Course Review: Scott Reitz Low Light & Problem Solving Tactics 11-13 Oct 13

[Chuck_S]

This is a course review, not an after action review; the targets were not shooting back.

Scott Reitz Low Light and Problen Solving Tactics. 11-13 Octover 2013. FIRE Institute. Pitcaim Monroeville Sportsman’s Club, Pittsburgh, PA.

The mission of FIRE Institute (a non-profit corporation) is to provide expert, affordable firearms training in the Pittsburgh area. (See the “About Us” tab at the link for more details of the FIRE Mission.) Pitcaim Monroeville Sportsman’s Club serves as the host club but has no affiliation with the training.

A complete course review would take several pages. Here are some random tidbits:

This is not an introduction to pistol shooting. Other than refresher training we spent little time on on learning the basics but they were always corrected and coached by Reitz as errors occurred.

A thoroughly satisfying weekend. Reitz is a personable instructor and an excellent shooter and gun handler. His background (and bias) is from 30 years as a Los Angles policeman with most of that career in the highly selective Metro Division and in D Platoon (SWAT). Reitz was a principal firearms trainer for much of his career and served during the transition from revolvers to automatic pistols. Scott is the owner of ITTS (see the previous link) and personally carries the M1911.

Reitz was not bashful about his bias. He has a very low opinion of "fandango" gun handling techniques and although he never mentioned Magpul Dynamics by name we knew they were one example. He also quashed the notion that the Modern Technique developed at Gunsight was strictly a “gun games” technique. He notes the Modern Technique was adopted and perfected by Los Angeles PD SWAT and thoroughly proven by them. Reitz was fond of saying “If it didn’t work LA SWAT wouldn’t be using it.” (My own bias comes from a lifetime as an Infantry and Armor officer and decades of M1911 and M9 use. My personal daily carry remains the M1911.)

Students for this weekend came from California, New York, and Ohio as well as Pennsylvania. I shot about 500 rounds over three days. The round count tapered off on Sunday when we were deep into the shoot-noshoot process. Hits are paramount. Speed is secondary. Reitz's very aggressive presentation cuts down the dead space between the holster (or low ready) and allows more time for an accurate trigger press.

In the low light portion of the course we had to deal with pistol induced fog that caused flashlight back splatter obscuring the targets. Atmospheric conditions seldom cause this in Western Pennsylvania other than near lakes or rivers. Good experience dealing with this for the first time. Changing the light position and dropping to kneeling helped me when this happened. Shooting prone did not work well with the Rogers/Surefire technique. Harries was more flexible.

We shot lots of “other hand.” I have ambidextrous frame safeties coming for my M1911s that lack them. I remain ambivalent to Colt Series 80 firing pin interlock. I have not heard of these failing.

Movement? “Get off the X?” Reitz questions the validity of this as doctrine. Statistical wound data indicates bullet strikes resemble a random pattern and oft quoted data indicates 85% of the shots fired in police shootings (the only source of data) miss the target completely. This means "one place is as good as another" and while seeking cover is always smart the best way to stop a gunfight is to stop the threat. Moving and shooting are difficult. Get off the X? You can move into the path of the next bullet. Or not. It depends.

Reitz questions the rote “check your six” maneuver as well. The near microsecond peek many take is not enough time to detect anything and the threat still remains in front of you. We can only deal with one thing at a time.

I've gleaned small nuggets from every course I've taken. I have no problems drop-loading an empty shotgun thru the ejection port but somehow got a brain cramp drop-loading my slide locked M1911 and tripping the slide lock! I removed the magazine first. Duh!

I was very happy with the skill sets of the participants. Everyone had a good basic knowledge of shooting and their pistols. I don't think anyone is going out and buying a different pistol after the weekend as all have made good basic choices. The only DAO pistol on the range was the SIG carried by a NYC policeman and he had no choice in the matter. A 14+ pound DAO trigger and police administrators wonder why their policemen have such low hit ratios. Everyone else seemed to have either a good M1911 or a Glock. (Those present noted I shot my M1911 and not my Beretta 92G!)

I'm ready to sign up for next year.

-- Chuck

[SeriousStudent]

Chuck, thank you very much for this information and your thoughts.

[Tony Muhlenkamp]

I received permission from Pete Georgiades to post his thoughts on the class as well. Full disclosure: Peter is Exec Director of FIRE Institute; who hosted the course; and Chuck_S and I are on the Board of FIRE. Hope this is useful. Tony Muhlenkamp


The ITTS courses with Scott Reitz this past week-end appear to me to
have been quite successful. There were 14 guys, mostly older. We
were exposed to a lot of information, some of which even those more
experienced with organized training had not seen before. I saw
improvement in myself and others.

