LAV bans AIWB for his courses

[Chance]

Why are they behaving in an unsafe manner? Why is this not being spotted and corrected?
....
Those habits need to be identified and corrected. If that's not happening IN TRAINING then what is the bloody point of going and getting any?

I agree with this, for a slightly different reason. If an instructor opts not to allow someone to use an AIWB (or any other setup) because it's hazardous outside that student's present skillset, I have no issue with that. I do not think it should be banned outright.

The last time I was at CSAT, Paul was telling us about a student in a preceding class who carried a 1911 AIWB, with the safety off. This wasn't something that student just came up with, an "instructor" had actually taught him that. If that student hadn't brought that ridiculous setup to a real trainer, he could have ended up being a statistic.

Trying to teach basic safety manipulation at the same time as teaching a nuanced holstering technique is a lot to ask for any instructor, and Paul rarely supervises more than about six people at a time. So restrict <insert practice here> for individual students if necessary, but people need to have their secondary ignorance exposed, and that's what training is for.

What I found surprising (but really should't have) was the number of folks jumping on the AIWB Hate Train, including many well known in the industry.

I don't know that it's hate at AIWB, precisely. More annoyance towards tacticool trends people jump on without giving any sort of real thought into what they're doing.

Shit happens; how many possibilities are to be preemptively covered by an insurance or by avoidance policies?

I see your point, but I think you're approaching this from a pragmatic position, rather than the reality of the mess insurance actually is. Have you seen insurance billing codes? There are thousands of them for every permutation imaginable. So when an individual or a company is assessing risk, there's a lot of voodoo behind the scenes I can't even pretend to understand.

[David S.]

Lest we forget, AIWB carry is more inherently dangerous than standard strong side carry. Remember: "If you F#*@ up, you will die" from Todd's AIWB (Appendix Carry) thread? To pretend otherwise is foolish.

But, now that the cool kids are doing it the tactical crowd seem to be falling in lockstep without doing their due diligence in understanding or adapting to the inherent risks. Many recent adopters have no idea that there are specific equipment and techniques that help mitigate the risks. The cool guys are carrying AIWB now, so it must be the best.

Due to his popularity in the tactical training sphere, I'm sure there are a bunch of these types attending LAV's classes. Under that particular set of circumstances, I'm not sure I'd want un-vetted AIWB shooters on my line either.

Cheers,
David

[GardoneVT]

Due to his popularity in the tactical training sphere, I'm sure there are a bunch of these types attending LAV's classes. Under that particular set of circumstances, I'm not sure I'd want un-vetted AIWB shooters on my line either.

Cheers,
David

There is a scary level of me-too groupthink in the "gun community" ,if there is such a thing. Perhaps the marketing folks at our favorite gunmakers and gear firms have done their jobs too well. When people witness high performance shooting the first thing they do is duplicate the gear hoping for the same exact result.

[Gadfly]

I have been reading the thread for a while, but avoiding comment as A) I don't AIWB because of my build, and B) think its LAVs class to run, and if you don't agree with him spend your money elsewhere as there are plenty of instructors who will let you AIWB, and C) think folks are getting way to worked up about the whole thing, and D) If you want AIWB friendly classes, I am sure Todd G. will be more than happy to sign you and train you safely and efficiently.

But as I was running a line of shooters at our range yesterday, the thought of AIWB crossed my mind because we have a couple of shooters running their holsters attached to their body armor. I always watch folks going to the holster to make sure they "snap in". If you don't watch, folks try and cheat by not rotating their SLS hood or snapping their thumb break holster. With the body armor chest mount, I cant see what they are doing on the draw or re holster. (We do make the chest holsters stand on the end of the line and blade their body to avoid muzzle sweeps)

The point I am getting at ever slowly, is that I can see belt mount and IWB holsters at 3-4 o'clock. I can potentially see if guns are not de-cocked, fingers are on triggers, shirts are going into holsters, etc. With AIWB, I can't see the draw or the re holster as I stand behind 6 to 12 shooters. So how can I observe if the person is doing something stupid/dangerous/FUBAR? At least with the holster at 3-4 o'clock, the instructor has a better view to allow him to make corrections as needed.

I can understand someone not feeling comfortable as a teacher if they cant see through the student to see what is going on. You could stand to the side and watch, but then you lose sight of what the rest of the line is doing...


** A bit of background on how we run a range... our agency range has 12 turning targets. We try to have two instructors watching the line while a third runs the console to turn the targets. Sometimes, due to scheduling/sick days/court/leave we end up with one instructor trying to watch 12 agents shoot. It is very difficult to watch 12 people at once, and if LAV has 24 at once, it would be impossible. But I assume he runs two lines of 12 that rotate out between drills...

[Mr Pink]

There is a different between "training"/taking a class and learning stuff and "practicing"/using your daily equipment. Trying to combine the two is a popular trend, but don't see the point anymore than a college student trying to learn calculus - the practical applications will come later and at the independent efforts of the student.

This is an interesting perspective and I agree. Too many people get wrapped up on the "train as you fight" and are concerned about creating "bad habits". I can isolate the draw on my own time using dry-fire.

[SecondsCount]

....

The last time I was at CSAT, Paul was telling us about a student in a preceding class who carried a 1911 AIWB, with the safety off. This wasn't something that student just came up with, an "instructor" had actually taught him that. If that student hadn't brought that ridiculous setup to a real trainer, he could have ended up being a statistic.

