Viability of Pieing

[KEW8338]

Long time listener, first time caller:

There seems to be some trends in the current training of singleton movement internal to structures for reducing risk through the utilization of pieing thresholds. Quite a few places preach the "weaponized geometry" or lack of belief in the fatal funnel, for driving their approach to this problem.

Is this actually viable, practical, effective or efficient?

Some concerns I have are:
-Stance/posture/positioning seemed to be built around mitigation of being seen / "seeing more" vice being ready for a fight
-Ability to deliver effective fire is sacrificed through the use of single hand pistol employment
-Mistaking cover and concealment

Curious as to anyone's thoughts on the subject.

Thanks

[Odin Bravo One]

Never heard of her.

But given the amount of dumb shit I’ve seen and heard come from people you’d think should know better, I wouldn’t be surprised that this is a thing.

[TGS]

Long time listener, first time caller:

There seems to be some trends in the current training of singleton movement internal to structures for reducing risk through the utilization of pieing thresholds. Quite a few places preach the "weaponized geometry" or lack of belief in the fatal funnel, for driving their approach to this problem.

Is this actually viable, practical, effective or efficient?

Some concerns I have are:
-Stance/posture/positioning seemed to be built around mitigation of being seen / "seeing more" vice being ready for a fight
-Ability to deliver effective fire is sacrificed through the use of single hand pistol employment
-Mistaking cover and concealment

Curious as to anyone's thoughts on the subject.

Thanks

I think you'll need to give a concise definition of what you consider to be cutting the pie or a threshold clear, because nothing I've been taught about such involves one-handed shooting or compromises proper stance....and, absolutely acknowledges the fatal funnel and works to mitigate such dangers....not ignore it.

[KEW8338]

I think you'll need to give a concise definition of what you consider to be cutting the pie or a threshold clear, because nothing I've been taught about such involves one-handed shooting or compromises proper stance....and, absolutely acknowledges the fatal funnel and works to mitigate such dangers....not ignore it.

What is the difference between the two?

There are various examples in this video review of AMIS (https://youtu.be/5AHLOGcNGU0) showing single handed engagements and some exaggerated firing positions.

[HCM]

What is the difference between the two?

There are various examples in this video review of AMIS (https://youtu.be/5AHLOGcNGU0) showing single handed engagements and some exaggerated firing positions.

Skimmed the video. It is apparently not actual video. Rather it is audio with various still photos taken by the person doing the AAR (who doesn’t seem to have much training themselves but good on them for getting into tactics early.

If you listen to the audio when the one handed shooting image first appears the reviewer clearly states they are using a neck index technique with a hand held flashlight.

Also AMIS is at least partially a force on force class with airsoft. I know everyone thinks they’re Billy bad ass but I guarantee if I follow you around taking photos and video as you work through a bunch of force on force evolutions there will be some very “exaggerated” images.

Not sure what your background is in tactics but no one maintains perfect flat range stances while moving /engaging etc. and AMIS is specific to solo tactics vs the team tactics usually practiced in LE/MIL training.

Based on your statements in your OP, you seem to have some fundamental misunderstandings about threshold evaluations which are not going to be addressed in an Internet forum.

Maybe take AMIS from Craig Douglas or Weaponized Geometry (which is a specific course title) from Jon Dufresne?

[KEW8338]

Skimmed the video. It is apparently not actual video. Rather it is audio with various still photos taken by the person doing the AAR (who doesn’t seem to have much training themselves but good on them for getting into tactics early.

If you listen to the audio when the one handed shooting image first appears the reviewer clearly states they are using a neck index technique with a hand held flashlight.

Also AMIS is at least partially a force on force class with airsoft. I know everyone thinks they’re Billy bad ass but I guarantee if I follow you around taking photos and video as you work through a bunch of force on force evolutions there will be some very “exaggerated” images.

Not sure what your background is in tactics but AMIS is also specific to solo tactics vs the team tactics usually practiced in LE/MIL training.

Based on your statements in your OP, you seem to have some fundamental misunderstandings about threshold evaluations which are not going to be addressed in an Internet forum.

Maybe take AMIS from Craig Douglas or Weaponized Geometry from Jon Dufresne?

Does the validation of force on force equate to real world results?

ETA
Threshold evaluations or clearing from the threshold?

[HCM]

Does the validation of force on force equate to real world results?

ETA
Threshold evaluations or clearing from the threshold?

IME yes FOF results both correlate with and improve real world outcomes. Things tend to get “exaggerated” when someone is shooting back.

As for the second, I was trying to politely tell you tactics aren’t an appropriate discussion for open Internet forums.

Security issues aside, tactics are better demonstrated than discussed. The semantics arguments alone make it a pointless exercise.

[KEW8338]

IME yes FOF results both correlate with and improve real world outcomes. Things tend to get “exaggerated” when someone is shooting back.

As for the second, I was trying to politely tell you tactics aren’t an appropriate discussion for open Internet forums.

Security issues aside, tactics are better demonstrated than discussed. The semantics arguments alone make it a pointless exercise.

From a validation using FOF with airsoft/utm/Sims internal to structures leads to a false idea of cover vs concealment. A majority of structures, internally, offer little ballistic protection. But will stop the Sim round of choice.

"Tactics " then get developed based around that. Or at a minimum a false sense of security or effectiveness.

And example being exaggerated stances at thresholds in an attempt to let the door frame eat the Sim rounds.

Additionally, this is the "Tactics" forum in name which is why I brought up tactics.

[HCM]

From a validation using FOF with airsoft/utm/Sims internal to structures leads to a false idea of cover vs concealment. A majority of structures, internally, offer little ballistic protection. But will stop the Sim round of choice.

"Tactics " then get developed based around that. Or at a minimum a false sense of security or effectiveness.

And example being exaggerated stances at thresholds in an attempt to let the door frame eat the Sim rounds.

Additionally, this is the "Tactics" forum in name which is why I brought up tactics.

So then why didn’t you ask that clearly in the OP ? I’m familiar with the argument you are making and don’t buy it for CONUS but it sounds like you already have this all figured out so why bother with playing games ?

Going back to your OP questions:

Some concerns I have are:
-Stance/posture/positioning seemed to be built around mitigation of being seen / "seeing more" vice being ready for a fight -as TGS noted they are not mutually exclusive if done properly. Is this concern based on the AAR you linked ?
-Ability to deliver effective fire is sacrificed through the use of single hand pistol employment in the AAR you linked the single hand fire is due to using a hand held flashlight technique so you are taking this out of context.

-Mistaking cover and concealment - context dictates what is cover vs what is concealment.

[KEW8338]

So then why didn’t you ask that clearly in the OP ? I’m familiar with the argument you are making and don’t buy it for CONUS but it sounds like you already have this all figured out so why bother with playing games ?

Not sure what you mean.

[TGS]

What is the difference between the two?

I didn't say there was a difference between the two. I asked for you to clarify what you're talking about, because I've been taught several techniques of pieing a doorway (aka threshold clear) by multiple organizations and it doesn't sound anything like what you're describing with regards to one handed shooting, putting you in an improper fighting stance, or ignoring the primary danger area.


Based on your statements in your OP, you seem to have some fundamental misunderstandings about threshold evaluations which are not going to be addressed in an Internet forum.

Well said. I'm out.

[WobblyPossum]

OP, what CQB, MOUT, room clearing, etc training have you received or participated in? What’s your background? Your questions and concerns were addressed in much of the training I’ve received, including Craig Douglas’ AMIS.

[DDTSGM]

Long time listener, first time caller:

There seems to be some trends in the current training of singleton movement internal to structures for reducing risk through the utilization of pieing thresholds. Quite a few places preach the "weaponized geometry" or lack of belief in the fatal funnel, for driving their approach to this problem.

Is this actually viable, practical, effective or efficient?

Some concerns I have are:
-Stance/posture/positioning seemed to be built around mitigation of being seen / "seeing more" vice being ready for a fight
-Ability to deliver effective fire is sacrificed through the use of single hand pistol employment
-Mistaking cover and concealment

Curious as to anyone's thoughts on the subject.

Thanks

I'm speaking in general.....IMO a lot of movement techniques seem to be based on either 1) complete stealth - the bad guy doesn't hear you moving; or 2) noise from within the objective covering your movement. Very few folks will be able to approach the threshold/corner and clear w/o being heard if the other parties are focused on listening and looking.

Stance/posture/positioning seemed to be built around mitigation of being seen / "seeing more" vice being ready for a fight Any movement technique, and pieing is movement, is going to be less stable than a stationary stance, so that is a consideration. Unless folks have done a lot of any 'tactical cover/movement' technique with video or another person focused on their location they are likely going to give themselves away by exposing something around the cover/concealment - a foot, a knee, a shoulder cap, muzzle, etc.

-Ability to deliver effective fire is sacrificed through the use of single hand pistol employment there are a lot of folks who use different techniques, it's up to folks to separate the wheat from the chaff. I believe most knowledgeable folks will eschew one-armed firing as a preferred technique. You need to be able to shoot one-handed, though.

-Mistaking cover and concealment I think this is more likely to happen with someone who has a one hour block of training than with someone who has actually trained in the use of cover and concealment. That being said, concealment is often all you have.

Everything you mentioned are, or should be, concerns that are addressed during training or practice.

So, when are you going to introduce your technique?

[Totem Polar]

With nothing else to offer this thread, I will nonetheless throw the following short video clip up as grist for the P-F mill. Glover is obviously a known quantity, high profile personality that he is, with a track record of being both an E8 SOF dude and a GRS green badger. I don’t know Glover, but I do know one of his coaches from the Agency days (as noted in the video), so I’m willing to take his ideas under advisement.

But I’m no expert on any of this. I am, however, interested in “least worst” practices around singleton movement since I have A, never had the distinction of serving on a team and never will, and B, am sort of a misanthropic loner these days anyways.

Since it’s on YT already:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BIz_DhJH7eg

[SouthNarc]

Long time listener, first time caller:

There seems to be some trends in the current training of singleton movement internal to structures for reducing risk through the utilization of pieing thresholds. Quite a few places preach the "weaponized geometry" or lack of belief in the fatal funnel, for driving their approach to this problem.

Is this actually viable, practical, effective or efficient?

Some concerns I have are:
-Stance/posture/positioning seemed to be built around mitigation of being seen / "seeing more" vice being ready for a fight
-Ability to deliver effective fire is sacrificed through the use of single hand pistol employment
-Mistaking cover and concealment

Curious as to anyone's thoughts on the subject.

Thanks

Your point about mistaking cover and concealment is well made and I certainly don't advocate for exchanging with an adversary holding a piece of real estate that doesn't actually stop gunfire.

As far as compromised shooting positions that is indeed something I advocate for in an effort to see someone first. There's a balance between a position that is practiced and developed in open training space and closed real world space. Part of what I encourage people to do is adapt their shooting platform to real world space and then understand the compromises they make. I have a range based portion of AMIS that I actually teach in closed coursework.

On real world feedback I've had my curriculum running since 2006 and it continues to evolve. Clients for closed coursework include the I/C, JSOC, and SOCOM. Most of them seem to find merit in at least some of the curriculum, understanding that everyone has strong opinions on CQB/interior movement.

[KEW8338]

With nothing else to offer this thread, I will nonetheless throw the following short video clip up as grist for the P-F mill. Glover is obviously a known quantity, high profile personality that he is, with a track record of being both an E8 SOF dude and a GRS green badger. I don’t know Glover, but I do know one of his coaches from the Agency days (as noted in the video), so I’m willing to take his ideas under advisement.

But I’m no expert on any of this. I am, however, interested in “least worst” practices around singleton movement since I have A, never had the distinction of serving on a team and never will, and B, am sort of a misanthropic loner these days anyways.

Since it’s on YT already:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BIz_DhJH7eg

Glovers video I think is in contrast to this video, (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kga0ax5Yj8Q) where you see significantly weakened fighting positions in the ploy of utilizing concealment. Vice Glover, that seems more built around fighting at any point time.


So then why didn’t you ask that clearly in the OP ? I’m familiar with the argument you are making and don’t buy it for CONUS but it sounds like you already have this all figured out so why bother with playing games ?

Going back to your OP questions:

Some concerns I have are:
-Stance/posture/positioning seemed to be built around mitigation of being seen / "seeing more" vice being ready for a fight -as TGS noted they are not mutually exclusive if done properly. Is this concern based on the AAR you linked ?
-Ability to deliver effective fire is sacrificed through the use of single hand pistol employment in the AAR you linked the single hand fire is due to using a hand held flashlight technique so you are taking this out of context.

-Mistaking cover and concealment - context dictates what is cover vs what is concealment.

Please see video linked above for clearer example of what I was referencing.

Incoming fire dictates cover vs concealment. A majority of CONUS buildings, internally are concealment.


I didn't say there was a difference between the two. I asked for you to clarify what you're talking about, because I've been taught several techniques of pieing a doorway (aka threshold clear) by multiple organizations and it doesn't sound anything like what you're describing with regards to one handed shooting, putting you in an improper fighting stance, or ignoring the primary danger area.



Well said. I'm out.

What is the tactical decision that leads you to pie a threshold?

I have no idea what a threshold assessment is. Which is why I was asking.





So, when are you going to introduce your technique?

I have none. Hence the questions. Im ruminating in the options

[Erick Gelhaus]

Unless the situation is such that you are comfortable with muzzling everything you're going to illuminate, one hand shooting – one on the handgun & the other using a light separately - will be the norm.

As Craig noted, seeing sooner or earlier is a priority.

If I’m at the point where I am going to enter, then, I’d prefer to see as much of that interior space before crossing the threshold.

Curiosity about your context (of the solo clear) is kind of buggering up my thought process for a response. I was running some limited solo clearing work the other day; however, the focus was on manipulating, using handheld or weapon-mounted lights, and finding/ID'ing threats before moving to two-person runs in that structure – the students were all cops though.

Is your focus on entering & clearing or exiting as safely as possible?

[DDTSGM]

Unless the situation is such that you are comfortable with muzzling everything you're going to illuminate, one hand shooting – one on the handgun & the other using a light separately - will be the norm.

In terms of time devoted to training - which flashlight techniques do you emphasize more - married hand (Rogers, Chapman) or single hand (old FBI, neck index, etc.)? Just curious.

[Erick Gelhaus]

In terms of time devoted to training - which flashlight techniques do you emphasize more - married hand (Rogers, Chapman) or single hand (old FBI, neck index, etc.)? Just curious.

Single hand. Some variation of the FBI technique lets me move the light up, down, either side, etc. And do it while not muzzling areas, people, things that don't need to be.

If my carry gun doesn't have a light, my emphasis would be single hand searching, shooting techniques then into a Harries or similar that works with how you hold the light.

If it has a WML, I'd still emphasize single-hand search & shoot techniques before working into shooting with two hands on the pistol.

Did I answer your question?

[DDTSGM]

Single hand. Some variation of the FBI technique lets me move the light up, down, either side, etc. And do it while not muzzling areas, people, things that don't need to be.

If my carry gun doesn't have a light, my emphasis would be single hand searching, shooting techniques then into a Harries or similar that works with how you hold the light.

If it has a WML, I'd still emphasize single-hand search & shoot techniques before working into shooting with two hands on the pistol.

Did I answer your question?

Yes, thank you. Nice to know what other folks are thinking.

[Cory]

I would suggest re-reading what this man has posted. He is a recognized subject matter expert on this topic.


Your point about mistaking cover and concealment is well made and I certainly don't advocate for exchanging with an adversary holding a piece of real estate that doesn't actually stop gunfire.

As far as compromised shooting positions that is indeed something I advocate for in an effort to see someone first. There's a balance between a position that is practiced and developed in open training space and closed real world space. Part of what I encourage people to do is adapt their shooting platform to real world space and then understand the compromises they make. I have a range based portion of AMIS that I actually teach in closed coursework.

On real world feedback I've had my curriculum running since 2006 and it continues to evolve. Clients for closed coursework include the I/C, JSOC, and SOCOM. Most of them seem to find merit in at least some of the curriculum, understanding that everyone has strong opinions on CQB/interior movement.

I think that is important to realize that a lot of the information on this topic comes from team based environments. Most people who have a solid understanding on this stuff start by learning it during military basic training, SOI, or MP School. The way things are done are often specific to a given team, and a given environment.This stuff is truly best learned in a school house setting where you are being taught fundamentals, practicing a glass house, and then practicing in real buildings, and then going into a culminating event. With a team it takes a lot of work to be able to do it correctly, smoothly, and shoot move and communicate without error. As in weeks of work, all day long. And you'll still have a more than decent chance of getting dead when it's time to go for real.

Now imagine trying to learn how to do this without a team. With no back up. Anyone with a modicum of knowledge will tell you this is a worse scenario. A no shit, worse case event. What you're trying to do is learn how to effectively handle this worse case event. Without a manual based on decades of actual room clearing and combat. Without a school house of learning to be passed on to you. Without experienced cadre. Without glass house training. Without various scenarios presented. Without dry runs on known buildings. Without practice on unknown buildings. Without a culminating event to test you.

I am cheap. I don't pay for information I can find out there for free. And believe me, a ton of it is out there for free. I sponge up a lot of it.

Please believe me, this isn't something you can learn on youtube. Without at least a baseline of knowledge from the team based world to draw on, you won't even be able to tell what sources are trust worthy. I remember people telling me that every "tactical" problem is a room clearing problem. Meaning you can draw from your knowledge of that and apply it to the situation. The inverse is true as well though. A room clearing problem, is every tactical problem. You can not learn it without experiential learning.

[Lost River]

Long time listener, first time caller:

There seems to be some trends in the current training of singleton movement internal to structures for reducing risk through the utilization of pieing thresholds. Quite a few places preach the "weaponized geometry" or lack of belief in the fatal funnel, for driving their approach to this problem.

Is this actually viable, practical, effective or efficient?

Some concerns I have are:
-Stance/posture/positioning seemed to be built around mitigation of being seen / "seeing more" vice being ready for a fight
-Ability to deliver effective fire is sacrificed through the use of single hand pistol employment
-Mistaking cover and concealment

Curious as to anyone's thoughts on the subject.

Thanks


I am just an unejumacaded redneck, so please forgive me, but I have no idea what that means.

[Totem Polar]

Glovers video I think is in contrast to this video, (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kga0ax5Yj8Q) where you see significantly weakened fighting positions in the ploy of utilizing concealment. Vice Glover, that seems more built around fighting at any point time.


A couple of things, just to make sure that everyone is, if not on the same page, in the same book. 1, the guy running the exercise in the vid you linked is Southnarc, who is already participating in this thread.
2, while I don’t know Glover, personally, I do know “Southnarc,” and he is squared away as fuck; one of the best instructors I know—in any discipline.
3, the vid denotes a run on day 1. I have not taken AMIS, but I’ve taken other POI with Craig/SN, and I’m comfortable surmising that runs at the end of day 2 or day 3 look different than day 1. Which is sort of the point.
4, all that said, I wouldn’t personally take 1-handed grips when a 2-handed grip will do just as well in the same arena. JMO. But, hell, maybe Craig woiuld change my mind in class. That has certainly happened before. But my sense is that Craig and Glover are not far apart at all on this, operationally. I bet that their own optimal/least-worst solutions look very similar, because the design constaints of the task demand that the best results will be largely the same, from expert-to-expert.

And with that, I’ll go back to lurking.

[43Under]

I've had the good fortune to take a number of "structure tactics" classes despite being little more than a Joe Schmo. These have included AIT and UDC with Paul Howe, shoot-house with Joe Weyer at Alliance Police Range, Force-on-Force with Practically Tactical at Alliance, and the aforementioned AMIS with Craig Douglas, held at a derelict school in Pittsburgh back in 2016.

ALL were stressful, ALL were great learning experiences. No class that I have EVER taken was more mentally exhausting than AMIS. I still recall sitting down in the hotel after Day 1 to write up some notes and passing out with notebook on my face and all the lights in the room still on.

In my class, there was SOME use of what the OP seems to be describing as "compromised shooting positions" (although, in the video he linked to, I really don't see any compromised shooting positions....since when does shooting one-handed=compromised???). These were mostly used in situations where we could, due to angles of exposure, get the drop on someone and hit them before they could hit us. So if we were flattened against a wall and, due to angles, could see the adversary's foot, kneecap, elbow, whatever, and he could not yet see us, then it was worth it to be able to get a hit on the adversary. Not to sound like a dork, but John Wick does that in the first movie, hitting what the bad guy gives him (foot in that famous nightclub scene). Usually the ranges were quite short and so shooting one-handed was not much of a handicap. Most of what we did was constant adjusting of the two-handed grip, pulling in toward the chest and pressing out, as the situation dictated. And, of course, when we got to low-light and borderline no-light, your light set-up had an effect here (handheld vs. WML, etc.).

As for the cover/concealment issue, I think experience has shown and countless CCTV videos have shown that people TEND to shoot at what they can see, and shooting through walls is rarely done, even by the bad guys (at least in a non-MOUT, more stateside context). I've seen shootouts in clothing stores where people did NOT shoot at their opponents through clothing racks, and instead waited for a visual target.

If you want to read more about my experience in AMIS, feel free to read here:

https://civiliangunfighter.wordpress.com/2016/04/13/aar-shivworks-craig-douglas-armed-movement-in-structures-pittsburgh-pa-49-410-2016/

[KEW8338]

Your point about mistaking cover and concealment is well made and I certainly don't advocate for exchanging with an adversary holding a piece of real estate that doesn't actually stop gunfire.

As far as compromised shooting positions that is indeed something I advocate for in an effort to see someone first. There's a balance between a position that is practiced and developed in open training space and closed real world space. Part of what I encourage people to do is adapt their shooting platform to real world space and then understand the compromises they make. I have a range based portion of AMIS that I actually teach in closed coursework.



