"Fighting With a Gun"

[JodyH]

Everything you described in your list has been covered in coursework (I've participated in) from civilian instuctors with no gunfight experience, who never claim in their curriculum to teach "fighting with a gun". Did I de facto learn "fighting with a gun" from them? Does instructor background and experience have anything to do with it?

It's like trying to define the differences between artistic and obscene pornography... I know it when I see it, it's all subjective and you may not agree with me.
You may take a class and think it was training to fight, I may come away from the same class thinking it was the equivalent of NRA 1st steps.
I think the students background and experiences have more to do with it than the instructors.
I know instructors who claim to teach "fighting with a gun" and never come close, the other side of the coin is I know instructors who advertise a pure skills course and devote significant time to "fighting with a gun".
Then you have students who take things at face value and sometimes miss the underlying lesson in some drills.
There are definitely classes that emphasize the martial aspects of shooting and there are classes that emphasize the mechanics.
Would you get the same material from Southnarc and Brian Enos, or would one better prepare you for a street fight and the other prep you for an IPSC match?

[Wondering Beard]

Fighting with a gun?

Isn't that just using tactics with a specific tool?

[JodyH]

Then you should have been specific and said that, instead of "compromised positions". I've shot from urban prone in at least one "competition" class I can think off the top of my head.

Urban prone isn't supine.
Sorry I didn't write ten paragraphs of minute details, I'll work on my manifesto writing.

[jetfire]

But it is a "compromised position".

[jar]

To me, “fighting with a gun” implies dealing with hand-to-hand issues (a gigantic, deep, and difficult subject unto itself), dealing with an opposing will, maneuvering against an opponent, dealing with an opponent who will maneuver against you, and managing the space within which the fight occurs.

I will not address the hand-to-hand issues, and instead would simply give TPI my sincere, but inexpert and meaningless, endorsement on that important part of the subject.

Huge +1. To me it means training considered in the context of a real live thinking breathing opponent trying his best to thwart us. It doesn't necessarily have to include force on force, but the material has to be tested in the crucible of FoF and hopefully real fights as well.

[JodyH]

I'm shooting at a close in target and go to slidelock.
One instructor shows me the mechanics of getting a sub 2 second reload.
One instructor shows me the best way to bash a skull in with an empty handgun.

[Joseph B.]

My personal view is that it really boils down to understanding how the training (either it be professional or personal) will translate to being in a gunfight. Competitive shooting (bulls-eye, practical, steel, etc) all have good qualities that translate to skills that will help prepare someone for a gunfight, but being good at one or all will not cover all possible skill sets. Flat or square range training is good for several aspects, but limits the shooter to one directional shooting and gunfights are not all one directional.


I see training as preparing developing ones individual skills, those skills can be to win a match, become the best bulls-eye shooter, or to become more effective in gunfights, etc, etc. Simply put, the way that you training will directly translate to how you will perform in a gunfight.


Example: if you train to stand static and punch holes center of mass all day long, in a gunfight you will most likely stand static and shoot center of mass shots. This may or may not be good, but is very much dependent to the type of gunfight you are expecting to possibly have. A sniper, will (should not) not be doing a bunch of shooting on the move, dynamic shooting, etc. However, the possibility is there, so the sniper should train for both his job (precision rifle engagement and intelligent collection) and the unexpected (defending his position, breaking contact, etc).


The same can be applied to what I was talking about in the other thread regarding headshots, if you do not train to achieve headshots, if you do not train to transition from center of mass to headshots, you will in a gunfight (more than likely not) shoot only center of mass shots.


As trainers, we can’t and should not be caught up into the “what if” or “variables” of gunfights. We have to focus on skills that develop the shooter into a well rounded shooter, a shooter who is skilled in not only accuracy but also all the skill sets that go along with shooting in a gunfight.


Example: being able to shoot from multiple standard and adaptive shooting positions, being able to shoot on the move, being able to run stop and shoot, being able to “properly” use cover. Being able to limit self exposure, while achieving position that allows for accurate fire on the threat, stress shooting, etc, etc.


Any time we can add physical stress to the drills, accuracy tests and or scenario. Adding stress and allowing accuracy to fall is where I think most trainers fall off. You have to require the same standard of accuracy under stress, otherwise the stress training did nothing for the individual student. Pushing that student to perform under physical stress is prepares them for the stress in gunfights, allowing the accuracy to degrade and saying “not bad for x amount of stress” is the worst thing a trainer can do. We have to set that bar high, we have to require the same level in training.


