Yep I believe they were posted here
This is a discussion on Combat Accuracy within the Defensive Carry & Tactical Training forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Yep I believe they were posted here...
Yep I believe they were posted here
The video looks to me like a demonstration of being able to hit while moving dynamically. Nothing wrong with that except to people who believe a fight is a static situation with all the time in the world to employ "proper" marksmanship fundamentals.
Also pretty cheesy for the guy trying to call this instructor out so covertly while plugging his own gig. Military and LEO contracts? Big deal, that don't mean squat for the average Joe on the street. How many people have the ability to roll into a fight with backup and airstrikes? Anyone have ability to stake out an ambush or gather intelligence on your adversary before engaging him? Or are you likely to be caught behind the curve and reacting to an assault rather than initiating one?
Looks to me like RP is teaching a reality based curriculum rather than some modern technique, gun game based bs.
What does any of this have to do with what Roger is teaching? Unless the instructor you're talking about was Roger; it's totally irrelevant information.
It appears to be just another attempt to throw out that you do SOCOM contract instruction and are therefore somehow anointed with greater knowledge of point shooting. The two are mutually exclusive endeavors. If you don't run open enrollment then the information is useless to the average Joe. Maybe some folks are impressed with the SOCOM connection........
Suarez International Staff Instructor
Let me clear something up here. You automatically think that because I do not agree with the philosophy, that I do not have the skill, and label me a "fruit shooter". The fact of the matter which is verifiable by examining what I have said in the past here, is that I am a big advocate of instinctive shooting. Been doing it for years. Long before people were trying to promote it as the " new thing in defensive handgunning" for profit. It is a tool, has it's place, and should be taught.
The problem I have is you guys come on here posting what you believe to be gospel, and then take issue with anyone who disagrees. Of course , it's bad for business to let a different perspective be heard to loud too often. So then every Suarez instructor in the country jumps on.
Another, and more fundemental issue I have is that many people who jump on the CCW bandwagon, are grossly lacking in fundementals. People like us, and many others on this forum, have grown up and been doing this a long time. But many have not. So, they are open to anything that someone shoves at them. They will enroll in classes that are way beyond their level. This is the now generation. Can you imagine what would happen, if someone who took the shoot and move course, had a "gun fight" in a public area, adrenelin pumping, and started popping off rounds, before he could really mastered sighted aimed fire?
Headlines, "CCW holder accidentally kills 3 bystanders during shootout"
to think that someone can gain this level of expertise in a 2 day class is not realistic. Even if they have mastered the basics, they would need to practice this continuously to maintain a level of competency. Very few people have the time or money to do this, let alone facilities, so what is gained? Additionally, there is no way to really duplicate the level of the pucker factor you experience in an actual confrontation. And that's a game changer.
In reality, this training is very unnecassary for the vast majority of people. Even with the risk level I have, everyday, which is much higher than most(yet not as great as others), I have had enough training and trained enough people to understand the extremely low chance of having an encounter of this type.
Most folks have a much, much, greater risk of heart attack, or diabetes, cancer or carwreck than needing to use a firearm.
In my opinion, I believe training should be focused on reality based training, such as how and where you carry your weapon, accessibility, draw stroke, and presentation, and scenario training base on decision making.
As far as me being a fruit shooter, I'll admit, some fruit need to be killed, and some are pretty damn tough. But if you can hit an apple, you can hit a head.
Ignorance is a long way from stupid, but left unchecked, can get there real fast.
People tend to have an almost visceral reaction when point shooting comes up. And when your only context for point shooting is pictures of people shooting from the hip and then you apply that to a problem shooting at 7 yards with bystanders involved then your logical conclusion is that point shooting is ridiculous. And in that context shooting from the hip would be ridiculous. I have yet to have anyone take me up on the bet to shoot from the hip as fast as they can at a target 7 yards away with their wife and mother and children standing to either side of the target......because THAT technique is inappropriate for that distance and that level of precision.