To me, pieing, clearing from the threshold etc, largely sets up a shooter for a gunfight through a wall. With a majority of internal walls being concealment the advantage lies with the bad guy. As an example moving up to a breach/threshold, there are only so many places you can be positioned. If that breach/threshold is going into a corner or center fed room, there is substantially more real-estate on the opposing side for a guy to work you from. So the bad guy has a somewhat specific area he can focus his fire on (if it turns into a gun fight through a wall) vice the good guy who has a huge frontage.

If anyone can recall the video of the ATF/FBI guys attempting to make entry on the 2nd floor of the Waco compound. Those guys were getting shot through the wall. Largely because they had very limited space. That limited space was known to the guys doing the shooting. Allowing them to focus their effects on a singular area.

Combine that now, with you are in potentially an unathletic or not good fighting stance. Seems like a bad set up from the ground up



I am just an unejumacaded redneck, so please forgive me, but I have no idea what that means.

Internal to a structure = inside the building



I've had the good fortune to take a number of "structure tactics" classes despite being little more than a Joe Schmo. These have included AIT and UDC with Paul Howe, shoot-house with Joe Weyer at Alliance Police Range, Force-on-Force with Practically Tactical at Alliance, and the aforementioned AMIS with Craig Douglas, held at a derelict school in Pittsburgh back in 2016.

ALL were stressful, ALL were great learning experiences. No class that I have EVER taken was more mentally exhausting than AMIS. I still recall sitting down in the hotel after Day 1 to write up some notes and passing out with notebook on my face and all the lights in the room still on.

In my class, there was SOME use of what the OP seems to be describing as "compromised shooting positions" (although, in the video he linked to, I really don't see any compromised shooting positions....since when does shooting one-handed=compromised???). These were mostly used in situations where we could, due to angles of exposure, get the drop on someone and hit them before they could hit us. So if we were flattened against a wall and, due to angles, could see the adversary's foot, kneecap, elbow, whatever, and he could not yet see us, then it was worth it to be able to get a hit on the adversary. Not to sound like a dork, but John Wick does that in the first movie, hitting what the bad guy gives him (foot in that famous nightclub scene). Usually the ranges were quite short and so shooting one-handed was not much of a handicap. Most of what we did was constant adjusting of the two-handed grip, pulling in toward the chest and pressing out, as the situation dictated. And, of course, when we got to low-light and borderline no-light, your light set-up had an effect here (handheld vs. WML, etc.).

As for the cover/concealment issue, I think experience has shown and countless CCTV videos have shown that people TEND to shoot at what they can see, and shooting through walls is rarely done, even by the bad guys (at least in a non-MOUT, more stateside context). I've seen shootouts in clothing stores where people did NOT shoot at their opponents through clothing racks, and instead waited for a visual target.

If you want to read more about my experience in AMIS, feel free to read here:

https://civiliangunfighter.wordpress.com/2016/04/13/aar-shivworks-craig-douglas-armed-movement-in-structures-pittsburgh-pa-49-410-2016/

Single handed firing is absolutely compromised.

You used an interesting phrase "hit them before they could hit us". Thats my point. There is nothing between you and him that would have stopped bullets. It briefs well with sims/utm/airsoft. The reality is, 380, 9mm, 40 is going to chug right through your average homes walls. Except now you are in that compromised position. Your ability to move athletically is limited. You are likely going to flinch and lose balance. That to me is not being set up well for a fight.

You said taking shots on feet/knees/elbows etc. Can you PID a guy based off his foot? Can you then use lethal force on a guy, because of his foot?

You have seen his foot, you begin to give him commands. He doesnt listen. A lot of Craig's course work is built on non-consensual adversaries. Aka dudes that will talk shit to you when you are pointing a gun at them. We have now made the fight an even playing field.

ETA: Your point about not shooting through walls doesnt jive.
1. I am going to wager he would likely be aiming at an area. Wall or not. The point. That wall wont stop bullets.
2. That is a great piece of safety rope to cling to. But not one to build an approach around

[43Under]

To me, pieing, clearing from the threshold etc, largely sets up a shooter for a gunfight through a wall. With a majority of internal walls being concealment the advantage lies with the bad guy. As an example moving up to a breach/threshold, there are only so many places you can be positioned. If that breach/threshold is going into a corner or center fed room, there is substantially more real-estate on the opposing side for a guy to work you from. So the bad guy has a somewhat specific area he can focus his fire on (if it turns into a gun fight through a wall) vice the good guy who has a huge frontage.

If anyone can recall the video of the ATF/FBI guys attempting to make entry on the 2nd floor of the Waco compound. Those guys were getting shot through the wall. Largely because they had very limited space. That limited space was known to the guys doing the shooting. Allowing them to focus their effects on a singular area.

Combine that now, with you are in potentially an unathletic or not good fighting stance. Seems like a bad set up from the ground up




Internal to a structure = inside the building




Single handed firing is absolutely compromised.

You used an interesting phrase "hit them before they could hit us". Thats my point. There is nothing between you and him that would have stopped bullets. It briefs well with sims/utm/airsoft. The reality is, 380, 9mm, 40 is going to chug right through your average homes walls. Except now you are in that compromised position. Your ability to move athletically is limited. You are likely going to flinch and lose balance. That to me is not being set up well for a fight.

You said taking shots on feet/knees/elbows etc. Can you PID a guy based off his foot? Can you then use lethal force on a guy, because of his foot?

You have seen his foot, you begin to give him commands. He doesnt listen. A lot of Craig's course work is built on non-consensual adversaries. Aka dudes that will talk shit to you when you are pointing a gun at them. We have now made the fight an even playing field.

ETA: Your point about not shooting through walls doesnt jive.
1. I am going to wager he would likely be aiming at an area. Wall or not. The point. That wall wont stop bullets.
2. That is a great piece of safety rope to cling to. But not one to build an approach around

"Security issues aside, tactics are better demonstrated than discussed. The semantics arguments alone make it a pointless exercise."<<<HCM earlier in this thread.

I now realize why he posted this.

If you're going to "stick to your guns" even though you admit to having had ZERO training in this area, there is not much point in continuing this. I have tried and I have failed to explain some of this stuff to you (not blaming you here. I failed.). Cherry picking different comments instead of trying to suck in the whole is an issue here (why would you think that when targeting a foot that we're just shooting randos here? Do you not think that Craig would have set up a scenario where doing something like that would be appropriate? Come on!).

I never said bad guys don't shoot through walls. I can think of a few instances in PD shootings (besides Waco) where bad guys targeted cops through walls. But it is rare. AND, the strongest part of the wall is right around the door, so there is a modicum of protection there (just like how Will Petty teaches stacking roof pillars for temporary "cover", but I suppose you never took VCQB either, right?).

I'd suggest you actually get out from behind the computer, DO some of this stuff on your own, and pepper your instructor with your many questions. I, for one, having done all the coursework I mentioned above, find it interesting that all these guys teach pretty much the same stuff. Oh, and I left out doing a half-day of singleton structure work with Chuck Haggard (which looked remarkably like the stuff I learned in AMIS).

Good luck with your quest.

Edit to add: I'm not sure I'd use the word "compromised" to talk about one-handed shooting. Are all those 50 yard one-handed bullseye shooters really shooting from a compromised position? It may not be ideal, but I think "compromised" is too strong a word. If we're grappling and I shoot you from #2, am I shooting you from a compromised position? See? We're back at what HCM said upthread. We need to have common vocab to even discuss this stuff.

[SiriusBlunder]

I am just an unejumacaded redneck, so please forgive me, but I have no idea what that means.

An overly complicated, but tactikool?, way of saying "solo clearing" or "one man clearing". (In this day and age, should that be "one person clearing"?:-))


PS: Can't tell if you were joking or serious. If you were joking, I apologize for not picking up on that and definitely don't mean to insult your intelligence.

[BehindBlueI's]

I am just an unejumacaded redneck, so please forgive me, but I have no idea what that means.

I'm still not sure what a singleton movement is, and I'm at least a semi-edjumakated hillbilly.

This thread confuses me. There seems to be an intermixing of team clearing of unknown structures with presumably hostile actors and clearing one's own home solo. I'm still not real clear on what the question is.

[SouthNarc]

To me, pieing, clearing from the threshold etc, largely sets up a shooter for a gunfight through a wall. With a majority of internal walls being concealment the advantage lies with the bad guy. As an example moving up to a breach/threshold, there are only so many places you can be positioned. If that breach/threshold is going into a corner or center fed room, there is substantially more real-estate on the opposing side for a guy to work you from. So the bad guy has a somewhat specific area he can focus his fire on (if it turns into a gun fight through a wall) vice the good guy who has a huge frontage.

If anyone can recall the video of the ATF/FBI guys attempting to make entry on the 2nd floor of the Waco compound. Those guys were getting shot through the wall. Largely because they had very limited space. That limited space was known to the guys doing the shooting. Allowing them to focus their effects on a singular area.




A lot of guys who served in Iraq in the 2000s shifted to the idea of pieing and threshold evaluation when they started running into hardened rooms and getting chewed up. Evaluating or splitting the doorway before committing to the room is still in practice with NSW and MARSOC. Variations of that are nothing new. What speed one does that is driven by the particular problem.

And quite frankly one may not even be going into a room. A surreptitious clear, by a homeowner of a doorway in an attempt to maybe bypass a particular problem area, in an effort to get out of the structure and call LE to come handle the problem is a far different mission than SWAT/warfighters assaulting a room. That's just particular one example.

[luckyman]

I'm still not sure what a singleton movement is, and I'm at least a semi-edjumakated hillbilly.

This thread confuses me. There seems to be an intermixing of team clearing of unknown structures with presumably hostile actors and clearing one's own home solo. I'm still not real clear on what the question is.

I’m pretty sure “singleton” is his way of saying “just one person; no team”. The only place I’ve ever heard the term used outside of cards or software development is in Britain; could be the OP is British.


I’m incredibly impressed by all the patience shown in this thread, and everyone’s willingness to try to consider new viewpoints/ try to generate some useful conversation.

[HCM]

I'm still not sure what a singleton movement is, and I'm at least a semi-edjumakated hillbilly.

This thread confuses me. There seems to be an intermixing of team clearing of unknown structures with presumably hostile actors and clearing one's own home solo. I'm still not real clear on what the question is.

Phil Singleton moving by himself ?

67962

[Coyotesfan97]

I was in my Department’s Tactical Unit for 25 years. I was on SWAT for 15 years and K9 for 16. There was an overlap of 6 years where I was in both. I couldn’t tell you how many thousands of structures I’ve helped clear. I know we took rounds through a wall with no injuries at least twice. It’s definitely a risk but not one that stopped us from clearing rooms. Frankly I was always more worried about someone hiding and playing angles more than taking rounds through a wall.

The most dangerous part of the job is clearing someone else’s house. We did a lot of things to force people out before clearing it. Try to clear it with a robot before anyone goes in. SWAT and K9 are pretty integrated. Usually a dog clears ahead of the team. That takes away a lot of the risk but dogs aren’t perfect. SWAT still expects to find someone the dog might have missed.

The scenario where you can see a foot and the suspect won’t surrender. We’d probably pull back a little bit and figure out what we wanted to do. Some options are Rake and break a window and put eyes on him allowing the use of less lethal on him. Gas the room thoroughly, deploy a diversionary device , and send the dog. (my favorite option lol) Shooting his foot is an option if it’s a deadly force encounter.

I’m sure the tactics we used would be familiar to any of the posters on this thread who have worked in a team environment. Our SWAT guys teach their slow and deliberate tactics to the recruits in the academy during building search training. That includes cutting the pie when you can and limited and push entries. The recruits are taught tactics SWAT uses all the time.

Clearing a house or a business by yourself is a world of suck. It can be done but it’s not going to be a best option and I don’t see a lot of scenarios where I’d do it. Just look at Glover’s video and count the number secondary threats like open doorways he has to deal with.

I reread this thread a couple times because I wasn’t sure what you’re looking for. At this point I’m still not clear. Clearing structures is dangerous work. You can use tactics to mitigate the risk but it’s always there.

[Coyotesfan97]

Phil Singleton moving by himself ?

67962

Phil Singleton the Brit right? LOL he’s Welch. I was fortunate to attend one of his MP5 schools early in my career. We frequently jokingly called him British and he’d fire right back about taking the piss out of the Limey.

[HCM]

Phil Singleton the Brit right? LOL he’s Welch. I was fortunate to attend one of his MP5 schools early in my career. We frequently jokingly called him British and he’d fire right back about taking the piss out of the Limey.

Yup. If you were a child of the 80s you can't get more "tactical" than Phil Singleton with a Balaclava and an MP5...

[Lost River]

I'm still not sure what a singleton movement is, and I'm at least a semi-edjumakated hillbilly.

This thread confuses me. There seems to be an intermixing of team clearing of unknown structures with presumably hostile actors and clearing one's own home solo. I'm still not real clear on what the question is.


One thing I have noted (and I actually have a bachelor's degree in training and development) is that when people use "High Falutin" words to impress, especially as instructors, usually it is because they are trying to baffle people with their bullshit, and their resume is not exactly stellar.

The very best instructors/teachers, no matter the subject, and no matter their personal education level, use language that every person can clearly understand. They convey their message in a manner that a person with a PHD or a GED both will understand equally. By the same token, if the subject is clearing a room, and the audience is a mixture of neophytes and SOCOM Vets, the presenter uses plain language that everyone understands.

Speaking of "Slicing the Pie"; Real world example. In an event 10 year ago this year, I was doing it, going after a bad guy. A younger officer who was a "Hard Charger" and to be frank had his Competence and Confidence scale unbalanced went charging around some corners a little hard and ate a bullet for his actions. I was not surprised to see him getting carried out of the building. I went after the shooter, as he had already killed someone else. He was waiting to ambush me. Fortunately, I was methodical and carefully worked the corners. The bullets went past my head instead of into them.

Eventually the situation got settled. But it was a good lesson. Work those corners very carefully.

[DDTSGM]

To me, pieing, clearing from the threshold etc, largely sets up a shooter for a gunfight through a wall. With a majority of internal walls being concealment the advantage lies with the bad guy. As an example moving up to a breach/threshold, there are only so many places you can be positioned. If that breach/threshold is going into a corner or center fed room, there is substantially more real-estate on the opposing side for a guy to work you from. So the bad guy has a somewhat specific area he can focus his fire on (if it turns into a gun fight through a wall) vice the good guy who has a huge frontage.

I'm not sure what you are trying to learn/accomplish. In terms or police work, virtually every call you make has some potential for danger. There are good solid BASIC tactics which officers can use to somewhat mitigate danger in those circumstances, but they don't eliminate danger.

The interior walls of most structures, when you get right down to it, offer concealment rather than cover. As I mentioned before, there are tactics which can be used to mitigate risk, but not eliminate it.

Searching for armed persons, whether you be a homeowner, a soldier, or a police officer, is a risky business, if you can't accept such risks, then don't do those things, or take those jobs. That is not to say that officers, soldiers, etc., should be cavalier about taking risks, rather that they should be aware of the risks, and decide if the risks are worth assuming before acting.

You've mentioned threshold evaluation several times. I was involved in this kind of stuff for over thirty years. As far as I know, the term threshold evaluation came into vogue when a group out of a university in Texas got a contract to begin teaching active shooter response. They were big about threshold evaluations and many of the guys I attended with didn't agree with the way they were doing them. Not going to discuss on open forum, suffice to say I don't believe you should set yourself up to fight from a doorway. I felt that one thing they had going for them was that if the doorway didn't have glass on either side, as some schools have, generally a school's interior walls are pretty robust, so you might get away with crowding the door.

I don't think you are going to find a perfect technique. I think a good idea is to absorb all you can, think of the in's and out's of each tactic and put them into the toolbox, maybe to be used at some point.

It's just A way, not THE way is a good mindset to have.

[jnc36rcpd]

Threshold clearance was taught when I was assigned to the county police academy several years ago. While it has greater applicability if you're clearing a house or compound in Iraq or Afghanistan where walls are considerably thicker, I see its relevance in the U.S. or similar environments. Dan Lehr's concerns about the technique are valid. We taught to do threshold clearance pretty quickly. You certainly don't want to get bogged down at a doorway whether you're a member of a team, a patrol shift, or a family.

While I haven't had the opportunity to attend a Centrifuge Training class, I will steal this concept from them. I'd rather have anything in front of me than nothing. People, good and bad, tend to shoot at what they can see. If a bad guy in a room can't see my entire body, he is likely to shoot at what he can see which reduces the chance of him hitting me. I'd rather present a partial B-27 to the bad guy than a full one because, aiming at a partial B-27, he may throw rounds into the white part of the target rather than my scoring rings. While many rounds will punch through drywall and other common building materials, some won't. Others may deflect or break up reducing the possibility of injury. Door frames are more solid than doors or walls so a round hitting a door frame is less likely to be effective.

Add to this, if I threshold clear a room, I don't have to immediately orient myself to a new environment. If I enter the room, I have to look around to see, and possibly shoot, what I can see, If I threshold clear and/or pie the room, I'm not taking in as much as quickly. I'm probably the better marksman than the bad guy. I'm more likely to hit from him a few feet away than he is me.



You cannot eliminate risk in clearing structures and certainly not open areas. Everything comes with trade-offs, but in the words of tactics instructor and role model Sonny Crockett, "I knew the job was dangerous when I took it."

[HCM]

As noted whoever sees their opponent first has a real advantage.

Some research along those lines regarding the link between seeing and making quicker hits: https://www.forcescience.org/2009/10/major-new-study-how-your-eyes-can-cast-your-fate-in-a-gunfight-part-1/

In general, people like to shoot at what they can see. shooting through cover / concealment is generally a trained behavior.

I recall an experiment where pairs of untrained people were put in protective gear, one was given a Simunition pistol and told to shoot the other person on the signal.. The other person was given a full sheet sized piece of newspaper and told to open it up and block the other person from shooting them on the signal.

Those with the SIM pistol attempted to shoot the other person by going under, over and around the newspaper but none of the shot through them newspaper.

[HCM]

I'm not sure what you are trying to learn/accomplish. In terms or police work, virtually every call you make has some potential for danger. There are good solid BASIC tactics which officers can use to somewhat mitigate danger in those circumstances, but they don't eliminate danger.

The interior walls of most structures, when you get right down to it, offer concealment rather than cover. As I mentioned before, there are tactics which can be used to mitigate risk, but not eliminate it.

Searching for armed persons, whether you be a homeowner, a soldier, or a police officer, is a risky business, if you can't accept such risks, then don't do those things, or take those jobs. That is not to say that officers, soldiers, etc., should be cavalier about taking risks, rather that they should be aware of the risks, and decide if the risks are worth assuming before acting.

You've mentioned threshold evaluation several times. I was involved in this kind of stuff for over thirty years. As far as I know, the term threshold evaluation came into vogue when a group out of a university in Texas got a contract to begin teaching active shooter response. They were big about threshold evaluations and many of the guys I attended with didn't agree with the way they were doing them. Not going to discuss on open forum, suffice to say I don't believe you should set yourself up to fight from a doorway. I felt that one thing they had going for them was that if the doorway didn't have glass on either side, as some schools have, generally a school's interior walls are pretty robust, so you might get away with crowding the door.

I don't think you are going to find a perfect technique. I think a good idea is to absorb all you can, think of the in's and out's of each tactic and put them into the toolbox, maybe to be used at some point.

It's just A way, not THE way is a good mindset to have.

I agree. Tactics are context dependent and there is no one way to do things - more like Good/Better/Best. Context includes the idea that what is best for a team that regularly trains together may or may not be best for an individua (s))l who (if they are lucky) get 8 hours of tactics training every year or two.

The university you referenced was Texas State University's ALERRT program.

Their argument is based less on the validity of door frames as cover and more on human factors like most people's tendency to shoot at what they can see and easing the cognitive load of responding officers. They studies conducted included over 3,000 SIMS room entries using both threshold evaluation and dynamic tactics which were video recorded.

Their video (open source) has a pretty good summary:


https://youtu.be/GgcfApgk0ps

ALERRT is what it is. It's not DARC, but well suited to it's target audience.

[KEW8338]

"Security issues aside, tactics are better demonstrated than discussed. The semantics arguments alone make it a pointless exercise."<<<HCM earlier in this thread.

I now realize why he posted this.

If you're going to "stick to your guns" even though you admit to having had ZERO training in this area, there is not much point in continuing this. I have tried and I have failed to explain some of this stuff to you (not blaming you here. I failed.). Cherry picking different comments instead of trying to suck in the whole is an issue here (why would you think that when targeting a foot that we're just shooting randos here? Do you not think that Craig would have set up a scenario where doing something like that would be appropriate? Come on!).

I dont think I said zero training. If this becomes a merit badge list of trainers, in order to validate an individuals opinion vice the merits of the opinion stated....well....

Again this is the tactics forum. A place to discuss tactics.

You said shooting a guy in an extremity. If you are shooting a limb. Chances are you cant see center mass. Making PID potentially difficult. I understand the effectiveness of shooting what you got.


I never said bad guys don't shoot through walls. I can think of a few instances in PD shootings (besides Waco) where bad guys targeted cops through walls. But it is rare. AND, the strongest part of the wall is right around the door, so there is a modicum of protection there (just like how Will Petty teaches stacking roof pillars for temporary "cover", but I suppose you never took VCQB either, right?).

2x4 and drywall, to me does not constitute any real degree of protection. Maybe against 22LR.

I would love to discuss VCQB but with the amount hate mail generated over this....Im not sure the tactics forum could take it.





Edit to add: I'm not sure I'd use the word "compromised" to talk about one-handed shooting. Are all those 50 yard one-handed bullseye shooters really shooting from a compromised position? It may not be ideal, but I think "compromised" is too strong a word. If we're grappling and I shoot you from #2, am I shooting you from a compromised position? See? We're back at what HCM said upthread. We need to have common vocab to even discuss this stuff.

