Ken Hackathorn-Retention Shooting Drill

[Amp]

Ken Hackathorn demonstrates the proper techniques for shooting from retention against an enemy in close quarters distance.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GTElyFYMpc

[UNM1136]

Here we go again....


pat

[M2CattleCo]

Alrighty then.

[HCM]

There is a lot of valid concepts in the old school “Cooper/Gunsite/Weaver” program but retention shooting and the speed rock are not among them.

The stuff they could pressure test in competition tends to be the most valid. As opposed to this which is something someone came up with but was not really pressure teated until things like simmunitions and FIST suits became a thing.

At 3 yards bringing the gun to eye level is more efficient when you put it on the clock. At closer distances making space before drawing or shooting from the closer / high pec / #2 if you can’t make space (in that order) both work better.

[runcible]

https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?37543-Shooting-from-Retention has a bit of a deeper dive into things, albeit with some digressions.

The speed rock is garbage on the firing line and borderline unsafe in FOF even in a padded environment; there’s just such a high chance of falling from even a slight impact with how most bow their hips forward and roll their shoulders back in preparation of firing. It works alright if the shooter can walk rounds on target and if a no-contact rule is in effect; but if your UOF/ROE frown upon frivolous risk to teammates and non-threats and your opponents are inclined to make any sort of physical contact, you may find your needs better suited by other techniques.

Honestly, enough people trip themselves trying to pull it off dry much less with sims with even a bit of closing the distance by a role player, that I cannot recommend it in conscience.

Shooting from the “bent elbow position” by any name is just an exercise in frustrating fictions. On the range with even slight extension it wrecks targets, with even the slightest deviation of target height or shooter orientation it’s points lost; and the only place it has in FOF is highlighting when the whole thing is being undertaken with a flawed premise (e.g. someone fires from the bent-elbow in response to a close-quarters assault and the RP doesn’t immediately take the simgun from them, and you have demonstrable fantasy).

[Wingate's Hairbrush]

...At closer distances making space before drawing or shooting from the closer / high pec / #2 if you can’t make space (in that order) both work better.I know high pec from southnarc videos; what "the closer" and #2?

[HCM]

I know high pec from southnarc videos; what "the closer" and #2?

That is AutoCorrect or predictive text.

Basically just trying to say if you can make space inside 3 yards.

If you can’t, and have to shoot from closer distances, then the high pec/#2 position (different names for the same thing) is preferable to the speed rock/old-school low retention position.

[runcible]

WHB,

Thumb-Pectoral Index: the high/compressed close quarters shooting technique associated with folks like Paul Gomez and Craig Douglas, so called because of the nexus of the shooting-hand’s thumb and the associated pectoral muscle for a consistent physical and digital reference.

TPI: shorthand for the above

#2: the place within the adapted drawstroke wherein the TPI is asserted.

[ST911]

I'm a big fan of Bill Rapier's thoughts and methods on retention shooting as taught in his pistol combatives course(s): https://www.amtacshooting.com/.

[ST911]

Which are?

Looks like someone else posted a video link. I believe that voodoo_man has reduced some of that content to writing as well via his AARs of Bill's classes. Those are all good for a preview, but they're aren't the full context and color of the class experience.

[voodoo_man]

Bill's instruction on retention shooting is easily the best I've seen, that's because it's based in combative applications. I would highly recommend getting into one of his combatives classes as he does entire live fire and dry/FoF retention combatives blocks.

[Cory]

WHB,

Thumb-Pectoral Index: the high/compressed close quarters shooting technique associated with folks like Paul Gomez and Craig Douglas, so called because of the nexus of the shooting-hand’s thumb and the associated pectoral muscle for a consistent physical and digital reference.

TPI: shorthand for the above

#2: the place within the adapted drawstroke wherein the TPI is asserted.

In other context, TPI is also short for Total Protection Interactive. The forum run by Craig Douglas and the Shivworks guys. Not incredibly active, but a ridiculous amount of information. The signal to noise may actually be better than PF, but it doesn't go as in depth on pistol shooting like PF, and is nowhere near as active.

-Cory

[ViniVidivici]

I've learned alot from Ken Hackathorn over the years, and I most certainly honor his service.

But that technique is inferior in my opinion. That video makes him look real bad. No-Go.

It does not adress bad breath distance retention shooting.

I too prefer combatives oriented techniques. Hell, I practice hittin' the bag once or twice and drawing. Forcing my way "into" the bag and drawing. Hit, step off the X, draw. etc.

