course, I think it's important that people have a way to protect themselves against violent criminals. However, regardless of your physical ability I'm of the opinion that you shouldn't rely on just self defense skills or a just firearm. (or just verbal defusing, knife fighting, krav, etc...) Anyone should be able to have a Plan A and Plan B.

Just wanted to steer this thread back on track...

[John Hearne]

--It's my understanding that the hit rate is still only about 20%, so something is still amiss, and I don't think that most folks don't want to hit what they are shooting at..."And of course, police firearms training wasn't very good at the time...... it was changed into training in which people would actually use the sights, given that poor training and point shooting caused a dismal hit percentage."

I once asked the head of the FTU of a major department about the hit rate of his officers. He immediately rolled his eyes and cringed. He related that their hit rate was being "screwed up" by the poor performance of a few officers. He said that he'd get several shootings where his officers fired 2-3 rounds and got their hits. Then he'd have an idiot who would dump a magazine and not hit anything. When you ran the numbers, the hit rate wasn't impressive but he was very pleased with the performance of the majority of his officers.

The last I heard, the Metro Division of LAPD consistently generated a hit rate around 80%. Of course, these are officers selected for their willingness to go out and confront bad guys and they put rounds downrange every 30 days.

[Kravur]

Training to "fight with a gun" involves emphasizing manipulating the gun in a manner that promotes heads up awareness and integrating the handgun into an overall defensive skills program.
Basically training the mind to see things from a fighting perspective in addition to a pure shooting skills perspective.
Examples are:

Performing manipulations at eye level rather than at chest or belt buckle level. These methods aren't only faster and more positive, they also help you maintain awareness of your surroundings.
Drawing the gun up to the pecs and then punching out rather than in a straight line from holster to extension. Basically retention position "press out" vs. pure competition speed IPSC draw.
Immediate action drills vs. the old aim in a safe direction and wait 30 seconds before assessing a malfunction.
Shooting on the move and from compromised positions.


This is 'fighting with a gun'. I consider the term to be just that, a term. It defines a type of technique used in pistol manipulation. My opinion is, if your shooting just to have fun and do not carry a pistol for self defense, shoot how you want. If you compete then use the technique that gets you the quickest speed and so on. But if you train to carry and carry for self defense.... this is how that person should train. This technique will save your life and the lives of others if the situation ever arises. Because these are the quick muscle memory fundamentals that you will retain unknowingly while under stress. This is how I train. I train for the unexpected.

[Mitchell, Esq.]

One unique aspect of firearms are that they allow the physically feeble to defend themselves against disproportionate threats.

Of course it would be wonderful if all able-bodied adults lifted weights, ran, trained in MMA, and all the other things that people "should be doing" besides worrying about the fantasy camp gun stuff... except there are 95 lb. women, 87 year old men, and people confined to wheelchairs who might raise an eyebrow when someone advises them to take up knife-fighting and krav maga so that they can be "well-rounded".

I think it is safe to suggest that "gun fighting" has some unique aspects to it not directly applicable to fighting with body parts or contact weapons.

After taking ECQC and getting worked over (and shot...sometimes with my own gun...) by a few of the people who were less physically able than I was, I feel they whole "He's not able to do the physical stuff..." thing holds less water as it did last week for me.

Yes, being a big, strong, weight-lifting-cardio-maxing velociraptor is great...And some people have hard & fast physical limits that they cannot overcome and thus, must work around...

But motivation to win, and the grit to JUST DO IT do it to me landed me on my back, legs held and lit up with a sim's gun with brutal efficiency.

Sometimes the people you don't think will do you are just stone cold committed, and that's that.

Physicality is an important attribute - but not the determining attribute.

That's will.

Will by itself is nothing.

Will made manifest by mindset, practice and just sheer mean attitude got me shot in the ass by people who "on paper" quite possibly shouldn't have been able to do it.

So...like I said, I know some people have hard limits, and have to work within that.

Others need to push their limits, because they may be self imposed, and the iron wall you see may just be tinfoil.

[Jay Cunningham]

I've also taken ECQC.

[LOKNLOD]

The weapon is the tool that enables the user's will to become the determining factor even when physical attributes would otherwise render will alone insufficient.

