Ken Hackathorn discusses the benefits, and potential drawbacks, of the various ready positions used by shooters in range, self-defense, and tactical environments.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7wCUjGirzA
Printable View
Ken Hackathorn discusses the benefits, and potential drawbacks, of the various ready positions used by shooters in range, self-defense, and tactical environments.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7wCUjGirzA
Well reasoned opinions. I don't really agree with his temple index or high gun position. If I'm moving through a crowd, I probably want my off hand free to move people, but what do I know compared to Hackathorn? On the other hand, I really believe in his holstered ready for many applications. I'd hate to shoot (or get shot by) a brother or sister officer on a staircase of some post WWII era residence in Twinbrook (MD) on a building search.
Thanks for posting.
Huh. Nice watch, though.
The temple index, aka Modified Hollywood Ready, seems fundamentally flawed.
- If you bump into something/get bumped you're going to muzzle your own head.
- You may be muzzling your head by default with a shorter barrel.
- Retention is going to impossible if someone grabs the gun, you've got zero leverage.
- Both hands are now mandatory for any semblance of safety.
- You look at least as "on the offense" as the high gun.
- The gun is in everyone's eye line and is going to make you stand out.
Side note, the way I was taught Sul (which seems to be higher then he demonstrates) even if a toddler is running around me I'm not muzzling them unless I step over them. Is that more or less likely then the hypothetical church having a second floor or a mezzanine if the rationale is you can never muzzle anyone in an active shooter situation?
If you're referring to how he was performing it, yes.
The way we teach temple index is different, and it's contextually useful such as when working in vehicles or other sorts of confined spaces and not to be considered a universal. I.e., if you're trying to use it in a gun grab, you're doing it wrong.
If you're using it when moving in/around vehicles, it's useful and you're not going to be muzzling your own head and your other hand is free to manipulate objects or persons.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-MXdpFKJUiI
I take issue with the way that Hackathorn was presenting the various positions lacking the correct contextual use, which I'm perceiving as an intentional bias (red-herring) to make his argument plausible. Not just regarding temple index, but the high ready as well.....no shit you don't want to point your gun at your team-mates head or back when in a stack, which is why you don't use the high ready in that context.
I also take issue with his point that you're only going to be remembering and using 1 or 2 ready positions. That might be true for a demographic that was eligible to take retirement 3 decades ago, but from what I've seen among our agents that is not true. The majority of people in the bell-curve of competency subconsciously point the gun in a safe direction. The various ready positions are just templates for teaching muscle memory and muzzle awareness applicable to various contexts.
I seem to recall that we used to sometimes refer to it (somewhat derisively)as the "Sabrina." Yes, I know, not quite the same position...just adding some historical context.
Attachment 67318
One thing that isn't discussed enough in temple index is the gun itself, especially when taught in the ccw and lay-protector context. Full-ish sized guns have a larger margin of error in index point and muzzle coverage. Regular earth folks running a G26 or 365, stressed out and fatigued are at higher risk and point guns at their own heads, time and again. I've been taught the double-fisted cheek weld thing Ken did in the video, and heard it called several things. It's problematic as well for the same reasons.
Watched a lot of people point guns at their own heads with temple index, and at each other with SUL. So much suck in how these are taught and talked about sometimes.
I'm certain this video isn't intended for you or your team, but for the low average CCW holder. In the context you use temple index, it does what it's supposed to. Now imagine average CCW holder or church security guy using temple index in a crowd. If someone initiates a grab, security guy is in a bad way.
As you say, it's all about context.
As others have said, context is everything. A lot of these ready positions are frankly being used, or even taught, totally out of context. I've never personally seen Ken's version of the Temple Index, using both hands....and it isn't something I think I'd be likely to use moving through a panicked crowd in the proverbial "Active Shooter " situation. On the other hand, though I haven't taken the VCQB course from Centrifuge, I xlcan definitely see the context and value in their version of TI...in context. Instagram hissy fits aside.
