Ready Positions, CQB, and Disarming

[Sparks2112]

Good thing my experiences include a lot of force on force training with simulated firearms

If I'm getting entangled with someone I want my elbows pinned to my ribs and my hands up high.

What I've seen A LOT of with guys that claim success from some techniques is that their training construct is off. Both hands down on the gun while some other guy has both hands on the gun leaves out possibilities such as your opponent stuffing the gun with one hand and throwing bows with the other, or taking your waist line and tossing you like a lawn dart.

Opposing will
Freedom of action
Malevolent intent

The truth will come out under pressure.

Ok, and you're not wrong. Neither is the guy that's actually used it "on da street" . In his estimate it works just fine, because it has in the past. In your estimate it's a bad idea based off of the real disadvantages it presents. And all the while either side is smugly thinking to themselves "god they're so clueless."

My point with the above statement was in all the confusion of being right for our own reasons, we often times don't really THINK about why the other person is saying/doing what they're doing.

[DocGKR]

As I noted earlier, situations are fluid and each technique may come to play--I think it is bad to welded on to just one concept. As Nyeti has written about previously, stance and body positioning should be fluidly adapting as the situation unfolds.

[Aesir Training]

As I noted earlier, situations are fluid and each technique may come to play--I think it is bad to welded on to just one concept. As Nyeti has written about previously, stance and body positioning should be fluidly adapting as the situation unfolds.

And for the record, I have never said in this thread that I am welded to any one concept or technique. In fact I have said quite the opposite repeatedly, and even sincerely stated that I would love to train with Cecil to learn what concepts and techniques he believes in. What I did say was that I saw some pretty stark advantages to having the gun at a low ready when someone tried to grab it and wrestle it away from me rather than when it was at a high ready in this class with this instructor. He is someone with real world experience when it comes to wrestling over guns or even hand to hand struggles in general. I did not say that my findings in this class mean I have precluded ever using a high ready position, or that anyone who does use a high ready is wrong.

[ToddG]

I don't pretend to be a CQB expert, or even an expert on what TTP's are used by what groups.

Yet you keep talking about how some use low ready for CQB. That's probably where the confusion is coming from. Quite a few members of the forum Staff and SMEs have ongoing interactions with members (and training cadre) from many such groups. Perhaps if you could be more specific about what "preeminent groups" are teaching low ready as a default close quarters handgun ready position we could have a more reasoned discussion on the issue.

I would imagine that taking a round in the lower extremities or abdomen, while not fatal, would most likely take my opponent's attention away from the hand to hand struggle and give me an advantage in that moment.

I'd suggest you do a little exploration into the real world effect of handgun bullets on motivated, violent attackers. A single round to the lower extremities is not likely to cause physical incapacitation. In fact, in many instances the target may not even be aware that he's been shot.

But if I could choose between putting a round into a guy or not putting a round into a guy that I was locked in a hand to hand struggle with, I'll take the possible advantage of putting one in him, even if in a non-fatal area.

Except you're leaving out part of the equation from your original scenario. That one shot will also disable your gun. If I had to choose between disabling my gun or not while "locked in a hand to hand struggle" I'd opt not to if I could help it, especially if the trade off was at best likely to be a superficial wound to a non-vital area.

Still better than launching a round skyward that has no chance of being effective at all.

I'd say a chance to shoot someone in the head at point blank range is >>> the chance to shoot someone in the calf at point blank range, but to each his own.

the gun at high port doesn't change how the gun works when it is pushed out of battery. It does change the trajectory the round takes if in fact the gun is discharged. With the gun above your head and the assailant pushing up, the round goes elsewhere.

How did the gun get above my head? If the attacker manipulated it (or me) in such a way that my gun is in fact pointed skyward, why did I discharge it?

Also, if fighting over a gun in low ready, are you suggesting there is no way for an attacker to manipulate it in a way that the gun is no longer pointed at him? Because otherwise, I fail to see how one has an advantage in terms of that facet.

