Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 43

Thread: Which Ready Position is Right?

  1. #31
    I'm just gonna leave this here.

    Thread on the Noner Temple Index video.
    David S.

  2. #32
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Location
    South Louisiana
    Another take, from Dave Spaulding:

  3. #33
    Quote Originally Posted by revchuck38 View Post
    Another take, from Dave Spaulding:

    Actually I started using the term "muzzle aversion" 16-17 years ago and I think Spaudling's distinction is a relatively meaningless quibble. The rest of the video is quite frankly pretty much how everyone I know has been teaching the idea of averting/diverting the muzzle for quite some time. Personally I see nothing "new" here.

  4. #34
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Location
    South Louisiana
    Quote Originally Posted by SouthNarc View Post
    Actually I started using the term "muzzle aversion" 16-17 years ago and I think Spaudling's distinction is a relatively meaningless quibble. The rest of the video is quite frankly pretty much how everyone I know has been teaching the idea of averting/diverting the muzzle for quite some time. Personally I see nothing "new" here.
    Yup, it pretty much echoes what I've received from Karl Rehn, Lee Weems, and Bolke & Dobbs.

  5. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by revchuck38 View Post
    Yup, it pretty much echoes what I've received from Karl Rehn, Lee Weems, and Bolke & Dobbs.
    The only other thing I'll say about the video is where Spaulding dismisses the idea of working from an averted muzzle while clearing an interior problem. That's not my preference either but for someone who's bump in the night problem may very well be a teenager sneaking back into the bedroom, I don't dismiss the idea as practical.

  6. #36
    Member 98z28's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    South Mississippi
    Quote Originally Posted by SouthNarc View Post
    Actually I started using the term "muzzle aversion" 16-17 years ago and I think Spaudling's distinction is a relatively meaningless quibble. The rest of the video is quite frankly pretty much how everyone I know has been teaching the idea of averting/diverting the muzzle for quite some time. Personally I see nothing "new" here.
    It’s not a meaningless quibble. It’s an incorrect, or at least incomplete, quibble. One definition of “avert” is “turn away”. “Eye aversion” has been in common usage for quite a while, and it means to turn away one’s eyes. Your terminology is fine.

    Let this sink in for a moment: Craig started using the term “muzzle aversion” 16-17 years ago. That’s extremely recent for something so serious. Now, I don’t know when you (Craig) started teaching the discipline of muzzle aversion before naming it, but I can say that I was taught to hold the muzzle only low enough to see the hands and belt line when I went through the academy in 2003. The muzzle was supposed to still cover the legs or feet of a person when issuing challenges or commands...and that was at a progressive department in terms of training, at least for my neck of the woods. In fairness, that changed at the institutional level before I left in 2011.

    I keep reading/hearing that a CCW environment is different from a law enforcement environment in the context of ready positions. A typical example goes something like this: “As a CCW holder, the noise I’m investing might be my teenage kid sneaking into or out of the house rather than an actual threat.” In my experience, the vast majority of things I “investigated” as a LEO were also unknown, and most of the time it turned out to be something that did not need to be shot. My point is that I don’t think there should be much of a difference in LE use of ready positions. At least when I started, the thinking was something like “If you don’t know if it’ll need to be shot, point a gun at it until you are sure it doesn’t need to be shot.” That is less than ideal for obvious reasons. It should be something more like “If you don’t know if it’ll need to be shot, DON’T point a gun at it until you are sure it needs to be shot.” That goes for CCW folks as well as LE. It may have changed now, but at the time I think cops were trained to be far too eager to get the gun out when it wouldn’t buy much, if any, time...and it introduced more problems to track.

  7. #37
    Quote Originally Posted by 98z28 View Post
    It’s not a meaningless quibble. It’s an incorrect, or at least incomplete, quibble. One definition of “avert” is “turn away”. “Eye aversion” has been in common usage for quite a while, and it means to turn away one’s eyes. Your terminology is fine.
    I think diversion or aversion is fine and either connotes the idea pretty well.

