Press-Out: Good or Bad?

[NickA]

Too much in Todd's post to quote, but in a nutshell: from a defensive shooting standpoint, being on the sights as early as possible, with a compressed ready position, seems like the best way to go to me. If you have to break a shot before full extension, you have a better chance of making a hit since you've picked up the sights. While an index draw may be marginally faster (or not), as Todd said, what if you don't have the time or room to get to extension and clean up the sight picture?
To veer out of my lane even more, I'm pretty sure Southnarc teaches to work in a retention position at the #2 point of the draw. Seems like a press out (or press-out ) would be the most natural way to extend from that point.
Am I nuts or do I have that about right?

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk 2

[JDM]

Too much in Todd's post to quote, but in a nutshell: from a defensive shooting standpoint, being on the sights as early as possible, with a compressed ready position, seems like the best way to go to me. If you have to break a shot before full extension, you have a better chance of making a hit since you've picked up the sights. While an index draw may be marginally faster (or not), as Todd said, what if you don't have the time or room to get to extension and clean up the sight picture?
To veer out of my lane even more, I'm pretty sure Southnarc teaches to work in a retention position at the #2 point of the draw. Seems like a press out (or press-out ) would be the most natural way to extend from that point.
Am I nuts or do I have that about right?

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk 2

Very, very good points.

The world is not composed of knife wielding 3x5s threatening me at 7 yards. In a defensive situation, it may very well become necessary for me to take a shot before I'm at full extension. That shot may very well be a low probability shot for which I need my sights. If I'm on my sights as soon as possible during the draw, it stands to reason that the shot I suddenly need to take while the gun is 4 inches from my face is going to be a lot easier if every time I've drawn my gun in the last 2 years I've already seen my sights at that point.

Being able to shoot sub 3 FAST tests is awesome. Maybe the index draw is the ideal way to do that. Maybe the index draw is perfect for gun games and FASTests. Awesome. That has zero impact on how I use my gun in a life saving situation. And, after all, isn't that why everyone here has a gun stuffed in their pants?

[GOP]

Very, very good points.

The world is not composed of knife wielding 3x5s threatening me at 7 yards. In a defensive situation, it may very well become necessary for me to take a shot before I'm at full extension. That shot may very well be a low probability shot for which I need my sights. If I'm on my sights as soon as possible during the draw, it stands to reason that the shot I suddenly need to take while the gun is 4 inches from my face is going to be a lot easier if every time I've drawn my gun in the last 2 years I've already seen my sights at that point.

Being able to shoot sub 3 FAST tests is awesome. Maybe the index draw is the ideal way to do that. Maybe the index draw is perfect for gun games and FASTests. Awesome. That has zero impact on how I use my gun in a life saving situation. And, after all, isn't that why everyone here has a gun stuffed in their pants?

I'm not disagreeing with you, I've never been in a gun fight and that isn't an area I know much about. My question is, what is the difference? Speed is a tactic. If I can be on the bad guy and shoot him in 1.1 seconds, and it takes the other person 1.1 seconds to get up to the sights and press the trigger, is there really much of a difference *in the draw time*? My experience in Force on Force shows that movement, cover, and proximity are much more important than a pure draw, although being faster is always a plus.

I think that there is so much deviation between what each individual is talking about that this thread has really become difficult to get a real bead on what "technique" is being described. To be completely honest, I don't ever worry about technique in practice or ever. I have found in various other endeavors that having a conceptual framework versus a technique-based approach is always better. I focus on getting the gun out, seeing what I need to see, and using a trigger press for the shot required every draw, I truly couldn't tell you how much of a "index" draw it is versus how much of a "press-out." All I know is that each week, my par times get lower and my shooting drills get faster. Honestly for gun games, it's just a draw. Even at a major match with 10 stages, the difference between a .6 draw (the best guy) and a 1.0 draw (a lot of guys) is only 4 seconds total. So while it is very important to master, I think the importance of the draw may be overstated somewhat.

[DonovanM]

"Pick your nose with your rear sight" certainly demonstrates a gross misunderstanding of what I do

That may not be how you describe it, but in terms of making someone understand what kind of movement of the gun is involved in a pressout, I can't think of any better visual. And it is an accurate description, as we can see below.

