Center Axis Relock

[PNWTO]

I've heard Kyle Defoor mock CAR and my investigation into it stopped there. Considering Defoor was at the very pointy tip during a learn by doing time and now sharpens the very pointy tip I'll take his assessment.

I feel like CAR was visually different enough from the Church of Cooper that it gained affection easily and then was buried by reality.

[Rex G]

Years ago, the NTI had a 360 degree live fire shoothouse. Your runs were recorded and provided to you. When I looked at my runs, in a fairly real world environment, I was in every popular shooting stance as I did my best to use cover. Working a right hand corner - I looked very Weaver-ish. Working a left hand corner, my shooting platform looked like something from a CAR class. Caught flat footed in the middle of the hallway, I ended up in a Modern Iso position. I've never trained in the CAR stance, it just developed organically.

One of the more useful drills I've seen, I first saw with Jeff Gonazales. Each shooter had an ammo can in front of them. While we worked conventional range drills - draws, reloads, etc. - we had to have one foot on the ammo can. We had to alternate the foot on the can and our body angle relative to the target. We were never supposed to fire from the same position twice. This completely destroyed any reliance on an optimized range shooting platform and emphasized being able to hit no matter what.

Paul Castle did a two day class for firearms instructors in the national capital region some years ago. He did it free of charge in an admitted marketing strategy of trying to sell his system. He was a decent guy who genuinely believed in his system.

Looking back, I;n bot sure anything I found useful was really CAR specific. I think most would adopt a CAR stance if engaging at close quarters through the driver's window of a car, especially if the window was closed. Muzzle thumps are certainly effective if the situation is desperate enough to use that level of force, but I don't think you necessarily have to be a CAR practitioner to use that technique.

Todd Greene once told me that the stance most people shoot from in the real world is happenstance. I think there is real truth to that. I wouldn't use CAR as a primary shooting system, but various techniques are likely to be helpful whether derived from CAR or elsewhere.

This. As SouthNarc said, during ECQC, circa 2005-2006, in response to a question regarding the “best” stance, “A stance is a moment in time. A stance is a moment in time.”

[Rex G]

I learned of the existence of C.A.R., IIRC, at the Snubby Summit, when someone asked Paul Gomez about it, while I was present. Paul did his honest best to be neutral while presenting his interpretation of C.A.R., though to be clear, Paul did not advocate C.A.R. My take was that it seemed to be a valid adaptation for some very close-range situations, in some tightly confined spaces.

I reckon that some folks want to seize upon one technique to rule them all, so try to use a specialized close-range, confined-space technique for all shooting applications. Well, was is not Robert Heinlein who wrote that specialization is for insects? Better to be ready to engage from a High #2, to full extended, with and without the support hand, and from Weaver to symmetrical Isocsceles to Reverse Weaver. (See your well-thumbed-through copy Mas Ayoob’s _Stressfire_ book, for when when/why/how of Reverse Weaver.) Yes, extreme environments can force us into extreme physical positions. Mas recognized it, John Hearne wrote about it, a few posts ago, and anyone who has contempleted engaging bad guys in the tangled vegetation of SE Texas would recognize this.

Again, SouthNarc: “A stance is a moment in time. A stance is a moment in time.”

[Sal Picante]

So... Daniel Spychalski teaches the CAR technique in IL and has a remote controlled robot that shoots back.

He had a 2 hour "Intro to CAR" session, followed by some live fire drills, and we got to shoot the robot.

I've always wanted to shoot robots, so... I signed up and figured I'd keep an open mind.

Now, Paul Sharp knows Dan and I've met him before through some stuff at Alpha Range - he's a really gifted engineer who did a great job on the robot, did a great job restoring a HumVee (street legal title too!) and is an avid martial artist/fitness guy. I really like Dan.

I just couldn't wrap my head around the concept of CAR. Why not?

Ok, so let's look at what it is:

The are actually a few "positions" that CAR seems to make use of.
Apogee is basically a squared up, traditional stance like anything you see. I guess they use it for distance (my notes say anything past ~7 yards).

Extended position is the "hallmark" CAR position - the one in the video games and movies - with the gun close to the head, etc. It is used from 3-7 yards.
I had a lot of trouble "getting this": Essentially, you're supposed to use the opposite eye to aim the gun; since your head is slightly turned, the gun is directly in front of the opposite eye - right hand master grip/in front of the left eye. I just couldn't do that; I've been shooting a long time and, since shooting is a primarily visual sport, it was just impossible to comprehend.

The push-pull isometric tension, and grips - honestly, that is all fine and not that hard to understand. It is a compromised position, and allows someone to move rapidly to the left or the right. My bigger problem with it is that it is just so, well, rigid. People don't move simply left or right in front of a target. There is a lot of circling and etc. It seems like something invented just of the sake of allowing pure planar movement. Additionally, some of the movement that Gabe White is teaching (one handed shooting out to 7 yards with SERIOUS movement) just makes it seem really limited.

http://instagram.com/p/BePSzeJnZQH/


http://instagram.com/p/BeQgK1uHgva/



The last position is called the High position and is a bladed retention position where the gun is held a bit above the stomach with both hands. IDK. having worked through some really limited ECQC stuff, that just didn't seem to pan out: It was too easy to get turned. If you're shooting from that close, getting an underhook or framing the head really seems to make the most sense.

I think the system had good intentions, but it just seems unnecessarily complex - the fundamentals of shooting are still target, sights, trigger. Everything else is very much situational: stance, grips, the time for push-pull vs not, etc.

From clinch to 5 yards, dominating access to the tool just seems like a smart play. If in a gun fight at 5 yards with both people armed, it don't think any CAR system is going to yield much fruit - time and time again we see the victor move/displace to cut and angle and just open fire from a more traditional position...

[Chuck Whitlock]

Paul Castle did a two day class for firearms instructors in the national capital region some years ago. He did it free of charge in an admitted marketing strategy of trying to sell his system. He was a decent guy who genuinely believed in his system.

Todd Greene once told me that the stance most people shoot from in the real world is happenstance. I think the re is real truth to that. I wouldn't use CAR as a primary shooting system, but various techniques are likely to be helpful whether derived from CAR or elsewhere.

Paul Castle trained most of my agency's tactical team members prior to his death. IIRC, his background was British SBS/SAS/Royal Commandos or some such, so he wasn't just some IG bozo. I have read pros/cons of CAR in magazines/online, but don't feel comfortable passing any kind of judgement without formal instruction by someone certified to teach it. What little exposure I've had makes me think it would work in certain tight quarters, like someone kicking in the door of your bathroom stall.

I would have liked to have learned the context from the originator.

I learned of the existence of C.A.R., IIRC, at the Snubby Summit, when someone asked Paul Gomez about it, while I was present. Paul did his honest best to be neutral while presenting his interpretation of C.A.R., though to be clear, Paul did not advocate C.A.R. My take was that it seemed to be a valid adaptation for some very close-range situations, in some tightly confined spaces.

I reckon that some folks want to seize upon one technique to rule them all, so try to use a specialized close-range, confined-space technique for all shooting applications. Well, was is not Robert Heinlein who wrote that specialization is for insects? Better to be ready to engage from a High #2, to full extended, with and without the support hand, and from Weaver to symmetrical Isocsceles to Reverse Weaver. (See your well-thumbed-through copy Mas Ayoob’s _Stressfire_ book, for when when/why/how of Reverse Weaver.) Yes, extreme environments can force us into extreme physical positions. Mas recognized it, John Hearne wrote about it, a few posts ago, and anyone who has contempleted engaging bad guys in the tangled vegetation of SE Texas would recognize this.

Again, SouthNarc: “A stance is a moment in time. A stance is a moment in time.”

Pretty much this.

[Ed L]

Paul Castle trained most of my agency's tactical team members prior to his death. IIRC, his background was British SBS/SAS/Royal Commandos or some such, so he wasn't just some IG bozo.

Paul Castle, the founder of the C.A.R. system, grossly exaggerated his background. I remember this from over 10 years ago, as the info was widespread. But since he is deceased, the whole contraversy died with him. I found this thread on another board that addresses this: http://www.socnet.com/showthread.php...ghlight=relock

As for the stance, it seems overly contorted. I am not sure how it is being taught today by current instructors. But at one time you were instructed to line up the rear sight with your non-dominant eye. That doesn't sound like a good idea to me Here is a link to a description of it: https://www.usacarry.com/car-shooting-system/

[Jeff22]

CAR was invented by a guy named Paul Castle. He was a cop in England and invented Central Axis Relock and created a company called Sabretactical to teach instructors.

Like many, it appears that Mr. Castle exaggerated or totally made up some of his qualifications. (I can't stand people who pretend to be who they are not)

I knew a guy who went though the instructor training in 2002. He was the kind of guy that liked to figure out the next fad in training and jump on the bandwagon quick. I don't know that he ever actually trained anybody after going to the instructor class.

Paul Castle died in 2011. There are a few people teaching his method still. Apparently some of them serve as advisers to the film industry.

Lots of debates on his system on various forums a dozen years ago or so.

[Zincwarrior]

Popular on TV, which means it probably isn't very useful in the real world



Same as the gun he's holding (a Kahr)

Its another way of getting both the gun and the actor's face in for a better closeup. I'd bet thats good money why its used.

EDIT: Ninja'd already.

[Magsz]

There is absolutely nothing organic about CAR. The rigidity of the system, much like the ridiculous BS that the Israelis teach these days flies in the face of pretty much every dynamic incident I've ever been involved in or have watched film of.

I love that comment about "happenstance" from Todd, its SO true. Im sure that there is some aspect of the doctrine that would be useful in a certain situation but gun ballet to me is so incredibly stupid.

The fundamentals of accuracy and pistol marksmanship will do more for you in a "gun fight" than all of the gunfu bullshit combined.

Every single time I see a fella using CAR at shoots that I attend I have to stifle laughter. They're always terrible at any standard, drill or match stage. Proof is in the pudding as they say but I guess that pudding has a healthy dose of delusion stuffed in it.

[Sal Picante]

Wow... Way to necro a thread!