This is a discussion on Huh? (aka: How to Train?) within the Defensive Carry & Tactical Training forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; agentmel , I've got the Integrated Threat Focused Training course coming to Starke, Fla. in April. The dates are being finalized in the next two ...
I've got the Integrated Threat Focused Training course coming to Starke, Fla. in April. The dates are being finalized in the next two weeks.
This course will immediately follow the preceding two days of my training a local police dept in the area on Thursday and Friday in these same skills.
For after action reviews from previous students who have taken the training here in Az as well as our on the road program in Pennsylvania and Tennessee, [ soon to also include Louisiana and Ohio ] follow this link:
If you are interested in obtaining skills which will give you the ability to make hits as soon as the gun clears leather all the way out to full extension, the ability to be threat focused and make hits out to 10 yrds without worrying about waiting to find any type of sight picture, the ability to make hits while scrambling out of the kill zone, moving laterally to the threat, shooting below your line of sight, all one handed,
shoot me a pm here or email me at firstname.lastname@example.org and I'll get you up to speed on the same skills you read in the AAR's from that link given above.
Rapid target acquisition requires several skills to be properly proficient. Threat ID, draw stroke, one handed shooting skills from just above the hip as the gun clears the holster and the muzzle is brought to bear on the threat, then being able to continue to fire throughout that draw stroke and do so while moving, use of body indexing, as well as being able to switch gears in mid stream and use any of the skills imparted in the Integrated Threat Focused classes as the situation dictates. We'll also show you how to get hits on two or three threats in the time most will take on one threat with another skill from 5-10 feet from the hip.
Any questions, just ask
The mind is the limiting factor
Quick Kill Rifle and Pistol Instructor
Only 40 minutes south from Jacksonville
The mind is the limiting factor
Quick Kill Rifle and Pistol Instructor
I took a 2 day, advanced pistol fighting class last month instructed by Innovative Tactical Concepts. www.right2defend.com
Excellent course! I can truly say that I never saw my sights once in the two days, and it was all one handed shooting. This is the type of training that everyone should take, to get the true feeling of what a defensive situation will feel like.
Member of the National Rifle Association's Board of Directors
www.BuckeyeFirearms.org Buckeye Firearms Association Central OH Chair
NRA Instructor/CCW Instructor/Realtor
2009 NRA Sybil Ludington Women's Freedom Award Recipient
It's a 40 minute drive from Jacksonville. I've driven it twice from the airport.
I understand people live on the coast there. If 6 hours is too far to drive for training, I understand completely.
The mind is the limiting factor
Quick Kill Rifle and Pistol Instructor
First of all I want to address what Roger said regarding getting into ranges… I would say that the major issue with “converting” instructors to reality based training has a lot to do with ego and business. A lot of people don’t like hearing the fact that what they know isn’t really applicable in real life situations. This is true for both the martial arts and firearms community. Some people want to hold on to what they know instead of learning what they NEED to know! A lot of firearms instructors are going to teach what they are COMFORTABLE teaching, which is not necessarily WHAT they need to be teaching.The problem is finding a range that will allow for the advanced training that we offer. If you are not just teaching "stand and deliver with sighted fire" courses you are not welcome on most of the Florida ranges. As soon as you get into reality based, combat proven concepts of dynamic movement, and threat focused skills, the Range curmundgeons want you to water down the curriculum to fit in with their idea of necessary NRA based firearms training. This type of training has proven very ineffective inside of force on force.
The problem is, that they are doing people a disservice by teaching them things that will not work in a life threatening situation if the training is for self-defense purposes. That is, if they are teaching you things for “self-defense” purposes. Another issue may be that they haven’t train realistically themselves in order to realize that what they are teaching doesn’t apply to most CIVILIAN self-defense situations. Most of the NRA programs I have seen are good for fundamentals. As an NRA instructor I believe in most of the things that they teach in their curriculum FOR BEGINNERS. However, a lot of what is taught is NOT what is going to keep you alive in a real life confrontation!
Let’s face it, a lot of people who are teaching firearms come from a LE or military background. Their rules of engagement and tools readily available are different than what civilians have. They have backup a lot of the time, they have cover or concealment (their car), they have a rifle or shotgun nearby, body armor, and they know going into most situations they are going to encounter trouble. How many civilians have most of that readily available? It is because of these elements that the tactics they are taught work. Now, try transferring a lot of the information over to civilian self-defense and it can get you seriously injured or killed. What I DID NOT say was that everything they know is crap. There are A LOT of things that you can learn and apply to civilian conflicts, but KNOWING what those are can mean the difference between life and death.
Now, notice what Roger said, that the concepts are combat proven. By that I am sure he means CIVILIAN COMBAT PROVEN and not LE or military combat proven. There is a BIG difference in what reality based instructors are teaching as opposed to “traditional” firearms schools. Not saying that they don’t have anything to offer, just that they are well, “old school”. It is important to realize that just because “something” has been taught a certain way for “x” years does not mean that it works in all or most situations. And, for those of you who are die hard “traditional schoolists”, you may be in for a “rude” awakening if you take the time to attend a reality based school. The worst case scenario would be that you found yourself in a life threatening situation and got seriously injured or killed because you put all of your faith in what the traditional schools teach is going to save your life.