But you see ALL point shooting is not shooting from "elbow up / elbow down" shooting from the hip. I shoot IDPA and used to shoot cowboy action and at most targets less than 10 yards I focus on the target and just look over the top of the gun. I have no problem hitting what I aim at and have won more matches than I have lost. But I know when point shooting is appropriate and when sighted fire is appropriate.
So then lets ask ourselves some questions......
From a military context, if we end up in the kill zone of an ambush what is the first thing we do in our immediate action drill? Stand tall and shoot small? No. It is get the hell out of the kill zone and counter attack or fall back to the rally point.
If we are suddenly attacked in a parking lot and we are REACTING to the assault what do we do? Stand tall and shoot tiny groups? No. We get the hell out of the line of attack and either counter attack or run.
You see there are differnt techniques applicable to different situations. If I see it developing far enough ahead of time to get my gun out and get behind cover then I'd be STUPID not to use the sights and place VERY precise shots.
But if my first clue a fight is on is when the guy asking for directions suddenly reaches for his beltline as he says "give it up fool!" then I need to get off that spot and get my gun in hand quickly and shoot him FAST to stop him. And at conversation distance I can move and shoot VERY fast and still get high quality "nipples to neck" area hits.
The DISTANCE involved and our place in the OODA cycle means all the difference. PROACTIVE problems farther than 7 yards may be better solved with precise sighted fire. REACTIVE problems inside 5 yards do not afford the time to stand still and look for sights.
But that does not mean you can just blindly send lead downrange and hope for the best either. Rounds in the high chest and face are going to get better results than rounds in the love handles and butt cheeks. We don't shoot suicide bombers and hostage takers in the abdomen....you shoot them in the eye. There is a REASON for that. But the dirty little secret is that if you know HOW, you can still get EXCELLENT high quality fightstopping hits while moving in a reactive fight IF you learn how to do it. If you actually TARGET the areas you want to hit you will probably hit them . If you just shot AT the BG as a whole, then you MAY hit him somewhere between hairline and toenail. But there is a difference between just cranking rounds at someone and getting off the X and targeting vital areas.
I just taught a class this past weekend involving Force on Force. To prove to the students that EXCELLENT fight stopping hits can be made on the move I showed them the way WE do it from just below line of sight and then put 5" Birchwood Casey "shoot n see" targets on the "bad guy's" chest. Those 5" targets got shot to pieces. The students were NOT shooting against cardboard, but actual people. The easy availability of airsoft guns has made it easier for people to test what actually works.
No there is no "ballistic effect" (no ballistic effect with Sims rounds either), but if you get off the X and hit your opponent 3 times before he hits you the FIRST time, the odds are overwhelming that you would have won that if the bullets had been real.
There is a saying...In Ferro Veritas....the truth is in the steel. Some may not LIKE it. It may not validate some people's prior training. But if you just stand still and shoot at less than 5 yards against someone who gets to "go first" like the BGs try to in real life, then you will get probably get shot. In that situation...the situation that MOST civilian fights look like...you need to get off the X and get fast hits on target. Not stand your ground and look for a picture perfect sight picture. At least that is what we see play out over and over and over again in FOF...and dashboard cams....and in "in theater" combat video......
It is pretty simple. Hit what you aim at, as fast as you can, without getting hit.
Suarez International Tier 1 Staff Instructor
NRA Certified Instructor
Master Class IDPA SSP
TRAIN with me....http://www.suarezinternationalstore....px?find=harris
Is your reality that a person will always be able to see the attack coming, prepare a defense and set up for a well aimed, albeit fast-on-target shot.
This is not the way peolple I had in my classes experienced it. It was all dynamic and those who were fortunate enough to have firearm despite living in CA stated that they had a metal-on-meat sight picture.
Your statements contradict themselves.
In a dynamically developing environment, starting from a reactive positon, point shooting skills are an asset. It allows getting rounds on board fast and with sufficient accuracy to get the bad guy on the deck and keep the rounds contained.