#2 is absolutely a compromised position. It is not as good as having 2 hands on the gun. Does it serve a niche purpose? Yes. Plenty of things that serve a niche purpose are compromised from the original form factor. I apologize my words are strong.....


A lot of guys who served in Iraq in the 2000s shifted to the idea of pieing and threshold evaluation when they started running into hardened rooms and getting chewed up. Evaluating or splitting the doorway before committing to the room is still in practice with NSW and MARSOC. Variations of that are nothing new. What speed one does that is driven by the particular problem.

And quite frankly one may not even be going into a room. A surreptitious clear, by a homeowner of a doorway in an attempt to maybe bypass a particular problem area, in an effort to get out of the structure and call LE to come handle the problem is a far different mission than SWAT/warfighters assaulting a room. That's just particular one example.

Walls in most other areas of the world are comprised of 3-12" of rock/mud/concrete. Those are effective at actually reducing the effects of incoming fire. Additionally that decision is part of a tactical thought process which blends into actual TTPs and escalation of force.

One of the determining factors to me, is if I have to go into that room or not.


Threshold clearance was taught when I was assigned to the county police academy several years ago. While it has greater applicability if you're clearing a house or compound in Iraq or Afghanistan where walls are considerably thicker, I see its relevance in the U.S. or similar environments. Dan Lehr's concerns about the technique are valid. We taught to do threshold clearance pretty quickly. You certainly don't want to get bogged down at a doorway whether you're a member of a team, a patrol shift, or a family.

In previous linked videos, would you say any participants got bogged down in doorways?



While I haven't had the opportunity to attend a Centrifuge Training class, I will steal this concept from them. I'd rather have anything in front of me than nothing. People, good and bad, tend to shoot at what they can see. If a bad guy in a room can't see my entire body, he is likely to shoot at what he can see which reduces the chance of him hitting me. I'd rather present a partial B-27 to the bad guy than a full one because, aiming at a partial B-27, he may throw rounds into the white part of the target rather than my scoring rings. While many rounds will punch through drywall and other common building materials, some won't. Others may deflect or break up reducing the possibility of injury. Door frames are more solid than doors or walls so a round hitting a door frame is less likely to be effective.

People also tend to shoot at where you WERE, and if you are moving, not where you ARE.

To me, I default to maneuver. I can stack odds in that, people have a tendency to shoot where you were, coupled with people suck at shooting moving targets. These are the small details, to me, you should be trying to steal advantages from.


I agree. Tactics are context dependent and there is no one way to do things - more like Good/Better/Best. Context includes the idea that what is best for a team that regularly trains together may or may not be best for an individua (s))l who (if they are lucky) get 8 hours of tactics training every year or two.

The university you referenced was Texas State University's ALERRT program.

Their argument is based less on the validity of door frames as cover and more on human factors like most people's tendency to shoot at what they can see and easing the cognitive load of responding officers. They studies conducted included over 3,000 SIMS room entries using both threshold evaluation and dynamic tactics which were video recorded.

Their video (open source) has a pretty good summary:


https://youtu.be/GgcfApgk0ps

ALERRT is what it is. It's not DARC, but well suited to it's target audience.

Sim Based science always weirds me out. That always turns into some super gramaton cleric shit

To me, as it stands my decision making process for how I tackle a breach/threshold/aperture/portal is based off

1)Do I have to go into that room?
2)Do the walls offer me ballistic protection ?

If I have to go into the room, I will not pie it. I will enter dynamically. Essentially running rabbit. (risk mitigation done through surprise and speed)

If I dont have to go into the room, and the walls offer ballistic protection, I will pie/pin/bypass. If engaged, I will engage from the threshold using available cover (risk mitigation done through speed and violence of action)

If I dont have to go into the room, and the walls offer no ballistic protection, I will pie/pin/bypass. If engaged, I will engage while making entry (risk mitigation done through speed and violence of action)



Speaking of "Slicing the Pie"; Real world example. In an event 10 year ago this year, I was doing it, going after a bad guy. A younger officer who was a "Hard Charger" and to be frank had his Competence and Confidence scale unbalanced went charging around some corners a little hard and ate a bullet for his actions. I was not surprised to see him getting carried out of the building. I went after the shooter, as he had already killed someone else. He was waiting to ambush me. Fortunately, I was methodical and carefully worked the corners. The bullets went past my head instead of into them.

Eventually the situation got settled. But it was a good lesson. Work those corners very carefully.

I am glad that worked out in your favor. Any other details you would like to share?

[UNM1136]

I am glad HCM used the ALERRT video, as that is where I first heard the term "threshold evaluation". The SIMs testing mentioned in the class is then reinforced with a few dozen SIMs runs by the student. One of my classmates, and my partner for the final exams, was a very recently retired SARC and team leader in MARSOC. He showed me one minor addition that they had been using in Afghanistan, but other than that the ALERRT stuff was really, really well thought of, and in use by a couple of JSOC elements, for reasons SouthNarc mentioned.

My most recent ALERRT course was taught by a retired JSOC SGM and a couple of recent PMC guys who all liked the program. A lot.

I never got to train with Phil S, but in 1995ish one of my co-workers did. Raved about it for years. He and Louis Awerbuck seemed to share a lot of ideas concerning thought processes during shooting drills.

OP, I hope you find what you are looking for. I also hope you realize the caliber of people trying to help.

I don't expect this thread to last long.

pat

[WobblyPossum]

OP, I’m curious if you actually watched the video HCM sent or if you dismissed it outright because you don’t believe in the validity of lessons learned from sims training. It’s a pretty short video and I think it would be worth the five minutes. They didn’t devolve into any “gramaton cleric” stuff. Their experiments did find that it took officers doing threshold evaluation half the time to begin engaging the threat after making entry as it did the officers doing dynamic entry. One of the likely reasons is that there’s a whole lot less to orient yourself to inside the room if you’ve already cleared most of it from outside, whereas if you’ve gone in blind, you now have to orient yourself to everything in the room at once.

[SouthNarc]

I dont think I said zero training. If this becomes a merit badge list of trainers, in order to validate an individuals opinion vice the merits of the opinion stated....well....

Again this is the tactics forum. A place to discuss tactics.

You said shooting a guy in an extremity. If you are shooting a limb. Chances are you cant see center mass. Making PID potentially difficult. I understand the effectiveness of shooting what you got.



2x4 and drywall, to me does not constitute any real degree of protection. Maybe against 22LR.

I would love to discuss VCQB but with the amount hate mail generated over this....Im not sure the tactics forum could take it.




#2 is absolutely a compromised position. It is not as good as having 2 hands on the gun. Does it serve a niche purpose? Yes. Plenty of things that serve a niche purpose are compromised from the original form factor. I apologize my words are strong.....



Walls in most other areas of the world are comprised of 3-12" of rock/mud/concrete. Those are effective at actually reducing the effects of incoming fire. Additionally that decision is part of a tactical thought process which blends into actual TTPs and escalation of force.

One of the determining factors to me, is if I have to go into that room or not.



In previous linked videos, would you say any participants got bogged down in doorways?




People also tend to shoot at where you WERE, and if you are moving, not where you ARE.

To me, I default to maneuver. I can stack odds in that, people have a tendency to shoot where you were, coupled with people suck at shooting moving targets. These are the small details, to me, you should be trying to steal advantages from.



Sim Based science always weirds me out. That always turns into some super gramaton cleric shit

To me, as it stands my decision making process for how I tackle a breach/threshold/aperture/portal is based off

1)Do I have to go into that room?
2)Do the walls offer me ballistic protection ?

If I have to go into the room, I will not pie it. I will enter dynamically. Essentially running rabbit. (risk mitigation done through surprise and speed)

If I dont have to go into the room, and the walls offer ballistic protection, I will pie/pin/bypass. If engaged, I will engage from the threshold using available cover (risk mitigation done through speed and violence of action)

If I dont have to go into the room, and the walls offer no ballistic protection, I will pie/pin/bypass. If engaged, I will engage while making entry (risk mitigation done through speed and violence of action)



I am glad that worked out in your favor. Any other details you would like to share?



I never have taught anyone to engage, stand still, and slug it out with an adversary behind something that won't stop a bullet. If that's what you're thinking I'm teaching in the example of the still photographs from the video review I can assure you that's not what I teach people to do.

I do believe in teaching people to adapt their shooting platform in an effort to conform to concealment when they are hunting surreptitiously for a potential problem.

Based on what you've written it sounds like you either do have a background or at least training in the topic area and obviously have opinions about interior movement. If that's true then you should also know that having a nuanced discussion about tactics on the internet compared to the same discussion in person, is like real sex compared to phone sex. In the latter there's a lot of grunting and no one is really satisfied.

Because of that I'm going to bow out. I think you've disagreed with what you think I teach without being disagreeable. I appreciate that, but I really don't have the time, energy or interest in continuing this discussion in this medium. Not trying to shill you but if you did come to my coursework and decided at the end of it that I was full of shit and what I was teaching would get people killed then I'd certainly be happy to give you your money back.

[TGS]

Sim Based science always weirds me out. That always turns into some super gramaton cleric shit


Word. Pressure testing and practicing tactics is dumb, yo.

Know what people who do this stuff for a living do? They don't get training in it, and then they talk about it on the internet. They certainly don't do force-on-force, that's for the birds.


If that's true then you should also know that having a nuanced discussion about tactics on the internet compared to the same discussion in person

Noob.

[TC215]

I am glad HCM used the ALERRT video, as that is where I first heard the term "threshold evaluation". The SIMs testing mentioned in the class is then reinforced with a few dozen SIMs runs by the student. One of my classmates, and my partner for the final exams, was a very recently retired SARC and team leader in MARSOC. He showed me one minor addition that they had been using in Afghanistan, but other than that the ALERRT stuff was really, really well thought of, and in use by a couple of JSOC elements, for reasons SouthNarc mentioned.

My most recent ALERRT course was taught by a retired JSOC SGM and a couple of recent PMC guys who all liked the program. A lot.

That's interesting. I went through the ALERRT active shooter training a couple years ago, and thought it was, hands down, the worst, most ridiculous training I've ever been through. Totally could have been the instructors; I'd have to look at the curriculum more.
____________________________

I'm still not sure what the point of this thread is. I've always said what Dan Lehr said: "A way, not the way." When you do this stuff for real, in a team environment, you learn pretty quick there's not one solution for every problem and you need a lot of different tools in your toolbox.

[43Under]

To me, as it stands my decision making process for how I tackle a breach/threshold/aperture/portal is based off

1)Do I have to go into that room?
2)Do the walls offer me ballistic protection ?

If I have to go into the room, I will not pie it. I will enter dynamically. Essentially running rabbit. (risk mitigation done through surprise and speed)

If I dont have to go into the room, and the walls offer ballistic protection, I will pie/pin/bypass. If engaged, I will engage from the threshold using available cover (risk mitigation done through speed and violence of action)

If I dont have to go into the room, and the walls offer no ballistic protection, I will pie/pin/bypass. If engaged, I will engage while making entry (risk mitigation done through speed and violence of action)



This will be my last post in this thread.

I wanted to point out (now that you FINALLY came clean about what YOU would do), that at least some of what you're saying is what I learned in AMIS. Again, looking at still photos of people who are LEARNING, at a SNAIL'S PACE, what to do, may not provide you with the best "picture" of what the class is really about. If you took the time to read my admittedly long-winded AAR of the course when I took it, you will see references to needing to move DYNAMICALLY to enter a room. So there are portions of what you are saying that match what I learned in AMIS.

A difference is that in AMIS we learned to pie (quickly, and with more experience we all got quicker about this) from outside the room in order to reduce the area where the threat could be to a manageable area. So, for a corner-fed room, you can probably get it down to that last 20% in the hard corner unless there are a lot of visual obstructions in the room (furniture, weird alcoves, etc.). Then (assuming you HAVE to enter the room), you enter basically as fast as you can with your focus on that area you reduced the room to so that the "bad guy" has to traverse and hit you moving AND you have a limited area to focus on to hit.

So, it sounds like AMIS is a combo of what you THINK AMIS is and what you already favor, if that makes sense.

Again, I will say that although some of what you say makes sense, I think if pieing, etc., didn't work, then we'd read about dead SWAT officers several times/day, and we just don't.

[UNM1136]

That's interesting. I went through the ALERRT active shooter training a couple years ago, and thought it was, hands down, the worst, most ridiculous training I've ever been through. Totally could have been the instructors; I'd have to look at the curriculum more.

I have seen that response when local agencies, including mine and my former agency, try to put it on with less resources. Or guys that don't teach it frequently. Or guys that try to teach the curriculum, but insert their own little twists. War stories to illustrate a point is one thing. Failing to teach portions of the class so as to appear more knowledgeable and thus more needed ("you aren't cool enough to be doing mechanical and ballistic breaching, so we won't teach it. That is why we have SWAT on patrol") is quite another. Not saying those were the conditions you had, but that is what I have seen locally. The biggest ALERRT proponents around here screw up the classes pretty badly. I have been told how to get into the traveling roadshow when I retire, if I am interested.

I have lucked out in the courses I have drawn. The traveling road show out of TSU San Marcos has been good to me. The med portion of my last one was taught by a SWAT dog handler who recently mustered out of ST5 as a platoon corpsman. Big city SWAT guys (San Antonio, Austin, Houston) Retired Delta Force SGM. Current Dallas FBI SWAT guy. Couple of State Troopers from various states. Couple of PMC types (really hard graders. Almost didn't pass a block of my last class) and a former AMU guy. They were, as a group, without a doubt, some of the most competent, polite, professional, invested and involved contract instructors I have ever run into. I find the course materials to be good reminders, but those guys taught their asses off! I loved 5/5 courses from ALERRT, and am waiting for a sixth to come to town. All of the ones taught in house, locally, had huge problems, many ego related.

pat

ETA: i just reread this and realized it is way too many words to convey what I am thinking. Been working and losing sleep over a grad school project. Time for me to go to bed and rest my word-maker.

[SouthNarc]

I'm gonna add one more thing. I just watched the video from Mike Glover (who I know) in it's entirety. I haven't sat through Mike's class but we have been co-located, teaching simultaneous tracks of instruction in the same venue as recently as December.

If you watch the video, particularly from the 6 minute mark to the 12 or 13 minute mark, those are absolutely compromised shooting positions executed in an effort to conform to concealment and reduce signature. He's also switching hands, while moving and improving the shooting platform when space allows him to, or he transitions from hunting to fighting. I teach the EXACT same ideas with maybe a bit more concession towards one handed versus two handed shooting. Mike is a former Group guy with time spent at GRS, one of the few places where singleton movement is actually explored. In fact, the guy that formally taught that content, for that organization for a decade, is someone I know and interact with on a regular basis. Singleton theory as a modality of movement compared to team based movement is a completely distinct process, that everyone agrees is always about "suck less" and anyone that occupies any space in the industry exploring the idea will always concede that everything is imperfect and in-extremis at best.

[KEW8338]

Word. Pressure testing and practicing tactics is dumb, yo.

Know what people who do this stuff for a living do? They don't get training in it, and then they talk about it on the internet. They certainly don't do force-on-force, that's for the birds.



Noob.

A great many organizations, instructors, institutions etc lack combat reps. So to overcome this they employ the scientific method utilizing Sims based environments.

There is a degree of wonkiness built into developing tactics, based off Sims experiments. The progression of a great deal of modern tactics comes from "this was tested with sims". Which is crazy to me.

I think it was Nikolai Tesla that said "in theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice they are not"

Your second paragraph. I'm terrible at reading sarcasm. Not sure what to make of it.

[KEW8338]

This will be my last post in this thread.

I wanted to point out (now that you FINALLY came clean about what YOU would do), that at least some of what you're saying is what I learned in AMIS. Again, looking at still photos of people who are LEARNING, at a SNAIL'S PACE, what to do, may not provide you with the best "picture" of what the class is really about. If you took the time to read my admittedly long-winded AAR of the course when I took it, you will see references to needing to move DYNAMICALLY to enter a room. So there are portions of what you are saying that match what I learned in AMIS.

A difference is that in AMIS we learned to pie (quickly, and with more experience we all got quicker about this) from outside the room in order to reduce the area where the threat could be to a manageable area. So, for a corner-fed room, you can probably get it down to that last 20% in the hard corner unless there are a lot of visual obstructions in the room (furniture, weird alcoves, etc.). Then (assuming you HAVE to enter the room), you enter basically as fast as you can with your focus on that area you reduced the room to so that the "bad guy" has to traverse and hit you moving AND you have a limited area to focus on to hit.

So, it sounds like AMIS is a combo of what you THINK AMIS is and what you already favor, if that makes sense.

Again, I will say that although some of what you say makes sense, I think if pieing, etc., didn't work, then we'd read about dead SWAT officers several times/day, and we just don't.

Finally come clean...this isn't a trial. This is merely a discussion of tactics.

I didn't realize a tactics forum would draw such emotional responses.

So you said you agree with some of my points. Cool

Some issues with what you said, depending where the door is in a corner fed room. To get it down to that 20% you speak of, your back will be to uncleared dead space.

Before the pitchforks and fires start again. I understand as a singleton/solo/lone guy, you cannot maintain 360 degree security.

As Craig teaches, you use dynamic movement to minimize those exposures. I largely think dynamic movement should be used more. And an appreciation for if the thing you are pieing around will stop a bullet.

As for dead swat cops everyday. How often do cops get into shootings inside buildings. How often do they get shot?

[KEW8338]

I'm gonna add one more thing. I just watched the video from Mike Glover (who I know) in it's entirety. I haven't sat through Mike's class but we have been co-located, teaching simultaneous tracks of instruction in the same venue as recently as December.

If you watch the video, particularly from the 6 minute mark to the 12 or 13 minute mark, those are absolutely compromised shooting positions executed in an effort to conform to concealment and reduce signature. He's also switching hands, while moving and improving the shooting platform when space allows him to, or he transitions from hunting to fighting. I teach the EXACT same ideas with maybe a bit more concession towards one handed versus two handed shooting. Mike is a former Group guy with time spent at GRS, one of the few places where singleton movement is actually explored. In fact, the guy that formally taught that content, for that organization for a decade, is someone I know and interact with on a regular basis. Singleton theory as a modality of movement compared to team based movement is a completely distinct process, that everyone agrees is always about "suck less" and anyone that occupies any space in the industry exploring the idea will always concede that everything is imperfect and in-extremis at best.

No run in cqb is perfect. I largely prefer the athletic stance Glover took to what is demonstrated in AMIS for maximizing vision and conforming to the space.

This guy you speak of. Is he the watch maker?

[SouthNarc]

No run in cqb is perfect. I largely prefer the athletic stance Glover took to what is demonstrated in AMIS for maximizing vision and conforming to the space.

And I have zero issues with subjective interpretations of tactical principles. But Mike breaking his master grip on the pistol while controlling the muzzle to the flanks most assuredly is a compromised shooting position. What you describe as "athletic" is open to interpretation. I can most assuredly move quickly and fight from a number of seemingly "compromised' or dare I say "unathletic" positions.


This guy you speak of. Is he the watch maker?

Nope. Different guy, different program, same client.

[TGS]

A great many organizations, instructors, institutions etc lack combat reps. So to overcome this they employ the scientific method utilizing Sims based environments.

The progression of a great deal of modern tactics comes from "this was tested with sims". Which is crazy to me.



I didn't realize a tactics forum would draw such emotional responses.


It's because you sound like someone who played Call of Duty and read some stuff on the internet for entertainment and clearly think you understand stuff that you clearly do not. Given some of the verbiage you've used, at best you sound like someone that went through SOI-MCT...probably some years ago, or maybe you got admin'd out of service....and haven't done anything since.

The idea that our tactics were developed out of sim runs is fucking ludicrous and underscores how ignorant and out of touch with reality you are.

Your approach to this conversation sounds extremely "academic" (and unschooled, at that) as opposed to experiential. In this thread, you've had numerous patrol and SWAT officers speak to their use of these tactics by themselves and their organizations, as well as a true, verifiable SME who trains higher level practitioners for when they have a Very Bad DayTM. To the other end of the spectrum, here's a screenshot from the last mission I ran before coming home on R&R recently:
6797967980

The people here are not talking out of their rear-ends using theoreticals that aren't grounded in the bad experiences of those who went before us and learned stuff the hard way so that we don't have to. If I or my team mates have to move through those buildings pictured above, our tactics are not theoretical based on sim gun games. So, yeah, sorry/not sorry that we think you're a fucking boob.

[UNM1136]

In this thread, you've had numerous patrol and SWAT officers speak to their use of these tactics by themselves and their organizations, as well....

Thanks, dude. Despite our previous issues I still respect you and your opinions, too!

pat

[KEW8338]

It's because you sound like someone who played Call of Duty and read some stuff on the internet for entertainment and clearly think you understand stuff that you clearly do not. Given some of the verbiage you've used, at best you sound like someone that went through SOI-MCT...probably some years ago, or maybe you got admin'd out of service....and haven't done anything since.

The idea that our tactics were developed out of sim runs is fucking ludicrous and underscores how ignorant and out of touch with reality you are.

Your approach to this conversation sounds extremely "academic" (and unschooled, at that) as opposed to experiential. In this thread, you've had numerous patrol and SWAT officers speak to their use of these tactics by themselves and their organizations, as well as a true, verifiable SME who trains higher level practitioners for when they have a Very Bad DayTM. To the other end of the spectrum, here's a screenshot from the last mission I ran before coming home on R&R recently:
6797967980

The people here are not talking out of their rear-ends using theoreticals that aren't grounded in the bad experiences of those who went before us and learned stuff the hard way so that we don't have to. If I or my team mates have to move through those buildings pictured above, our tactics are not theoretical based on sim gun games. So, yeah, sorry/not sorry that we think you're a fucking boob.