Been practicing the "Shivworks method" alot, and it works very well. TPI is excellent, as stated above, when doing searches, especially with a light in hand.

That video in the OP strikes me as outdated.

[HCM]

^^^I like that dude. I especially like his attitude around feeding energy into an opponent. That said, the anchor point he uses strikes me as last gen tech. I have been convinced by our resident combatives guys that it is *entirely* possible to miss someone that you are physically entangled/in contact with using that technique. JMO.

The reference to “feeding” the opponent Is a reference to taking and maintaining the initiative in a fight. Whether the strikes hit or not they are keeping your opponent occupied as you bring the weapon in to play

Kyle Defoor addresses being the feeder vs the receiver in his mindset lecture.




https://youtu.be/4vPCqMo9TCg

[Clusterfrack]

The Hackathorn video was hard to watch. It's a good reminder for us all that technique evolves. We likely won't be doing things the same way in 5 years, let alone in 15. The older a person gets, the more risk that they are out of date--unless they keep current and keep learning. It's true of everyone--and is especially important for SMEs or has-been SMEs because of the influence they have.

Ken has clearly seen modern retention shooting techniques because he mentions (I thought a bit dismissively) using the support arm as a cage to protect the head. Wilson Combat sponsors Mike Seeklander (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VNOWjzdAUQ), who I am confident wouldn't advocate anything close to what we saw in the video. It appears that Ken thinks he doesn't need to keep updating his skills. That's disappointing, embarrassing for him and Wilson, and dangerous for anyone who follows his lead.

[Totem Polar]

The reference to “feeding” the opponent Is a reference to taking and maintaining the initiative in a fight. Whether the strikes hit or not they are keeping your opponent occupied as you bring the weapon in to play

Kyle Defoor addresses being the feeder vs the receiver in his mindset lecture.


Copy copy.


The Hackathorn video was hard to watch. It's a good reminder for us all that technique evolves. We likely won't be doing things the same way in 5 years, let alone in 15. The older a person gets, the more risk that they are out of date--unless they keep current and keep learning. It's true of everyone--and is especially important for SMEs or has-been SMEs because of the influence they have.

My .02: Hackathorn has absolutely and conclusively, beyond a doubt earned the right to not GAF, across multiple interrelated professions. He was shooting people when I was a zygote.

That said, he should have passed on doing that video. I agree that the tech is outside the expiry date. JMHO.

Now, with THAT said, there’s something to be said for deep archival/institutional memory, in context.

[John Hearne]

I think it's important to remember that the guys who gave rise to the Modern Technique were all accomplished point shooters. People don't appreciate that Jeff Cooper was an accomplish point shooter. Jeff could hit 1x2's, reliably, on the first shot from the holster. Jeff abandoned point shooting as a primary shooting method. In the early days of Gunsite, point shooting was still taught but it was part of the 599 course. Jeff concluded that the most efficient way to hit quickly with the pistol was two-handed, eye level shooting. Point shooting was something that took a lot of time to develop and it was something for later in one's development.

If you grew up point shooting, you had a deep realization for how fast it could be. I spoke with Elden Carl last year and he still thought that for close range work, shooting with the gun just above the holster was the way to go. From speaking with others familiar with the early days, it seems likely that the speed rock was the old guys not wanting to abandon the speed of their established point shooting up close. It seems likely that the speed rock was an attempt to make sure the rounds struck in the A zone. In the early days, there was a steel target with an 8" circle high in the chest. The student had to palm strike the target and then fire a round through the hole. If you didn't hit the hole, you'd eat some splatter so leaning back was a way to aim with the whole body.

Since the speed rock seems to have been developed in a sterile range environment, we now know of better ways to deal with the close quarters problem. Once you accept the fact that it is more important to have the support hand in play than to have perfect shot placement then shooting from Craig's #2 makes a lot more sense.

I look at Hackathorn as a preservationist who can shed light on the evolution of technique. A lot of his comments and techniques are the same used by traditional point shooters.

[HCM]

The Hackathorn video was hard to watch. It's a good reminder for us all that technique evolves. We likely won't be doing things the same way in 5 years, let alone in 15. The older a person gets, the more risk that they are out of date--unless they keep current and keep learning. It's true of everyone--and is especially important for SMEs or has-been SMEs because of the influence they have.

Ken has clearly seen modern retention shooting techniques because he mentions (I thought a bit dismissively) using the support arm as a cage to protect the head. Wilson Combat sponsors Mike Seeklander (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VNOWjzdAUQ), who I am confident wouldn't advocate anything close to what we saw in the video. It appears that Ken thinks he doesn't need to keep updating his skills. That's disappointing, embarrassing for him and Wilson, and dangerous for anyone who follows his lead.