We have unit's in our department teaching Sul in really inappropriate contexts, in my opinion.....basically as the "one true ready.position". Then I see body camera footage of cops breaking the plane through a doorway turning toward the unknown alone....with one hand on the gun with a bent wrist. Not ideal and not in context. There's that word again. Think @TGS used it earlier? Maybe those Discount Security guys know something after all. You do get more for less!
On the other hand, I do agree with Ken of the "Holster Index" being a very under rated and under used concept. Especially in the context of running around with a gun.
Note: I am NOT an Operator in any sense.
My civi take is...I draw a lot from my holster/s and having a full firing grip on my holstered gun
makes the most sense to me. I can move well enough and have an arm free to work around obstacles
and get on target fast enough to make things happen in my favor.
Interesting. He starts as if his intended audience is CCL citizens but then he talks about why high gun is bad if you’re in a stack... so in my view, he blurred the lines there.
First, Temple Index as taught by Centrifuge is NOT what Ken just demonstrated. His use of that term only muddies the water. TI is also a movement position, not a ready position.
If I hadn’t seen it myself, I wouldn’t have believed Ken suggested anything that came from the mind of James Yeager... and that technique is a horrible idea in my opinion for all the reasons stated.
We typically teach Sul as a way to move around each other (as in LEO’s). Not for moving through a crowd. I suspect we can all agree moving through a crowd is a nightmare scenario - especially a crowd running from gunfire. The only good advice I saw in that video was the option to stay holstered in a crowd.
For.The.Win! @ 2:46 “… in the gun culture where everybody’s obsessed with speed”!
Ah, the joy of the differences in people’s terminology.
I’ve come to appreciate Spaulding’s use of dictionary definitions when it comes to words. His breakdown on ready versus preparatory or movement positions is worth hearing.
Hackathorn's TI is not the same as Petty’s TI, but we already have a lengthy debate, or two, on it.
I enjoyed hearing Mr. Hackathorn’s considered, measured explanation.
Which one is best? Depends. Context, circumstances matter.
As others have noted, context is everything.
In an LE context, I have noted that, being practiced and confident in my draw, I am comfortable doing such things as building searches holstered whilst other deputies/officers have their guns out.
As "temple index" goes, I can envision scenarios in MY reality where that MAY be applicable one-handed, but hardly ever two-handed. In MY personal reality, the need to have my off hand use a flashlight/open doors/etc. is very high.
From a presentation standpoint, I wish more instructors used inert objects when demonstrating ready positions. I'm not saying anything Ken did was unsafe but it's way easier to discuss issues of retention and muzzling when you have a live body to call into your video frame, than demoing with a real pistol and no assistant. The only time I use a live firearm in a demo is if I actually intend to fire it.
This. It became all the more convenient, when the Safariland 6360 ALS/SLS rig became standard issue. With the hood down, and my thumb on the remaining release, I could have a firing grip on the weapon, with the muzzle pointed in a most-safe direction. Not an 100% replacement for a low ready, but certainly a replacement for much walking-about with gun-in-hand.
Some dude put together this piece on ready positions.
I will add that in testing in multiple class sessions, starting with the hand on the holstered pistol takes about .5 off of the draw. An added advantage is that for the concealed carrier, getting a sneaky grip on the pistol with the support hand ready to clear gives a person a faster draw stroke, but it also keeps everything covered.
My take on ready positing, carbine or handgun, is that after awhile you find out that you don’t really need or use any kata-style named holds. You are just familiar enough with your hardware and gear that you simply out the gun in a position you need it to be in at that moment while maintaining optimal muzzle direction.
I say “optimal muzzle direction” because frankly there a may be times times you are going to need to sweep things that you would otherwise rather not.
If we are taking about people just getting started, teaching a few basic ready positions can help get them to that point of spatial awareness with a gun. Personally I don’t think I’d be teaching those people anything regarding putting a pistol into close context with their head.
Oh, and for the record, I hosted Hack something like ten years ago. One of the worst classes of my training career. I’m sure things haven’t improved.