As expected, there was considerable discussion of the lessons Scott
learned from his years with the very active "D squad" in
L.A.P.D. There was also a lot of interesting history of how
techniques would originate at Gunsite, then be carried back to
L.A.P.D. Swat and tested (by Larry Mudgett, John Helms and then Scott
Reitz). The idea that the "Modern Method" was "competition based,"
all devised by Jeff Cooper and long outdated simply does not square
with the facts ... if anyone is actually interested in facts.

I don't agree with Mr. Reitz on some points, and I do some things
differently than he would recommend (say, 10%). But he certainly
makes one understand the why and the wherefore of what he does. One
would have to be completely out to lunch not to respect what he
teaches and how he teaches it.

He's probably one of the few people I have ever met who has more pure
disdain for fandango "methods" people have come up with so they have
something to sell. Of course, I love that about him.

Personally, I particularly enjoyed the detailed breakdown of what
happened in a number of actual shootings. It's one thing to spout
conventional tactical wisdom ("get off the X" and so forth), and
quite another thing to be able to say what happened on a specific day
when a particular officer was confronted with a combination of
specific events and circumstances, and all the weird and improbable
things that acted in defiance of conventional tactical wisdom, and
then to identify how the problem was actually solved. The best bet
is to stick with basic technique, and have the capacity to improvise
from there.

Frankly, I believe if I were in the shoes of some of those officers
who survived, I would have simply died.

I am sure the words "it depends" are going to continue to be part of
my lexicon. Because it surely does.

The weather largely cooperated. We had some occasional periods of
rain, but it was not a serious problem.

I did not keep track of the round count, as it was of little
importance. I think used about 450 rounds in all three days, but I'm
not sure. I know I'm still tired.

Great bunch of guys, by the way. Scott confided that he was very
pleased with the composition of the class. Everyone was very mature
in their approach to the subject matter. Even given all the grey
hair, maturity is never taken for granted.

Everyone was shooting at about the same level coming into the course,
which also makes life easier for the instructor. Equipment issues
were near zero. There were no fandango methods in evidence.

I am now wondering if we could get six or eight guys to take on the
expense and devote the time to going to L.A. to the ITTS facility for
a day of simulator experience, and two days of working around cars
("vehicle defense"). An awful lot of trouble seems to occur in and
around cars, and he has a lot of good training equipment at his
facility that can put one to the test.

Anyone interested in that?

Peter


He then posted some follow on thoughts that I think are interesting as well

At 04:31 PM 10/17/2013, you wrote:
> I prefer training and techniques based on real-world experience.

Who doesn't? The debate is always about whose "real world" we are
talking about. Real world experience knocking down bowling
pins? Real world experience defending a fire base? Real world
experience dealing with the judicial system? Real world experience
throwing drunks out of bars?

And is the real world experience real, or is it actually comprised of
two dogs and a homeless guy?

In Scott's case, he has lots of experience confronting hostile and
often dangerous people, from a position of police authority. (A
dozen presentations a week ... or was that a day?) That's a lot
closer to what you and I might now confront than a lot of
instructors, and in my book puts him in a good position to evaluate
different methods for my use.

He is unique in that he also has lots of experience in courtrooms,
not as an eye witness, but as an expert witness. The difference is
an expert witness has to analyze all evidence from every source
pertaining to all the events that occurred, not limited to what he
personally saw or in which he participated, and offer an opinion upon
which he will certainly be challenged by someone who knows how to
challenge. He's not a trial attorney, but he has participated in
process, with his name and reputation on the line, and under the
constraints imposed by rules of evidence designed to exclude bull-shit.

He also has a couple of days of experience as a moving target during
a couple of different riots, during which time he was constrained by
department policies. That's off-the-wall crazy as it might apply to
you and I, and therefore of limited use in terms of teaching methods
or tactics. It does, however, afford good lessons about staying
cool, keeping track of equipment that wants to walk away, having
backup guns and lights, and the value of optics on a rifle.

> Reitz barely mentioned foot positions probably for the same reason
> Jeff Gonzales does not either. Your feet are going to be where
> they are regardless.

Unless, of course, one makes it an unconscious habit to always keep
his feet where they will do him the most good. I do not believe that
just because we can't count on our feet being anyplace special in all
circumstances does not mean it is not important to know where they
should be in those instances where we have a choice.

I don't think Scott's failure to go into shooting position in this
course should be taken to suggest he thinks it unimportant. Rather,
he had shooters who should have already covered that, along with
marksmanship and basic gun handling. (I only actually saw two guys
where I wanted to walk over and put their feet in a better position,
and one guy I believe it would have really helped.)