This sort of thing is why I was always so impressed with Pat Rogers and hope emulate his attitude as I age out. He was a contemporary of Hackathorn but remained an advocate for “if there’s a better way let’s find it /test it.” He was, for example an early advocate of red dots on carbines when “serious” people were poo-pooing them the way Hackathorn and others like him poo-poo red dots on handguns.

[YVK]

Vickers was teaching this same stuff when I took a class with him. Time flies, it was 12 years ago. Hard to say who got it from whom, Vickers from Hack, or Hack from Vickers. Even harder to say if somebody has tried to ever use it for real, or it is just purely a square range invention. Not that it really matters.

[HCM]

Vickers was teaching this same stuff when I took a class with him. Time flies, it was 12 years ago. Hard to say who got it from whom, Vickers from Hack, or Hack from Vickers. Even harder to say if somebody has tried to ever use it for real, or it is just purely a square range invention. Not that it really matters.

It is older than either one of them. It’s something my agency and associated agencies like the border patrol have taught for decades. When we pressure tested it with Sims and FIST suits it was a pretty resounding failure. My money is on it being a square range invention.

Take a look at Bill Jordan’s book no second place winner and you will see the same basic techniques. Up until a few years ago the CHP was teaching the stuff for use out to 7 yards.

[Hambo]

That said, he should have passed on doing that video.

Agreed, but these days there is pressure to put out content.

FWIW Ken was never averse to new technology. He was running Aimpoints on ARs before they were common. He would go on about guys gaming matches, but he was right there with them looking for advantages. That said, I think his best video contributions are about history and evolution of firearms, competition, and training.

[JJN]

It was nice to see a well-articulated explanation of the technique and the theory behind it. If I lean towards one idea, technique, or theory I like to have the best possible understanding of all the possible avenues. It is interesting that at p-f, the dominant theory is the one coming through the Craig Douglas school-of-thought, and the Cooper lineage retention shooting is the outside idea. In the rest of the gun world, that is inverted. One thing I've noticed about a contrarian minority opinion (e.g. Austrian Economics) is that they minority tends to know the theory and lineage of the majority theory much better than the majority can articulate the minority position.

[Clusterfrack]

When you need to have your ass kicked and get shot in the taint with sims to understand why, maybe that keeps people ignorant?

[Clusterfrack]

Outstanding video just posted by Craig on this topic:

https://www.facebook.com/384993038366814/posts/1197877603745016?vh=e&sfns=mo

[Moylan]

I'm curious about the various lineage-type thoughts that are cropping up in this thread. I know that Hackathorn worked at Gunsite for awhile and was pretty close with Cooper. Is that why the modern technique and Cooper keep getting mentioned here?

I've got a couple of books by Gabe Suarez. The first one is The Tactical Pistol (1996), which has an introduction by LTC Cooper. On p. 95, Suarez demonstrates a retention shooting position that isn't all that different from Douglas's. It's not full-blown thumb-pectoral index. The gun is a little lower, but it's not extended out in front of him like in Hackathorn's technique, and it's not canted out away from his body with the magwell doing the indexing like in the Bill Rapier method linked earlier in the thread. So it's quite similar to Douglas's technique.

On page 96 of that book, there are a couple of pictures of the Speed Rock with some words of very faint praise--roughly, Suarez says you might want to do this if you can't move. He does not present it as a good close-range shooting technique. The chapter is really all about moving. In his book Tactical Pistol Marksmanship (2001), he writes up a scathing indictment of the speed rock (136-137) and again demonstrates a kind of Douglas-esque retention shooting position. (138) I know Suarez is "controversial" and such, and I'm not interested in a debate about his merits as a trainer or as a human being, but it's interesting to me that a straight-up Cooper disciple who later developed into a Glock-shooting isosceles guy doesn't seem to have passed through a phase of doing anything like what Hackathorn demonstrates in his video.

Anyway, I guess I'm just rambling, but the point, if there is one, is that I'm interested in the lines of development here. They seem muddy to me. Is this all going to be in Karl Rehn's book? When can I buy that?

[Moylan]

Outstanding video just posted by Craig on this topic:

https://www.facebook.com/384993038366814/posts/1197877603745016?vh=e&sfns=mo

Hm. What could have prompted such a post? :)

[Paul Sharp]

I dig it. Ken Hackathorn is a wealth of information, he's showing his way to solve this problem. As Craig says, we teach a way not THE way. In a world of good, better, best I think what we do is best otherwise we'd be teaching something else.

