Ready Positions, CQB, and Disarming

[DocGKR]

(I split this off from the class AAR thread located here (http://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?9144-AAR-DCNC-Handgun-Retention-July-28-Charlotte-NC) -- ToddG)


"While I am not a “one size fits all” type of guy, and understand there are certainly times when a high port position is appropriate, I can say that for CQB activities, I believe a low ready position has distinct advantages when it comes to struggling over a gun."

Lots of ways to get things done and smoothly shifting techniques depending on the flow of any situation is critical--nonetheless, it is interesting that some of the preeminent CQB organizations in the country use high ready...

[Aesir Training]

Lots of ways to get things done and smoothly shifting techniques depending on the flow of any situation is critical--nonetheless, it is interesting that some of the preeminent CQB organizations in the country use high ready...

SOME do, and some do not. I've trained with preeminent trainers from preeminent groups that advocate both, and I see validity on both sides. And I'm not saying at all that one is right and one is wrong, as I think different situations dictate different methods. I can tell you that during this class, being exposed to different techniques to get the pistol away from the hands of someone you do not want to have it once that person had grabbed a hold of it, it was MUCH easier to prevail if the assailant grabbed the gun and tried to wrestle it away from a low ready position. And in fact, the easiest method for getting the gun away if they grabbed it at a high port was to wrestle it back down. It also affords a better opportunity to get rounds somewhere on the assailant if you can get on the trigger during the struggle.

[Dropkick]

And in fact, the easiest method for getting the gun away if they grabbed it at a high port was to wrestle it back down. It also affords a better opportunity to get rounds somewhere on the assailant if you can get on the trigger during the struggle.

Could you explain how malfunctions are avoided when firing a pistol that someone else has grabbed?

[Aesir Training]

Could you explain how malfunctions are avoided when firing a pistol that someone else has grabbed?

As long as the struggle over the gun has not pushed the slide out of battery, the gun will fire. However, if it does fire, the slide will not cycle, turning it into a one shot pistol and requiring a racking of the slide to get the gun running again. If I can get that round into the assailant, it greatly increases the chance of me prevailing in the struggle. That won't happen with the gun at high port.

[ToddG]

SOME do, and some do not. I've trained with preeminent trainers from preeminent groups that advocate both, and I see validity on both sides.

When you say "from preeminent groups" it's important to discuss timelines. The TTPs that Awesome Unit #1 were using in the 90's are usually much different than what they're using today. For example, one very high profile team had its entire firearms program redesigned from top to bottom within the past few years because of a simple personnel change. Pretty much the entire NSW community was using Dieter/CQD stuff for years until there was a parting of ways not too terribly long ago... Dieter is a huge proponent of high ready. Etc.


It also affords a better opportunity to get rounds somewhere on the assailant if you can get on the trigger during the struggle.

In contrast, one of the advantages of high ready is that it makes for some very quick, effective, and easy muzzle strikes to the head/face. This is difficult to practice (and proof) without significant protective equipment for an aggressor in FOF. Even then, I have a buddy who knocked someone unconscious with a half-strength pistol strike to the head through a special helmet specifically designed to protect role players against repeated weapon strikes.


If I can get that round into the assailant, it greatly increases the chance of me prevailing in the struggle. That won't happen with the gun at high port.

To the first sentence: based on what do you surmise that a single round (most likely hitting the lower extremities or lower abdomen) will "greatly increase" your chances, based on everything we know about the minor (and rarely immediate) effect of handgun rounds that fail to strike major vital organs?

To the second sentence: how does a high ready position change how the gun works when it's been pushed out of battery?

[Dropkick]

As long as the struggle over the gun has not pushed the slide out of battery, the gun will fire. However, if it does fire, the slide will not cycle, turning it into a one shot pistol and requiring a racking of the slide to get the gun running again. If I can get that round into the assailant, it greatly increases the chance of me prevailing in the struggle. That won't happen with the gun at high port.

I'm not sure I agree with your assumptions and generalizations...

For example, there are a few reasons a pistol could not fire even if the slide was in battery. A safety could have been turned on, (or never turned off) a finger could be blocking the trigger from moving to the rear, the hammer could be blocked preventing it from falling. And I'm sure there's other possibilities I'm not thinking of...

And the idea that a single round that's fired somewhere in the general direction of an assailant while struggling over a pistol (even if it does hit them somewhere) would "greatly increase the chances of prevailing." Well, there are plenty of cases out there where people took -multiple- rounds and still continued to fight and win. Firing a round while struggling over a pistol does increase the chances of one thing though... You'd have to continue to fight back and fix the malfunction at the same time if you want to fire your pistol again.

Personally, I'd rather gain complete control of my pistol, get into a position of dominance, and let 'er fly. Easier said than done, but to me it sounds like a better plan.

[Cecil Burch]

The main advantage to high ready is that the elbows are in close to the body. This gives the gun wielder the best leverage to maximize his or her strength. The biggest disadvantage to the low ready in an entangled fight is that the elbows are out and away from the body as are the arms, giving the other person a better lever to control the gun, while the gun wielder is weaker.

There can be plenty of reasons to utilize the low ready. But physiology, anatomy, and physics definitely favor high ready in a FUT.