Im open to a discussion. A great deal of this conversation seems people demanding to know what my background is, demanding I train with specific individuals, then demanding how I could have the audacity to challenge their train of thought.

No more. No less. Discussion.

Craig discussed his lean towards the notion of conforming to the shape/environment you are in to maximize vision.

I disagree with that to an extent.

I laid out my approach to these problems.

So you've called me a noob. A boob...let's find a third that rhymes. You've also shat on any graduate of SOI or MCT.

[TGS]

You've also shat on any graduate of SOI or MCT.

Sure thing, hero. Pretty sure I'm not the only Marine here, and I'm pretty sure all of them here (including the P-F.com member who was one of my combat instructors some 15 years ago, teaching us this stuff, and is now a senior NCO overseeing the instruction of tactics from a programmatic level) would agree with me that the basic program is very limited and has some severe knowledge gaps when it comes to operating outside the concept of a provisional rifle squad.

So, I guess I'll take that as a "yes".

[BehindBlueI's]

Im open to a discussion. A great deal of this conversation seems people demanding to know what my background is, demanding I train with specific individuals, then demanding how I could have the audacity to challenge their train of thought.


If you're new here and not a retread, I'll help you out. How you know what you know is a very helpful thing to know in an Internet discussion. Nobody is demanding you train with anyone, but if you don't think your experience is helpful in evaluating how seriously to take your ideas or criticisms I don't know what to tell you. If you have an odd bump on your forearm and Dude A is an oncologist, Dude B is a dermatologist, and Dude C is a street cop even if you know jack-diddly-shit about the danger of odd bumps you'd probably know A and B are offering better advice and weight that accordingly if they conflict with C. That's so basic in human interaction it shouldn't have to be explained, but for some reason when conversations happen online it sometimes gets lost.

[Erik]

If you're new here and not a retread, I'll help you out. How you know what you know is a very helpful thing to know in an Internet discussion. Nobody is demanding you train with anyone, but if you don't think your experience is helpful in evaluating how seriously to take your ideas or criticisms I don't know what to tell you. If you have an odd bump on your forearm and Dude A is an oncologist, Dude B is a dermatologist, and Dude C is a street cop even if you know jack-diddly-shit about the danger of odd bumps you'd probably know A and B are offering better advice and weight that accordingly if they conflict with C. That's so basic in human interaction it shouldn't have to be explained, but for some reason when conversations happen online it sometimes gets lost.

This or some version of it comes up often enough that it should be a sticky; maybe even a rule for people who want to insist they're knowledgeable - tell me why.

[SouthNarc]

Im open to a discussion. A great deal of this conversation seems people demanding to know what my background is, demanding I train with specific individuals, then demanding how I could have the audacity to challenge their train of thought.

No more. No less. Discussion.

Craig discussed his lean towards the notion of conforming to the shape/environment you are in to maximize vision.

I disagree with that to an extent.

I laid out my approach to these problems.

So you've called me a noob. A boob...let's find a third that rhymes. You've also shat on any graduate of SOI or MCT.


Just for the record, I haven't taken anything thing you've said or your on-line comportment as being maliciously argumentative or disrespectful. I think tactics discussions are laborious and can get into being tedious depending on the time and energy that one has to devote to them with carefully, curated writing. I trend towards avoiding them usually because of my travel schedule and a limited amount of time and resources to actually give meaningful, nuanced, engagement.

And I'm not the last word AT ALL. There are quite a few former commandos on closed programs that disagree with me on a lot of things. Getting a consensus among a group like that is literally herding cats.

[HCM]

I dont think I said zero training. If this becomes a merit badge list of trainers, in order to validate an individuals opinion vice the merits of the opinion stated....well....

Again this is the tactics forum. A place to discuss tactics.

You said shooting a guy in an extremity. If you are shooting a limb. Chances are you cant see center mass. Making PID potentially difficult. I understand the effectiveness of shooting what you got.



2x4 and drywall, to me does not constitute any real degree of protection. Maybe against 22LR.

I would love to discuss VCQB but with the amount hate mail generated over this....Im not sure the tactics forum could take it.




#2 is absolutely a compromised position. It is not as good as having 2 hands on the gun. Does it serve a niche purpose? Yes. Plenty of things that serve a niche purpose are compromised from the original form factor. I apologize my words are strong.....



Walls in most other areas of the world are comprised of 3-12" of rock/mud/concrete. Those are effective at actually reducing the effects of incoming fire. Additionally that decision is part of a tactical thought process which blends into actual TTPs and escalation of force.

One of the determining factors to me, is if I have to go into that room or not.



In previous linked videos, would you say any participants got bogged down in doorways?




People also tend to shoot at where you WERE, and if you are moving, not where you ARE.

To me, I default to maneuver. I can stack odds in that, people have a tendency to shoot where you were, coupled with people suck at shooting moving targets. These are the small details, to me, you should be trying to steal advantages from.



Sim Based science always weirds me out. That always turns into some super gramaton cleric shit

To me, as it stands my decision making process for how I tackle a breach/threshold/aperture/portal is based off

1)Do I have to go into that room?
2)Do the walls offer me ballistic protection ?

If I have to go into the room, I will not pie it. I will enter dynamically. Essentially running rabbit. (risk mitigation done through surprise and speed)

If I dont have to go into the room, and the walls offer ballistic protection, I will pie/pin/bypass. If engaged, I will engage from the threshold using available cover (risk mitigation done through speed and violence of action)

If I dont have to go into the room, and the walls offer no ballistic protection, I will pie/pin/bypass. If engaged, I will engage while making entry (risk mitigation done through speed and violence of action)



I am glad that worked out in your favor. Any other details you would like to share?

Life’s a risk.

How many opposed /potentially opposed rooms have you entered in real life (not SIMs) ?

Have you ever been shot at (not SIMS) ?

[KEW8338]

Sure thing, hero. Pretty sure I'm not the only Marine here, and I'm pretty sure all of them here (including the P-F.com member who was one of my combat instructors some 15 years ago, teaching us this stuff, and is now a senior NCO overseeing the instruction of tactics from a programmatic level) would agree with me that the basic program is very limited and has some severe knowledge gaps when it comes to operating outside the concept of a provisional rifle squad.

So, I guess I'll take that as a "yes".

I never went to SOI/MCT.

I understand the human nature of needing to know the background of who you are talking too.

I try to avoid that out of respect for peoples privacy. But I guess if we are posting pictures of low vis vehicles with atak tablets velcro to the dash...all bets are off.

I've been told some earth shattering things by people with shit for backgrounds.

[DDTSGM]

As for the cover/concealment issue, I think experience has shown and countless CCTV videos have shown that people TEND to shoot at what they can see, and shooting through walls is rarely done, even by the bad guys (at least in a non-MOUT, more stateside context). I've seen shootouts in clothing stores where people did NOT shoot at their opponents through clothing racks, and instead waited for a visual target.

People do tend to shoot at what they see, HCM noted an example. As another example my first boss at the academy used to give students a cleared firearm and tell them to shoot him, he then brought a clipboard into play and, in MOST cases, got the student officer to go through all kinds of movements to get the revolver (in those days) clear of the clipboard. Notice I said most. Likewise, will not common, in the last several decades, there have been several officers killed by assailant who shot through walls or doors to target them. I'm sure there have been more instances than I'm aware of, simply because LEOKA doesn't provide summaries of incidents where officers were injured, not killed.

Thanks to the internet, and whether we want to admit it or not, several generations of veterans who have been well-trained in MOUT, the threat is credible. We need to develop tactics/take actions to mitigate that threat, rather than let it paralyze us.

[KEW8338]

Wasn't there two FBI agents who got shot and killed through a door in the last month?

If they had been able to return fire. What effects would that of had?

[UNM1136]

People do tend to shoot at what they see, HCM noted an example. As another example my first boss at the academy used to give students a cleared firearm and tell them to shoot him, he then brought a clipboard into play and, in MOST cases, got the student officer to go through all kinds of movements to get the revolver (in those days) clear of the clipboard. Notice I said most. Likewise, will not common, in the last several decades, there have been several officers killed by assailant who shot through walls or doors to target them. I'm sure there have been more instances than I'm aware of, simply because LEOKA doesn't provide summaries of incidents where officers were injured, not killed.

Thanks to the internet, and whether we want to admit it or not, several generations of veterans who have been well-trained in MOUT, the threat is credible. We need to develop tactics/take actions to mitigate that threat, rather than let it paralyze us.

Remember that drill well, but it was a DA/SA Sig, and a piece of paper. And you called me old...:p

pat

[HCM]

Wasn't there two FBI agents who got shot and killed through a door in the last month?

If they had been able to return fire. What effects would that of had?

Through walls - but they were seen on security camera so not a valid example for your argument.

A better example would be the Oakland SWAT officers shot through a bedroom wall from inside a closet by Lovelle Mixon in 2009.

[KEW8338]

Life’s a risk.

How many opposed /potentially opposed rooms have you entered in real life (not SIMs) ?

Have you ever been shot at (not SIMS) ?

Are you trying to qualify if I have skin in the game? Or is this an attempt to discredit based on a perceived lack fo combat experience.

There are no good answers to that question.

If the real question is if I have a vested interest in not dying from being shot. The answer is yes

[KEW8338]

Through walls - but they were seen on security camera so not a valid example for your argument.

A better example would be the Oakland SWAT officers shot through a bedroom wall from inside a closet by Lovelle Mixon in 2009.

Does the proliferation of IOT Home camera systems dictate a change in potential approach?

It does make my point because a guy, shot through a wall, delivering lethal effects on a target.

[KEW8338]

Just for the record, I haven't taken anything thing you've said or your on-line comportment as being maliciously argumentative or disrespectful. I think tactics discussions are laborious and can get into being tedious depending on the time and energy that one has to devote to them with carefully, curated writing. I trend towards avoiding them usually because of my travel schedule and a limited amount of time and resources to actually give meaningful, nuanced, engagement.

And I'm not the last word AT ALL. There are quite a few former commandos on closed programs that disagree with me on a lot of things. Getting a consensus among a group like that is literally herding cats.

They absolutely can be. But given your travel schedule I'm sure you can relate to sitting around at an airport thinking on things.

Why do these commandos disagree with you?

I'm not trying to be a cunt so, if it comes off like that. It's not my intent

[Coyotesfan97]

Wasn't there two FBI agents who got shot and killed through a door in the last month?

If they had been able to return fire. What effects would that of had?

Hopefully suppress the suspect’s fire until they can pull back to LCC. For us it was usually the BATT or the Bearcat.

You mentioned running rabbit. It’s probably different but when I went through the JTF6 CQB course in 1996ish running the rabbit was sending one operator running across a wide hallway or room to see if he drew fire. No one wanted to be the rabbit.

[TGS]

Are you trying to qualify if I have skin in the game? Or is this an attempt to discredit based on a perceived lack fo combat experience.

There are no good answers to that question.

Can't discredit that which lacks credit to begin with.

It's probably more an attempt to establish merit, given that your argument really doeent have nothing else to stand on.

[KEW8338]

Hopefully suppress the suspect’s fire until they can pull back to LCC. For us it was usually the BATT or the Bearcat.

You mentioned running rabbit. It’s probably different but when I went through the JTF6 CQB course in 1996ish running the rabbit was sending one operator running across a wide hallway or room to see if he drew fire. No one wanted to be the rabbit.

So my kicker is Taking fire through a doorway. You are at that doorway (relatively speaking) your position is largely known (excluding the use of wifi cameras).

A guy inside that structure could be all over the place giving you little if any indication of his firing position.

In the domestic sense, that's a hard target to supress and maintain any degree of accountability on rounds fired.

[SouthNarc]

They absolutely can be. But given your travel schedule I'm sure you can relate to sitting around at an airport thinking on things.

Why do these commandos disagree with you?

I'm not trying to be a cunt so, if it comes off like that. It's not my intent

Sure man I can totally relate to hard thinking on layovers. You're not coming off as cunty at all.

We've had disagreements, "spirited discussions" and one memorable shouting match about pretty much any topic you can imagine. Interior movement, ECQ shooting, knife work, fighting in cars. I meant LITERALLY everything. For the most part my content is well received but some guys simply don't agree. In only one case did it get kind of personal when a former commando got tooled up by another in an evolution and the guy screamed at me that we had no business doing this anyway because he'd be shooting people and not rolling around on the floor.

[KEW8338]

Can't discredit that which lacks credit to begin with.

It's probably more an attempt to establish merit, given that your argument really doeent have nothing else to stand on.

I'm not trying to establish credit. To me, there is not much need in doing so.

[HCM]

That's interesting. I went through the ALERRT active shooter training a couple years ago, and thought it was, hands down, the worst, most ridiculous training I've ever been through. Totally could have been the instructors; I'd have to look at the curriculum more.
____________________________

I'm still not sure what the point of this thread is. I've always said what Dan Lehr said: "A way, not the way." When you do this stuff for real, in a team environment, you learn pretty quick there's not one solution for every problem and you need a lot of different tools in your toolbox.

Some thoughts re: ALERRT

1) keep in mind what ALERRT is and who the intended audience is. It’s not a SWAT school, it’s not DARC and you are not really the target audience.

2) ALERRT is specific to active shooter response which normally occurs in public or commercial buildings rather than residences.

3) As mentioned, the instructors make a difference. The ALERRT “mothership” is local to me so like UNM most of my exposure has been via their paid instructor cadre vs “sum doode” from an agency with a 4 day instructor cert. who only teaches 1 or 2 times a year.

[HCM]

Does the proliferation of IOT Home camera systems dictate a change in potential approach?

It does make my point because a guy, shot through a wall, delivering lethal effects on a target.

Cameras definitely change the game.

FL is not the only example. The Las Vegas gunman set up a camera on a room service cart outside his room.

The point was people shoot at what they can see - using enablers like cameras, NODS etc. to see doesn’t change that.

[Coyotesfan97]

So my kicker is Taking fire through a doorway. You are at that doorway (relatively speaking) your position is largely known (excluding the use of wifi cameras).

A guy inside that structure could be all over the place giving you little if any indication of his firing position.

In the domestic sense, that's a hard target to supress and maintain any degree of accountability on rounds fired.


Absolutely. You asked for effects of if they did it not whether it could be justified. Our policy allowed suppression fire but it was pretty restrictive as far as where that would be directed. Mostly hard targets on the structure like brickwork or the foundation. Legal didn’t like the term suppression fire and it our range staff came up with a different term right before I retired and I forget what is called now.

[HCM]

So my kicker is Taking fire through a doorway. You are at that doorway (relatively speaking) your position is largely known (excluding the use of wifi cameras).

A guy inside that structure could be all over the place giving you little if any indication of his firing position.

In the domestic sense, that's a hard target to supress and maintain any degree of accountability on rounds fired.

As discussed here in the thread on the FL FBI shooting it was not a SWAT or purely tactical operation. They had a search warrant but not an arrest warrant and there were legal and investigate reasons why they did what they did vs optimal tactics.

[Coyotesfan97]

If we could identify external surveillance equipment on a structure it was generally taken out before the approach to the door. Beanbags or SAGE rounds work well on cameras.

[HCM]

Absolutely. You asked for effects of if they did it not whether it could be justified. Our policy allowed suppression fire but it was pretty restrictive as far as where that would be directed. Mostly hard targets on the structure like brickwork or the foundation. Legal didn’t like the term suppression fire and it our range staff came up with a different term right before I retired and I forget what is called now.

Usually “directed fire.” Return fire is “directed” at the source of the fire rather than just suppressing an entire building of area.

[Coyotesfan97]

Usually “directed fire.” Return fire is “directed” at the source of the fire rather than just suppressing an entire building of area.

Yes it was very similar to that.

[UNM1136]

Some thoughts re: ALERRT

1) keep in mind what ALERRT is and who the intended audience is. It’s not a SWAT school, it’s not DARC and you are not really the target audience.

2) ALERRT is specific to active shooter response which normally occurs in public or commercial buildings rather than residences.

3) As mentioned, the instructors make a difference. The ALERRT “mothership” is local to me so like UNM most of my exposure has been via their paid instructor cadre vs “sum doode” from an agency with a 4 day instructor cert. who only teaches 1 or 2 times a year.

I have been to a SWAT school or two, and I have trained some SWAT guys. My current agency is small, with ZERO SWAT capability. But the training requirement is real, and for patrol cops that aren't gun-n-run types, with limited time and training resources ALERRT checks a box. If it were my decision I would send everyone to the traveling instructor school for the information and the reps. Even if they failed (an actual possibility in my experience, sorry Louis!) they would be better served than by most patrol scenario training, and with less investment than sending everyone to SWAT school and dealing with their failures there. It is not SWAT. It is eye opening, with a bunch of PHDs and BTDTs trying to put on a portable, lowest common denominator type in extremis training. I'll take it, because right now it is all available.

pat

[KEW8338]

As discussed here in the thread on the FL FBI shooting it was not a SWAT or purely tactical operation. They had a search warrant but not an arrest warrant and there were legal and investigate reasons why they did what they did vs optimal tactics.

I have no beef with or have the slightest clue as to much of the background.

I raised that as a point:
Bad guys can target through intermediate barriers

A majority of small arms can achieve effects through a majority of domestic structures

Interesting side note: IOT wifi cameras as possible early warning or increasing SA for a barricaded shooter

[HCM]

I have no beef with or have the slightest clue as to much of the background.

I raised that as a point:
Bad guys can target through intermediate barriers

A majority of small arms can achieve effects through a majority of domestic structures

Interesting side note: IOT wifi cameras as possible early warning or increasing SA for a barricaded shooter

Cameras are new - just more common:


https://youtu.be/G9gHNl8UNq4

[KEW8338]

Sure man I can totally relate to hard thinking on layovers. You're not coming off as cunty at all.

We've had disagreements, "spirited discussions" and one memorable shouting match about pretty much any topic you can imagine. Interior movement, ECQ shooting, knife work, fighting in cars. I meant LITERALLY everything. For the most part my content is well received but some guys simply don't agree. In only one case did it get kind of personal when a former commando got tooled up by another in an evolution and the guy screamed at me that we had no business doing this anyway because he'd be shooting people and not rolling around on the floor.


Well that sounds like this discussion so far. We are on par for the course then.

Checked your schedule, didn't see an AMIS. I will keep checking. Always good to freshen up.

[TC215]

FWIW, 4 different FBI SWAT teams took rounds through a door in 2020.

There was video released a few days ago that showed NYPD ESU taking rounds through a door.

During the Chattanooga terrorist attack a few years ago, the bad guy put rounds through the wall every time he approached a doorway.

[HCM]

FWIW, 4 different FBI SWAT teams took rounds through a door in 2020.

There was video released a few days ago that showed NYPD ESU taking rounds through a door.

During the Chattanooga terrorist attack a few years ago, the bad guy put rounds through the wall every time he approached a doorway.

At least one took rounds through the exterior wall of a mobile home in 2018.

Doors / Doorframes keep being mentioned but IME shooting through walls is as common or more common among those switched on enough to shoot through cover/concealment

[43Under]

In an interesting case from Baltimore about two weeks ago, a deputy U.S. Marshal was shot through I believe a closet door. He and/or other officers with him returned fire and killed the subject (he was a security guard at a grocery store who shot it out with police a few days before when he was apparently upset with the paycheck the store gave him!).

[DDTSGM]

That's interesting. I went through the ALERRT active shooter training a couple years ago, and thought it was, hands down, the worst, most ridiculous training I've ever been through. Totally could have been the instructors; I'd have to look at the curriculum more.

I don’t think I’ve ever been to a course where I didn’t pick up something, but I didn’t get much out of their course, either.

One of the problems was the actual ALERRT guys were pretty dogmatic, and we had several folks who just couldn’t sit back and pay attention to them teaching ALERRT’s way of doing things.

It took me a couple years plus teaching courses of my own to finally figure out that if I signed up to come to your class, I was coming to see/learn what you had to offer, not to convince you to do it my way.

[DDTSGM]

OP, I’m curious if you actually watched the video HCM sent or if you dismissed it outright because you don’t believe in the validity of lessons learned from sims training.

One of the problems with validating tactics with SIMS training is that everyone there knows they are there to at least do a SIMS simulation. You can’t get around that.

If you notice, there were specific instructions given to the roleplayers as to what actions they should take. IMHO, when you have folks staged looking at the door (second assailant) waiting to ambush the entry team you have set up a, while not unheard of, fairly unlikely scenario designed to get the results you want.

A more realistic scenario would have been to have both offenders focused on the innocent and not reacting until they see the officers or hear a shot. Even then, their focus is unrealistically on listening and looking for the officers out of the corner of their eye. And use virgins (explained later).

The being said, when properly executed, sim drills can be instructive in developing tactics. For example, after doing all the geometry on what movement would serve best to give officers the advantage in close range encounters, I chose to do SIM drills to validate my beliefs and prioritize training.

My belief was that diagonal movement into the threat, off the threat axis, would cause the suspect more reactionary delay and make them work harder to engage than lateral movement, diagonal movement back, or movement straight back.

In order to test this I set up a field contact scenario. I stood the officer facing the subject at three yards. The subject was informed to drop their ID to the ground and aggressively reach behind their back for the pistol in their waistband and shoot the officer on my signal. I briefed the officer that upon perception of threat, they were to drive in diagonally, left or right, and engage the subject when appropriate. Neither the officer nor the subject knew the other’s instructions.

I also realized something important, in order to validate the tactic, I had to do each rep with ‘virgins’ because otherwise they would know what the other’s role and response was.

I think you have to keep things like this in mind when you are using sims to validate techniques.

JMO, YMMV

[Totem Polar]

Lube? As in 'this is as good as a lube thread?

No, this is better than a lube thread. There’s a lot to see if one is looking. And that goes double for folks like me who have interest, but no expertise. I’m digging the shit out of this thread.