What I'd really like to talk to Mr Hackathorn about is what we see happening with the pistol at the 7.36 mark. That 45 sits fairly flat, and snaps right back in line. That's some good stuff right there.

[Totem Polar]

Outstanding video just posted by Craig on this topic:

https://www.facebook.com/384993038366814/posts/1197877603745016?vh=e&sfns=mo

Man, he’s not holding any trade secrets back in that clip; that’s a slice of the great info and polished presentation that alumni pay for, repeatedly. That short vid is this week’s free lunch...

[victran]

[Kind of] stopped taking his advice on combatives when he reccomended a laser grip alone was suffice for low light application of a pistol...

[Surf]

A bit dated, but knowledge is based on accepted best practices of that time frame.

A more modern approach for close distance, as depicted in this video (3 yards ish), might preferably be a higher nearer line of sight draw, with a two-handed muzzle flat index. Allowing for excellent two-handed retention and two-handed shooting with the ability to press straight to the target as the situation dictates or to quickly retract into a one-handed body index.

For a truer close to contact distance, for many years, we have been using and teaching variations based on what you see in SouthNarcs video. We also teach it in a similar CWR progression, that is compartmentalized in the early phases for safety, progressing into various iterations of training live fire and via Simunition in FoF.

In addition, we will move from a support hand index on the sternum, to a spear elbow utilized for offense or defense and a variety of other support arm clinch techniques. Being aware of body parts and index is important obviously and the progression of training from live to FoF is key. While we think we are pretty up to date on our technique and methodology, I would look to guys like Craig and Paul here when it comes to the Recent, Relevant, and most Realistic approaches today.

[Jamie]

This is a respectful and excellent discussion of the kind I really appreciate, and have come to expect, here at P-F.

Surf, good post.
What you describe in paragraph 2 is what Paul Gomez taught to us, as members of his Baton Rouge Training Group, back from 2002-2005 while I was still in the area. Paul taught us contextual positions as they related to situations and distance (I take it as #3 position from your description). Of course Craig coming over to Paul's "Boat Port" and working with us really opened the door.

I was exposed to similar techniques as Mr. Hackathorn demonstrates while at Gunsite in the early 90's... not taught in class, but hanging out at Hershel's in the evenings with a few other guys. While we as a shooting/training community have grown an incredible amount since, thanks to luminaries (like Craig and the Shivworks collective), it's also good to understand the contextual lineage imho.

While I'm old and wearing down and my training is not as "Recent, Relevant, and Realistic" (I can hear Craig saying that LOL) as it once was, I continue to learn thanks to excellent discussions here.

[Randy Harris]

Lets get this out of the way to start with....I have mad respect for what Hack has done over the course of his teaching career and his influence in the training community....which goes deeper than many realize......but having said that....

The methodology he is showing in the video is arguably not "awful"..... IF the target is outside of 2 arms length and is NOT closing the distance (and I said arguably). He seems to be operating in some "in between" area that exists in the land of unarmed stationary cardboard targets and is rarely seen in the land of armed moving adversaries. If he is close enough to keep you from going to 3/4 or full extension in your normal draw stroke but he is not close enough to grab it if your elbow is in your stomach then that is a VERY narrow window of time and space. Honestly, if the BG is at 3 yards and stationary then we should be seeing sights not shooting from "1/2 hip" (and don't try to tell me it is too slow.....)

Now.... if the BG is at 2 arms length - 2 yards- then the "elbow in stomach" still extends the gun far enough that it can still be slapped away or grabbed in under a second. Think about reach, how fast hands can move and how long a step is and apply that to the 2 arm length distance. Even better, grab yourself a blue gun and a partner and see just how fast that distance is covered. How quickly can you cover 1/2 a yard? The distance there is ONLY 1/2 step from an extended hand touching the other guy. So within a half step a gun held in the "Jelly Bryce" position is still being served up for being slapped out of the way or grabbed. And that is something that will NEVER be obvious to you if you are simply keeping the range safe from recalcitrant cardboard and not rolling with live opponents.

If the BG is inside 2 arms length then firing from the #2 still scores hits on him and does it while allowing you to use your off hand to fend without shooting a hole through your palm. OK, so they are not COM hits. OK. I can live with that because they are not the end... they are the beginning. They are "tenderizers" that help us retake the initiative , gain better position and then finish with sighted fire into high value target areas if still needed. And besides, nobody ENJOYS getting shot in the thighs, groin and lower abdominal area......"well...one guy did but he died" .

