Bill's instruction on retention shooting is easily the best I've seen, that's because it's based in combative applications. I would highly recommend getting into one of his combatives classes as he does entire live fire and dry/FoF retention combatives blocks.
VDMSR.com
Chief Developer for V Development Group
Everything I post I do so as a private individual who is not representing any company or organization.
In other context, TPI is also short for Total Protection Interactive. The forum run by Craig Douglas and the Shivworks guys. Not incredibly active, but a ridiculous amount of information. The signal to noise may actually be better than PF, but it doesn't go as in depth on pistol shooting like PF, and is nowhere near as active.Originally Posted by runcible
-Cory
I've learned alot from Ken Hackathorn over the years, and I most certainly honor his service.
But that technique is inferior in my opinion. That video makes him look real bad. No-Go.
It does not adress bad breath distance retention shooting.
I too prefer combatives oriented techniques. Hell, I practice hittin' the bag once or twice and drawing. Forcing my way "into" the bag and drawing. Hit, step off the X, draw. etc.
Been practicing the "Shivworks method" alot, and it works very well. TPI is excellent, as stated above, when doing searches, especially with a light in hand.
That video in the OP strikes me as outdated.
The reference to “feeding” the opponent Is a reference to taking and maintaining the initiative in a fight. Whether the strikes hit or not they are keeping your opponent occupied as you bring the weapon in to play
Kyle Defoor addresses being the feeder vs the receiver in his mindset lecture.
The Hackathorn video was hard to watch. It's a good reminder for us all that technique evolves. We likely won't be doing things the same way in 5 years, let alone in 15. The older a person gets, the more risk that they are out of date--unless they keep current and keep learning. It's true of everyone--and is especially important for SMEs or has-been SMEs because of the influence they have.
Ken has clearly seen modern retention shooting techniques because he mentions (I thought a bit dismissively) using the support arm as a cage to protect the head. Wilson Combat sponsors Mike Seeklander, who I am confident wouldn't advocate anything close to what we saw in the video. It appears that Ken thinks he doesn't need to keep updating his skills. That's disappointing, embarrassing for him and Wilson, and dangerous for anyone who follows his lead.
“There is no growth in the comfort zone.”--Jocko Willink
"You can never have too many knives." --Joe Ambercrombie
Copy copy.
My .02: Hackathorn has absolutely and conclusively, beyond a doubt earned the right to not GAF, across multiple interrelated professions. He was shooting people when I was a zygote.
That said, he should have passed on doing that video. I agree that the tech is outside the expiry date. JMHO.
Now, with THAT said, there’s something to be said for deep archival/institutional memory, in context.
Last edited by Totem Polar; 11-10-2019 at 09:44 PM.
”But in the end all of these ideas just manufacture new criminals when the problem isn't a lack of criminals.” -JRB
I think it's important to remember that the guys who gave rise to the Modern Technique were all accomplished point shooters. People don't appreciate that Jeff Cooper was an accomplish point shooter. Jeff could hit 1x2's, reliably, on the first shot from the holster. Jeff abandoned point shooting as a primary shooting method. In the early days of Gunsite, point shooting was still taught but it was part of the 599 course. Jeff concluded that the most efficient way to hit quickly with the pistol was two-handed, eye level shooting. Point shooting was something that took a lot of time to develop and it was something for later in one's development.
If you grew up point shooting, you had a deep realization for how fast it could be. I spoke with Elden Carl last year and he still thought that for close range work, shooting with the gun just above the holster was the way to go. From speaking with others familiar with the early days, it seems likely that the speed rock was the old guys not wanting to abandon the speed of their established point shooting up close. It seems likely that the speed rock was an attempt to make sure the rounds struck in the A zone. In the early days, there was a steel target with an 8" circle high in the chest. The student had to palm strike the target and then fire a round through the hole. If you didn't hit the hole, you'd eat some splatter so leaning back was a way to aim with the whole body.
Since the speed rock seems to have been developed in a sterile range environment, we now know of better ways to deal with the close quarters problem. Once you accept the fact that it is more important to have the support hand in play than to have perfect shot placement then shooting from Craig's #2 makes a lot more sense.
I look at Hackathorn as a preservationist who can shed light on the evolution of technique. A lot of his comments and techniques are the same used by traditional point shooters.
- It's not the odds, it's the stakes.
- If you aren't dry practicing every week, you're not serious.....
- "Tache-Psyche Effect - a polite way of saying 'You suck.' " - GG
This sort of thing is why I was always so impressed with Pat Rogers and hope emulate his attitude as I age out. He was a contemporary of Hackathorn but remained an advocate for “if there’s a better way let’s find it /test it.” He was, for example an early advocate of red dots on carbines when “serious” people were poo-pooing them the way Hackathorn and others like him poo-poo red dots on handguns.
Vickers was teaching this same stuff when I took a class with him. Time flies, it was 12 years ago. Hard to say who got it from whom, Vickers from Hack, or Hack from Vickers. Even harder to say if somebody has tried to ever use it for real, or it is just purely a square range invention. Not that it really matters.
Doesn't read posts longer than two paragraphs.
It is older than either one of them. It’s something my agency and associated agencies like the border patrol have taught for decades. When we pressure tested it with Sims and FIST suits it was a pretty resounding failure. My money is on it being a square range invention.
Take a look at Bill Jordan’s book no second place winner and you will see the same basic techniques. Up until a few years ago the CHP was teaching the stuff for use out to 7 yards.
Reply With Quote