> You can really only control your upper body position.

Tell that to my opponents. I'd love for them to believe that.

Peter

[Tony Muhlenkamp]

October 15, 2013
Observations & Lessons Learned during Scott Reitz Night Shooting and Problem Solving Tactics for Handguns
Tony Muhlenkamp

I took my 2nd class from Scott this past weekend and learned/confirmed a few things. This is not an After Action Report (AAR); this is not even a class review. This is more a series of impressions, observations, conclusions and opinions.

First, Scott has written a textbook for his class; nycnoob provided links to it at his review so I won't repeat that. All the marksmanship, all the manipulations and a LOT of the mindset is covered in his book. It’s a valuable resource. Read the book. You wouldn’t take a college course without having the textbook to refer to; the same principle applies.

Scott is teaching gunfighting; defined as “Problem solving and adaptation, at speed, under extreme duress.” He is teaching how to think with a gun in hand. He talked a lot about maintaining composure and the need to think faster than I can shoot.

He has studied thousands of actual shootings and testified regarding many of them. He teaches based on what has and has not worked in those shootings. Most of his work is police related so it doesn’t all relate directly to civilian concealed carry, but there are lessons to be applied. When he tells a “war story” it’s for a reason and to illustrate a point.

Regarding gear, he recommends fixed rectangular sights with tritium 3 dot night sights, ambi safeties, and as much light as you can throw. Weapon lights are OK, but have handhelds for when the weapon light fails, breaks, falls off, etc. Mark fixed mechanical sights with nail polish to make it easy to check if they shift. Harden anything you strap to your body or belt; anything than can fall out, be dropped, or torn off will be and it will be lost just when you need it most.

Simple rule for using a light; turn it on if you need it, turn it off if you don’t. Put as much light on the problem as you can. “Bad shootings can occur due to the fact that things are sometimes misinterpreted in low level light” Keep the light on to receive constant information for as long as you need to receive that information.

Can you hit a target at 6 feet? It depends; is the target moving? Are you moving? Is there a hostage, cover, someone behind? Is it dark? Be suspicious of anyone that says such and such ALWAYS happens. There is no typical gunfight.

Expect nothing, be ready for everything. It will be a surprise, it will be fast, and it will be over before you know it. “The greater the adapted skills you possess, the greater degree you can allow a situation to degrade before you take action. Most probably the course of action will be the correct one”. You have to adapt to a changing problem, having more skills gives you more solutions to choose from. For example, your use of the sights will depend on the problem, the time, the distance, etc. How long you take to press the trigger will depend on the problem; the more complex the problem the more time it will take to get hits and solve the problem.

Dead space is everything you have to get through BEFORE you can employ the mechanics. Get through the dead space FAST so you have the time it takes to align sights, press trigger and follow through.

Mechanics consist of sights, trigger and follow through. Everything comes back to mechanics and how you ADAPT them to the problem. What if you lose an eye? What if you lose a finger? Lose an arm? How do you adapt and fight through? The mechanics have to be there, you have to TRUST the mechanics, and you have to be composed to use them.

If in doubt don’t shoot. Know why you are shooting and that it is the RIGHT thing to do. “I know I’m doing the right thing. I know what I’ve done and it was the right thing to do.” If you can’t say that before, during and after; don’t shoot.

He runs drills continuously, and changes them constantly to keep students off balance and to force them to THINK. Problem changes, adapt the mechanics, solve the problem. Again, all the mechanics are explained in his book. Get the book.

Bottom line, I had a ball and learned a TON. I’m grateful for Scott for coming to PGH to teach, and to FIRE Institute for hosting him; and I recommend Scott to anyone that has the opportunity to take a class from him.

Tony Muhlenkamp

[Dagga Boy]

I have spent a ton of time with Scott over the years, and we talk regularly. The above AAR's are right on the money. Like Tony, I don't always agree with Scotty, but I can't think of a time when I disagreed with him.

I can about guarantee that it was 12 presentations a day, not a week. I had 22 presentations on my first week on the job in the same region during my first week on the job when I wasn't really allowed to touch my gun.....it only got more exciting from that point on. Metropolitan Division at LAPD is a Crime Suppression machine in a target rich environment and they hunt bad guys where the bad guys live. Scott spent 25 years there.

The most important thing I have taken away from my time with Scott, Larry Mudgett, John Helms, Ralph Morton and others from the same place is that it is "problem solving" first and foremost, and then its "front sight, press, follow through" all while maintaining absolute professionalism in regards to safety and handling. It sounds far simpler than it is, and Scott pushes your brain hard to understand the whole picture.