[phil_in_cs]

After taking ECQC and getting worked over (and shot...sometimes with my own gun...) by a few of the people who were less physically able than I was, I feel they whole "He's not able to do the physical stuff..." thing holds less water as it did last week for me.

Yes, being a big, strong, weight-lifting-cardio-maxing velociraptor is great...And some people have hard & fast physical limits that they cannot overcome and thus, must work around...

But motivation to win, and the grit to JUST DO IT do it to me landed me on my back, legs held and lit up with a sim's gun with brutal efficiency.

Sometimes the people you don't think will do you are just stone cold committed, and that's that.

Physicality is an important attribute - but not the determining attribute.

That's will.

Will by itself is nothing.

Will made manifest by mindset, practice and just sheer mean attitude got me shot in the ass by people who "on paper" quite possibly shouldn't have been able to do it.

So...like I said, I know some people have hard limits, and have to work within that.

Others need to push their limits, because they may be self imposed, and the iron wall you see may just be tinfoil.

Very good post. I see in ECQC (and am taking it again this weekend) that strength and speed are very useful, but will never be the solution, any more than a blazingly fast draw stroke or a specific pistol or holster will be the solution. I am 49, and I will never over power some people, and will gas quicker than some. I need to be as strong as I can be, and have as much endurance as I can, but that's only a part of the problem.

[Shawn.L]

Very good post. I see in ECQC (and am taking it again this weekend) that strength and speed are very useful, but will never be the solution, any more than a blazingly fast draw stroke or a specific pistol or holster will be the solution. I am 49, and I will never over power some people, and will gas quicker than some. I need to be as strong as I can be, and have as much endurance as I can, but that's only a part of the problem.

My TKD instructor , Master Moore, back when I did TKD would tell us "Technique can overcome strength , and sometimes strength can overcome technique, but nothing beats both."

For the original question,


What is "fighting with a gun"?

The above phrase has become the de rigueur descriptor in AARs and recommendations when attempting to make the point of differentiating from "square range" or "competition/gun game" training.

But what does that phrase actually mean in a training environment? What does training to "fight with a gun" look like compared to training that does not claim to teach you to "fight with a gun"?

"fighting with a gun" is like "eating with chopsticks" :) Its eating, where chopsticks are present. You can eat without chopsticks, and you can also eat with a fork. So as well you can fight without a gun, and also fight with a fork :cool:

Ive trained with guys who denigrate "gamer bullshit" , but have never been in a real gunfight , who will tell you at length what one is like and why their techniques are the best. Ive trained with snake oil salesmen who go on at length on the topic. Ive also trained with real deal dudes who have done what they teach. So the word mean very little, It stands to reason if you want to sell training to guys who want to use a gun you sell it to them packaged as what they want to use it for.

The difference to me between training that actually is about using the gun as a weapon vs not ?
Are the techniques presented ones that are optimized for a fight, or to beat a drill/stage/test ? And sometimes those are not separate things. If one wants to teach how to kill a IPSC stage, and how to kill people, both need to teach a majority of the same subject, they may just package differently based on their background, their customer base, their beliefs, or some combination.

[Jay Cunningham]

2016 Post-PFestivus Necro Bump!

[JustOneGun]

Often it is pure marketing or trying to answer two questions as one.

If we take most of our time thinking about what the fight actually will be over the usual range of: why, distance, # of bullets, type of movements involved, etc, that would be a good start (note I didn't mean the average gunfight as that answers nothing for our purposes.)

Then we look at what and why there are fights outside of that range. We could then come up with how to train for the usual or non-usual fight that is simplified, efficient as it needs to be and effective.

If we are correct in the above isn't the answer to: "How to fight with the gun" actually, "How to train for my gunfight?"

If we take the marketing in the pure form we end up training for every fight that has ever occurred. We end up trying to make the easy gains on a wide range of martial arts that simply makes most people (certainly me) say, why would I want to live that way?

ETA: man I am not firing on all cylinders these last few days. I have now posted on a 2011 post and walked in to PFestivus. Sheesh...

[LostDuke]

2016 Post-PFestivus Necro Bump!

Thank you, I enjoyed reading this thread, some really interesting information I wouldn't have found otherwise.