My only concern is how expensive it’s going to get by the time I can get to some good open coursework for a couple of viewpoints. This place never fails to give the gift of top ramen for a month.

JMO.

[Dave Williams]

This has certainly turned into an interesting thread. Are any of you taught the "Hi Threat CQB" method? That is what we are using for room entry as opposed to threshold assessment or points of domination. There is quite a bit of info out there about Hi Threat CQB if you're interested in googling.

[AMC]

*quietly to self*"Why are you doing this???"

Okay, I'll bite. The OP's question initially seemed geared towards Solo movement in structures, while armed, correct? And whether 'Pieing' is a viable tactic in that context, versus more 'athletic' or 'dynamic' tactics based on movement? Several posters here, with a great deal of training and experience, have said that yes, in context it can be. Several posters have explained that tactics depend on situational context, and that what is applicable in one circumstance may not work in another. Many can succeed, and all can fail. The fact is that Solo 'Clearing' of a structure is a big shit sandwich, and you should avoid taking a bite unless lives are in danger.

The OP appears to disagree with that assessment, though exactly why (given the context qualifiers provided by other posters) is really not clear to me. Other than, "I don't agree. I think this is a better tactic." Cool, man. You do you. If that 'tactic' works better for you in your experience, drive on. Nobody is trying to convince you, they're simply stating what they do in the context of their training and experience. You seem to be trying to convince yourself, by convincing others. But maybe I'm wrong.

Several posters have inquired about your background, in an attempt to figure out where you're coming from. Several of those people have a great deal of training and experience in this subject, and have offered their thoughts based on that. You do not seem willing to offer yours, due to 'privacy', etc.

Lest I be called a hypocrite....I've been a cop for 29 years with one of the largest municipal agencies on the West Coast. I've worked the district with the highest concentration of violent crime west of the Mississippi, and possibly the most 'diverse' police district in the state (gang infested housing projects on one end, Nancy Pelosi, Dianne Feinstein and the Getty Family on the other). Most of that career was spent in patrol, by choice, save for a stint in General Investigations (Robbery, Burglary, Agg. Assault). I was shot at 4 times as a patrolman, and had to drop the hammer myself. I have participated in "Armed movement in structures" in every type of structure you can imagine, residential and commercial. I was a Patrol and First Responder Tactics instructor for our department. I currently supervise the firearms training program for our department, where I am struggling desperately to drag our program kicking and screaming into the 21st Century. I do not believe I have all...or even most...of the answers, and regularly consult with my peers up and down the state about best practices, training methodologies, equipment, etc. Some of those dudes are also members here, by the way.

In answer to your question, the consensus answer basically boils down to "Sure....maybe....it depends." Without knowing you or your background, the direction of the conversation points to a lack of experience. Or at least that's how it comes across. I mean...a lot of these guys are trying to kind of agree with you, if you haven't caught that.

This thread in some ways reminds me of a recruit we had recently, who's known to another forum member here. Very good shooter, who's been shooting pretty seriously with some local guys for over a year. We do an 'In-House' course review with the recruits after the training, separate from the POST mandated 1-5 BS reviews they have to do. We ask for actual honest feedback from the recruits, and we've actually made changes to the program based on consistent themes we see in those reviews. This recruit was very honest in his review, and was appalled that we expected recruits to obtain the level of skill it took him a year to achieve in our 80 hour program. Point being that he entirely missed the point, and the program is not at all geared toward such an outcome (would that it was!). I think this kid has the makings of a good cop...but he hadn't quite grasped that being a good shooter is not the same thing as being a good cop. Maybe he has by now.

This is not to slam anyone for a lack of experience. We all started there, and there's always someone cleverer than yourself, to quote Merlin. But if you're missing when people are saying "Yeah sure, that could work, but maybe this too..."? I dunno, think about it.

[PNWTO]

AMC and TGS are spot-on; warhead-on-forehead accurate.

You can’t even attempt sandtable stuff like this via a text-based format so I’m not sure the point but knowing a background/foundation does assist with some fluency via typing.

Personally, I’ll go ahead and say that I’ve solo’d a family-size, two-story structure in a hostile environment; I did have four Afghan soldiers but that particular group wasn’t exactly an asset. Slowly pieing worked because we were more focused on IEDs and we never encountered a soul. Obviously, different stimulus would have changed the tale. It’s a very, very weird world and the opponent gets a vote so my humble and inexperienced offering would be to know the fundamentals and be practiced enough to know when to change and adapt.

I’ll also add that as an SOI grad; I didn’t know shit at the time but aggressiveness pays dividends.


I'm having PTMcCain flashbacks.

Remember how Voodoo liked to “debate”?

[DDTSGM]

Nah. We've never met. My academy did the same demo with a Sig and a piece of paper.

You called me old when I mentioned in another thread that I had a REP-63 contract for the 12th Group. Back when there was a 12th Group.

pat

Ahh. Those were the good old days.

[EPF]

Other than AMIS, which is rarely offered for various reasons, is there another open enrollment individual tactics course with a force on force on force component?

[WobblyPossum]

One of the problems with validating tactics with SIMS training is that everyone there knows they are there to at least do a SIMS simulation. You can’t get around that.

If you notice, there were specific instructions given to the roleplayers as to what actions they should take. IMHO, when you have folks staged looking at the door (second assailant) waiting to ambush the entry team you have set up a, while not unheard of, fairly unlikely scenario designed to get the results you want.

A more realistic scenario would have been to have both offenders focused on the innocent and not reacting until they see the officers or hear a shot. Even then, their focus is unrealistically on listening and looking for the officers out of the corner of their eye. And use virgins (explained later).

The being said, when properly executed, sim drills can be instructive in developing tactics. For example, after doing all the geometry on what movement would serve best to give officers the advantage in close range encounters, I chose to do SIM drills to validate my beliefs and prioritize training.

My belief was that diagonal movement into the threat, off the threat axis, would cause the suspect more reactionary delay and make them work harder to engage than lateral movement, diagonal movement back, or movement straight back.

In order to test this I set up a field contact scenario. I stood the officer facing the subject at three yards. The subject was informed to drop their ID to the ground and aggressively reach behind their back for the pistol in their waistband and shoot the officer on my signal. I briefed the officer that upon perception of threat, they were to drive in diagonally, left or right, and engage the subject when appropriate. Neither the officer nor the subject knew the other’s instructions.

I also realized something important, in order to validate the tactic, I had to do each rep with ‘virgins’ because otherwise they would know what the other’s role and response was.

I think you have to keep things like this in mind when you are using sims to validate techniques.

JMO, YMMV

Your points are valid and I mostly agree. I believe it is important to always give role players specific guidance with well defined left and right limits. It seems that things always devolve into paintball wars without such restrictions. Your point about using “virgins” who don’t know the instructions given to the other participants is also well taken.

[BehindBlueI's]

Thread at least partially cleared up, dead guy people didn't seem to like references moved. Technical forum, try to keep it at least sort of on topic.

[HCM]

Other than AMIS, which is rarely offered for various reasons, is there another open enrollment individual tactics course with a force on force on force component?

Jon Dufresne of Kinetic Consulting does a solo tactics course called “Weaponized Geometry” which I believe includes FOF via Airsoft.

[PNWTO]

Other than AMIS, which is rarely offered for various reasons, is there another open enrollment individual tactics course with a force on force on force component?

I think the dude behind Cherries Holsters, or something similar, used to offer an OE “Israeli Solo CQB” thing.

[jnc36rcpd]

Bill Blowers of Tap-Rack Tactical has a Surefire Field Notes video demonstrating somewhat dynamic solo house clearing. He emphasized that these tactics were to rapidly locate a loved one in a structure under threat. The video was not intended to show patrol officers, soldiers, or SWAT team members how to perform, but the techniques seem largely valid.

[HCM]

Other than AMIS, which is rarely offered for various reasons, is there another open enrollment individual tactics course with a force on force on force component?


Jon Dufresne of Kinetic Consulting does a solo tactics course called “Weaponized Geometry” which I believe includes FOF via Airsoft.


I think the dude behind Cherries Holsters, or something similar, used to offer an OE “Israeli Solo CQB” thing.

You lost me at "Israeli."

Sage Dynamics also offers Citizen Response to Active Shooter which is essentially a solo tactics / FOF course. Looks like he has 2 scheduled this year.

Craig and Aaron Cowan need no introduction here. Duffy is a former Ranger (scroll) who is an also AI for Sage Dynamics. Looks like he has 3 Weaponized Geometry classes on the calendar this year.

[KEW8338]

At least one took rounds through the exterior wall of a mobile home in 2018.

Doors / Doorframes keep being mentioned but IME shooting through walls is as common or more common among those switched on enough to shoot through cover/concealment

Just to check if I am tracking correctly now. We have established bad guys do shoot through walls/doors/intermediate barriers/ concealment.

That can be a trained action, if the bad guy knows ballistics. Or an untrained action, in that he is firing wildly and rounds may strike a wall.

I tend to revert to training for fighting trained people vs untrained people. In the old CQB adage "speed, surprise, violence of action". If you lose one. You need to make up for it. Where as if maneuvering in a hallway, if indications are I am about to take contact and withdrawing is not an option, then it becomes a game of speed.

All this revolves around what the situation is feeding you. These are the sorts of things I guess I was hoping to discuss.

[KEW8338]

*quietly to self*"Why are you doing this???"

Okay, I'll bite. The OP's question initially seemed geared towards Solo movement in structures, while armed, correct? And whether 'Pieing' is a viable tactic in that context, versus more 'athletic' or 'dynamic' tactics based on movement? Several posters here, with a great deal of training and experience, have said that yes, in context it can be. Several posters have explained that tactics depend on situational context, and that what is applicable in one circumstance may not work in another. Many can succeed, and all can fail. The fact is that Solo 'Clearing' of a structure is a big shit sandwich, and you should avoid taking a bite unless lives are in danger.

The OP appears to disagree with that assessment, though exactly why (given the context qualifiers provided by other posters) is really not clear to me. Other than, "I don't agree. I think this is a better tactic." Cool, man. You do you. If that 'tactic' works better for you in your experience, drive on. Nobody is trying to convince you, they're simply stating what they do in the context of their training and experience. You seem to be trying to convince yourself, by convincing others. But maybe I'm wrong.

Several posters have inquired about your background, in an attempt to figure out where you're coming from. Several of those people have a great deal of training and experience in this subject, and have offered their thoughts based on that. You do not seem willing to offer yours, due to 'privacy', etc.

Lest I be called a hypocrite....I've been a cop for 29 years with one of the largest municipal agencies on the West Coast. I've worked the district with the highest concentration of violent crime west of the Mississippi, and possibly the most 'diverse' police district in the state (gang infested housing projects on one end, Nancy Pelosi, Dianne Feinstein and the Getty Family on the other). Most of that career was spent in patrol, by choice, save for a stint in General Investigations (Robbery, Burglary, Agg. Assault). I was shot at 4 times as a patrolman, and had to drop the hammer myself. I have participated in "Armed movement in structures" in every type of structure you can imagine, residential and commercial. I was a Patrol and First Responder Tactics instructor for our department. I currently supervise the firearms training program for our department, where I am struggling desperately to drag our program kicking and screaming into the 21st Century. I do not believe I have all...or even most...of the answers, and regularly consult with my peers up and down the state about best practices, training methodologies, equipment, etc. Some of those dudes are also members here, by the way.

In answer to your question, the consensus answer basically boils down to "Sure....maybe....it depends." Without knowing you or your background, the direction of the conversation points to a lack of experience. Or at least that's how it comes across. I mean...a lot of these guys are trying to kind of agree with you, if you haven't caught that.

This thread in some ways reminds me of a recruit we had recently, who's known to another forum member here. Very good shooter, who's been shooting pretty seriously with some local guys for over a year. We do an 'In-House' course review with the recruits after the training, separate from the POST mandated 1-5 BS reviews they have to do. We ask for actual honest feedback from the recruits, and we've actually made changes to the program based on consistent themes we see in those reviews. This recruit was very honest in his review, and was appalled that we expected recruits to obtain the level of skill it took him a year to achieve in our 80 hour program. Point being that he entirely missed the point, and the program is not at all geared toward such an outcome (would that it was!). I think this kid has the makings of a good cop...but he hadn't quite grasped that being a good shooter is not the same thing as being a good cop. Maybe he has by now.

This is not to slam anyone for a lack of experience. We all started there, and there's always someone cleverer than yourself, to quote Merlin. But if you're missing when people are saying "Yeah sure, that could work, but maybe this too..."? I dunno, think about it.

If this comes down to the training resume to establish credibility to be able to participate in a discussion, then sure:
I have taken AMIS, on multiple occasions
I have taken multiple Forge Tactical CQB (pair and team level) courses
I have taken VCQB with Petty
I have taken a variety of other SUT/CQB classes open to civs and not

As for respecting someone's "privacy". That is absolutely a thing...

[TGS]

If this comes down to the training resume to establish credibility to be able to participate in a discussion, then sure:
I have taken AMIS, on multiple occasions
I have taken multiple Forge Tactical CQB (pair and team level) courses
I have taken VCQB with Petty
I have taken a variety of other SUT/CQB classes open to civs and not


I smell bullshit. You would know the answers to the questions you're asking.....especially in context to AMIS, which you clearly didn't attend based on your knowledge/understanding of the concepts.

[SouthNarc]

I smell bullshit. You would know the answers to the questions you're asking.....especially in context to AMIS, which you clearly didn't attend based on your knowledge/understanding of the concepts.



He's not bullshitting. I know him.

[TGS]

He's not bullshitting. I know him.

So is this some big troll thread then? You invited him to come take the class with you, as if he's never been to it.

[SouthNarc]

So is this some big troll thread then? You invited him to come take the class with you, as if he's never been to it.


Having a private conversation right now. He has reservations about things I've taught him based on current real world observations. Which is fine.

[TGS]

Having a private conversation right now. He has reservations about things I've taught him based on current real world observations. Which is fine.

Which is totally fine, but someone thinking all of these tactics are built/developed off sim runs, or asking "what's the difference between pieing a doorway and a threshold clear?" Isn't really indicative of such experience or understanding.

This is just weird. Have fun ya'll.

[SouthNarc]

Which is totally fine, but asking "what's a threshold clear?" Isn't really indicative of such experience or understanding.

This is just weird. Have fun ya'll.


Oh he has experience and understanding. Quite a bit.

I think he was hoping for debate on the topic outside of me which is flawed since AMIS was specifically referenced and it was inevitable that I would enter the conversation.

[EPF]

I think the dude behind Cherries Holsters, or something similar, used to offer an OE “Israeli Solo CQB” thing.

Yikes that sounds awful, I guess I should have added “recommended” to my question 🙂

[KEW8338]

Which is totally fine, but someone thinking all of these tactics are built/developed off sim runs, or asking "what's the difference between pieing a doorway and a threshold clear?" Isn't really indicative of such experience or understanding.

This is just weird. Have fun ya'll.

If I don't know someone. I generally ask what they mean.

Also threshold clearance, threshold assessment and pieing a threshold were all thrown out. I was attempting to narrow down what folks mean.

In terms of sparking discussion. It was a wonked attempt on my part

[SouthNarc]

In terms of sparking discussion. It was a wonked attempt on my part

No harm, no foul, all good. Not the first time you've been socially awkward.

[BehindBlueI's]

Are we done here, then? Or is this still some viable conversation?

[SouthNarc]

Are we done here, then? Or is this still some viable conversation?

It's viable I think. I know the OP quite well and his intentions for gathering information were honest even if his attempts at doing so were misplaced. AMIS was referenced as a common point for conversation not in any attempt to discredit me personally or professionally.

He has genuine PERSEC issues that do require him to be vague. He has a firm command of tactics and poor social literacy. So.....there you go. It can be viable discussion though probably frustrating, indirect and obtuse. I'm gonna bow out.

[WobblyPossum]

Are we done here, then? Or is this still some viable conversation?

I think that the conversations is definitely still viable.

This is likely going to sound very rambling and obvious but it’s my way of showing how I’ve come to my preferences. Since we’re mostly talking about the private citizen context of solo cqb, the most likely use cases I can think of running into these situations are in an active shooter incident or in a home invasion/coming home to what looks like a burglary in progress. OP, I agree with you in that there might not be a need to enter every room on your route and some rooms can by bypassed, but that would depend on your goals and circumstances. Your speed will also depend on the circumstances.

In an active shooter incident, most gun carriers’ goal would be to exit safely while being prepared to engage the shooter if they happen to find the shooter between themselves and the exit. In that case, rooms can definitely be bypassed because those rooms aren’t the exit. There are also non-LE and non-mil private citizens who carry firearms daily and will definitely make it their mission to search for and engage the shooter. That’s just how they’re wired. In that case some kind of stimulus, such as gunfire would dictate which rooms can/cannot be bypassed.

In the home invasion/coming home to what looks like a burglary in progress concept, rooms being bypassed depends on what’s in your house. If you’re home and someone kicks your door in, the two most commonly recommended courses of action are bunkering in a designated safe room, or getting out of there and getting outside. If there are loved ones such family and friends in the house, then the mission becomes their safety. You can’t hunker down in your hardened bedroom if your toddlers are in their rooms down the hall. You’ll have to work your way to them to protect them. You might be able to move quickly, or you may not, depending on the layout of the home and whether the door that’s been kicked in is on the way to your loved ones. Same thing if you come home from work, the door is wide open, and your living room looks like it’s been tossed. If there are family members who are supposed to be inside, I don’t know too many people who would wait for the police to get there, knowing that their loved ones might be in danger inside. Can you bypass rooms? Maybe. Maybe there’s some stimulus like sound letting you know where the bad guys are or where your loved ones are. Maybe there isn’t and you need to enter every room to find your loved ones.

My concern with dynamic entry into uncleared rooms is that the only time I like being surprised is when I’m watching a movie. I don’t like entering rooms that might contain danger without a clue as to what I’ll find. It would suck to dynamically enter a room and find yourself facing multiple home invaders in different spots while you’re just armed with your daily ccw gun. It’s much less of a concern if I’m entering that room as part of a team of four because everyone will be covering a field of fire. Solo, you’re not able to effectively cover all those fields of fire. Threshold evaluation/pieing/clearing the room from outside, would take out a lot of that surprise. You can clear most of a room from the outside so that when you make your entry, your field of fire is directed at the most likely area for the threat to be, the place you couldn’t clear from outside.

I really like the pieing concept, even though everything went out the window during my AMIS and I found myself basically entering the room with the bad guy in it at a run.

[KEW8338]

My concern with dynamic entry into uncleared rooms is that the only time I like being surprised is when I’m watching a movie. I don’t like entering rooms that might contain danger without a clue as to what I’ll find. It would suck to dynamically enter a room and find yourself facing multiple home invaders in different spots while you’re just armed with your daily ccw gun. It’s much less of a concern if I’m entering that room as part of a team of four because everyone will be covering a field of fire. Solo, you’re not able to effectively cover all those fields of fire. Threshold evaluation/pieing/clearing the room from outside, would take out a lot of that surprise. You can clear most of a room from the outside so that when you make your entry, your field of fire is directed at the most likely area for the threat to be, the place you couldn’t clear from outside.

I really like the pieing concept, even though everything went out the window during my AMIS and I found myself basically entering the room with the bad guy in it at a run.

Don't be surprised then. That's a mindset thing

[WobblyPossum]

Don't be surprised then. That's a mindset thing

That’s nice. It doesn’t actually address the concern of finding yourself in a room containing multiple hostiles whose location you had no information on prior to entering the room, though. What are your options at that point? Stand and deliver and hope you can burn them all down before you get dog piled or shot to death? Run back out of the room and face the same possibility of being shot through the wall that leads you to dislike pieing to begin with? Hope the bad guys are intimidated enough to comply with your commands? It sounds like every option sucks, which is kind of the running theme in solo cqb.

[KEW8338]

That’s nice. It doesn’t actually address the concern of finding yourself in a room containing multiple hostiles whose location you had no information on prior to entering the room, though. What are your options at that point? Stand and deliver and hope you can burn them all down before you get dog piled or shot to death? Run back out of the room and face the same possibility of being shot through the wall that leads you to dislike pieing to begin with? Hope the bad guys are intimidated enough to comply with your commands? It sounds like every option sucks, which is kind of the running theme in solo cqb.

Hopefully this doesn't turn into a rah rah football chant. But you have to dominate the environment. This is done through imposing your will on that room.

If you are surprised going into a room. You were not ready for a fight. If you were not ready for a fight that's a mindset thing.

[TC215]

But you have to dominate the environment. This is done through imposing your will on that room.

Totally agree. I've been lucky enough to do some training lately with guys from the country's "premier civilian LE counter-terrorism team" or whatever they're referred to. I can't really describe watching them enter a room...it's unreal.

"Rent hallways, own rooms." They totally dominate the room.

Of course, that's in a team environment, too.

[vcdgrips]

Outside of my lane re the technical topic at hand. I know just enough to know how much I do not know and have no intention of clearing/pieing/entering anything absent lives being at stake.
Shoot House runs at Gunsite, Thunder Ranch and at TAC-CON with Tom Givens et al. set that stage, agency training where I was an invited guest took it the rest of the way.


I get PERSEC/OPSEC etc. Having said that, if that is really driving the train, then why are you on a publically available forum at all?


I cannot help but think how much of the ya ya in this thread could have been avoided if the OP had said:

"I have been to these types of classes with folks x, y and z. Based on those experiences and my own cogitatiations, I have these questions/concerns/comments etc."


I beg a plankholder indulgence as I trained with our founder on multiple occasions, was considered a friend and was speaking with him on the phone the day this forum went live in Feb 2011.


I have been participating in firearms oriented forums pre 2000. I am seeing the beginnings of a pattern on PF that is disturbing here in the 10th year of operation.