These are just a few of the things I think are different between preparing someone for a gunfight and just teaching marksmanship or skills and or winning the game. I’ll post some more a little later…

[TR675]

In the last few years I've taken classes from some of the best and most renowned pistol instructors out there. They taught manipulations, malfunction drills, shooting techniques, all of which made me far more proficient with a pistol than I was. A lot of instructors paid some lip service to mindset, but at the end of the day mindset was not what they were teaching - pistolcraft was.

Tom Givens is the only instructor who put anywhere near an equal emphasis on preparation and mindset as on pistolcraft. That is absolutely not a slam on anyone other instructor; Tom has a fairly unique curriculum.

Not one of those classes, including Tom's, prepared me, a desk jockey who hasn't been in a fistfight since 9th grade, for an encounter I had with a bad actor a few months ago that was a split-second away from going very, very bad. They may have shown me how to shoot, but not how to deal with someone larger than me at contact distance who is saying things and acting in a way that make me unhappy.

Again, this isn't a slam on anybody. I just don't think that any class, including ones that claim to teach "fighting with a gun" can really teach you how to fight. I think you need to know how and when to fight before you can claim to be a "gunfighter," and that no two day shooting class can train you how to fight.

Having said that, and based in part on a couple of good posts by SouthNarc recently that mirrored and gave impetus to my new thinking, I've made a choice to seek out actual fighting training as best I can.

[TCinVA]

My two cents:

Looking back over the training I've done, it's really hard to define a hard line between "fighting" with a gun and learning to use one really well. I say that because there's a world of evidence out there that exceptional skill with a firearm actually pays dividends when it comes to using that weapon to stop the hostile actions of an enemy. If you look at the units in law enforcement and the military that exist primarily to do battle with evil in a very kinetic sense, all of them tend to have fairly stringent standards for what every member of the team has to be able to do with a firearm on demand. In a class with LAV, for instance, he once related that some of the training standards in his former unit were arrived at because they had to prepare unit members for storming a hijacked aircraft and shooting bad guys over the heads of seated airline passengers.

Certainly there was more to their training than marksmanship on demand...but the core reality is that the ability to close distance with an evil man and end him as efficiently and effectively as possible was a central focus of their training. That meant being well above average at using a gun, which meant a deliberate focus on teaching skills.

There's certainly more to violent interpersonal interaction with a firearm than weapons skill, and it's absolutely true that some aspects of it remain chronically undertrained even among armed professionals. Nevertheless, someone learning techniques that make them faster, more accurate, or more efficient on demand will pay dividends in terms of someone's ability to resolve a violent conflict in their favor. They are learning things that make them better at fighting with a gun.

So to answer the original question, I think the description of a class focused on "fighting with a gun" is a largely meaningless description. If I was to use the phrase, it would be applicable to just about any class that didn't focus on developing strategies for taking down IPSC stages.

Knowing a little bit about AAR's, I strongly suspect that descriptions of a class as a "fighting with a gun" class are frequently more about marketing and packaging than anything else. It may not even be deliberate on the part of the person writing the review, as they may just be reflecting the marketing or packaging the instructor (rightly or wrongly) or others stamped on the training. Still, you can almost get the sense that some people using that description are doing so in an attempt to sound too cool for school. There are certainly some outfits/trainers out there which have built their entire marketing strategy around being perceived as the baddest dudes in the room, typically despite plenty of evidence that they are not, in fact, the baddest dudes in practically any room. They tend to draw a certain type of student who tends to reflect an inappropriate fixation on the whole "fight" angle as a marketing weapon rather than an attempt to legitimately describe the training they received.

Some classes do a good job of teaching people about bad guys and how they work. Some classes do a good job of teaching how to conceal a real handgun on a day to day basis for personal defense. Some classes do a good job of introducing the mindset necessary to prevail over an adversary in violent conflict. Some classes do a good job of exposing someone to a sampling of the stress they can expect in a life or death encounter. Some classes do a good job of teaching weapons skills that will allow the good guy to put a bad guy down quicker. Some classes do a good job of familiarizing someone with the issues they can face in the aftermath of the use of lethal force.