Deep dive into the Ready Position from Mike Pannone.
https://www.instagram.com/p/CJbvShbA-Kq/
Yes. Over the years, I've shifted from teaching specifically constructed ready positions to an extreme awareness of muzzle direction in changing environments. The trouble has been that you have to start somewhere, teach something, and call it something. And some have to anchor it into a course doc.
That said, there is a lot of value in a strong, depressed ready with muzzle ~45 degrees to the ground as the default go-to position.
When it comes to having to instruct, and then having to instruct institutionally (which is different than having to instruction for entertrainment), for sure there's a lot to consider.
I think that's the challenge with a video like Hackathorn's in the original post. Who is the target audience? In this case, IMO, it's "nobody" because it's got good point but also bad points for just about anyone.
I've taught shooting to volunteers/customers. I've never taught shooting institutionally. But, I am responsible for the training program for something like 200 people in my company, so I can imagine what institutional firearms instruction must look like. and know that I want no part of it!
not that Mike would ever care (or anyone else, for that matter), but I find very little there that I'd disagree with and got some new thoughts from his descriptions.
best quote of the vid "doesn't matter for me, 'cause I only got one friggin eye".
second best...
- stability
- mobility
- situational awareness
God, I can apply those concepts to my professional world that has nothing to do with guns, or physicality in any way.
Very interesting video that makes a lot of sense.
I've never been entirely comfortable with the Centrifuge Training temple index. While I haven't attended their training, I suspect their temple index may be based on dismounting police cruisers where you hopefully don't have possible threats sitting next to you on felony stops. Pannone's training seems based on aircraft defense and recovery where the officer is likely to encounter threats and victims. Pannone''s technique seems applicable over a wider range of circumstances than Centrifuge. Does anyone see any downsides to Pannone's technique?
I will remark that position sul was not intended to be a ready position. That said, various people and organizations treat it as such so good that Pannone addresses it.
Pannones technique is just fine unless you're using a very short gun.
At first it seemed counterintuitive to be getting my hand that close to the muzzle, and fingers wanted to find their way into the triggerguard, but with training, as with most things, it becomes a non-issue.
I've been training with it, and it is an useful technique in some situations.
I think the ultimate evolution is that the right technique is whichever one best fits the circumstances you happen to be in. As said above, it's more about extreme muzzle awareness, and control of the weapon, than anything else.
So the right technique is whatever's best for that moment in time, I think.
I'm just gonna leave this here.
Thread on the Noner Temple Index video.
Another take, from Dave Spaulding:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KV0Jegs0Iw
Actually I started using the term "muzzle aversion" 16-17 years ago and I think Spaudling's distinction is a relatively meaningless quibble. The rest of the video is quite frankly pretty much how everyone I know has been teaching the idea of averting/diverting the muzzle for quite some time. Personally I see nothing "new" here.
The only other thing I'll say about the video is where Spaulding dismisses the idea of working from an averted muzzle while clearing an interior problem. That's not my preference either but for someone who's bump in the night problem may very well be a teenager sneaking back into the bedroom, I don't dismiss the idea as practical.
It’s not a meaningless quibble. It’s an incorrect, or at least incomplete, quibble. One definition of “avert” is “turn away”. “Eye aversion” has been in common usage for quite a while, and it means to turn away one’s eyes. Your terminology is fine.
Let this sink in for a moment: Craig started using the term “muzzle aversion” 16-17 years ago. That’s extremely recent for something so serious. Now, I don’t know when you (Craig) started teaching the discipline of muzzle aversion before naming it, but I can say that I was taught to hold the muzzle only low enough to see the hands and belt line when I went through the academy in 2003. The muzzle was supposed to still cover the legs or feet of a person when issuing challenges or commands...and that was at a progressive department in terms of training, at least for my neck of the woods. In fairness, that changed at the institutional level before I left in 2011.