As our idiot commander in chief always says in his speeches, "let me be very clear..." I am not saying that one ready position is superior to the other for all CQB activities.

Then there seems to have been a misunderstanding because quite a few folks, myself included, took your original comments that way.

Perhaps you could specifically clarify what you mean by "high ready," since it seems a lot of folks have experience contrary to what you saw in class. My guess -- based on my own experience (and mistakes) -- is that perhaps you weren't utilizing an optimized high ready but were shown an optimized low ready. Sort of like arguing whether planes or cars are faster then using some underpowered airplane versus a Veyron for the test.

If I'm getting entangled with someone I want my elbows pinned to my ribs and my hands up high.

Me, too. Emphasis on want because obviously it won't always work out that way, but it's a lot easier for me to control my gun and where it's pointed (and in particular keep it from pointing at me) from that position.

It's been a lot of years since I took aikido (and I'm not suggesting that aikido = street fighting) but my recollection is that we tried never to extend our arms below waist height until an opponent was off balance for these very reasons.

[jlw]

If somebody grabs my gun I am going to be really ticked at whoever let them in my office...

That being written, I am taking a weapon retention class next week. I'll try to do a little experimenting and ask the instructors specifically about this very issue. My natural inclination is to think that high ready would be advantageous to low ready, but I have no hard evidence to back that up.

[Chuck Haggard]

I don't think either method of carry has an advantage if you know techniques for keeping your gun when operating in either carry mode.

With long guns I wasn't at all a fan of the high ready, until I went to DARC and trained with Uncle Rich. That was eye opening.


I had a friend trigger off a shot into a bad guy's chest during a gun grab FUT fight, bad guy says "You shot me in the chest!", then started fighting harder. He didn't stop until one of our guys got to the scene to assist and started to apply a SL20 repeatedly to the bad guy's head neck and shoulders until he bled profusely from his ears, nose and mouth.

The bad guy in the notable Lakewood fight where four officers were murdered in the coffee shop was gut shot by the last of the four officers killed during a gun grab that the officer lost.

Just observations on a couple of real world gun grabs where the suspect got shot.

[Odin Bravo One]

While not the most experienced CQB type dude on the internet, I've watched a few videos of it on YouTube and have come up with a few observations on specific ready positions as they relate to CQC/CQB.

Low Ready = works

High Ready = works

Ready = works

The key component of any "ready position" is the mental state of "Ready".

"High head up ass" is just as ineffective as "Low head up ass".

As to the exact technique........they are both useful. One would be wise to seek out training that uses both, either alone, as in a program of dogmatic refusal to change or entertain a new concept, or somewhere that all useful techniques can be presented, explained, and practiced in a variety of circumstances. Knowing and practicing all useful techniques gives you a much better chance of success in a bad breath range fight than simply dismissing techniques without having each properly presented, in the proper context, with proper examples, and proper practical application exercises, by a properly qualified instructor/cadre.

As for defending a "gun grab", prevention is far superior to fighting over your gun. Using the right technique(s) for the circumstances will prevent a good deal of "gun grab" situations. For those that cannot, or rather, were not prevented.......this is where a knife, slap, second gun, etc. come into play. Nothing says "Let go of my gun" like a fixed blade to the throat.

ETA........

I can't (or maybe it is won't) get into the details, scenarios, technique validation/invalidation for the stuff so passionately debated. But there are a lot of assumptions being made, without having the proper training I mentioned above. It really is key to have training where the trainer truly knows not only the "how" of the techniques, but more importantly the "why". Most of the garbage I see posted on the internet shows a very real lack of understanding, and ignorance of each camp. Having proper explanations and validation with practical application drills changes a lot of people. Our tactical minds tend to work best when open.