If they are OUTSIDE 2 arms length we can simply go to our standard draw stroke #3 position and get 2 hands on it. No need to use a "draw stroke deviation" and stick your elbow where it never goes in your normal draw stroke. And if you will simply move laterally ONE big step you have now gotten out from directly in front of him, turned 2 arms length into 3 arms length and from here you can (unimpeded) get the gun up in eye line, extended and bust a grape just like it was 3 yards away...because now it is almost 3 yards away. Tactical Geometry.

Again, I'm not disparaging Hack's life's work, I'm merely stating that extreme close range state of the art 1970 is not state of the art 2020 and we just have learned so much more about extreme close range and entangled pistol fighting in the last 20 years (and even more so the last 15) than we were able to learn and experiment with in the days before Sims/airsoft and NOK trainers were widely available. We learn more about the interpersonal dynamics of gun fighting by shooting live adversaries with fake guns than we are going to learn by shooting fake adversaries with live guns. So plan and train accordingly. I can use virtually any technique and still dominate angry cardboard...not as much works well against a live resisting opponent.

[DueSpada]

Whatever the specific technique, I posit that gunfighting at spittin' and scratchin' range be the first taught and default scenario. This because being jumped before you know what's going on can shut you right down.
What say ye?

[UNM1136]

Whatever the specific technique, I posit that gunfighting at spittin' and scratchin' range be the first taught and default scenario. This because being jumped before you know what's going on can shut you right down.
What say ye?

While nice in theory, it avoids the crawl/walk/run approach. Whole schools of point shooting have sprung up, that may work for some, but not really for all, or even most. It is, in my opinion, better to drill the fundamentals, then introduce the more difficult stuff. There is a reason SouthNarc wants you to come to his class with basic skills/knowledge. I'm not saying you have to be an A class shooter to benefit from close quarters training. You need a basic level of training to safely conduct the training. You do need a good bit of trigger time to adapt to the muzzle blast of close quarters shooting. I was shooting the ECQC head on the cardboard drill when an experienced shooter next to me kept announcing "someone is shooting major", referring to me using my .45ACP duty piece to the rest of the classes assorted 9mms. From the muzzle blast, one lane away. I had more muzzle blast being right on top of it. This is a specialized kind of shooting, and while likely more applicable than 25-50 yard bullseye stuff, it needs to be undertaken by someone with a bit of safe handling time.

Maybe in 20 years I will be proven wrong about this, but I am not sure...

pat

[ViniVidivici]

Indeed, the kind shooting we're discussing here, retention shooting, whether integrated with combatives or not, is advanced.

Alot of proficiency in fundamentals of pistol shooting needs to be learned before this.

[runcible]

A conclusion that I drew after my first private-sector class in 2010, was that it doesn’t cost extra to teach to a high standard and with progressive methodology from the very beginning. It takes just about as much time to teach a stale curriculum as to teach something more nuanced, given common learning objectives.

My follow-on conclusion down the road, is that it in fact saves time down the road when the frame of reference expands to include follow-on student development, rates and time-commitments for shooter remediation, and “adaptation” training blocks to “translate” from orthodox/single-discipline shooting to shooting within an expanded and interdisciplinary context.

As relates to the “zero to three foot gunfight” (verbiage: Craig Douglas), the mechanics don’t cost any to teach from the very beginning. The related learning blocks that aren’t range-centric, that absolutely make the methodology and requirements self-evident, do have an additional time commitment entailed - but given the limits for how hard you can really run baseline folks in continuous range training before physical/mental/focal burnout blunts continued learning, and how many training programs alternate venues to accommodate just such a reality; I’m inclined to think that such additional time doesn’t count against the total. It has to be spent regardless, given DT/DM/CT/whatever requirements, it might as well have a complimentary scheduling and conducive content.

With all of that said, I think there’s benefit to the shooting portion not being wholly tunneled in on the ECQC-target, for the same reasons: scale of reference. The adapted draw-stroke is a 100% shoe-in with no cost but getting Instructor and student buy-in. To apply periodicity in the context of shooting skill development, from time and time that draw stroke is going to have to terminate in a 25yd or greater shot, and other such variations working outside of the scope of the entangled shooting problem.

[BigT]

Whatever the specific technique, I posit that gunfighting at spittin' and scratchin' range be the first taught and default scenario. This because being jumped before you know what's going on can shut you right down.
What say ye?

We should be teaching the skills most likely to be required in order. So after "no shooting yourself and other by accident" next priority would be being able to draw rapidly and make fight stopping hits at a car length. Because historically that seems most typical.