ALL of those classes are likely to leave the person who attends them better prepared for the event in some way than they were before going into them.

[Joseph B.]

Story time.

I deployed to Iraq 04-05 and experienced things I was totally unprepared to experience. None of the pre-Army training and basic/unit level training prepared me very well for what I was experiencing in Iraq. When I finely returned stateside, I went on a quest to learn, hitting up LE schools, private schools and all around trying to find the answers to why I was so ill prepared for the gunfights I experienced. I ended up becoming a pre-deployment advanced weapons and marksmanship instructor, going through all types of shooting schools and really learning how to punch holes center of mass in a controlled setting.

I was at a pre-deployment site preparing for a class, when I had a talk with my NCOIC (a Panama vet) and we discussed how the training was good, but not very combat relevant. I decided that instead of doing the dog and pony show class that I would teach the class with emphases on what my combat experiences were and incorporate the skills of marksmanship into the skills of fighting as we did in Iraq. The class ended up being a hit and with a really good recommendation from that units commander, I was asked to come to our school house to help rewrite some of the programs, to incorporate more combat relevant training. Prior to this, only shooting team guy taught the instructor courses, and they were very much designed to make a competitive shooter/coach.

What I did there was not cut out the shooting or competitive style marksmanship training, but added to it. Little things like putting all your gear on when you train, correcting your own stoppages instead of raising your hand, using a holster and 4 point draw during pistol quals, adding physical stress (PT, run downs, etc) and requiring the same level of accuracy. Learning proper use of cover and how it applies to shooting, taking the standard shooting position and learning how to make them more adaptive, etc.

The end result was extremely more competent instructors going out to pre-deployment sites and training the soldiers who were deploying. This resulted in the USAF and USN sending a lot of their soldiers to our training and requests for training throughout the Army and in LEA.

Now I do not proclaim to be the “guy” who did all of it, I was simply allowed to help in the process and was happy to know that I was helping soldiers be more prepared for the things I was not. I think adding those small aspects does more than all the “what if’s” and or “possibilities” being added into your training program. No gunfight is really the same, everything can and will change when you least expect it to. You have to be able to pull from all types of skills in order to remain effective and aggressive. That said, we were extremely limited by safety and range Nazi rules that restricted the ability to make the training even more relevant. This is probably one of the biggest reasons that civilian trainers and ranges have done so well with training military forces. The skills and or instruction is not different, however the flexibility of making things more relevant is wide open compared to the general military use ranges.

Mindset: I think mindset has a lot to do with being successful in gunfights, but I think a lot of people try to overdo it and or inject too much into the topic. I agree that there are specialized instruction for different aspects, we don’t go to a gunsmith for PTSD, nor do we go to a doctor for legal advice. That said, mind set is pretty simple. You have to determine in your mind that you are willing to do whatever it is you have to do to win, stay alive and survive the situation. Worrying about legal issues, shot placement and or missed shots are all aspects of concern, but you can’t allow them to disrupt the critical thinking in winning or surviving the gunfight. At the end of the day being sued and or dragged though the legal process is better than being dead. My personal experience is that the mindset needs to be one of extremely violent and aggressive response. The more you push the threat, the more aggressive your attack (or counter attack) the better chances you have of pushing the threat on the defensive. The psychological aspects of fighting or gunfighting work both ways, the sooner you can put your adversary into flight mode or “oh shit this is bad” way of thinking the better chances you have winning the fight of your life. I think this concept is lost to many CCW’s and LEO who are overly risk adverse to legal issues and or possibly doing something wrong, etc. You really don’t have time for that kind of thinking in gunfights, you have to act and you have to act with accuracy, sound TTP’s and overwhelming aggression.

I really think training someone for the gunfight (as in preparing someone to use a firearm to fight) boils down to two things, 1) having experienced instructors or an instructor with training from someone with experience in an actual gunfight (learning firsthand from those who have gone and done) and 2) understanding that the training will reflect what you will do in that gunfight. It’s much like a UFC fighter, he may have a game plan, but he knows his game plan may not work. So he focuses on having well rounded skills to ensure that if he is placed in an unexpected situation, he will have the physical skills to adjust and continue the fight. The big difference being gunfights the loser goes home in a body bag, and in any competition you just did not win the prize.