    Let this sink in for a moment: Craig started using the term “muzzle aversion” 16-17 years ago. That’s extremely recent for something so serious. Now, I don’t know when you (Craig) started teaching the discipline of muzzle aversion before naming it, but I can say that I was taught to hold the muzzle only low enough to see the hands and belt line when I went through the academy in 2003. The muzzle was supposed to still cover the legs or feet of a person when issuing challenges or commands...and that was at a progressive department in terms of training, at least for my neck of the woods. In fairness, that changed at the institutional level before I left in 2011.
    Yeah man we pointed guns at way more people, way more often, then one sees now in LE and I think overall the current thought process about being more judicious and mindful there is definitely for the best.


    I keep reading/hearing that a CCW environment is different from a law enforcement environment in the context of ready positions. A typical example goes something like this: “As a CCW holder, the noise I’m investing might be my teenage kid sneaking into or out of the house rather than an actual threat.” In my experience, the vast majority of things I “investigated” as a LEO were also unknown, and most of the time it turned out to be something that did not need to be shot. My point is that I don’t think there should be much of a difference in LE use of ready positions. At least when I started, the thinking was something like “If you don’t know if it’ll need to be shot, point a gun at it until you are sure it doesn’t need to be shot.” That is less than ideal for obvious reasons. It should be something more like “If you don’t know if it’ll need to be shot, DON’T point a gun at it until you are sure it needs to be shot.” That goes for CCW folks as well as LE. It may have changed now, but at the time I think cops were trained to be far too eager to get the gun out when it wouldn’t buy much, if any, time...and it introduced more problems to track.
    Totally agree and really when you think about it a "muzzle continuum" if you will, is nothing more than Rule 2 practiced and actualized. Easy to say, harder to do and teach especially from the stand point of using fixed ready positions as "hacks" for enforcing rule 2 with less ardent students of the craft.

  8. #38
    If I recall correctly, at the last Rangemaster Conference held at the Memphis Police Academy, in 2015, Chuck Haggard's block - 'pistol manipulations' - was the first time I've seen the "muzzle-adverse ready position" taught.

    I didn't get the whole block because I had to leave early (to shoot the match), but what we'd practiced - essentially, holding off to one side of the assailant, rather than allowing the muzzle to point at the assailant - was very interesting, and it made a lot of sense to me. Since then, I've not seen anything more about it, not from Mr. Haggard, and not from anyone else.

    If there are any articles, or any video, that anyone can share (here), I'd appreciate it.
    Last edited by Wendell; 02-22-2021 at 06:32 PM.

  9. #39
    Site Supporter Erick Gelhaus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    The Wasatch Front
    Quote Originally Posted by Wendell View Post
    ... Since then, I've not seen anything more about it, not from Mr. Haggard, and not from anyone else.

    If there are any articles, or any video, that anyone can share (here), I'd appreciate it.
    Ed Flosi has written an article(s) about a similar ready position that have been on Police1.

  10. #40
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Jun 2020
    Location
    Missouri
    I'm really glad this came up, because as a very new shooter, I'm trying to get a complete picture of the process of a defensive shooting, and this discussion has helped with that.

    I'm sure this has been discussed at some point, but I probably haven't seen it yet, but how do ready positions interact with trigger finger placement?

    From what I have gathered so far, low ready and everything leading up to low ready would require a finger specifically off the trigger. But is the decision to point a gun at something the same as the decision to put your finger on the trigger, or are their other factors that might cause you to do one and not the other?

    Put another way, if my barrel is averted, and then I see something that I decide requires a shot, is my shot process "align barrel -> place finger on trigger -> pull trigger" or is it "align barrel while placing finger on trigger -> pull trigger"?

    Apologies if this has been covered and I just missed it.

User Tag List

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •