Got it.Originally Posted by blues
Got it.
In that same time period, one of our firearms guys brought it back from a class. We even had a primitive dummy target. The drill we ran started with a strike, then draw and fire from retention, then step back, get support hand on gun, and fire. The difference is that we were trying to shoot higher on the target. Call it a step in evolution from the speed rock, but not advanced as far as what Craig teaches.
"Gunfighting is a thinking man's game. So we might want to bring thinking back into it."-MDFA
Beware of my temper, and the dog that I've found...
Okay, I ran these exercises live day before yesterday. Good stuff. I will absolutely be training this more in the future.
The pectoral index works very well. Alot easier to ingrain the muscle memory for this than a traditional speed rock variation. Seems very well thought out.
Balancing forward towards the target also makes sense, and I've been shooting at contact that way for a while. This technique dovetails nicely into that.
Main thing I need to work on is endeavoring to get the gun up higher than I usually do, and rocking that downward angle more solidly. Again, ingraining that pectoral index is very helpful in this regard.
It also fits in well with some of the close-in shooting/moving I've been doing, such as moving towards, and backwards from the target, as well as lateral movement.
I this method very much, thanks to the o.p. for sharing and helping us all continue to develop our skillsets.
As to the "runaway reload" ; I was impressed that the student moved that way. It demonstrated well-ingrained training, and is exactly what one should be doing when having to reload unexpectedly while engaging threats. Kudos to him for that.
I wasn't calling you out, brother, or anyone specifically...just wanted to get past the barbs so we could all come away with some new thoughts and useful information on a worthwhile topic.
There's nothing civil about this war.
There’s plenty of Instagram heroes using (and even worse teaching) the speed rock or other antiquated retention shooting positions. The biggest problem is they approach these bad-breath distance engagements thinking it’s a shooting solution, without having gone through any level of FoF training that was properly designed around how real world encounters unfold. So on Instagram/YouTube/whatever and in their classes their scenarios are “gamed” to be a shooting versus the possibility of an entangled fight.I don't think that's happening.
But the whole rock'n'lock/outward cant that has been taught for decades was also taught to me, then I took Craig's class and it became apparent how much more thought out his approach was.
The attached image is from an Instagram ad for a local instructor whose centerpiece class is about arms length gunfights. I've taken a different class from him and he's a nice guy with decades in the military and law enforcement, which I do not have.
Where is his center of gravity? How would this play out if he was shooting a non consenting opponent? This class is being taught to departments all throughout my area.
Maybe it's a great class, but it's a strange photo to choose for your ad.
I guess the gist of my comment is sometimes stuff is taught because that's the way it's always been taught, and nobody thought to question it.
It’s certainly a case of not knowing what they don’t know. They’re not well studied in how bad guys can use any number of ruses to get within arms reach and you’re in an entangled fight where trying to go to your gun immediately is going to wind up in a fight over said gun. That, and these awful positions that put you off-balance are doing their audience/students a disservice.
“Conspiracy theories are just spoiler alerts these days.”
Hey guys thanks for the kind words and just so everyone knows I haven't taken offense to anything said in this thread at all.
Some follow up video of John's private ECQC that might be helpful.
https://youtu.be/CTwH-PS9ydM
https://youtu.be/La56KNz9FFA
Edited to add: I don't know how to embed these vids so if someone wants to do that feel free.
Last edited by SouthNarc; 07-18-2019 at 10:52 AM.
There's nothing civil about this war.
What's everyone's opinion on this....
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=stBfi_iru5M
It's a lot of hopes riding on one round, with quite a bit of commitment invested just for that singular chance.
Committing both hands from the get-go to the weapon in-hand, rather than allocating at least one for managing the opponent's hands\limbs or covering up, is pretty all-in. Opponents whom are fighting the person and not for the gun can readily start barraging hooks and overhands, or\and then shoot for a double-leg takedown; the counters by the defender don't play well with getting that one shot off, and may deviate the muzzle-line off-target even if they do fire.
Those I've seen really commit to it often spend a lot of time searching for that perfect window of opportunity or placement for that solo round to be fired within or into, and if\when they do get it off there is either a hard pause in the training while they search for acknowledgement of their investment or they tunnel in on running the slide (separating the hands in the process) and things usually get a bit free-form after that irrespective of the round's destination. Results less desirable. Additional strangeness from trigger-fingers sometimes being trapped within the trigger-guard by the over-wrapping hand, which is a significant concern.
Several of my folks come from orgs that teach two-handed contact shot protocol, and if memory serves it has always been a tool for when they are A) not part of the entanglement\FUT and B) are simultaneously managing the desire for a contact shot and the requirement to not muzzle friendlies and deconflict backstop issues. Huge trend towards it being associated with striker-fired weapons (flat backplate vs. swinging hammer), occasionally is taught with a one-hand-only variation which does not stand up to pressure well. It has been commented that most of the situations when it could\would be used, might be better addressed with a preceding\preparatory action rather than going straight to threading a muzzle through the group-FUT.
---
At a root level, I think the issue is that the problem is one of retaining the weapon in-hand after it has been drawn from the holster, and the solution doesn't quite address that. If the opponent's hands arrive upon the muzzle area first, than the defender's support hand over-wrapping that is both at a deficit for control of the muzzle-line and unlikely to be able to apply their follow-on striking. If the defender's hand arrives at the muzzle area first, then the defender has abdicated much of their means to resist the muzzle being slapped down (as with linear impact weapons, palm down = deviation downwards) in prelude to that overhand coming right over the top.
I think that doing it off-range with MMA gloves, mouthguards, helmets, and sims wherein BOTH training partners are operating under guidance that THEY are the "good guy" and the OTHER is the "bad guy" (more properly and with Craig's terminology: competitive\non-consensual) would be illuminating. I really think that it's overly gun- and shooting-focused, and that it doesn't account enough for opposing wills.
Jules
Runcible Works
I am sure southnarc has done it already, but I would like to know the results of actual force on force training to see how these techniques hold up...both scripted and non-scripted.
I'm sure the videos provided are just a part of options available, but for your average CCW holder, is it even preferred (realistic) to attempt to go to the firearm at that distance? What's the consensus on this?
Reply With Quote