If the shooter takes time to clean up the sight picture once at full extension, then the time saved getting to full extension faster doesn't really make a difference. The number of people who have an adequate index to hit even a relatively simple low% target consistently at the moment of extension is extremely small.

I disagree with the first sentence. I think instead of modulating the speed of the draw based on target difficulty, I think it is most efficient to have a fixed draw time - which is as fast as possible - on any target, while varying the amount of sight refinement that must be done at the end of it and thus the time to first shot. The time added being dependent on how skilled the shooter is in aligning their sights and how much sight refinement is needed for the target. Whether that's an index draw or more of a J is personal to the shooter.

I agree completely with the second. This is Bob/Ben/Dave level of shooting and I wouldn't ever expect anyone short of their level to be able to do that. I certainly can't.

Anyway, sorry for the tangent. Back to the tradeoff. Doing "the j" allows the gun to move along a slightly shorter path from holster to target. It's still much more than an index, but less than the "L" that I teach. You keep talking about giving up a significant amount of speed but seriously, look at the J and L on your computer screen here. The difference is tiny. It would be interesting for someone to do the math of exactly what percentage of time in a draw is gained or lost by rounding that corner a few inches one way or the other.

But for the sake of discussion I'll agree that -- by whatever amount -- the "J" is getting the gun to full extension faster.

Another point that hasn't really gotten brought up enough is the draw speed modulation inherent to what I would call the "pure pressout". What makes what I think of as the J so much faster is that there's no speed modulation and no pause as the gun is brought up into the eye-sight-target line. The gun is drawn and put on target and the sights are seen at full speed going to the target until the gun stops, where the sights are refined as much as the shot requires - which doesn't take as long as you might think for someone comparatively well practiced at it.

I don't want to pause or slow down my gun. I want to put a shot on target as reliably and quickly as possible. This is my only priority really. One of the fundamental precepts, IMO, to shooting a gun quickly and accurately is only seeing exactly what you need to see to make a shot, no more, no less. The pure pressout, to me, is over-seeing - seeing too much to make a shot.

I also do not make it a habit to put other people's techniques on a pedestal. I don't really care what Tier One operators do with their guns... it might serve as an interesting anecdote but really has very little relevance to my goals and priorities in running a handgun for any use.

the shot I suddenly need to take while the gun is 4 inches from my face is going to be a lot easier if every time I've drawn my gun in the last 2 years I've already seen my sights at that point.

I dunno about you guys but I really don't want to be clubbed in the face with the back of my slide if I need to take a shot like that. Maybe this is shortsighted of me but I don't see myself training to take anything other than an aimed shot at full extension or an unaimed shot from retention. Under any circumstance I would prefer to have my gun out and shooting as quickly as possible... Speed, surprise, violence of action, all that.

[TGS]

I think it's interesting to note the argument presented against the index.

"Sure, it's a lot faster but it's not important to fighting in real life."

Sounds awfully similar to MT guys who aren't impressed with the fast times that iso shooters make, because "iso is for gaming and the speed isn't that important to fighting."

I'd just like to see more intelligent discourse, because iso shooters will retort about how the speed is important. So, guys, we can't really say, "Oh well a sub-3 FAST is cool but has no relevance to carrying a gun for self-defense" and then turn around the next day saying, "The speed gained from technique A is most definitely an advantage in fighting over technique B, because I can shoot the bad guy faster". The argument needs much more thought process and effort than that.

SouthNarc does not teach the press-out from the #2 position. In the draw that SouthNarc teaches for the application of close combat, the #2 position is a retention shooting position and leads into the #3 position, which is a compressed ready position high on the chest. In the case of carrying AIWB, the #2 position is actually bypassed unless you need to shoot inside arms distance, whereas you hit it if you're carrying at/behind the hip.

SouthNarc also teaches the press-out for a different reason than Todd does. The application of the press-out that he teaches in ECQC is centered around making consistent high-center mass hits all the way from #3 to full extension. The application of the press-out that Todd teaches centers around getting the sights aligned as early as possible for high speed hits on low-probability targets. While related, there's a difference in purpose between starting a press-out at the high-compressed ready/third eye/whatever, and the compressed ready at the sternum with techniques to hit accurately at 3 yards away even when still at the #3 and not aiming. Obviously they both share the characteristic of refining the sight picture on the way out to make consistent hits quickly, but they're not entirely the same and place emphasis on different factors.