"Possible" Troll Lite Behavior is exhibited by an OP. SMEs and others in the know, giving the benefit of the doubt, engage. OP then whatabouts the responses. When asked for bonafides by others, admittedly ball breaking by some, but mostly trying to establish context, gain understanding, perspective etc., by said SMEs/serious students of the art, OP acts cagey and doubles down on "Possible Troll Lite Behavior." SMEs and others in the know say to themselves- pass and unplug from the thread.

This pattern repeats itself over a few topics and soon, folks who really really know what they are doing, move on.

I view this place as special. I view this place, the SMEs and others as Professors at the University of the Uniquely American Art of Pistol/Weaponscraft because of the SHARING, REDISCOVERY and CREATION of this KNOWLEDGE given their respective WORK and EXPERIENCE in the area.


FWIW, YMMV greatly.

[WobblyPossum]

Hopefully this doesn't turn into a rah rah football chant. But you have to dominate the environment. This is done through imposing your will on that room.

If you are surprised going into a room. You were not ready for a fight. If you were not ready for a fight that's a mindset thing.

I’m not trying to be difficult but you aren’t addressing my point again. I understand the idea of dominating an environment. I just happen to think that clearing as much of a room as you can from the threshold allows you to dominate the room more than entering it with no knowledge of what you might find inside. “Dominate your environment” is one of those things that sounds great to say but isn’t really a plan, it’s an end-goal. It’s like when people tell you to “just stand up” if you find yourself grappling with someone on the ground. It’s not that easy when you’re confronted with opposition that doesn’t want you to “just stand up” or “dominate your environment.”

Your main concern with pieing seems to be that you’re setting yourself up to take rounds through walls and door frames. My concern with dynamic entry is that you may be setting yourself up to be in a position of great disadvantage with very little time to respond to your newfound circumstances which could lead to multiple crappy options. One of those is you ducking back out of the room and taking rounds through walls and door frames. Another one is you being stuck in a room and absorbing a lot of incoming rounds. Several people have already mentioned that the trend towards pieing prior to room entry didn’t come from Sims scenarios. It came from dudes in Iraq and Afghanistan dynamically entering rooms and suddenly finding themselves face to face with a machine gun emplacement that they would have been able to see prior to entry had they tried to clear the room from outside first.

[TGS]

OP was messaging me and I think it's mostly water under the bridge.


Totally agree. I've been lucky enough to do some training lately with guys from the country's "premier civilian LE counter-terrorism team" or whatever they're referred to. I can't really describe watching them enter a room...it's unreal.

"Rent hallways, own rooms." They totally dominate the room.

Of course, that's in a team environment, too.

Right. The guy we hired to start our tactics program back "in the day" was a plankholder for Delta. His acceptable speed for room entry is something that can only be described as a full-out sprint.

However, most guys in LE and the military are not cut from the same cloth as a member of Delta, and most people can not pull-off that performance regardless of using manly words. In which case, we run into what Dan brought up:


I’m not trying to be difficult but you aren’t addressing my point again. I understand the idea of dominating an environment. I just happen to think that clearing as much of a room as you can from the threshold allows you to dominate the room more than entering it with no knowledge of what you might find inside. “Dominate your environment” is one of those things that sounds great to say but isn’t really a plan, it’s an end-goal. It’s like when people tell you to “just stand up” if you find yourself grappling with someone on the ground. It’s not that easy when you’re confronted with opposition that doesn’t want you to “just stand up” or “dominate your environment.”


...and a quick analysis of your average tactical team doing dynamic entry under fire turns into a cluster fuck instead of "dominating". Plenty of videos in the open of this happening...first guy is a true believer and goes leroy jenkins, fully committed, and everyone else starts fighting from the doorway. So, the industry developed tactics to play to our aggregate advantages rather than place us in a losing position.

Moreover, I also see the OPs primary concern with catching rounds through the wall. In which case, I've thought the proper answer to that is stack dispersion, not dynamic entry. If you can catch rounds from blind fire through the wall, how well is it going to work when you're opposing aimed rounds through a small, definable danger area (the doorway).......and you're not at the performance level of an SMU? How's that speed work when your breach isn't 100% clean?

Reality is that even if you are a human capable of SMU level performance, you're not going to reach it if your day job isn't that job, full-time, with those resources. There's no way you're getting the average patrol cop, the average fed, the average SRO, or even the average full-time tactical team up to that standard. Thus enter the tactics developed which has served the majority of the industry well in actual use.

[HCM]

Just to check if I am tracking correctly now. We have established bad guys do shoot through walls/doors/intermediate barriers/ concealment.

That can be a trained action, if the bad guy knows ballistics. Or an untrained action, in that he is firing wildly and rounds may strike a wall.

I tend to revert to training for fighting trained people vs untrained people. In the old CQB adage "speed, surprise, violence of action". If you lose one. You need to make up for it. Where as if maneuvering in a hallway, if indications are I am about to take contact and withdrawing is not an option, then it becomes a game of speed.

All this revolves around what the situation is feeding you. These are the sorts of things I guess I was hoping to discuss.

Tactics are context dependent. It was during a surround and call out which is outside the context of your OP.

[Totem Polar]

I think that the conversations is definitely still viable.

Concur. We need to let this one play out. OT, but one of the things that has inexorably been bogging down the conversational level of the forum is the fact that we are now a—relatively—mature group. Even the educators, nurses, tier-one life science research nerds, and classical musicians have availed themselves of training—in no small part because of P-F—that would have been the tactical envy of LE even 20 years ago. That’s why we all talk about shit that isn’t related to training these days. This is one of the more interesting shooting problem threads we’ve had all year, and we’ve all been online a lot. JMO.

I admit that this opinion isn’t entirely altruistic. This is about as close as a guy like me will get to a debate like this, so let’s see where it leads, and what we can learn.

[Erik]

Reality is that even if you are a human capable of SMU level performance, you're not going to reach it if your day job isn't that job, full-time, with those resources. There's no way you're getting the average patrol cop, the average fed, the average SRO, or even the average full-time tactical team up to that standard. Thus enter the tactics developed which has served the majority of the industry well in actual use.


This is about as close as a guy like me will get to a debate like this, so let’s see where it leads, and what we can learn.

Right, so to TGS' list of people who won't perform at the Delta level, add you and me - members of the target demographic for AMIS, at least the open enrollment courses. One of the circumstances that drives the "it depends" factor in how do you address this situation is personal attributes, including experience, skillset and athleticism. Not everybody who finds themselves having to clear a structure or, let's make it as real as it's ever likely to get for some of us, their house because there's an actual overriding reason to do that instead of nopeing on out of that situation, is the guy who can rush the room without being surprised, kill everybody that needs killing and not kill someone they really, really, really don't want to.

[HCM]

Totally agree. I've been lucky enough to do some training lately with guys from the country's "premier civilian LE counter-terrorism team" or whatever they're referred to. I can't really describe watching them enter a room...it's unreal.

"Rent hallways, own rooms." They totally dominate the room.

Of course, that's in a team environment, too.

Important point - what works with a team (and distraction devices etc) may not be optimal for a single person without those tools.

[TGS]

Just to be clear, the tactics my agency is taught is based heavily off JSOC input. My organization has had to form ad-hoc teams with JSOC personnel and perform in extremis personnel recovery in an opposed environment (particularly in soft walled interiors), and it worked out favorably.

I mention this to highlight that it's not an either/or situation. The tippity point uses this stuff too, as appropriate, and from what we are instructed they are actually briefed on our tactics, capabilities and limitations for the purpose of working together in a post-2011 environment.

[BehindBlueI's]

Right. The guy we hired to start our tactics program back "in the day" was a plankholder for Delta. His acceptable speed for room entry is something that can only be described as a full-out sprint.

However, most guys in LE and the military are not cut from the same cloth as a member of Delta, and most people can not pull-off that performance regardless of using manly words.

I've mentioned several times that our patrol rifle program was created in consultation with some very high level military guys. It had to be modified simply because we are not good enough to get away with what they get away with. I am not as physically fast, not as fast on the gun, not as accurate, and do not have a squad of my bestest friends who are just as good on tap to assist.

Which is why I don't think much of anything is getting done in this thread except spinning in the mud. There's zero context to the questions and the 'what ifs' span everything. Literally every question has only one realistic response: It depends. Until a context is nailed down this thread is a blind men/elephant scenario even if every poster is an SME.

[HCM]

Right, so to TGS' list of people who won't perform at the Delta level, add you and me - members of the target demographic for AMIS, at least the open enrollment courses. One of the circumstances that drives the "it depends" factor in how do you address this situation is personal attributes, including experience, skillset and athleticism. Not everybody who finds themselves having to clear a structure or, let's make it as real as it's ever likely to get for some of us, their house because there's an actual overriding reason to do that instead of nopeing on out of that situation, is the guy who can rush the room without being surprised, kill everybody that needs killing and not kill someone they really, really, really don't want to.

Spot on. IME cognitive load is very much a thing for “regular people” and cognitive overload further cuts into mental “processor speed.”

Saw some of this last night at work during low light training. Stacking shooting, light management, use of cover, and target ID produced some interesting results as the task stacking increased the cognitive load.

Clearing a big chunk of a room from outside / threshold reduces the cognitive load vs simply dumping into the room dynamically and having to process everything at once.

In a team environment that load is spread among the team members and distraction devices are usually used to buy additional time to process the room.

So even if a threshold is concealment rather than cover, the benefits of reducing cognitive load before entering a room are real for solo / regular people.

[Totem Polar]

Until a context is nailed down this thread is a blind men/elephant scenario even if every poster is an SME.

Cataloging the possible contexts, in and of itself, is valuable. JMO.

This subject, in terms of the wider training community, is still in its infancy. I sort of see solo structure movement as being where the UFC was in 1994. Sure there are people who are really good at it, but the skill sets are not widely known, let alone self-evident in terms of best practices.

Bluntly, most of us are practicing TKD and Shotokan, and there’s jits to be had.

I absolutely agree that what’s best for CAG is not what’s best for a sedentary fart like me who’s had to deal with more than one lockdown (including an incident caused by one of my own students). Let’s hash out some best practices, across a variety of potentials, eg. wood/drywall vs mud/stone or .mil vs. patrol. Everyone has their own reasons for wanting to know more.

[KEW8338]

I’m not trying to be difficult but you aren’t addressing my point again. I understand the idea of dominating an environment. I just happen to think that clearing as much of a room as you can from the threshold allows you to dominate the room more than entering it with no knowledge of what you might find inside. “Dominate your environment” is one of those things that sounds great to say but isn’t really a plan, it’s an end-goal. It’s like when people tell you to “just stand up” if you find yourself grappling with someone on the ground. It’s not that easy when you’re confronted with opposition that doesn’t want you to “just stand up” or “dominate your environment.”

Your main concern with pieing seems to be that you’re setting yourself up to take rounds through walls and door frames. My concern with dynamic entry is that you may be setting yourself up to be in a position of great disadvantage with very little time to respond to your newfound circumstances which could lead to multiple crappy options. One of those is you ducking back out of the room and taking rounds through walls and door frames. Another one is you being stuck in a room and absorbing a lot of incoming rounds. Several people have already mentioned that the trend towards pieing prior to room entry didn’t come from Sims scenarios. It came from dudes in Iraq and Afghanistan dynamically entering rooms and suddenly finding themselves face to face with a machine gun emplacement that they would have been able to see prior to entry had they tried to clear the room from outside first.

Not at all. That is part of the discussion thing. Dont worry, I wont demand your biography.

From one of my earlier posts I laid out my tactical thought process. The driving considerations are 1) Do I have to go into that room 2) Do the walls stop bullets.

There can be multiple reasons that you "have to go into that room". Whatever that driving force is, If I have to go into a room. Im going into that room. Pieing, IMO, is fairly easy to be compromised while doing. The atmospherics that can be stacked against you are amazing. Lighting, noise etc. Now, I have a bad guy, who maybe was unaware, but now way more aware of my presence. This gives him the time and ability to fix me with fire. If I had to go into that room, I now am in a deficit getting into a slug match. Could you sneak up on a door and shoot some dudes with them never knowing. 100%. IMO that is something easier said than done. So to stack the odds in my favor, Im going to do (IIRC) what Craig teaches in AMIS and use dynamic movement in an attempt to draw the muzzle traverse. Also referred too as running rabbit. I am now relying on me setting the pace of the fight. This coupled with people suck at shooting moving targets and tend to shoot where you were...

You also brought up, what if there are multiple guys in that room...Well...if there are multiple guys in that room, and you are pieing the door. Im not sure how you think that is going to go down...They dont just stand there and let you take them one at a time. The simplest answer is they all do a mag dump at the door....

Next you mentioned Afghanistan and Iraq. Structures in those parts of the world are drastically different in terms of how the interact with bullets. There are numerous other things at play that I will not discuss. But those are part of a tactical thought process and escalation of force .

[KEW8338]

Outside of my lane re the technical topic at hand. I know just enough to know how much I do not know and have no intention of clearing/pieing/entering anything absent lives being at stake.
Shoot House runs at Gunsite, Thunder Ranch and at TAC-CON with Tom Givens et al. set that stage, agency training where I was an invited guest took it the rest of the way.


I get PERSEC/OPSEC etc. Having said that, if that is really driving the train, then why are you on a publically available forum at all?


I cannot help but think how much of the ya ya in this thread could have been avoided if the OP had said:

"I have been to these types of classes with folks x, y and z. Based on those experiences and my own cogitatiations, I have these questions/concerns/comments etc."


I beg a plankholder indulgence as I trained with our founder on multiple occasions, was considered a friend and was speaking with him on the phone the day this forum went live in Feb 2011.


I have been participating in firearms oriented forums pre 2000. I am seeing the beginnings of a pattern on PF that is disturbing here in the 10th year of operation.

"Possible" Troll Lite Behavior is exhibited by an OP. SMEs and others in the know, giving the benefit of the doubt, engage. OP then whatabouts the responses. When asked for bonafides by others, admittedly ball breaking by some, but mostly trying to establish context, gain understanding, perspective etc., by said SMEs/serious students of the art, OP acts cagey and doubles down on "Possible Troll Lite Behavior." SMEs and others in the know say to themselves- pass and unplug from the thread.

This pattern repeats itself over a few topics and soon, folks who really really know what they are doing, move on.

I view this place as special. I view this place, the SMEs and others as Professors at the University of the Uniquely American Art of Pistol/Weaponscraft because of the SHARING, REDISCOVERY and CREATION of this KNOWLEDGE given their respective WORK and EXPERIENCE in the area.


FWIW, YMMV greatly.

I was hoping for discussion without having to state resumes, experiences etc.

I have been personally attacked in this thread multiple times. Not once have I demanded peoples backgrounds, experience levels to deem them worthy of input on a subject. This is a discussion forum.

[KEW8338]

OP was messaging me and I think it's mostly water under the bridge.



Right. The guy we hired to start our tactics program back "in the day" was a plankholder for Delta. His acceptable speed for room entry is something that can only be described as a full-out sprint.

However, most guys in LE and the military are not cut from the same cloth as a member of Delta, and most people can not pull-off that performance regardless of using manly words. In which case, we run into what Dan brought up:



...and a quick analysis of your average tactical team doing dynamic entry under fire turns into a cluster fuck instead of "dominating". Plenty of videos in the open of this happening...first guy is a true believer and goes leroy jenkins, fully committed, and everyone else starts fighting from the doorway. So, the industry developed tactics to play to our aggregate advantages rather than place us in a losing position.

Moreover, I also see the OPs primary concern with catching rounds through the wall. In which case, I've thought the proper answer to that is stack dispersion, not dynamic entry. If you can catch rounds from blind fire through the wall, how well is it going to work when you're opposing aimed rounds through a small, definable danger area (the doorway).......and you're not at the performance level of an SMU? How's that speed work when your breach isn't 100% clean?

Reality is that even if you are a human capable of SMU level performance, you're not going to reach it if your day job isn't that job, full-time, with those resources. There's no way you're getting the average patrol cop, the average fed, the average SRO, or even the average full-time tactical team up to that standard. Thus enter the tactics developed which has served the majority of the industry well in actual use.

If speaking from a team environment, stack dispersion is going to kill combat power and your ability to get the guys where they need to be to support one another. If you are making entry.

If you mean by stack dispersion, using a dude as BAIT...well..hey...it works

If this topic is going to transition to team based applications of pieing that would be another subsection.

This is going to sound cunty, and I promise its not. How often are people in the INDUSTRY, getting "combat" reps in these matters? Judging by where I guess you work at, its a possible COA.

[KEW8338]

Tactics are context dependent. It was during a surround and call out which is outside the context of your OP.

Nice edit.

Im not talking about a tactic. I was simply saying how bullets go through walls.

Thats fact. The tactic/context if it was a cordon and search, or a high risk warrant or whatever the context is irrelevant. Bullets go through walls. That is the point I was trying to make.

The context could have been a dude cleaning his glock and shoots it through his apartment wall killing the grandma next door....

[KEW8338]

Right, so to TGS' list of people who won't perform at the Delta level, add you and me - members of the target demographic for AMIS, at least the open enrollment courses. One of the circumstances that drives the "it depends" factor in how do you address this situation is personal attributes, including experience, skillset and athleticism. Not everybody who finds themselves having to clear a structure or, let's make it as real as it's ever likely to get for some of us, their house because there's an actual overriding reason to do that instead of nopeing on out of that situation, is the guy who can rush the room without being surprised, kill everybody that needs killing and not kill someone they really, really, really don't want to.

Again, to me thats a mindset thing. Anyone, who puts their mind to it, can cultivate mindset.

Hell, just read Starship Troopers or any of Steven Pressfields books if you want to start learning about mindset.

This constant notion of "being surprised" when clearing a house. Thats straight up bad to go. Surprise is a lack of discipline and mental control which is going to equate to you being jumpy and likely shooting people who dont need to be shot.

[KEW8338]

Spot on. IME cognitive load is very much a thing for “regular people” and cognitive overload further cuts into mental “processor speed.”

Saw some of this last night at work during low light training. Stacking shooting, light management, use of cover, and target ID produced some interesting results as the task stacking increased the cognitive load.

Clearing a big chunk of a room from outside / threshold reduces the cognitive load vs simply dumping into the room dynamically and having to process everything at once.

In a team environment that load is spread among the team members and distraction devices are usually used to buy additional time to process the room.

So even if a threshold is concealment rather than cover, the benefits of reducing cognitive load before entering a room are real for solo / regular people.

That is absolutely true. As in previous posts. People can easily be over whelmed by circumstances. Which is why training needs to occur.

Lets flip this map around from the enemy's perspective. What is harder for him to react too?

In a gross attempt to simplify this to something everyone should be able to relate to:

Imagine you are playing paintball. You have an inclination a guy is around a corner.

What do you do? You sight in on that corner...

What is an easier target. When the guy slowly creeps his head around the corner, OR goes darting out.

In addition to cognitive load. Something that is exceptionally challenging is seeing things in different focal planes. Meaning seeing deep/into things. That is a incredibly hard skill that is very high on the CPU demand. To pie effectively, you need to be doing that.

[TGS]

If speaking from a team environment, stack dispersion is going to kill combat power and your ability to get the guys where they need to be to support one another. If you are making entry.

I think that's a very dogmatic take on an open stack that isn't particularly well supported by its use in real life from various organizations.

One of the things you keep bringing up is whether these organizations are actually getting in gunfights. Again, since you're secret squirrel and we don't know what your context is, nor the experiences you're speaking from as a contextual basis which we don't have.....I think you might be surprised how often police get into shootings, particularly busy police tactical teams. They absolutely have relevant experience and why they're doing stuff a certain way, and it totally varies from locale to locale. Talking with dudes from those teams is often much more enlightening that talking to most .mil types. At one of my prior assignments, we had our tactics instructors from our primary training center come up and run us through rehearsals in preparation for a huge warrant service. We then brought them into the places we hit after they had been searched, and they understood why certain things they were teaching weren't working in our locale (NYC). They really appreciated it, and I think it was a good learning point for an already excellent group of instructors.

In this thread, you've consistently group everything you don't value into a category of "well they must not have the real world experience I have" and taking an absolutist stance on various tactics, which is weak sauce regardless of whatever praise Craig seems to hold for you...and why a lot of people here are finding it particularly difficult to converse with you. As BehindBlueI's described, this isn't a particularly useful conversation.

p.s. regarding where I work, I don't think you have the right idea. I won't post openly because that would put my account here under work's social media policy, but I'm an open book in PMs (in which you've already stated you don't care).

[HCM]

Nice edit.

Im not talking about a tactic. I was simply saying how bullets go through walls.

Thats fact. The tactic/context if it was a cordon and search, or a high risk warrant or whatever the context is irrelevant. Bullets go through walls. That is the point I was trying to make.

The context could have been a dude cleaning his glock and shoots it through his apartment wall killing the grandma next door....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts#:~:text=Moving%20the%20goalpo sts%20(or%20shifting,side%20an%20advantage%20or%20 disadvantage.


Moving the goalposts (or shifting the goalposts) is a metaphor, derived from goal-based sports, that means to change the criterion (goal) of a process or competition while it is still in progress, in such a way that the new goal offers one side an advantage or disadvantage

[Half Moon]

Not an SME at all so I'm learning good information from the thread overall.

That said, OP: what are you looking to get out of this thread? You have multiple folks with field experience saying: it depends on context and providing reasoning on that context. If you're just going to keep pushing back on any solution that doesn't agree with your preconceived stance are you really getting anything out of this? Is it a dialog or a monolog you're looking for?

[vcdgrips]

OP states:
"I was hoping for discussion without having to state resumes, experiences etc. I have been personally attacked in this thread multiple times. Not once have I demanded peoples backgrounds, experience levels to deem them worthy of input on a subject. This is a discussion forum."