I'd be more than happy to devote a one day PF-Forum members only class in the NOVA area on nothing but CQB/CQC gun handling, techniques, realities of fighting with a gun at bad breath distances, tactics, and plenty of drills to identify the strengths and shortcomings of the various techniques. Unfortunately, in my current position, I am subject to NDA's until my replacement arrives, and re-writes my curriculum. As long as they are the current TTP's in use, they are off limits for public consumption.

[Sparks2112]

While not the most experienced CQB type dude on the internet, I've watched a few videos of it on YouTube and have come up with a few observations on specific ready positions as they relate to CQC/CQB.

Low Ready = works

High Ready = works

Ready = works

The key component of any "ready position" is the mental state of "Ready".

"High head up ass" is just as ineffective as "Low head up ass".

As to the exact technique........they are both useful. One would be wise to seek out training that uses both, either alone, as in a program of dogmatic refusal to change or entertain a new concept, or somewhere that all useful techniques can be presented, explained, and practiced in a variety of circumstances. Knowing and practicing all useful techniques gives you a much better chance of success in a bad breath range fight than simply dismissing techniques without having each properly presented, in the proper context, with proper examples, and proper practical application exercises, by a properly qualified instructor/cadre.

As for defending a "gun grab", prevention is far superior to fighting over your gun. Using the right technique(s) for the circumstances will prevent a good deal of "gun grab" situations. For those that cannot, or rather, were not prevented.......this is where a knife, slap, second gun, etc. come into play. Nothing says "Let go of my gun" like a fixed blade to the throat.

ETA........

I can't (or maybe it is won't) get into the details, scenarios, technique validation/invalidation for the stuff so passionately debated. But there are a lot of assumptions being made, without having the proper training I mentioned above. It really is key to have training where the trainer truly knows not only the "how" of the techniques, but more importantly the "why". Most of the garbage I see posted on the internet shows a very real lack of understanding, and ignorance of each camp. Having proper explanations and validation with practical application drills changes a lot of people. Our tactical minds tend to work best when open.

I'd be more than happy to devote a one day PF-Forum members only class in the NOVA area on nothing but CQB/CQC gun handling, techniques, realities of fighting with a gun at bad breath distances, tactics, and plenty of drills to identify the strengths and shortcomings of the various techniques. Unfortunately, in my current position, I am subject to NDA's until my replacement arrives, and re-writes my curriculum. As long as they are the current TTP's in use, they are off limits for public consumption.

/thread

[BoppaBear]

Nothing says "Let go of my gun" like a fixed blade to the throat.

Edit...new thread.

[Mitchell, Esq.]

Perhaps if you could be more specific about what "preeminent groups" are teaching low ready as a default close quarters handgun ready position we could have a more reasoned discussion on the issue.

I was going to ask that, and as for myself, I get leery of listening to advice based on "Training with experts" when I don't have the details of the source of someone's information.

Also, just because a "preeminent group" does something a certain way, it may not be appropriate for ME to do it that way.

I don't do the job that "preeminent group" does (even assuming I know what job that is...) and with so many "preeminent groups" doing so many different jobs (A narc working undercover in a Chicago 'hood having a different job than a Secret Service agent on an executive protection detail...both doing different jobs than a CIA agent working overseas coordinating with the Iranian underground...all three of which doing different work than a USMC Force Recon team doing snatch & grab missions in Africa in a country in which the United States Does Not have any involvement...all of which may be "preeminent groups" - than have nothing to do with each other) who's to say any one group's training is more valid than the other without knowing why they are doing what...and how it's applicable to me.

While it is useful to know what "Awesome Unit #1" is doing and why, and I will definitely use any data they produce regarding the effectiveness of a technique or piece of equipment I can get my hands on...Just the fact that a "preeminent group" does something does not, in and of itself, mean it is the right thing for me to do.

If that "preeminent group" had my job/lifestyle (they would kill themselves...but that is a side issue related to the nature of my existence...but assuming they did not...) they may actually do things differently.

"Preeminent groups" doing things a certain way is a selling point, sure...

But for me, it's not closing the deal.