"Presumably it gives training on how to assassinate unarmed persons who are upright, standing still and who are hard to knock down. For that is the focus of all this shooting; a stationary paper target that just stands in the same position and isn't shooting back. Are these engagements timed and if they are, so what? It's still just a paper target, an aiming reference."
Jeff Cooper, as far as I can tell from reading his Commentaries and hearing from people who trained in his Modern Technique--including one that worked for him at Gunsite--based most, if not all, of MT off of what he saw of people shooting balloons at Bear Valley. So what is said here could also apply to that philosophy of the gunfight. And unless something has changed, Gunsite still uses "a paper target, an aiming reference" in classes just like everybody else.
Change a few of the words, I wonder if the same things weren't said when the Colonel was introducing his methodology into the training world, such as it was, back then.
When I was more heavily involved in martial arts...call it the 70s and 80s...there was always something of the same tension I see here between the practitioners of the traditional arts and the eclectic trainers. You could call it the tension between the battlefield-that-was and the battlefield-that-is-now. What I thought about that is what I think about this, to wit:
The traditional arts have undoubtedly gotten a lot of good guys home when the fight was over. I wonder if there are more that might have survived if they had worked more on the battlefield-that-is, though, than on the battlefield-that-was.
Same here. Modern Technique of the pistol has to have saved a lot of good guys. I wonder how many more would have gone home if they had integrated some of the techniques that Cooper knew of but did not choose to include in his methodology when he was developing it.
Modern Technique Bad? Modern Technique outdated? No, don't think so. Hard sight picture, solid positioning for the best possible shot, is GOOD.
WHEN YOU CAN GET THAT.
As the ONLY way to do this, though...no, don't think so.
To me, IT'S ALL ABOUT CONTEXT.
This thing about the video, for example. ONE short video about ONE facet of the method being demonstrated is being taken apart by some here as if it's the whole freakin' package.
What's up with that?
"Train like you fight, fight like you train," someone has said.
Okay. How am I gonna fight? What are the most likely conditions, the most likely circumstances, the most likely environment, that I am going to have to fight in if I have to fight?
THAT'S THE CONTEXT. That's going to be different for me than for anybody else here, civilian or military or law enforcement, special ops or line infantry or transport or just a professional geek in Alabama like I am. There will be some broad similarities that help me, and you, focus the training. Otherwise, it would be hopeless to try and prepare.
In that/those contexts, as far as I can determine them, I need many different skillsets and options, and...back to this thread...aiming and shooting techniques and capabilities. Given limited resources, it behooves me to try and find the trainers that give me the most options to cover the largest number of contingencies I might face.
To narrow it further, Roger Phillips in particular, and SI in general, has done that. Though it could be read here as some of you saying they don't teach whatever you define as proper combat shooting, I have learned how to stand and deliver, how to move and deliver, how go from awkward positions to hits on target, how to shoot one-handed, how to use the sights and how to aim without them.
Go from the ground to weapon access and firing? Done that in Roger's class. Shoot from cover to either side with either hand? Done that in multiple SI classes. Draw one-handed, either hand from wherever the weapon was? Done that. One-hand manipulations? Done that. Hard focus on the front sights? Done that, in (gasp) Roger's class, no less. Don't know where the sight was at the time? Done that.
Some ask or wonder out loud where the hits were on the target in the video. I can't tell you, wasn't there. I can tell you where I've seen them in classes, not from Roger--though he was making them in the demos solidly enough--but from students in the class. I saw two-shot groups for sure, maybe three-shot groups, delivered over the shoulder while running away at an angle from the target (not crabbing sideways, running and shooting back over the shoulder). I've seen group-after-group of three-to-five shots delivered inside a hand-span's distance while being fired at speed while not just moving, but changing directions. I've seen zippers that put three-to-five shots directly on or touching the half-inch-wide tape that was run up the target as a reference. I've seen center-punched shots 'crossing the T' of a line of targets at about five yards...maybe seven, but at least five...at a dead run, one and two handed, shot-shift-shot-shift and all solidly in the A-zone.