[Dagga Boy]

I'll simply "agree" with the Aesir folks from personal and first hand experience. I have survived and won multiple take away attempts from the low ready. The question will always need elaboration on the experience. I came from an environment of often working solo or with a single partner, usually at night, very restrictive use of force standards, and highly unpredictable situations of violence with little preparation. My view may be different if working in a team environment with a high level of team training together, a mission that requires being inserted into a violent encounter that was fairly predictable but is not secure, working under ROE's and not highly variable use of force standards, primarily armed with long guns and pistols as a very secondary weapon, working in a helmet, working under NVD's. Is there the need to use a handheld light with the pistol, access to additional less lethal tools, etc?.....What works for Joe city copper, Joe Citizen, and Joe DEVGRU dude may be very different. It is as wrong for Joe cop to try to say what works on U.S. ghetto rats with his/her Federally mandated standards for a Tier One soldier being inserted with 23 other Tier One guys in a structure in Afghanistan, as it is for the Tier One guy to try to tell Joe Cop that what they are doing is wrong.....the key is application and this is not one size fits all. Adjustments will also have to be made for John Q Citizen that will also depend if that citizen is home or in public (which may be the same for that LEO or Soldier when they are off work and at home). Additionally, fitness, training experience, martial arts background, etc. will all come into play.

Then comes the "where do we spend training time". For someone who does this a lot, has access to a lot of training (including formal, and with solid training partners), can develop more complex and variable responses for multiple positions. For those who don't a simple system that is easily retrievable from the memory banks when surprised from a likely and regularly used ready position makes some sense.

[Aesir Training]

When you say "from preeminent groups" it's important to discuss timelines. The TTPs that Awesome Unit #1 were using in the 90's are usually much different than what they're using today. For example, one very high profile team had its entire firearms program redesigned from top to bottom within the past few years because of a simple personnel change. Pretty much the entire NSW community was using Dieter/CQD stuff for years until there was a parting of ways not too terribly long ago... Dieter is a huge proponent of high ready. Etc.
Being that I am not a member of a "preeminent group," nor have I ever been, my knowledge on the subject is purely academic. I can only relay information that has been taught to me by preeminent instructors from preeminent groups. Some retired from service years ago and may very well be teaching "dated" TTP's, and some have recently retired and/or continue to train high-end units. I don't pretend to be a CQB expert, or even an expert on what TTP's are used by what groups. I can say that I have heard first hand from those I would believe to be in the know on current TTP's that many groups are not using a high port as SOP for CQB work. Those same instructors also acknowledge that some groups do use high port for CQB as SOP.




In contrast, one of the advantages of high ready is that it makes for some very quick, effective, and easy muzzle strikes to the head/face. This is difficult to practice (and proof) without significant protective equipment for an aggressor in FOF. Even then, I have a buddy who knocked someone unconscious with a half-strength pistol strike to the head through a special helmet specifically designed to protect role players against repeated weapon strikes.
No question, this is a big benefit to using a high ready position. As I stated in my original response, I am not advocating for or against one or the other, as there are valid points to both methods in different circumstances. Another big advantage of a high port position, as explained to me by Jason Falla in a class, is the ability of the guy who is not the point man of the stack entering a room to be able to quickly get his weapon oriented towards the threat area once he is clear of the guy in front of him.



To the first sentence: based on what do you surmise that a single round (most likely hitting the lower extremities or lower abdomen) will "greatly increase" your chances, based on everything we know about the minor (and rarely immediate) effect of handgun rounds that fail to strike major vital organs?

I would imagine that taking a round in the lower extremities or abdomen, while not fatal, would most likely take my opponent's attention away from the hand to hand struggle and give me an advantage in that moment. Much the same way that the striking techniques taught in the class were not meant to kill or even knock out the opponent, but rather to distract the other party with pain and discomfort. Will it always work? Maybe not. But if I could choose between putting a round into a guy or not putting a round into a guy that I was locked in a hand to hand struggle with, I'll take the possible advantage of putting one in him, even if in a non-fatal area. If I put one into him, and it has no effect, so what? Still better than launching a round skyward that has no chance of being effective at all. And now we are fighting over what is essentially an empty gun, given that the slide is obstructed and the gun cannot cycle.



To the second sentence: how does a high ready position change how the gun works when it's been pushed out of battery?

the gun at high port doesn't change how the gun works when it is pushed out of battery. It does change the trajectory the round takes if in fact the gun is discharged. With the gun above your head and the assailant pushing up, the round goes elsewhere. With the gun pointed down and the assailant pushing down on it, there is a much greater likelihood that the round will strike the assailant, rather than take off into the great unknown.

As our idiot commander in chief always says in his speeches, "let me be very clear..." I am not saying that one ready position is superior to the other for all CQB activities. I am also not claiming to be an expert in CQB. I believe there is a great deal of merit in both, and times where one is superior over the other based on different situations. I am saying that in the context of this course, where we were taught methods for and practiced scenarios where two people have hands on a gun and you are struggling to keep or take control of the weapon, it was MUCH easier to win the struggle when it was your gun being taken away and the gun was at a low position. It was also easier to prevail or at least gain an advantage when you were the attacker and the gun was high. That was the point of my AAR and my subsequent posts, and it was derived from physical excursion during the class struggling against an opponent considerably bigger than me. Take what you will from that.

[Aesir Training]

I'm not sure I agree with your assumptions and generalizations...


Personally, I'd rather gain complete control of my pistol, get into a position of dominance, and let 'er fly. Easier said than done, but to me it sounds like a better plan.

You are totally missing the point and reading way too much into what is being said. My argument for a gun at a low position is one of physical leverage that allowed me to retain my weapon when struggling over it against a larger opponent. At a high position, I was also able to take the gun away from said bigger opponent. The fact that if a gun is discharged it is more likely to strike the opponent is an added ancillary benefit, not the reason for preferring a low position.

[Sparks2112]

We are all prisoners of our own experience.

[Aesir Training]

The main advantage to high ready is that the elbows are in close to the body. This gives the gun wielder the best leverage to maximize his or her strength. The biggest disadvantage to the low ready in an entangled fight is that the elbows are out and away from the body as are the arms, giving the other person a better lever to control the gun, while the gun wielder is weaker.

There can be plenty of reasons to utilize the low ready. But physiology, anatomy, and physics definitely favor high ready in a FUT.