I would respectfully assert your premise is flawed. There are people whose lack of background and experience (and training and education) deem them unworthy of input on a subject absent disclosure and/or caveats.


All opinions on a given subject are not remotely equal.

Based on SN vouching for you, you undoubtedly know more about room clearing than I do or ever will.

Be safe and well.

[Erik]

Again, to me thats a mindset thing. Anyone, who puts their mind to it, can cultivate mindset.

Hell, just read Starship Troopers or any of Steven Pressfields books if you want to start learning about mindset.

This constant notion of "being surprised" when clearing a house. Thats straight up bad to go. Surprise is a lack of discipline and mental control which is going to equate to you being jumpy and likely shooting people who dont need to be shot.

Thanks. I'm not going to look to Starship Troopers for my mindset lessons but if it works for you, great. Mindset is really not the issue that I'm highlighting in any event. Substitute "without their performance degrading because they're operating from an informational deficit" for "without being surprised" in my quoted post and that will at least clarify the one portion of it that you chose to address.

[HCM]

Substitute "without their performance degrading because they're operating from an informational deficit" for "without being surprised"

This (at least partly) what I was referring to as "cognitive load."

Defaulting to the expectation of finding something/someone when searching will help reduce processing time but you still have to process and act on what ever stimulus you encounter and that takes time.

[DDTSGM]

Don't know what happened there - deleted quoted post.

[TheRoland]

Just want to say that as a someone that's mostly an internet boob, I've found this thread's discussion really interesting. As someone who will never clear a house that's not my own, I frankly had never really considered which of my interior corners are likely to stop bullets (a couple of them) and which are concealment (most of them).

Every good thread needs a dramatic argument for drama's sake but this is, imho, one of the best PF tactics threads in a while as a bystander.

[DDTSGM]

Several people have already mentioned that the trend towards pieing prior to room entry didn’t come from Sims scenarios. It came from dudes in Iraq and Afghanistan dynamically entering rooms and suddenly finding themselves face to face with a machine gun emplacement that they would have been able to see prior to entry had they tried to clear the room from outside first.

Pretty sure we were teaching that to recruits prior to 9/11. At one of the first NTOA Active Shooter Courses (conducted in Phoenix by a guy named Parker from Omaha PD, IIRC) they lined us outside a room to see our two-man entries. I and my associate, Mark, were kind of looking at each like 'WTF, why are these guys doing blind entries?' When we got to the door, Mark sliced it quick, signaled me and we entered.

We went back out to watch and every team following sliced the door and entered as we did.

So I'm saying we invented it, neither of us has ever been to Iraq or Afghanistan. :rolleyes:

[WobblyPossum]

Not at all. That is part of the discussion thing. Dont worry, I wont demand your biography.

From one of my earlier posts I laid out my tactical thought process. The driving considerations are 1) Do I have to go into that room 2) Do the walls stop bullets.

There can be multiple reasons that you "have to go into that room". Whatever that driving force is, If I have to go into a room. Im going into that room. Pieing, IMO, is fairly easy to be compromised while doing. The atmospherics that can be stacked against you are amazing. Lighting, noise etc. Now, I have a bad guy, who maybe was unaware, but now way more aware of my presence. This gives him the time and ability to fix me with fire. If I had to go into that room, I now am in a deficit getting into a slug match. Could you sneak up on a door and shoot some dudes with them never knowing. 100%. IMO that is something easier said than done. So to stack the odds in my favor, Im going to do (IIRC) what Craig teaches in AMIS and use dynamic movement in an attempt to draw the muzzle traverse. Also referred too as running rabbit. I am now relying on me setting the pace of the fight. This coupled with people suck at shooting moving targets and tend to shoot where you were...

You also brought up, what if there are multiple guys in that room...Well...if there are multiple guys in that room, and you are pieing the door. Im not sure how you think that is going to go down...They dont just stand there and let you take them one at a time. The simplest answer is they all do a mag dump at the door....

Next you mentioned Afghanistan and Iraq. Structures in those parts of the world are drastically different in terms of how the interact with bullets. There are numerous other things at play that I will not discuss. But those are part of a tactical thought process and escalation of force .

This brings us back to one of the points first raised in this thread, and in training I’ve had: having to clear a structure by yourself is a shitty thing to be involved in. There are multiple TTPs you can employ but none of them covers every possible scenario or risk. You can try to clear rooms from the threshold, which exposes you to the risk of people shooting you, unseen, through walls or door frames. You can try to enter rooms dynamically and hope that if you run into a deadly force problem, the other guy or guys don’t hit you first. I agree with you in that my understanding of the thought process behind pieing is that it’s partially based on the idea/assumption that people aren’t overly likely to shoot at things they can’t see. I believe the idea of solo dynamic entry is based on the idea/assumption that the other guy isn’t very good with his gun and is going to be unable to put bullets into you before you can put bullets into him.

Back to the “surprise” issue: as usual, I failed to articulate exactly what I meant in a clear manner and the conversation has drifted. What I was trying to convey was better explained by HCM when he was discussing cognitive load and overload. I thought I had been more clear in the context of the post in which I initially used the word “surprise” but I obviously was not. I was not using the word in the mindset context you’re using it in. When I wrote “surprise” I didn’t mean finding the contents of the room you just entered to be entirely unexpected because you failed to mentally prepare for conflict. I didn’t mean surprise at actually finding that threats happen to exist inside the room. What I meant was making entry and now having to orient yourself to all of the circumstances inside the room simultaneously in a very compressed timeframe. Pieing from the threshold at least let’s me process a substantial part of the room, let’s say 80%, before I actually get inside. That only requires me to have to process the remaining 20% once I enter. Yes, I’m hoping that no one shoots me through the wall while I’m pieing. Dynamically entering the room requires that I have to process 100% of the room while I cross the threshold, and immediately after entering, and find myself hip deep in whatever ends up being inside.

You don’t like the idea of hoping people decide not to shoot at you through the wall while you clear from a threshold. I don’t like the idea of hoping whoever is inside the room sucks at shooting and ends up missing me as I enter and get my own gun in the fight. Maybe that’s part of the context and circumstances of our experiences. Most of the structures I end up going into at work are pretty small and have corresponding small rooms inside. I don’t want to have to count on someone missing me in a room small enough that you could probably point your gun in the general area in front of you, close your eyes, crank off a bunch of rounds, and practically guarantee hitting someone. As others have already said, it all depends because there isn’t one correct answer.

[43Under]

Like a trainwreck that I have to watch, I have returned to see more.

I have one question that I pose to all those who know what they are doing when it comes to this stuff. And just for the record, I posted MY resume earlier so that people would know where I was coming from (i.e., Joe Schmo who's taken a bunch of classes, NOT someone who does this stuff for a living).

The OP much earlier referenced shooting (or at least being ready to shoot) from what he termed "compromised positions", which he said included all one-handed shooting. And he regarded this as a thing to be avoided.

So here's the question:

If the only/best way to "take down a room" and "dominate it" is to hit it on the run (and I do believe that's what he's been advocating....and it's what we did in AMIS after first doing some pieing from outside the room), is having to then shoot the bad guy while you are essentially sprinting easier or harder than shooting potentially one-handed from a more stable position?

I know where my skill level is (based on lots of flat range work and getting shot a lot in AMIS), but I do think it's another consideration. For many of us who aren't Gabe White, etc., shooting while sprinting would definitely qualify as "shooting from a compromised position". Also keep in mind that if I'm sprinting into a room in an occupied dwelling of some sort (in my situation, most likely my own), there are numerous impediments to free movement within said room (furniture, kids' toys on the floor, etc.) that could definitely channel my movement where I'd prefer not to go and/or cause me to slip, trip, etc.

I know the answer is "practice more", but still.....thoughts?

[KEW8338]

I think that's a very dogmatic take on an open stack that isn't particularly well supported by its use in real life from various organizations.

One of the things you keep bringing up is whether these organizations are actually getting in gunfights. Again, since you're secret squirrel and we don't know what your context is, nor the experiences you're speaking from as a contextual basis which we don't have.....I think you might be surprised how often police get into shootings, particularly busy police tactical teams. They absolutely have relevant experience and why they're doing stuff a certain way, and it totally varies from locale to locale. Talking with dudes from those teams is often much more enlightening that talking to most .mil types. At one of my prior assignments, we had our tactics instructors from our primary training center come up and run us through rehearsals in preparation for a huge warrant service. We then brought them into the places we hit after they had been searched, and they understood why certain things they were teaching weren't working in our locale (NYC). They really appreciated it, and I think it was a good learning point for an already excellent group of instructors.

In this thread, you've consistently group everything you don't value into a category of "well they must not have the real world experience I have" and taking an absolutist stance on various tactics, which is weak sauce regardless of whatever praise Craig seems to hold for you...and why a lot of people here are finding it particularly difficult to converse with you. As BehindBlueI's described, this isn't a particularly useful conversation.

p.s. regarding where I work, I don't think you have the right idea. I won't post openly because that would put my account here under work's social media policy, but I'm an open book in PMs (in which you've already stated you don't care).

If speaking from a team perspective. Open stacks, if we are talking about the same thing, can lead to, bad geometries of fire (guys shooting from the back of the bus as people call it), and the limited ability for more than 1 guy to influence what's going on.

Forge Tactical, which I think is heavily Pat's CQB, is principled in that it always tries to get as many guns forward as possible.

Most everywhere I've seen or heard of, if terrain allows, goes to some type of cross coverage to max out forward facing guns.

I have never claimed God mode experience. I'm not the one demanding resumes to be part of this conversation.

If an organization does something regularly, with good results. Good for them.

[KEW8338]

Thanks. I'm not going to look to Starship Troopers for my mindset lessons but if it works for you, great. Mindset is really not the issue that I'm highlighting in any event. Substitute "without their performance degrading because they're operating from an informational deficit" for "without being surprised" in my quoted post and that will at least clarify the one portion of it that you chose to address.

IIRC it's the only book that's been on every branches suggested reading list at one point in time

[KEW8338]

Pretty sure we were teaching that to recruits prior to 9/11. At one of the first NTOA Active Shooter Courses (conducted in Phoenix by a guy named Parker from Omaha PD, IIRC) they lined us outside a room to see our two-man entries. I and my associate, Mark, were kind of looking at each like 'WTF, why are these guys doing blind entries?' When we got to the door, Mark sliced it quick, signaled me and we entered.

We went back out to watch and every team following sliced the door and entered as we did.

So I'm saying we invented it, neither of us has ever been to Iraq or Afghanistan. :rolleyes:

My original exposure to it was based off the British duking it out in northern Ireland.

Entry ways we're often mined . So there was a dick dance of a sweeper and a security guy have to check the "fatal funnel" for bombs while a guy covered hid ass..

Who knows if that's true....

[Erik]

IIRC it's the only book that's been on every branches suggested reading list at one point in time

FWIW, I've read it, but maybe it's time to revisit it.

[TGS]

If speaking from a team perspective. Open stacks, if we are talking about the same thing, can lead to, bad geometries of fire (guys shooting from the back of the bus as people call it), and the limited ability for more than 1 guy to influence what's going on.

Forge Tactical, which I think is heavily Pat's CQB, is principled in that it always tries to get as many guns forward as possible.

Most everywhere I've seen or heard of, if terrain allows, goes to some type of cross coverage to max out forward facing guns.

I have never claimed God mode experience. I'm not the one demanding resumes to be part of this conversation.

If an organization does something regularly, with good results. Good for them.

You can have a dispersed stack with cross coverage. They're not mutually exclusive concepts.

[KEW8338]

Like a trainwreck that I have to watch, I have returned to see more.

I have one question that I pose to all those who know what they are doing when it comes to this stuff. And just for the record, I posted MY resume earlier so that people would know where I was coming from (i.e., Joe Schmo who's taken a bunch of classes, NOT someone who does this stuff for a living).

The OP much earlier referenced shooting (or at least being ready to shoot) from what he termed "compromised positions", which he said included all one-handed shooting. And he regarded this as a thing to be avoided.

So here's the question:

If the only/best way to "take down a room" and "dominate it" is to hit it on the run (and I do believe that's what he's been advocating....and it's what we did in AMIS after first doing some pieing from outside the room), is having to then shoot the bad guy while you are essentially sprinting easier or harder than shooting potentially one-handed from a more stable position?

I know where my skill level is (based on lots of flat range work and getting shot a lot in AMIS), but I do think it's another consideration. For many of us who aren't Gabe White, etc., shooting while sprinting would definitely qualify as "shooting from a compromised position". Also keep in mind that if I'm sprinting into a room in an occupied dwelling of some sort (in my situation, most likely my own), there are numerous impediments to free movement within said room (furniture, kids' toys on the floor, etc.) that could definitely channel my movement where I'd prefer not to go and/or cause me to slip, trip, etc.

I know the answer is "practice more", but still.....thoughts?


Dependent on your capabilities. Then yes. that would be a compromised position.

[KEW8338]

This brings us back to one of the points first raised in this thread, and in training I’ve had: having to clear a structure by yourself is a shitty thing to be involved in. There are multiple TTPs you can employ but none of them covers every possible scenario or risk. You can try to clear rooms from the threshold, which exposes you to the risk of people shooting you, unseen, through walls or door frames. You can try to enter rooms dynamically and hope that if you run into a deadly force problem, the other guy or guys don’t hit you first. I agree with you in that my understanding of the thought process behind pieing is that it’s partially based on the idea/assumption that people aren’t overly likely to shoot at things they can’t see. I believe the idea of solo dynamic entry is based on the idea/assumption that the other guy isn’t very good with his gun and is going to be unable to put bullets into you before you can put bullets into him.

Back to the “surprise” issue: as usual, I failed to articulate exactly what I meant in a clear manner and the conversation has drifted. What I was trying to convey was better explained by HCM when he was discussing cognitive load and overload. I thought I had been more clear in the context of the post in which I initially used the word “surprise” but I obviously was not. I was not using the word in the mindset context you’re using it in. When I wrote “surprise” I didn’t mean finding the contents of the room you just entered to be entirely unexpected because you failed to mentally prepare for conflict. I didn’t mean surprise at actually finding that threats happen to exist inside the room. What I meant was making entry and now having to orient yourself to all of the circumstances inside the room simultaneously in a very compressed timeframe. Pieing from the threshold at least let’s me process a substantial part of the room, let’s say 80%, before I actually get inside. That only requires me to have to process the remaining 20% once I enter. Yes, I’m hoping that no one shoots me through the wall while I’m pieing. Dynamically entering the room requires that I have to process 100% of the room while I cross the threshold, and immediately after entering, and find myself hip deep in whatever ends up being inside.

You don’t like the idea of hoping people decide not to shoot at you through the wall while you clear from a threshold. I don’t like the idea of hoping whoever is inside the room sucks at shooting and ends up missing me as I enter and get my own gun in the fight. Maybe that’s part of the context and circumstances of our experiences. Most of the structures I end up going into at work are pretty small and have corresponding small rooms inside. I don’t want to have to count on someone missing me in a room small enough that you could probably point your gun in the general area in front of you, close your eyes, crank off a bunch of rounds, and practically guarantee hitting someone. As others have already said, it all depends because there isn’t one correct answer.

Place holder

[KEW8338]

This brings us back to one of the points first raised in this thread, and in training I’ve had: having to clear a structure by yourself is a shitty thing to be involved in. There are multiple TTPs you can employ but none of them covers every possible scenario or risk. You can try to clear rooms from the threshold, which exposes you to the risk of people shooting you, unseen, through walls or door frames. You can try to enter rooms dynamically and hope that if you run into a deadly force problem, the other guy or guys don’t hit you first. I agree with you in that my understanding of the thought process behind pieing is that it’s partially based on the idea/assumption that people aren’t overly likely to shoot at things they can’t see. I believe the idea of solo dynamic entry is based on the idea/assumption that the other guy isn’t very good with his gun and is going to be unable to put bullets into you before you can put bullets into him.

Back to the “surprise” issue: as usual, I failed to articulate exactly what I meant in a clear manner and the conversation has drifted. What I was trying to convey was better explained by HCM when he was discussing cognitive load and overload. I thought I had been more clear in the context of the post in which I initially used the word “surprise” but I obviously was not. I was not using the word in the mindset context you’re using it in. When I wrote “surprise” I didn’t mean finding the contents of the room you just entered to be entirely unexpected because you failed to mentally prepare for conflict. I didn’t mean surprise at actually finding that threats happen to exist inside the room. What I meant was making entry and now having to orient yourself to all of the circumstances inside the room simultaneously in a very compressed timeframe. Pieing from the threshold at least let’s me process a substantial part of the room, let’s say 80%, before I actually get inside. That only requires me to have to process the remaining 20% once I enter. Yes, I’m hoping that no one shoots me through the wall while I’m pieing. Dynamically entering the room requires that I have to process 100% of the room while I cross the threshold, and immediately after entering, and find myself hip deep in whatever ends up being inside.

You don’t like the idea of hoping people decide not to shoot at you through the wall while you clear from a threshold. I don’t like the idea of hoping whoever is inside the room sucks at shooting and ends up missing me as I enter and get my own gun in the fight. Maybe that’s part of the context and circumstances of our experiences. Most of the structures I end up going into at work are pretty small and have corresponding small rooms inside. I don’t want to have to count on someone missing me in a room small enough that you could probably point your gun in the general area in front of you, close your eyes, crank off a bunch of rounds, and practically guarantee hitting someone. As others have already said, it all depends because there isn’t one correct answer.

The assumption of moving targets being hard to hit, to me is a fairly safe assumption. As example go to a USPSA match that has swingers or movers and take note of the hits. If you ever have the ability to use ranges with movers, take note of scores. If you have ever tried to shoot someone who is moving broad side to you. It can be challenging.

Now go to USPSA and look at the scores for a partial target with hard cover.

This idea of you will see them first with pieing is somewhat unsettling to me. If you have truly ninja'ed your way up on him. He is either static in that room (easy shot all day long if you are dynamic or pieing). Or he is moving around inside that room. Anyone ever get so focused on the sliver you are pieing that when a guy walks past that it is a surprise (in the actual sense of the word)? That has 100% happened to me. Now with an unassuming target (this assumes proper ninja'ing) those shots on a dynamic entry are easy. Same as they are with pieing.

If you have not properly ninja'ed your way up on him (which honestly is the case 99% of the time) and you have the worst case scenario of him drawing a bead on the door. Im sorry, I dont believe it works, nor havent seen that work. Im sure guys will say it works in sims. Which Im sure it does. Im sure guys HAVE HAD IT WORK FOR REAL, its not my cup of tea for the potential of the cascading negative effects. Im not telling dudes with experiences to the contrary of mine are wrong.

Doesnt Tom Givens teach a 3 foot side step or something like that because it statistically reduces your chances of getting shot by an ungodly amount? If I am wrong on that let me know....

Sorry for the above post hold. I have forgotten how to edit posts. Likely because I am a hero boob noob IIRC....

ETA:

Laterally not broadside

[Dave Williams]

I mentioned High Threat CQB earlier in the thread. It's advocated by the group 88 Tactical. Its basically fighting from the doorway using the "snapping the 45-90-45 angles" prior to going in the room . When the question of getting shot through the walls comes up, the trainers say it's concealment is better than being out in the room plainly visible like points of domination. The trainers give the example of a target in the middle of a room. In points of domination they'll have you bypass that target and go to your point of domination. Which doesn't make any sense. In High Threat CQB you just address that target from the doorway prior to entry. They believe you will instinctively back out of the room on taking fire, so why not fight from the doorway where it's easier to back out. They say the system is behavior based.

I think it's Israeli based HCM

https://88tactical.com/le-mil/high-threat-cqb/



https://www.projectgecko.info/itcqb

The above link, project gecko is another similar version of it I believe.

The 88tactical trainer, Trevor Thrasher, a sf soldier/swat cop, is an advocate of this system. He's also an advocate of threat focused shooting.

Watching people well versed in this High Threat CQB clear rooms is impressive.

You may want to look into this system.

[HCM]

I mentioned High Threat CQB earlier in the thread. It's advocated by the group 88 Tactical. Its basically fighting from the doorway using the "snapping the 45-90-45 angles" prior to going in the room . When the question of getting shot through the walls comes up, the trainers say it's concealment is better than being out in the room plainly visible like points of domination. The trainers give the example of a target in the middle of a room. In points of domination they'll have you bypass that target and go to your point of domination. Which doesn't make any sense. In High Threat CQB you just address that target from the doorway prior to entry. They believe you will instinctively back out of the room on taking fire, so why not fight from the doorway where it's easier to back out. They say the system is behavior based.

I think it's Israeli based HCM

https://88tactical.com/le-mil/high-threat-cqb/



https://www.projectgecko.info/itcqb

The above link, project gecko is another similar version of it I believe.

The 88tactical trainer, Trevor Thrasher, a sf soldier/swat cop, is an advocate of this system. He's also an advocate of threat focused shooting.

Watching people well versed in this High Threat CQB clear rooms is impressive.

You may want to look into this system.

A few thoughts:

There’s only so many ways to skin a cat so duplication is inevitable.

Target audience matters. If your target audience and mostly conscripts and reservists a system that minimizes cognitive load is going to more effective for those people.

It’s not the answer for everyone or every thing.

Clearing / addressing threats through the doorway doesn’t necessarily mean at/in the doorway or being static. This is where a lot of theme US based threshold evaluation schools of thought break from the Israelis.

[KEW8338]

On par with the discussion here

Instagram Video (https://www.instagram.com/p/CLz-TQyFaN3/)

[Totem Polar]

On par with the discussion here

Instagram Video (https://www.instagram.com/p/CLz-TQyFaN3/)

Quick Q, and I really am asking: once the first shots are let loose during “pieing,” would that change things to a more dynamic approach, since the whole “stealth” thing is off the table at that point?