Back to the center thought for the moment:
So what defines what is best to do? Context.
What makes the best training? That which prepares you for your fight the best.
Does what Roger teaches do that? I can only give you my opinion on that. Take a single opinion for what it's worth. I will note that there are a lot of opinions besides mine about it, though, and at some point, what individuals do with their time and money must count for something about the worth of both the instructor and the training. Lots of people have voted that way for this man and his classes. Still doing it.
That has to say something about how well it works.
I've meandered enough. I yield the soapbox.
Don"t let stupid be your skill set....
There is a way to "get off the x" and deliver accurate aimed fire without running to the left or right, or away. It is much quicker, and the point shooting, or flash sight picture can be utilized. It also provides a level of protection to your chest and vital areas. In my opinion, it is much easier to learn, can be used as in the absence of cover, and is much quicker.
Reality to me is using and learning things that are effective, provide the ability to fight back using effective fire on the target. It should be fast, smooth, uncomplicated, and provide a measure of protection.
Running left or right and firing as you go is not the best way to accomplish this. Sure, it is better than standing there, but it allows the opponet too much oppurtunity to hit you also. Additionally, your chest is fully exposed, or your back is if running away. Also if your arm is raised as you return fire, as in an oblique postioning, there is a clear path open for a lucky bullet to enter your high in your rib cage.
It is better to do something than do nothing. For all of you who are suggesting that I am saying the opposite, you are wrong.
In a close situation like that, one must expect there is a good chance of being hit.
So, what can we do to minimize the hit, if it comes?
That is the thing the focus should be on; survivability if despite your best effort, he gets lucky.
The method I teach, allows you to greatly minimize the area of your body to shoot at, while allowing you to begin firing at the same time. It ends in a body position that allows for a stable shooting platform, while at the same time using the large bones in your body to protect your vital areas.
It gets you out of the line of fire quicker than you can make the first step sideways or front to back. It allows immediate target engagement with more accurate fire, and protection from any hit you may take.
This is the type of technique I feel people need to learn. That's the reality I'm talking about.
Ignorance is a long way from stupid, but left unchecked, can get there real fast.
In retospect, I suppose the point I want to make is that I have no problem with movement and shooting as a skill to have in the box. And I have no issue with paper targets, us them myself. My issue here deals with the concept that combining the skills of fight and flight into one package. The most unnatural thing to do in a fist fight is walk towards the punch. Yet, by doing so, you are putting yourself in position to strike a blow. The key here is to time the punch, and parry it as close to your face as possible without it hitting you. Now you have put yourself at a point of advantage and can strike at will,because you are now standing to the side and away from your opponets other arm, and have several areas to strike that are non defensible for your opponent.
The same concept works for any fight. We can either allow our bodies to pursue flight, or train it to fight. In my opinion, trying to do both , little is gained.
Ignorance is a long way from stupid, but left unchecked, can get there real fast.
Didn't realize you too instructed. Do you have any literature or DVD's demonstrating this technique? Have you shared this technique with others here, whether in critique or in demonstration? if so I would like to see it, if not then I don't understand how you can bash someone elses training regime when they openly share their techniques and thoughts not only on forums but by offering training material to those of us not fortunate enough to be able to travel or take the time to go to one of the courses.....
People starting in reactive mode and moving aggressively put in average at least 3 rounds into their opponent before he catches up (again, proven in force-on-force). I may be a bit off but 3 rounds of 9mm or better will at this point alter the attackers perspective towards the fight.
Of course, when you expect getting hit, FoF is almost a moot point
To those who think what we are doing doesn't work....or they have a better way, there is one very easy way to find out....and if you prove it without you yourself getting shot, you get $1000. Thusfar my cell phone has not rung. Funny how everyone is an expert on the internet. Talk is cheap.