This is exactly the opposite of what I found in the class. Maybe there is a different technique out there I am unaware of or tat wasn't taught in this class, but I had zero leverage with the assailant pushing up on the gun from below and the gun above my head, and far more leverage with the gun low. In fact, when the gun started out high, the only way I could retain my weapon was to drive it down. With the gun low, I was also able more easily drive my assailant into something, such as a wall, and gain more leverage. If I couldn't get the gun back down, I lost it about as many times as I kept it.

[Cecil Burch]

This is exactly the opposite of what I found in the class. Maybe there is a different technique out there I am unaware of or tat wasn't taught in this class, but I had zero leverage with the assailant pushing up on the gun from below and the gun above my head, and far more leverage with the gun low. In fact, when the gun started out high, the only way I could retain my weapon was to drive it down. With the gun low, I was also able more easily drive my assailant into something, such as a wall, and gain more leverage. If I couldn't get the gun back down, I lost it about as many times as I kept it.


Then you are most likely relying on arm strength and not really using leverage. Basic physics teach that a shorter lever is harder to move than a longer lever. When you ignore the elbows and hips, all you have is upper body strength to rely on. I am suggesting that there is a better way, IME.

[TCinVA]

Then you are most likely relying on arm strength and not really using leverage. Basic physics teach that a shorter lever is harder to move than a longer lever. When you ignore the elbows and hips, all you have is upper body strength to rely on. I am suggesting that there is a better way, IME.

I think this is something that confuses a lot of folks. It's possible to see some level of success when using just about any technique if the circumstances are right...but that doesn't make it ideal.

[Dropkick]

You are totally missing the point and reading way too much into what is being said.

Are you sure you're not missing my point? (And everyone else's point too?)

[Dagga Boy]

Let me add a couple of things. I can about guarantee that I have hit far more folks with handguns for real and not in training than most here. Using this as a justification of a ready position is not an argument I would use to base my ready position on. My first duty gun, "The Hebrew Hammer" did not get that name from shooting folks with it. There is a huge difference in whacking someone with a N frame Smith and a polymer pistol (the guy running around SoCal with a perfect imprint of the front of a Glock 17 scared into his temple was mine, so I know this;)). Chances are good that you won't be striking someone from your textbook range ready position. It is also stupid (this is called "learning"). You can really screw your gun up hitting folks with it, to the point it may not work.....ever. This should be a truly "Last Ditch option" and not a go to idea. Also, hitting someone in the head and face with a gun is likely considered "lethal level force". Chances are that those using it in a military team environment, you should just shoot the person, and realistically, I could have justified shooting just about everyone I hit with a gun.......and looking back, probably should have.

Low ready and the elbows. The technique I use and have used successfully in the field (against both stronger and weaker opponents) is that when I start my "pull", I am either going to the gun, or the gun is coming to me......either way, at the end my elbows are in, my hips can now come into play, and I am in the "retention" position that I SHOULD HAVE BEEN IN IN THE FIRST PLACE. The reality is that getting in a fight over a pistol at any ready position was a failure to have it in a proper retention position to begin with, but welcome to the reality of chaos when you will often be overcoming failures to plan at speed to begin with. Plan A rarely survives first contact.

Lastly......I don't use a locked elbow ISO low ready, I use that sort of dinosaur fighting stance where my elbows are in to my body and if you look at my low ready vs. a high ready, the elbows are in a similar place with only the orientation being of the muzzle being different and my body is a little more bladed to one side. My argument against locking the elbows in front is related to this, so I guess I am with Cecil on this with only the muzzle elevation being different.

[Aesir Training]

Then you are most likely relying on arm strength and not really using leverage. Basic physics teach that a shorter lever is harder to move than a longer lever. When you ignore the elbows and hips, all you have is upper body strength to rely on. I am suggesting that there is a better way, IME.

I don't believe I was relying on arm strength. I'm 5'8" and 160 lbs, my opponent was over 6' and 200 lbs. When the gun went low and I closed the distance, my elbows went in against my sides, and I was able to put my head under his chin and drive him into something. Plus I was able to use my entire body in the struggle and gain an advantage over a larger attacker. I was able to shorten the lever by closing the distance with the attacker. After a few distracting blows and a struggle, I was able without fail to remove his hands from the gun using my body weight and an arm bar across his wrists/forearms while pulling the gun away.

I am very open to learning and applying other methods. My initial AAR and responses in this thread are based upon what I learned from an experienced instructor specific to weapon retention in a specific class. I would very much like to take a class with you to learn what you recommend/teach as well. If you are interested in teaching in the central or western NC area, shoot me a PM and let me know. We can make it happen.

[Aesir Training]

Are you sure you're not missing my point? (And everyone else's point too?)

Yup. Positive.

[Shawn.L]

We are all prisoners of our own experience.

Good thing my experiences include a lot of force on force training with simulated firearms ;)

If I'm getting entangled with someone I want my elbows pinned to my ribs and my hands up high.

What I've seen A LOT of with guys that claim success from some techniques is that their training construct is off. Both hands down on the gun while some other guy has both hands on the gun leaves out possibilities such as your opponent stuffing the gun with one hand and throwing bows with the other, or taking your waist line and tossing you like a lawn dart.

Opposing will
Freedom of action
Malevolent intent

The truth will come out under pressure.

[Dagga Boy]

Good thing my experiences include a lot of force on force training with simulated firearms ;)

If I'm getting entangled with someone I want my elbows pinned to my ribs and my hands up high.

What I've seen A LOT of with guys that claim success from some techniques is that their training construct is off. Both hands down on the gun while some other guy has both hands on the gun leaves out possibilities such as your opponent stuffing the gun with one hand and throwing bows with the other, or taking your waist line and tossing you like a lawn dart.

Opposing will
Freedom of action
Malevolent intent

The truth will come out under pressure.