....

At least the 1911 has a grip safety unlike those that are trimming the weight off their Glock, M&P, or other guns without any form of safety on them, and putting them down the front of their trousers. The difference is a millimeter or two.

[Pup town]

Whacking a knee out from a strong side holster, or even a large posterior thigh trauma are a lot more serious injuries than a scrotal wound described earlier in this thread but because AIWB is closer to a vascular structure it needs to be treated differently?

I know three people that have shot themselves. (I've been around awhile.) The two competition shooters (one moderately high level IDPA shooter and LEO) that were using OWB at 3 o'clock were ambulatory and suffered no lasting damage and didn't require surgery. The fellow carrying in a RAven Vanguard put a whole through his pecker. Surgery was required. He swears he has full function. I'm going to have to take his word for it. I don't want to ND, but if I did, based on that sample of three, I'd prefer to be carrying at 3 0'clock. (Plus, the oft-mention femoral issue with AIWB.)

My personal feeling that banning AIWB/IWB is based on emotions and perceptions rather than actual data but, again, I don't have any problem at all with instructors doing whatever they feel is right. In fact, I appreciate a fair warning so I can decide whose class I will or will not take.

Do you need data? LAV and Pannone and Gray are smart fellows. They observe more shooters than any of the non-instructors posting on this board. It's not hard for me to believe that they've witnessed enough close calls that they don't want to deal with AIWB (or at least have the shooter demonstrate he has a proficiency and a certain type of pistol.)

--------

Kind of odd that everyone justified LAVs decision by saying he runs a large class. (He does.) Is Pannone known for running large classes? (I realize he didn't outright ban the AIWB.)

Also, lol'ing at everyone that claims they've been AIWBing for 15 years. Pics or it didn't happen. (Or a link to a post from 10 years ago extolling the virtues of AIWB will suffice.)

[Mr Pink]

At least the 1911 has a grip safety unlike those that are trimming the weight off their Glock, M&P, or other guns without any form of safety on them, and putting them down the front of their trousers. The difference is a millimeter or two.

In this video the grip safety is taped and the slide safety is down/off. Maybe AIWB is only for Sparrow Hitmen
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPMEVzv0AO4

[LSP972]

Too many people get wrapped up on the "train as you fight" and are concerned about creating "bad habits".

Agreed. But that doesn't seem to deter a lot of folks from developing- deliberately- the VERY bad habit of looking at their holster when returning the pistol to same.

That said… if one is some sort of ninja, operating operationally in an operational environment, or a soldier/marine, perhaps this isn't such a big deal. That's combat; generally not an individual one-or-two-on-one-and-then-its-over deal. I get that.

But if it IS a non-military civilian street/home/wherever self-defense encounter, or a cop dealing with a seasoned street asshole, then it can be a huge deal. Because, you see, the gladiator schools train to be ready for this exact thing. I've seen surreptitious video, taken in prisons, of gang members training each other on how to take down a cop after the member is accosted on the street at gun point, complies with all directives, the cop semi-relaxes and looks down to re-holster. That's when they pull their gat, or close the distance and go hands-on, etc.

Plus, I know of several instances where this exact thing has occurred. Which is why any LE training program worth a damn, in the past thirty years, has insisted that students re-holster while keeping eyes on the threat.

I understand the axiom of looking at one's AIWB holster, so as not to snag the trigger and blow one's pecker off. That is one reason why I would not carry AIWB with a striker-fired pistol, at any cost. I used to carry a J frame AIWB when off-duty, so I am no stranger to the concept. And if I still had the build- i.e., no Budweiser tumor- I would certainly not be opposed to carrying a hammer gun AIWB. But if you study the matter and really think about it, training hard for defensive purposes against a living, thinking antagonist, and training yourself to look at your holster when re-holstering… well, unless every possible threat is already on the deck with a perforated medulla, losing eye contact with your surroundings is just plain dumb.

FWIW, I've seen a few videos by self-proclaimed "experts" who look at their three o'clock positioned OWB holster as well. So I'm not slamming AIWB here.

.

[Pup town]

Holy conflation, Batman, you are equating design flaws that leave a finger waggling too close to the trigger and that allows foreign matter to get into the release and prevent the gun from leaving the holster with where on the hip one locates their holster, particularly when one option complicates the draw stroke while the other simplifies it? Mind you, I reluctantly allow SERPAs in the classes I teach, but hold a safety brief regarding the problems people have had with them and am adamant that the draw stroke is kept slow until a smooth presentation is achieved. I also hold an AIWB safety brief that focuses on proper reholstering technique. Interestingly I've yet to have a SERPA student come back for the next class using that holster, while all the AIWB folks stay with it.

I didn't conflate the Serpa and AIWB. I said some of the arguments in favor of both sound similar.

*"It's not a design flaw - if you shoot yourself it's because you need more training." (It's not a flawed holster position, if you shoot yourself you need more training.)

*"I've been using a Serpa for X years and never had a problem." (I've been AIWB carrying for 15 years and never had a problem.)

--------

I could care less how anyone carries. I guess I don't understand how someone gets so worked up over whether a certain instructor approves or doesn't approve of your preferred method of carry.