[GOP]

To add to what TGS says...

While we are currently equating competition shooting as only being "Gun games", often times I find many of us here saying that competition is one of the very best ways to test yourself and techniques. I also find it funny that some of the very best military shooters in the world compete often in "Gun games" and often steal the latest techniques from the best competitors. This hypocrisy is very common when someone is holding on to a technique or idea that is quickly being proven as less than optimal compared to something else. I don't want the press out to go the way of TMA guys who say things like "we don't spar hard because our techniques will kill you" or "our style doesn't work in MMA because our techniques are meant for the street." No, my 3.58 second FAST may not make me a deadly shooter on the street, but if that is the case, than what does your 5.0 or 5.5 second FAST make you?

I didn't want to speak for SN, but as TGS pointed out, he isn't teaching the press out the same way Todd is.

I know what I said above made lead to an emotional response, but I'm trying to remove that and look at this logically. I feel saying this is necessary to avoid any arguments on the forum. I'd also like to add that a lot of much better shooters than me are arguing that the press out is excellent, so I could certainly be wrong.

[TGS]

To add to what TGS says...

While we are currently equating competition shooting as only being "Gun games", often times I find many of us here saying that competition is one of the very best ways to test yourself and techniques. This hypocrisy is very common when someone is holding on to a technique or idea that is quickly being proven as less than optimal compared to something else. I didn't want to speak for SN, but as TGS pointed out, he isn't teaching the press out the same way Todd is.

Bam! Yessum!

I liked your comment earlier about a conceptually based approach versus technique based approach.

Contextually underscored application of techniques is the answer, not "my ninjitsu is better". Use whatever ninjitsu you need to based on the context of the situation.

[SouthNarc]

One thing that's not being discussed at all is the efficacy of a the draw stroke as it relates to a confined space.

Todd and I teach a very similiar drawstroke except I tend to run a level slide, so I'm not getting on the front sight as early as he is. Other than that, the idea of running the vertical line of presentation as close to the body as possible and then driving the horizontal line of presentation straight out is the same.

I teach the drawstroke the way that I do because a high, tabled, close to the body starting point for the horizontal line of presentation, is much better for clearing the dashboards of cars and all the shit hanging off the steering column. This also applies to bars and tables where one is sitting close to the horizontal obstruction.

A motor skill like drawstroke should obviously support fast, accurate shooting. But if one's motor skill construct has not been optimized for confined and crowded spaces then you might want to think about that issue.

Of course if drawing a gun in a confined space is not a reality for you and you're just a hobbyist then that factor in the motor skill construct is probably a moot point.

[NickA]

I think it's interesting to note the argument presented against the index.

"Sure, it's a lot faster but it's not important to fighting in real life."

Sounds awfully similar to MT guys who aren't impressed with the fast times that iso shooters make, because "iso is for gaming and the speed isn't that important to fighting."

I'd just like to see more intelligent discourse, because iso shooters will retort about how the speed is important. So, guys, we can't really say, "Oh well a sub-3 FAST is cool but has no relevance to carrying a gun for self-defense" and then turn around the next day saying, "The speed gained from technique A is most definitely an advantage in fighting over technique B, because I can shoot the bad guy faster". The argument needs much more thought process and effort than that.

SouthNarc does not teach the press-out from the #2 position. In the draw that SouthNarc teaches for the application of close combat, the #2 position is a retention shooting position and leads into the #3 position, which is a compressed ready position high on the chest. In the case of carrying AIWB, the #2 position is actually bypassed unless you need to shoot inside arms distance, whereas you hit it if you're carrying at/behind the hip.

SouthNarc also teaches the press-out for a different reason than Todd does. The application of the press-out that he teaches in ECQC is centered around making consistent high-center mass hits all the way from #3 to full extension. The application of the press-out that Todd teaches centers around getting the sights aligned as early as possible for high speed hits on low-probability targets. While related, there's a difference in purpose between starting a press-out at the high-compressed ready/third eye/whatever, and the compressed ready at the sternum with techniques to hit accurately at 3 yards away even when still at the #3 and not aiming. Obviously they both share the characteristic of refining the sight picture on the way out to make consistent hits quickly, but they're not entirely the same and place emphasis on different factors.