Okay, so lots of live engagements, with live crooks (mostly high on stimulants), no rules, no protective gear, with live guns, and probably death or serious injury if you lose is not a good measure and that my training construct if off...........okay, got it. I'll just go back to reading and learning.

[Sparks2112]

Good thing my experiences include a lot of force on force training with simulated firearms ;)

If I'm getting entangled with someone I want my elbows pinned to my ribs and my hands up high.

What I've seen A LOT of with guys that claim success from some techniques is that their training construct is off. Both hands down on the gun while some other guy has both hands on the gun leaves out possibilities such as your opponent stuffing the gun with one hand and throwing bows with the other, or taking your waist line and tossing you like a lawn dart.

Opposing will
Freedom of action
Malevolent intent

The truth will come out under pressure.

Ok, and you're not wrong. Neither is the guy that's actually used it "on da street" :). In his estimate it works just fine, because it has in the past. In your estimate it's a bad idea based off of the real disadvantages it presents. And all the while either side is smugly thinking to themselves "god they're so clueless."

My point with the above statement was in all the confusion of being right for our own reasons, we often times don't really THINK about why the other person is saying/doing what they're doing.

[DocGKR]

As I noted earlier, situations are fluid and each technique may come to play--I think it is bad to welded on to just one concept. As Nyeti has written about previously, stance and body positioning should be fluidly adapting as the situation unfolds.

[Aesir Training]

As I noted earlier, situations are fluid and each technique may come to play--I think it is bad to welded on to just one concept. As Nyeti has written about previously, stance and body positioning should be fluidly adapting as the situation unfolds.

And for the record, I have never said in this thread that I am welded to any one concept or technique. In fact I have said quite the opposite repeatedly, and even sincerely stated that I would love to train with Cecil to learn what concepts and techniques he believes in. What I did say was that I saw some pretty stark advantages to having the gun at a low ready when someone tried to grab it and wrestle it away from me rather than when it was at a high ready in this class with this instructor. He is someone with real world experience when it comes to wrestling over guns or even hand to hand struggles in general. I did not say that my findings in this class mean I have precluded ever using a high ready position, or that anyone who does use a high ready is wrong.

[ToddG]

I don't pretend to be a CQB expert, or even an expert on what TTP's are used by what groups.

Yet you keep talking about how some use low ready for CQB. That's probably where the confusion is coming from. Quite a few members of the forum Staff and SMEs have ongoing interactions with members (and training cadre) from many such groups. Perhaps if you could be more specific about what "preeminent groups" are teaching low ready as a default close quarters handgun ready position we could have a more reasoned discussion on the issue.


I would imagine that taking a round in the lower extremities or abdomen, while not fatal, would most likely take my opponent's attention away from the hand to hand struggle and give me an advantage in that moment.

I'd suggest you do a little exploration into the real world effect of handgun bullets on motivated, violent attackers. A single round to the lower extremities is not likely to cause physical incapacitation. In fact, in many instances the target may not even be aware that he's been shot.


But if I could choose between putting a round into a guy or not putting a round into a guy that I was locked in a hand to hand struggle with, I'll take the possible advantage of putting one in him, even if in a non-fatal area.

Except you're leaving out part of the equation from your original scenario. That one shot will also disable your gun. If I had to choose between disabling my gun or not while "locked in a hand to hand struggle" I'd opt not to if I could help it, especially if the trade off was at best likely to be a superficial wound to a non-vital area.


Still better than launching a round skyward that has no chance of being effective at all.

I'd say a chance to shoot someone in the head at point blank range is >>> the chance to shoot someone in the calf at point blank range, but to each his own.




the gun at high port doesn't change how the gun works when it is pushed out of battery. It does change the trajectory the round takes if in fact the gun is discharged. With the gun above your head and the assailant pushing up, the round goes elsewhere.

How did the gun get above my head? If the attacker manipulated it (or me) in such a way that my gun is in fact pointed skyward, why did I discharge it?

Also, if fighting over a gun in low ready, are you suggesting there is no way for an attacker to manipulate it in a way that the gun is no longer pointed at him? Because otherwise, I fail to see how one has an advantage in terms of that facet.


As our idiot commander in chief always says in his speeches, "let me be very clear..." I am not saying that one ready position is superior to the other for all CQB activities.

Then there seems to have been a misunderstanding because quite a few folks, myself included, took your original comments that way.

Perhaps you could specifically clarify what you mean by "high ready," since it seems a lot of folks have experience contrary to what you saw in class. My guess -- based on my own experience (and mistakes) -- is that perhaps you weren't utilizing an optimized high ready but were shown an optimized low ready. Sort of like arguing whether planes or cars are faster then using some underpowered airplane versus a Veyron for the test.


If I'm getting entangled with someone I want my elbows pinned to my ribs and my hands up high.

Me, too. Emphasis on want because obviously it won't always work out that way, but it's a lot easier for me to control my gun and where it's pointed (and in particular keep it from pointing at me) from that position.

It's been a lot of years since I took aikido (and I'm not suggesting that aikido = street fighting) but my recollection is that we tried never to extend our arms below waist height until an opponent was off balance for these very reasons.

[jlw]

If somebody grabs my gun I am going to be really ticked at whoever let them in my office...

That being written, I am taking a weapon retention class next week. I'll try to do a little experimenting and ask the instructors specifically about this very issue. My natural inclination is to think that high ready would be advantageous to low ready, but I have no hard evidence to back that up.

[Chuck Haggard]

I don't think either method of carry has an advantage if you know techniques for keeping your gun when operating in either carry mode.

With long guns I wasn't at all a fan of the high ready, until I went to DARC and trained with Uncle Rich. That was eye opening.


I had a friend trigger off a shot into a bad guy's chest during a gun grab FUT fight, bad guy says "You shot me in the chest!", then started fighting harder. He didn't stop until one of our guys got to the scene to assist and started to apply a SL20 repeatedly to the bad guy's head neck and shoulders until he bled profusely from his ears, nose and mouth.