I keep reading/hearing that a CCW environment is different from a law enforcement environment in the context of ready positions. A typical example goes something like this: “As a CCW holder, the noise I’m investing might be my teenage kid sneaking into or out of the house rather than an actual threat.” In my experience, the vast majority of things I “investigated” as a LEO were also unknown, and most of the time it turned out to be something that did not need to be shot. My point is that I don’t think there should be much of a difference in LE use of ready positions. At least when I started, the thinking was something like “If you don’t know if it’ll need to be shot, point a gun at it until you are sure it doesn’t need to be shot.” That is less than ideal for obvious reasons. It should be something more like “If you don’t know if it’ll need to be shot, DON’T point a gun at it until you are sure it needs to be shot.” That goes for CCW folks as well as LE. It may have changed now, but at the time I think cops were trained to be far too eager to get the gun out when it wouldn’t buy much, if any, time...and it introduced more problems to track.
I think diversion or aversion is fine and either connotes the idea pretty well.
Yeah man we pointed guns at way more people, way more often, then one sees now in LE and I think overall the current thought process about being more judicious and mindful there is definitely for the best.Quote:
Let this sink in for a moment: Craig started using the term “muzzle aversion” 16-17 years ago. That’s extremely recent for something so serious. Now, I don’t know when you (Craig) started teaching the discipline of muzzle aversion before naming it, but I can say that I was taught to hold the muzzle only low enough to see the hands and belt line when I went through the academy in 2003. The muzzle was supposed to still cover the legs or feet of a person when issuing challenges or commands...and that was at a progressive department in terms of training, at least for my neck of the woods. In fairness, that changed at the institutional level before I left in 2011.
Totally agree and really when you think about it a "muzzle continuum" if you will, is nothing more than Rule 2 practiced and actualized. Easy to say, harder to do and teach especially from the stand point of using fixed ready positions as "hacks" for enforcing rule 2 with less ardent students of the craft.Quote:
I keep reading/hearing that a CCW environment is different from a law enforcement environment in the context of ready positions. A typical example goes something like this: “As a CCW holder, the noise I’m investing might be my teenage kid sneaking into or out of the house rather than an actual threat.” In my experience, the vast majority of things I “investigated” as a LEO were also unknown, and most of the time it turned out to be something that did not need to be shot. My point is that I don’t think there should be much of a difference in LE use of ready positions. At least when I started, the thinking was something like “If you don’t know if it’ll need to be shot, point a gun at it until you are sure it doesn’t need to be shot.” That is less than ideal for obvious reasons. It should be something more like “If you don’t know if it’ll need to be shot, DON’T point a gun at it until you are sure it needs to be shot.” That goes for CCW folks as well as LE. It may have changed now, but at the time I think cops were trained to be far too eager to get the gun out when it wouldn’t buy much, if any, time...and it introduced more problems to track.
If I recall correctly, at the last Rangemaster Conference held at the Memphis Police Academy, in 2015, Chuck Haggard's block - 'pistol manipulations' - was the first time I've seen the "muzzle-adverse ready position" taught.
I didn't get the whole block because I had to leave early (to shoot the match), but what we'd practiced - essentially, holding off to one side of the assailant, rather than allowing the muzzle to point at the assailant - was very interesting, and it made a lot of sense to me. Since then, I've not seen anything more about it, not from Mr. Haggard, and not from anyone else.
If there are any articles, or any video, that anyone can share (here), I'd appreciate it.
I'm really glad this came up, because as a very new shooter, I'm trying to get a complete picture of the process of a defensive shooting, and this discussion has helped with that.
I'm sure this has been discussed at some point, but I probably haven't seen it yet, but how do ready positions interact with trigger finger placement?
From what I have gathered so far, low ready and everything leading up to low ready would require a finger specifically off the trigger. But is the decision to point a gun at something the same as the decision to put your finger on the trigger, or are their other factors that might cause you to do one and not the other?
Put another way, if my barrel is averted, and then I see something that I decide requires a shot, is my shot process "align barrel -> place finger on trigger -> pull trigger" or is it "align barrel while placing finger on trigger -> pull trigger"?
Apologies if this has been covered and I just missed it.