In other words, what are the pros/cons of continuing to carefully cut that 30-45-60-90 once a couple of 5.56 rounds have gone off inside a structure.

I’m interested in thoughts on that.

[KEW8338]

Quick Q, and I really am asking: once the first shots are let loose during “pieing,” would that change things to a more dynamic approach, since the whole “stealth” thing is off the table at that point?

In other words, what are the pros/cons of continuing to carefully cut that 30-45-60-90 once a couple of 5.56 rounds have gone off inside a structure.

I’m interested in thoughts on that.

Do the walls stop bullets?

If they do. Why abandon cover?

To play devils advocate everyone else's point. Why rush into a known gunfight?

[Totem Polar]

Do the walls stop bullets?


That’s about what I thought, thanks.

[KEW8338]

That’s about what I thought, thanks.

So, likely, if you didn't have a barricaded shooter. You do now.

So you've just induced the most dangerous course of action

[Totem Polar]

So, likely, if you didn't have a barricaded shooter. You do now.

Makes sense




So you've just induced the most dangerous course of action

I’m not *entirely* sure I follow... I think I do, but not sure.

I can see that there are a lot of situationals to deal with before taking a shot during a pie.

[Rocket20_Ginsu]

This has been a pretty interesting thread to read through, and I can’t help thinking we’re constantly searching for the least worst option. FWIW I do think that on the aggregate pie’ing from the threshold is slightly less risky in most circumstances; however, I can think of multiple situations where dynamic is preferred (in extremis / working an open area like an office common area where there may be a plethora of exposure points (offices) in the open could make working from office to office around the perimeter the least worst option.

During AMIS evos I did find that it was much easier to hear movement and get a general understanding of the opposition location when they were moving dynamically. slow methodical pieing works best if you can retain the element of surprise and see your adversary first.

While all of us conceded that interior walls of most structures in the US are concealment at best to small arms fire I still feel that there are other considerations that make pie’ing preferred for the most likely situations I may see (normal civ)

If the adversary has a knife / bat / similar type weapon it does provide a physical barrier that buys me time and space.

If I need to break contact it’s much easier to do so before committing to the room and anyone pursuing me will need to navigate the funnel which could give me counter ambush opportunities.

I learned from ECQC you want to avoid a 50:50 where you’re trading rounds in close proximity as much as possible because while you may win, everyone may end up loosing. If you make dynamic entry you may very well be in a 50:50 with a barricaded shooter or multiple assailants which could turn into a 90:10. It also brings me in closer range to the adversary placing me at a higher risk of entanglement, and I’m much more proficient shooting (USPSA M) than I am grappling.

Working the room from the threshold I feel like I have more time to see and process which I personally really need to make better shoot, don’t shoot yet, don’t shoot decisions since this is not my profession. If there are multiple assailants or an unfavorable situation in the room I can break contact easier, keeps me further away from contact weapons and entanglement, and allows me to use my marksmanship to improve my advantage.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[KEW8338]

This has been a pretty interesting thread to read through, and I can’t help thinking we’re constantly searching for the least worst option. FWIW I do think that on the aggregate pie’ing from the threshold is slightly less risky in most circumstances; however, I can think of multiple situations where dynamic is preferred (in extremis / working an open area like an office common area where there may be a plethora of exposure points (offices) in the open could make working from office to office around the perimeter the least worst option.

During AMIS evos I did find that it was much easier to hear movement and get a general understanding of the opposition location when they were moving dynamically. slow methodical pieing works best if you can retain the element of surprise and see your adversary first.

While all of us conceded that interior walls of most structures in the US are concealment at best to small arms fire I still feel that there are other considerations that make pie’ing preferred for the most likely situations I may see (normal civ)

If the adversary has a knife / bat / similar type weapon it does provide a physical barrier that buys me time and space.

If I need to break contact it’s much easier to do so before committing to the room and anyone pursuing me will need to navigate the funnel which could give me counter ambush opportunities.

I learned from ECQC you want to avoid a 50:50 where you’re trading rounds in close proximity as much as possible because while you may win, everyone may end up loosing. If you make dynamic entry you may very well be in a 50:50 with a barricaded shooter or multiple assailants which could turn into a 90:10. It also brings me in closer range to the adversary placing me at a higher risk of entanglement, and I’m much more proficient shooting (USPSA M) than I am grappling.

Working the room from the threshold I feel like I have more time to see and process which I personally really need to make better shoot, don’t shoot yet, don’t shoot decisions since this is not my profession. If there are multiple assailants or an unfavorable situation in the room I can break contact easier, keeps me further away from contact weapons and entanglement, and allows me to use my marksmanship to improve my advantage.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The practicality of "seeing first" and maintaining a degree of stealth are much easier said than done. Briefs well. But reality is significantly different.

You've acknowledged the lack of walls in the US stopping bullets. And you don't want to go 50:50 against a barricaded guy. If you are pieing a barricaded guy, your odds are way less than 50:50

Next is the notion of breaking contact from a room. I'm not sure exactly you are getting by that. I understand what you mean in theory. But in actuality, that seems like immediate defeat. I'm picturing some Indiana Jones scenario where you jump into a room of nazis then run out. Do you mean you've made entry and are unmaking entry. Or do you mean choosing not to go into the room at all?

[Rocket20_Ginsu]

The practicality of "seeing first" and maintaining a degree of stealth are much easier said than done. Briefs well. But reality is significantly different.

You've acknowledged the lack of walls in the US stopping bullets. And you don't want to go 50:50 against a barricaded guy. If you are pieing a barricaded guy, your odds are way less than 50:50

Next is the notion of breaking contact from a room. I'm not sure exactly you are getting by that. I understand what you mean in theory. But in actuality, that seems like immediate defeat. I'm picturing some Indiana Jones scenario where you jump into a room of nazis then run out. Do you mean you've made entry and are unmaking entry. Or do you mean choosing not to go into the room at all?

Thanks for the clarifications. Agree - stealth is difficult, my main thinking is that stealth while dynamic is more difficult than while deliberate.

Right if you make entry into a room, you see him and he sees you and both of you are indexed on the other that’s a 50:50, if there is a barricaded shooter or if there are multiple shooters in the room that’s a ~90:10 in their favor. If you can see that latter situation before committing to the room and maintain more standoff I think there are advantages.

Too funny, good movie series and visual. What I meant is not making entry, and upon pie’ing and identifying a threat or situation where the adversary has the advantage, putting distance between me and the threat(s) as quickly as possible, try to improve my position, seek cover / concealment / depth / distance, and work the problem from there (pin then in the room, continue to retreat, strongpoint, etc). If you are in the room I think you really need to focus on winning on the X and have fewer options. Completely understand for current MIL and LE this may not be viable.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[KEW8338]

Thanks for the clarifications. Agree - stealth is difficult, my main thinking is that stealth while dynamic is more difficult than while deliberate.

Right if you make entry into a room, you see him and he sees you and both of you are indexed on the other that’s a 50:50, if there is a barricaded shooter or if there are multiple shooters in the room that’s a ~90:10 in their favor. If you can see that latter situation before committing to the room and maintain more standoff I think there are advantages.

Too funny, good movie series and visual. What I meant is not making entry, and upon pie’ing and identifying a threat or situation where the adversary has the advantage, putting distance between me and the threat(s) as quickly as possible, try to improve my position, seek cover / concealment / depth / distance, and work the problem from there (pin then in the room, continue to retreat, strongpoint, etc). If you are in the room I think you really need to focus on winning on the X and have fewer options. Completely understand for current MIL and LE this may not be viable.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Pieing generally reduces you to a 50:50 crap shoot.

If you can attack that corner by fire, pieing can be effective there. If made as a tactical decision, not a method of clearance. That would be what some call prepping a corner with fire, or shooting into/out of "cover".

If you are able to maintain a degree of stealth and surprise and "see the guy" first. You are not likely going to be able to PID him. So, that leaves you with what decision tree?

Verbal commands, in a hope he complies, which now kills every element of surprise you had, your disposition and location is largely known. At the gain of what?

[Odin Bravo One]

Sorry I missed the bulk of this thread.

Except I’m not.

What I am sorry about is that people appear to honestly believe what they are typing/saying, and it is painfully obvious these assertions have never been tested, let alone validated. The amount of “dumb” we have managed to assemble in a single thread is impressive.

[WobblyPossum]

Sorry I missed the bulk of this thread.

Except I’m not.

What I am sorry about is that people appear to honestly believe what they are typing/saying, and it is painfully obvious these assertions have never been tested, let alone validated. The amount of “dumb” we have managed to assemble in a single thread is impressive.

I’d genuinely love to hear your input if you’re willing to share. I fully acknowledge that all the tactics I’ve used when clearing houses have had a 100% success rate because the people inside have decided to fight back ballistically exactly 0% of the time. That’s definitely one of the areas where the military side has much more experience over the last few decades because 99.99% (I’m making up this number) of cqb/entries in CONUS LE aren’t opposed with gunfire.

[DDTSGM]

Just some observations about stealth:

1) Years ago when I was attending courses at the HK International Training Division, a guy named Dan C., a Sergeant (then) with LASD SWAT was one of the adjunct instructors. He told me that he couldn't recall an instance where the team made it to the doorway where the barricade had located himself w/o being compromised. I took this to mean inside a home or business. IIRC he said the subject would usually announce with some variation of 'I hear you out there' and sometimes the team's presence prompted surrender and other times suicide.

This real-world information, pretty much dovetailed what I experienced during training hundreds of police recruits in building searches and active shooter response - unless their is ambient noise within the structure or room, you generally don't get to the doorway undetected. One exception to this was when we used school houses during active shooter courses - slow stealth movement down halls sometimes allowed officers to surprise at the doorway.

I think during force-on-force the SIM helmets provide just enough muffling effect to give the entering officers somewhat of an edge, but as the scenario/safety officer in the room with ballistic googles, ball cap, and neck protector, I would generally pick them up before entry.

2) Pieing, with the attitude/intent of remaining undetected by someone inside a room, or around a corner is kind of difficult. To prepare to teach/demo pieing during building search training I spent a lot of time doing corners with video cameras aimed at them to find out what works and get the contortions down pat. Generally, folks give themselves away by...................

3) If we consider center-fed rooms, a good pie should give you about 75% to 90% of the room IF the door is open. When working with a partner, two anchors the far side of the door as one pies out and around. If one remains undetected/doesn't see a threat they have only a small portion of the room to clear upon entry - aside from desks or other furniture that obstruct view.

If the pieing officer sees someone, action is dependent on the situation, it may be to run like a scared child for cover and lock the structure down for a barricade, it might be to follow their bullets into the room if it is an active shooter situation.....................

Pieing is a good tool to have in the tool kit, it isn't an end all, and someone instructing folks in the art would be remiss if they presented it as a sure-fire, safe way to conduct business. In the school house setting it is pretty easy to have a person go down a hallway while you remain around the corner, and then slice around to detect them before they detect you, real world, I wouldn't bet the farm on it unless I had a good, solid, corner to work from, or was using the pie adjunct to rapid movement.

It is just one way to skin a cat.

,,,,,,,,,,, means I decided not to put the info following into print.

[Odin Bravo One]

I’d genuinely love to hear your input if you’re willing to share. I fully acknowledge that all the tactics I’ve used when clearing houses have had a 100% success rate because the people inside have decided to fight back ballistically exactly 0% of the time. That’s definitely one of the areas where the military side has much more experience over the last few decades because 99.99% (I’m making up this number) of cqb/entries in CONUS LE aren’t opposed with gunfire.

Dan,

I am more than happy to share what little information I may possess from my limited experience and training in close quarters/urban work.

Problem is, this isn’t a topic one learns from a book. And definitely not from an internet board. (I mean fuck me, the mods are shit in this place!!) I liken it to the original Karate Kid where Danielsan is drawing on his few lessons at the Y in Newark, and getting the rest from a library book when Mr. Miyagi comes rolling in.

The variables are endless, and the “rules” are more general guidelines and suggestions. The biggest issue with TTPs for such activities is that fortuitous outcomes reinforce shitty tactics and poor decisions.

I used to get six weeks of 12-14 hour days to teach this shit to highly motivated, well-trained, and competent groups of men, and at the end of it all, I could throw a very simple, and straightforward scenario at them, and they’d choke on it as often as they didn’t.

What I found to be the only real universal truism is that a poor plan well executed beats a fantastic plan poorly executed every time.

If ever you’re in my neck of the woods, well you’re probably fucking lost first of all, but I’m happy to provide a map, a Cuban, adult beverages, and a chair in the “Office” where we can discuss this topic until it feels like it can be discussed no more. But you won’t come away with any answers from me. Just observations.

[Hambo]

Sorry I missed the bulk of this thread.

Except I’m not.

What I am sorry about is that people appear to honestly believe what they are typing/saying, and it is painfully obvious these assertions have never been tested, let alone validated. The amount of “dumb” we have managed to assemble in a single thread is impressive.

Mic drop.

[WobblyPossum]

Dan,

I am more than happy to share what little information I may possess from my limited experience and training in close quarters/urban work.

Problem is, this isn’t a topic one learns from a book. And definitely not from an internet board. (I mean fuck me, the mods are shit in this place!!) I liken it to the original Karate Kid where Danielsan is drawing on his few lessons at the Y in Newark, and getting the rest from a library book when Mr. Miyagi comes rolling in.

The variables are endless, and the “rules” are more general guidelines and suggestions. The biggest issue with TTPs for such activities is that fortuitous outcomes reinforce shitty tactics and poor decisions.

I used to get six weeks of 12-14 hour days to teach this shit to highly motivated, well-trained, and competent groups of men, and at the end of it all, I could throw a very simple, and straightforward scenario at them, and they’d choke on it as often as they didn’t.

What I found to be the only real universal truism is that a poor plan well executed beats a fantastic plan poorly executed every time.

If ever you’re in my neck of the woods, well you’re probably fucking lost first of all, but I’m happy to provide a map, a Cuban, adult beverages, and a chair in the “Office” where we can discuss this topic until it feels like it can be discussed no more. But you won’t come away with any answers from me. Just observations.

I’d like that very much. Thank you for the offer.

[Totem Polar]

Dan,

I am more than happy to share what little information I may possess from my limited experience and training in close quarters/urban work.

Problem is, this isn’t a topic one learns from a book. And definitely not from an internet board. (I mean fuck me, the mods are shit in this place!!) I liken it to the original Karate Kid where Danielsan is drawing on his few lessons at the Y in Newark, and getting the rest from a library book when Mr. Miyagi comes rolling in.

The variables are endless, and the “rules” are more general guidelines and suggestions. The biggest issue with TTPs for such activities is that fortuitous outcomes reinforce shitty tactics and poor decisions.

I used to get six weeks of 12-14 hour days to teach this shit to highly motivated, well-trained, and competent groups of men, and at the end of it all, I could throw a very simple, and straightforward scenario at them, and they’d choke on it as often as they didn’t.

What I found to be the only real universal truism is that a poor plan well executed beats a fantastic plan poorly executed every time.

If ever you’re in my neck of the woods, well you’re probably fucking lost first of all, but I’m happy to provide a map, a Cuban, adult beverages, and a chair in the “Office” where we can discuss this topic until it feels like it can be discussed no more. But you won’t come away with any answers from me. Just observations.

Man, I appreciate your input. Please feel encouraged to speak up more when the spirit moves you.

[KEW8338]

Here is another (https://www.liveleak.com/view?t=ie8b_1616327225) interesting video showing a gunfight (or maybe just a shooting) through a closed door.

While not tied to pieing, I think this video demonstrates just how poorly walls in most structures don't really do a thing to bullets.

[DDTSGM]

I think we are mostly in agreement on that. By now the Buzzards would have stripped the flesh from this dead horse.

[Half Moon]

I think we are mostly in agreement on that. By now the Buzzards would have stripped the flesh from this dead horse.

https://dilbert.com/strip/2007-12-18

[UniSol]

I continue to struggle with the assertions that this thread has jumped the shark (maybe it has by now, but not in the first 5-10 pages). I have gained some good atmospherics on the pie-ing techniques taught to me numerous times by different ODAs (as an enabler in a Group). Is it concrete, neurally ingrained technique, no, just a little understanding. What is harmed by that? There is some static to be found early on without a doubt but the gist of *some* of these “shut it down” responses seems strictly emotional and frankly a little selfish. It’s usually the same actors from what I have observed. Take it for what it’s worth but if your sensibilities have been offended by this thread, stay out of it with your drama. Other SMEs have managed to keep it constructive and my respect for them has grown for them proportionately. Other individuals, the opposite. Probably means jack to the people who should hear it but whatever.

[DDTSGM]

Sorry to have harshed your mellow.

One problem that I see with these type discussions is after several pages things have either been pretty well discussed or the discussion has jumped the tracks and is far off course.

Slicing the pie is a very viable tactic - when used in appropriate circumstances AND executed properly. Is it the end all of tactics? No, and anyone who asserts such is doing a disservice to folks they are teaching/working with.

I really don't know how much more can be said, pretty sure myself and numerous other folks on this thread could give valid, viable instruction on the when, where, wht and how of pieing and related tactics, but not going to do so on the internet.

[TGS]

Sorry to have harshed your mellow.

One problem that I see with these type discussions is after several pages things have either been pretty well discussed or the discussion has jumped the tracks and is far off course.

Slicing the pie is a very viable tactic - when used in appropriate circumstances AND executed properly. Is it the end all of tactics? No, and anyone who asserts such is doing a disservice to folks they are teaching/working with.

I really don't know how much more can be said, pretty sure myself and numerous other folks on this thread could give valid, viable instruction on the when, where, wht and how of pieing and related tactics, but not going to do so on the internet.

hear, hear.

/thread

[KEW8338]

For anyone who is still interested
Starting at the 15min mark (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2r2UQu6EIt4). Regardless of the remainder of the content, there are a few specific actions that are very common demonstrated in that video.

Shooter is on his corner, takes a shot, flinches away from the corner, then immediately comes back to that same point and continues trying to hold it. There is also frequent "cant see him" being exchanged.

From a training perspective:
1) Knowing how to teach guys how to "take it on the chin" and continue fighting
2) Not burning your position multiple times with repeated exposures
3) Pieing in complex environments doesnt actually translate to an easier intake of information


Just more discussion points given new video. Not trying to harsh a mellow

[snow white]

When the gas was deployed it seems like it was wedged between the other officer and the corner forcing him into the open where he subsequently was shot. That seems less than ideal.

[AMC]

In response to the above comments:
1) if you mean by "takes a shot", that he got shot, then you're correct. Doesn't appear the officer fired. His flinch back was due to taking fire.
2) the guy clearly "took it on the chin" (vest) and stayed at his position.
3) his position was burned the moment the suspect exited the structure, and he challenged. Other than a total retreat, holding his perimeter position with the marginal cover he had looks like it may have been the least bad option.
4) I don't think the concept of "pieing" as it's been discussed in this thread, as a viable searching or clearing technique, applies at all in this context. He's holding a perimeter position, and attempting to use the only available 'cover' afforded by that corner, and still maintain observation of that door.

As for snow whites comment about forcing the forward officer off of cover.....yeah, less that ideal positioning. But the shot that finally took out that officer came significantly after the officers had both repositioned behind cover.

[KEW8338]

In response to the above comments:
1) if you mean by "takes a shot", that he got shot, then you're correct. Doesn't appear the officer fired. His flinch back was due to taking fire.
2) the guy clearly "took it on the chin" (vest) and stayed at his position.
3) his position was burned the moment the suspect exited the structure, and he challenged. Other than a total retreat, holding his perimeter position with the marginal cover he had looks like it may have been the least bad option.
4) I don't think the concept of "pieing" as it's been discussed in this thread, as a viable searching or clearing technique, applies at all in this context. He's holding a perimeter position, and attempting to use the only available 'cover' afforded by that corner, and still maintain observation of that door.

As for snow whites comment about forcing the forward officer off of cover.....yeah, less that ideal positioning. But the shot that finally took out that officer came significantly after the officers had both repositioned behind cover.

1. His position took fire, he flinched behind cover, then returned to that same position. That is the most common human reaction to getting shot at. My point as it relates to pieing is that is usually what the gunfight turns into.

2. Yes he returned to the same spot.

3. Audible call in the open is one thing. Taking accurate effective fire on your position is pretty indicative of getting burned

As this relates to pieing. The position that guy found himself in, is the similar style of fight pieing leads too.

[DDTSGM]

1. His position took fire, he flinched behind cover, then returned to that same position. That is the most common human reaction to getting shot at. My point as it relates to pieing is that is usually what the gunfight turns into.

2. Yes he returned to the same spot.

3. Audible call in the open is one thing. Taking accurate effective fire on your position is pretty indicative of getting burned

As this relates to pieing. The position that guy found himself in, is the similar style of fight pieing leads too.

KEW - all due respect, you keep making the same points over and over, although, to your credit, you do change the format up a little.

Response to perceived or actual threat is largely dependent on training and/or aggressiveness.

So can we agree that a five minute class on pieing will get you killed in da streetz. Please.

[Caballoflaco]

I don’t have a dog in either side of this discussion as it’s way out of my lane.

This video is rough to watch, but it does show the failure of common home construction in the US as cover.


https://youtu.be/6JkoRJvZ0f8

[jnc36rcpd]

So, Washington Post, CBS News, and the Democratic Party, how did all those de-escalation tactics work out for Chris?

[KEW8338]

I don’t have a dog in either side of this discussion as it’s way out of my lane.

This video is rough to watch, but it does show the failure of common home construction in the US as cover.


https://youtu.be/6JkoRJvZ0f8

This again is a super common response when pieing actually encounters opposition.

Your momentum and initiative stall really fast, then it takes some serious giddy up to get back in there.

This is all predicated off the tactical decision if/need to go through that door or occupy that room. Which often enough people don't discuss when they bring up pieing.