The bad guy in the notable Lakewood fight where four officers were murdered in the coffee shop was gut shot by the last of the four officers killed during a gun grab that the officer lost.

Just observations on a couple of real world gun grabs where the suspect got shot.

[Odin Bravo One]

While not the most experienced CQB type dude on the internet, I've watched a few videos of it on YouTube and have come up with a few observations on specific ready positions as they relate to CQC/CQB.

Low Ready = works

High Ready = works

Ready = works

The key component of any "ready position" is the mental state of "Ready".

"High head up ass" is just as ineffective as "Low head up ass".

As to the exact technique........they are both useful. One would be wise to seek out training that uses both, either alone, as in a program of dogmatic refusal to change or entertain a new concept, or somewhere that all useful techniques can be presented, explained, and practiced in a variety of circumstances. Knowing and practicing all useful techniques gives you a much better chance of success in a bad breath range fight than simply dismissing techniques without having each properly presented, in the proper context, with proper examples, and proper practical application exercises, by a properly qualified instructor/cadre.

As for defending a "gun grab", prevention is far superior to fighting over your gun. Using the right technique(s) for the circumstances will prevent a good deal of "gun grab" situations. For those that cannot, or rather, were not prevented.......this is where a knife, slap, second gun, etc. come into play. Nothing says "Let go of my gun" like a fixed blade to the throat.

ETA........

I can't (or maybe it is won't) get into the details, scenarios, technique validation/invalidation for the stuff so passionately debated. But there are a lot of assumptions being made, without having the proper training I mentioned above. It really is key to have training where the trainer truly knows not only the "how" of the techniques, but more importantly the "why". Most of the garbage I see posted on the internet shows a very real lack of understanding, and ignorance of each camp. Having proper explanations and validation with practical application drills changes a lot of people. Our tactical minds tend to work best when open.

I'd be more than happy to devote a one day PF-Forum members only class in the NOVA area on nothing but CQB/CQC gun handling, techniques, realities of fighting with a gun at bad breath distances, tactics, and plenty of drills to identify the strengths and shortcomings of the various techniques. Unfortunately, in my current position, I am subject to NDA's until my replacement arrives, and re-writes my curriculum. As long as they are the current TTP's in use, they are off limits for public consumption.

[Sparks2112]

While not the most experienced CQB type dude on the internet, I've watched a few videos of it on YouTube and have come up with a few observations on specific ready positions as they relate to CQC/CQB.

Low Ready = works

High Ready = works

Ready = works

The key component of any "ready position" is the mental state of "Ready".

"High head up ass" is just as ineffective as "Low head up ass".

As to the exact technique........they are both useful. One would be wise to seek out training that uses both, either alone, as in a program of dogmatic refusal to change or entertain a new concept, or somewhere that all useful techniques can be presented, explained, and practiced in a variety of circumstances. Knowing and practicing all useful techniques gives you a much better chance of success in a bad breath range fight than simply dismissing techniques without having each properly presented, in the proper context, with proper examples, and proper practical application exercises, by a properly qualified instructor/cadre.

As for defending a "gun grab", prevention is far superior to fighting over your gun. Using the right technique(s) for the circumstances will prevent a good deal of "gun grab" situations. For those that cannot, or rather, were not prevented.......this is where a knife, slap, second gun, etc. come into play. Nothing says "Let go of my gun" like a fixed blade to the throat.

ETA........

I can't (or maybe it is won't) get into the details, scenarios, technique validation/invalidation for the stuff so passionately debated. But there are a lot of assumptions being made, without having the proper training I mentioned above. It really is key to have training where the trainer truly knows not only the "how" of the techniques, but more importantly the "why". Most of the garbage I see posted on the internet shows a very real lack of understanding, and ignorance of each camp. Having proper explanations and validation with practical application drills changes a lot of people. Our tactical minds tend to work best when open.

I'd be more than happy to devote a one day PF-Forum members only class in the NOVA area on nothing but CQB/CQC gun handling, techniques, realities of fighting with a gun at bad breath distances, tactics, and plenty of drills to identify the strengths and shortcomings of the various techniques. Unfortunately, in my current position, I am subject to NDA's until my replacement arrives, and re-writes my curriculum. As long as they are the current TTP's in use, they are off limits for public consumption.

/thread

[BoppaBear]

Nothing says "Let go of my gun" like a fixed blade to the throat.

Edit...new thread.

[Mitchell, Esq.]

Perhaps if you could be more specific about what "preeminent groups" are teaching low ready as a default close quarters handgun ready position we could have a more reasoned discussion on the issue.


I was going to ask that, and as for myself, I get leery of listening to advice based on "Training with experts" when I don't have the details of the source of someone's information.

Also, just because a "preeminent group" does something a certain way, it may not be appropriate for ME to do it that way.

I don't do the job that "preeminent group" does (even assuming I know what job that is...) and with so many "preeminent groups" doing so many different jobs (A narc working undercover in a Chicago 'hood having a different job than a Secret Service agent on an executive protection detail...both doing different jobs than a CIA agent working overseas coordinating with the Iranian underground...all three of which doing different work than a USMC Force Recon team doing snatch & grab missions in Africa in a country in which the United States Does Not have any involvement...all of which may be "preeminent groups" - than have nothing to do with each other) who's to say any one group's training is more valid than the other without knowing why they are doing what...and how it's applicable to me.

While it is useful to know what "Awesome Unit #1" is doing and why, and I will definitely use any data they produce regarding the effectiveness of a technique or piece of equipment I can get my hands on...Just the fact that a "preeminent group" does something does not, in and of itself, mean it is the right thing for me to do.