TGS - thanks for clarifying that; sounds like I had the concept somewhat right but not the execution.
Definitely didn't mean to derail the thread into what SouthNarc teaches vs "competition" shooting, just wanted to spur some discussion on other reasons the press out or L draw might be used aside from pure speed.


Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk 2

[ToddG]

That may not be how you describe it, but in terms of making someone understand what kind of movement of the gun is involved in a pressout, I can't think of any better visual. And it is an accurate description, as we can see below.

The gun is below my eye, not in my nose.

You're still missing the point. The idea is to get the front sight in front of the eye early and close. Instead of picking a single moment from the video, watch the whole thing. It was a stylized example of the technique. Given how many people have found it's helped them, I'm pretty ok with it.

I noticed you failed to include this one, too, where I hit a 40% IPSC at 20yd in under 1.5s from concealment... using almost the exact same movement.

I disagree with the first sentence. I think instead of modulating the speed of the draw based on target difficulty, I think it is most efficient to have a fixed draw time - which is as fast as possible - on any target, while varying the amount of sight refinement that must be done at the end of it and thus the time to first shot. The time added being dependent on how skilled the shooter is in aligning their sights and how much sight refinement is needed for the target.

OK, we disagree.

My point is that if you're going to talk about an index draw, it cannot be assessed and measured based on how fast you "click" at full extension in dry fire. If it takes time to clean up the sights and finish the trigger press once you're at extension, that time counts.

You're trying to measure from point A (holster) to point B (extension). But what really matters is getting from point A to point C (the gun going off and scoring an accurate hit). You may get to "B" faster but if you're not breaking an accurate hit then it's meaningless. And as I said, that's what I see from people all the time who spend the majority of their time working it from index to tough targets: either they break the shot at extension and have a lower percentage of hits, or they stop, aim, and press which takes a lot more time.

Put another way, having "B" and "C" the exact same moment saves time over having a delay between "B" and "C" ... so then the question becomes whether you're getting to "B" so much faster that you still have time to aim and break the shot before I ever get to "B."

Another point that hasn't really gotten brought up enough is the draw speed modulation inherent to what I would call the "pure pressout". What makes what I think of as the J so much faster is that there's no speed modulation and no pause as the gun is brought up into the eye-sight-target line. The gun is drawn and put on target and the sights are seen at full speed going to the target until the gun stops, where the sights are refined as much as the shot requires - which doesn't take as long as you might think for someone comparatively well practiced at it.

You're making it difficult because you keep giving me this moving target. Now it's what you call "speed modulation" that is the problem?

Again, I think you're arguing against a straw man. Anyone who's ever been in a class with me has heard me say that if the shot isn't ready to break at full extension, they should fix it and fire. The exception is when practicing to improve the press-out. If you're trying to improve the press-out to get the advantage of breaking the shot at extension. Because as I said above, no matter how you want to slice it, once you get to extension it is irrefutably faster to break the shot that moment than wait to fix things.

I "modulate my speed" just like I do when I'm pulling the trigger or lining up the sights any other time. When I've got an easy shot, I can be rough and sloppy and things don't have to be perfect. When I have a tough shot, I have less margin for error and need to do things more precisely. Precision takes time. You'll drive slower on a 7' wide curvy road than you will a 20' wide straight line. Driving around a tight curve at full speed and then hitting the breaks afterwards isn't necessarily the right solution.

I don't want to pause or slow down my gun. I want to put a shot on target as reliably and quickly as possible. This is my only priority really.

But you do pause. You pause at the end instead of slowing down on the way there. I've found the opposite, but when I rush the extension faster than I should I, too, have to pause and correct before breaking the shot. I don't see that as a positive thing.

I dunno about you guys but I really don't want to be clubbed in the face with the back of my slide if I need to take a shot like that.

No one suggested taking a shot from that position. That's just another assumption you made without really understanding what's being discussed. Rather than tell everyone they're wrong, how about asking questions when you don't understand something?