If that "preeminent group" had my job/lifestyle (they would kill themselves...but that is a side issue related to the nature of my existence...but assuming they did not...) they may actually do things differently.

"Preeminent groups" doing things a certain way is a selling point, sure...

But for me, it's not closing the deal.

[Caboose]

I'd be more than happy to devote a one day PF-Forum members only class in the NOVA area on nothing but CQB/CQC gun handling, techniques, realities of fighting with a gun at bad breath distances, tactics, and plenty of drills to identify the strengths and shortcomings of the various techniques. Unfortunately, in my current position, I am subject to NDA's until my replacement arrives, and re-writes my curriculum. As long as they are the current TTP's in use, they are off limits for public consumption.

Tease

[KevinB]

Interestingly enough I grew up on low ready, a few months ago I took a class Mil/LE class with Jason Falla and Brian XXXX who had just retired out of DevGru - both where very adamant about high ready. They also gave a very detailed rationale for it - and why some elements use low ready instead.
It was interesting because several years ago seeing folks from VB using High Ready I asked a few questions, and I got "cause the Army uses low" - which left me figuring it was yet another service common idiocy.

About 17hrs into TD2 (Jason likes long hours) I understood why High Ready was probably superior for most CQB applications. I now practice clearing my house at night high ready.

And I pains me to admit the Navy was right as much as it pains me when Todd is right too :eek:

[Chuck Haggard]

I strongly believe that low ready is a square range and live-fire shoot house artifact taken into the real world. Sure, in many cases it makes sense, but it took hold so hard due to instructors up in a cat walk not wanting to be looking at muzzles, or new guys launching rounds over the berm.

[KevinB]

I strongly believe that low ready is a square range and live-fire shoot house artifact taken into the real world. Sure, in many cases it makes sense, but it took hold so hard due to instructors up in a cat walk not wanting to be looking at muzzles, or new guys launching rounds over the berm.

That's one exact thing that I got from both Brian and Jason in the class I took, and thinking back to training aspects of a previous life - I can recall that even on multi level structures not being able to go muzzle up until the catwalk nazi had moved off to a different perch.

[Chuck Haggard]

[There is a lot of stupid stuff, or stuff that could be better, left over in the tactical world because of insitutional training scars.

Why did so many teams run MP5s for so many years?

Why did (and shockingly enough some still do) so many teams run their ARs safety off when going dynamic?

THe low vs high ready is just another vestige of that IMHO.


I will add, ref Army vs Navy, I got sold on high ready as viable by Uncle Rich while I was training at DARC, and he was Army SF

[jthhapkido]

Interestingly enough I grew up on low ready, a few months ago I took a class Mil/LE class with Jason Falla and Brian XXXX who had just retired out of DevGru - both where very adamant about high ready. They also gave a very detailed rationale for it - and why some elements use low ready instead.
{snip}
About 17hrs into TD2 (Jason likes long hours) I understood why High Ready was probably superior for most CQB applications.


Are you able to say/discuss their rationale? And your changed understanding? I'm curious as to their reasoning.

[Jay Cunningham]

If you are an average armed citizen (neither LEO nor military) where does a "ready position" fall into your world?

We (talking average armed citizen, here) use ready positions constantly on the gun range, but how often would we (average armed citizens) have a gun "at ready" in the actual world? In your house? In your car? On the street?

Why is your gun out in the first place?

We (as students of very experienced instructors) are taught ready positions with firearms. We use them on the range. We are taught why some are good and some are not good. Then we argue about them on the Internet from the context of what an instructor told us and how we used the position within their training paradigm.

My hope is to get normal people who lead a normal life to ask themselves questions about how certain things apply to them in their own world, not somebody else's world - to establish filters.

My personal take on ready positions is that I naturally flow through them as I need them; when something is useful I use it and then move on when something else is more useful.

If I see Trouble approaching from some distance, I might be able to justify drawing to a ready position. I can also justify having a gun at a ready position if Trouble changed it's mind and is now departing. I can justify having a gun at ready as part of a post-engagement sequence.

If I confront someone in my home I am damn sure going to have my muzzle on them unless they run out the door or they get on their belly with their hands behind their head while we wait for the cavalry. Only at that point can *I* justify having my gun at ready vs. pointing it at their chest.

How could I justify having my muzzle on them? Because I was willing to shoot them. Because I perceived that they were a potentially lethal threat that I couldn't safely retreat from. Because I was in fear for my life and the life of my family.

"But you had to first clear your house, right?" Ah, yes. The textbook one-man methodical clearing of a "structure" (uh, house) seeking out a bad guy for a little CQB action. Sure. "What's your ready position for that?"

In the context of "CQB and disarming" my gun is either going to be at Position 2 or Position 3; I don't consider either one of those as ready positions, but as fighting positions. Both of those are designed to allow shooting in close quarters while making a "gun grab" difficult for the attacker. I can flow through Positions 2, 3, and 4 as I need them and as they are more or less useful to me.

"What if the bad guy turned out to be your daughter or your wife? You might muzzle them!" Yeah, running around with guns is a dangerous business. Everyone *says* "training with firearms is inherently dangerous". Everyone *says* "one-man room clearing is fraught with risk".

Well... it's pretty dangerous to stumble into a thug inside your house at 3:00 am at bad breath distance, no? What is the definition of "risk"?


*Keep your finger off the trigger and high alongside the gun until you're going to shoot.*


Holding the gun at a ready position while in close contact with a thug who is threatening me? Why? Muzzle strike? How can I justify a muzzle strike instead of simply shooting? A muzzle strike to the head is lethal force in my book. It's something to do when I'm out of options, not as an initial option.

Carbines or shotguns? Sure, The story may change a little. But then we get back to: why do I (an average armed citizen) have a long gun deployed? Home defense? Do I defend from a gun grab by transitioning to my secondary?

I don't have a secondary. I have a pair of shorts.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free (http://tapatalk.com/m/)

[ToddG]

You lost me as soon as you said you use "fighting" positions instead of "ready" positions... therefore you don't need ready positions.

I don't use weapons, I use blasters. Therefore I don't need weapons. (how does that make sense???)

Or I don't need ready positions because instead I have a search position, contact position, cover position, moving position, scratching my ear position, etc, etc.

[TCinVA]

I'd be more than happy to devote a one day PF-Forum members only class in the NOVA area on nothing but CQB/CQC gun handling, techniques, realities of fighting with a gun at bad breath distances, tactics, and plenty of drills to identify the strengths and shortcomings of the various techniques. Unfortunately, in my current position, I am subject to NDA's until my replacement arrives, and re-writes my curriculum. As long as they are the current TTP's in use, they are off limits for public consumption.

Consider me game for such a class.

I don't really expend too much effort worrying about a ready position because I don't interact with bad guys for a living. I tend to default to a sort of high-ready from which I can punch/press out to a target or easily withdraw to an ECQC #2 if I feel it's necessary due to space/weapon grab concerns. I tend to default to that position because it's essentially a part of my draw stroke, so it's familiar. I rarely find myself in a stack with other people so I don't typically have to worry about my muzzle being aimed in at the base of their skull.

[LittleLebowski]

I'd be more than happy to devote a one day PF-Forum members only class in the NOVA area on nothing but CQB/CQC gun handling, techniques, realities of fighting with a gun at bad breath distances, tactics, and plenty of drills to identify the strengths and shortcomings of the various techniques.

IN when the time comes. Real Mexican food to be provided to the instructor :D

[Caboose]

We (as students of very experienced instructors) are taught ready positions with firearms. We use them on the range. We are taught why some are good and some are not good. Then we argue about them on the Internet from the context of what an instructor told us and how we used the position within their training paradigm.

-Snip-

My hope is to get normal people who lead a normal life to ask themselves questions about how certain things apply to them in their own world, not somebody else's world - to establish filters.

I think we're in agreement for the most part, but just to make sure I'm understanding correctly: Would you say your goal is to have average Joe gun carrier filter these concepts through a realistic lens, so that they might spend less time pondering, practicing, and debating (read: having a monkey kitten-fight over the internet) skills unlikely to be applicable to their uses when time could be better spent on skills for more likely scenarios? Or did I read that entirely wrong, and you're just tired of reading these fantasy land debates?




In the context of "CQB and disarming" my gun is either going to be at Position 2 or Position 3; I don't consider either one of those as ready positions, but as fighting positions. Both of those are designed to allow shooting in close quarters while making a "gun grab" difficult for the attacker. I can flow through Positions 2, 3, and 4 as I need them and as they are more or less useful to me.

I have a bit of trouble with this one, as it seems to be an argument or semantics. What one person considers a ready position compared to another is subjective. Is my gun out, and in my hand? If it is, then am I not fairly "ready" to shoot? Or maybe a "ready" position is some kind of muzzle averted hold, while a "fighting" position is somewhere on target. I think there's too much room for individual interpretation for hard conclusions to be made.


"What if the bad guy turned out to be your daughter or your wife? You might muzzle them!" Yeah, running around with guns is a dangerous business. Everyone *says* "training with firearms is inherently dangerous". Everyone *says* "one-man room clearing is fraught with risk".

Well... it's pretty dangerous to stumble into a thug inside your house at 3:00 am at bad breath distance, no? What is the definition of "risk"?

For me, I attempt to strike a balance between not muzzling family/no shoots, and still being "ready" (there's that word again) with a deep #2. Shoulder is jacked up even higher, pointing the muzzle down, instead of slightly forward. It's fast to a usable fighting position, but if it turns out not to be a bad guy you stumble into, you don't have to worry about the safe gun handling squad coming to cane you.


Carbines or shotguns? Sure, The story may change a little. But then we get back to: why do I (an average armed citizen) have a long gun deployed? Home defense? Do I defend from a gun grab by transitioning to my secondary?

I don't have a secondary. I have a pair of shorts.

I don't have much to add here except to say I don't give a lot of thought to long guns, myself. I only have immediate access to them at home, and even then, they're in the safe, not at the bedside for various reasons.

[SouthNarc]

Guys I'm curious if everyone is talking about rifles, pistols or both? What one can do with one is different than what one can do with the other. I believe in congruency between platforms to a certain point and then it becomes an issue of the optimal method with the partiular weapon.

And I agree with Todd that the language we're using is not really defined. I generally don't use the phrase "ready position" but personally I think of that as being any time I've established a firing grip on the weapon but am not shooting. To me, aggresively sweeping a cover garment and establishing grip on a pistol while in the holster, but still not drawing the gun while I hurl F-bombs at a meth monkey is a "ready position".

[Dropkick]

...while I hurl F-bombs at a meth monkey is a "ready position".
hehe.
I was just reminiscing about your short talk you put out there during ECQC on muzzle aversion, old grannies, and how everyone around you -could- rate having a gun pointing at them... with regards to the last few posts.

[SouthNarc]

hehe.
I was just reminiscing about your short talk you put out there during ECQC on muzzle aversion, old grannies, and how everyone around you -could- rate having a gun pointing at them... with regards to the last few posts.


You're spot on dude and like I say in that talk, what motor skill I execute with a handgun is based upon a conscious and ACCURATE assesment of both the enironment and the specific problems there in.

[Jay Cunningham]

I think we're in agreement for the most part, but just to make sure I'm understanding correctly: Would you say your goal is to have average Joe gun carrier filter these concepts through a realistic lens, so that they might spend less time pondering, practicing, and debating (read: having a monkey kitten-fight over the internet) skills unlikely to be applicable to their uses when time could be better spent on skills for more likely scenarios? Or did I read that entirely wrong, and you're just tired of reading these fantasy land debates?

My goal is for students to understand why an instructor might be saying what they're saying. Consider the background of the instructor, consider "where they came from" and consider why it worked for them in their situation. Then consider if it will work for you in your situation. I would also hope that instuctors consider the same things about themselves, and consider who they are teaching to.




I have a bit of trouble with this one, as it seems to be an argument or semantics. What one person considers a ready position compared to another is subjective. Is my gun out, and in my hand? If it is, then am I not fairly "ready" to shoot? Or maybe a "ready" position is some kind of muzzle averted hold, while a "fighting" position is somewhere on target. I think there's too much room for individual interpretation for hard conclusions to be made.

Semantics is always tricky; a lot of these discussions would work out better if people clearly defined some concepts on the front end. I consider a ready position to be when a gun is in hand, not for an administrative function, and the muzzle is not pointed at a specific target, i.e. it is in a "safe" orientation. I would argue that Position 2/3 are not ready positions, though an argument could be made sometimes for 2. But there's probably better options for a ready position than 2.

There seemed to me to be a pretty clear discussion in this thread so far as to high ready & low ready. Standing online in a training class I think you'll see a fairly clear high and low ready deliniation. Sabrina still exists, and although it's widely derided it is an option within context. Sul is often used as a ready position, though many instructors will argue that it is not. The common thread with all of these is that the gun is out but not pointed at a vital zone on the threat.




For me, I attempt to strike a balance between not muzzling family/no shoots, and still being "ready" (there's that word again) with a deep #2. Shoulder is jacked up even higher, pointing the muzzle down, instead of slightly forward. It's fast to a usable fighting position, but if it turns out not to be a bad guy you stumble into, you don't have to worry about the safe gun handling squad coming to cane you.

Yeah, I'm down with that. That can be tricky though when opening doors and such as far as muzzling your own hand/arm might go.




I don't have much to add here except to say I don't give a lot of thought to long guns, myself. I only have immediate access to them at home, and even then, they're in the safe, not at the bedside for various reasons.

Long gun CQB is definitely a thing...

[Byron]

If I confront someone in my home I am damn sure going to have my muzzle on them unless they run out the door or they get on their belly with their hands behind their head while we wait for the cavalry. Only at that point can *I* justify having my gun at ready vs. pointing it at their chest.

"What if the bad guy turned out to be your daughter or your wife? You might muzzle them!" Yeah, running around with guns is a dangerous business. Everyone *says* "training with firearms is inherently dangerous". Everyone *says* "one-man room clearing is fraught with risk".

Well... it's pretty dangerous to stumble into a thug inside your house at 3:00 am at bad breath distance, no? What is the definition of "risk"?

If I'm reading you correctly (and maybe this discussion belongs in a separate thread), you seem to be implying that there is a performance (or other) gain from having your muzzle directly on someone's chest before you've made a final decision to shoot (presumably that the pistol is 'pre-aimed,' and now all that is needed is to pull the trigger).

That used to be my position as well until Claude Werner challenged my thinking on the matter:


Once again, the fascination with muzzle on escapes me. As the Arabs say: "no benefit." It's no faster and with moving targets, less accurate.

Years ago, Bill Rogers conducted an experiment with about 75 shooters. The task was to hit a falling silhouette target (a bobber that kept going to the ground) from a ready position at 7 yards. The shooters ranged from IPSC D to IPSC A in skill level. The target could go either way and they didn't know which way the target would fall, left or right. When it came to rest, it was behind a steel plate, so it couldn't be hit after it fell, it had to be hit on the way down. From the muzzle on position, 2 out of 75 scored 1 hit on the silhouette. From Low Ready, i.e. "muzzle off", over half scored 1 hit and about 15 scored 2 hits.

Muzzle on, you end up shooting where the target (predator) was. Low Ready, you intercept it as it's moving. I know it seems counter-intuitive but some things are just that way.

My own testing has been far more limited, but I can at least verify that I get better hits when I'm not "pre-aimed."

Given this, I can no longer justify moving around in a way that constantly points my pistol at people directly in front of me. While I understand your point that relative risk must be weighed out, I don't see what is gained.

[Jay Cunningham]

I don't really expend too much effort worrying about a ready position because I don't interact with bad guys for a living.

Me too.

[Jay Cunningham]

If I'm reading you correctly (and maybe this discussion belongs in a separate thread), you seem to be implying that there is a performance (or other) gain from having your muzzle directly on someone's chest before you've made a final decision to shoot (presumably that the pistol is 'pre-aimed,' and now all that is needed is to pull the trigger).

Nah, I doubt there's a performance gain. It's not the reason why I'm willing to muzzle some A-hole who decided to break into my house where my wife and kids are sleeping. It's an option on the table, though. And I'm willing to do it if it seems like the correct option at the time. Finger off the trigger until I'm going to shoot, and otherwise I'll orient my muzzle accordingly, circumstance-dependent.

[Shawn.L]

Guys I'm curious if everyone is talking about rifles, pistols or both?

My comments where formed assuming do to the nature of this forum (pistol-forum) and the usual topics here that the discussion was about pistols.

[SouthNarc]

My comments where formed assuming do to the nature of this forum (pistol-forum) and the usual topics here that the discussion was about pistols.

Same here dude but it kinda' looked like we had strayed into long gun territory.

[Shawn.L]

Same here dude but it kinda' looked like we had strayed into long gun territory.

Something I posted on the same topic on TPI


Generally speaking, through my experience and training for my reality I generally prefer a high ready.

I want the gun up and near the sight line as much as possible, I want my elbows close to my ribs, and my hands near my melon. Again, generally.

I used the word generally a lot :)

Modifying the shooting platform to conform to the geometry along with proper extension and compression in relation to the target/exposure...