Some firearms instructors say that ‘we’ (reality based trainers) are just creating something new. I’m not saying that some are not. However, coming from a martial arts background, it is the difference between standing still and throwing punches in the air and implementing all that punch into a fight in a realistic manner. You wouldn’t “stand still” and throw a punch in a fight. You would move and probably move fast circling around the opponent. WHY is “gunfighting” any different? IT’S NOT!!! Some label reality based training as a “fad”. There may be some truth in that for some instructors. Honestly, some instructors teach new things just to be teaching them. And for that I apologize. Just because something is new does not make it good or bad. So, just because “someone” says it is or isn’t good, DO NOT TAKE IT AS THE GOSPEL. TRAIN ON IT AND FIND OUT WHY IT WORKS OR DOES’T WORK!
Two handed shooting while moving laterally or straight forward or backwards is what is most commonly taught. This is referred to “Inside the box training”. It does not mean it is good or bad, it just has LIMITATIONS! SERIOUS limitations. The only limits there are in a FIGHT is what YOU LIMIT yourself to and what you have trained to do.
We do not “promote” sighted or point shooting. One of the issues is that if the eyes can only focus on one point, and we are taught that there are three points; rear sight, front sight, and the threat, and you focus on the front sight… Can you truly take the entire picture of the confrontation and what the threat may be doing? I believe an advantage of point shooting is that you are “focusing” more on the threat and surviving than “shooting” and “ignoring” whatever else may be taking place. By focusing on the front sight, in essence you are creating “tunnel vision” if you do not already have it.
As Linda put it, our courses are based upon one handed shooting. WHY? Because THAT’S REALISTIC CIVILIVAN COMBAT! Sure, everyone needs to understand the basics and be able to perform the basics, but in REAL LIFE, things are significantly different. We don’t tell people to or not to use their sights. Use what works! We are not a “shooting school”. We are a FIGHTING school and that means much of the time you are not going to see your sights because it isn’t possible.
Sighted shooting is a basic fundamental in shooting accurately. Yes, at long distances sighted shooting is going to be more accurate than point shooting. BUT… at civilian combat distances do you REALLY need to see and use your sights to hit your target? If so, then we are all in trouble!
I agree with Brownie that you should be able to make shots as soon as your gun clears the holster. I didn’t use “leather” because I use Kydex. Sorry Brownie. And, the combat drawstroke that is commonly taught by most firearms instructors is only ONE WAY to get your gun on target ASAP. There are times when the rock and lock method is a very bad thing to do.
As far as keeping both eyes open, how many people here drive with one eye closed? Why should shooting be any different?
This is about as true as it gets! You cannot say if “this happens I will do this”. Your SITUATION will dictate what you should do."Situations dictate strategy, strategy dictate tactics, and tactics dictate techniques.....techniques should not dictate anything.
Speaking as a member of the Military, someone who has trained law enforcement and someone who was once a civilian and who functions as a civilian a great deal of the time, I find the attempt to categorize interpersonal combat under the headings of Military, law enforcement or civilian absurd. Interpersonal combat is interpersonal combat, regardless of the circumstances that led to the conflict.
Once the situation deteriorates to the point where the application of deadly force is prescribed, the skill sets required to bring the conflict to a successful resolution are no different. If a technique is effective at resolving a deadly force confrontation at five feet it will work for you regardless of whether you are a police officer in an alley or a Special Forces operator in Iraq or a civilian at the ATM.
Very nice post Brian!
Civilian gun fight statistics are virtually nonexistant. Therefore it is tough to show "civilian combat proven" skill sets. What we can do is look at "the context of the fight" and find situations that are most likely to happen to civilian protectors.
We have found the "lone LEO's" and their "most likely" situations are very close to what civilians deal with. Up close and personal fights that occur from behind in the reactionary curve. The BG's use deception to get close and attack when the opportunity presents itself.
With this knowledge we can use a lot of dash camera footage to understand the human physiological response to a surprise attack.....and the quality of the response and the ability to access the prior training. With this, it is easy to see the need for more real world concepts. These concepts can come from a lot of different sources, just as long as the context of the fight is similar.
Roger Phillips Owner of Fight Focused Concepts
I beg to differ. First of all, soldiers walk around with a long gun and normally in numbers with others who are trained. How many soldiers are walking around Iraq by themselves? More than likely their weapon is in their hands and ready to respond and again, in numbers. Two soldiers responding to a situation is better than one! Much of the time LEO’s approach situations with their hands on their gun which gives them an advantage and they don’t have to clear and draw. This alone can cut possibly ½ second off the draw time. And again, much of the time soldiers and LEO’s are wearing body armor. So, using the Weaver or Isosceles stance to utilize the body armor is a wise idea. However, being a large target in a conflict involving more guns than the one you are holding from a civilian aspect is not so wise of an idea. Not to mention, if the long gun stops working, soldiers often have a backup weapon which is normally easily accessible. Or, their buddy can cover them.I find the attempt to categorize interpersonal combat under the headings of Military, law enforcement or civilian absurd. Interpersonal combat is interpersonal combat, regardless of the circumstances that led to the conflict.
Most of the tactics used by military and LE are not based upon unarmed combatives but rather the gun is the solution. This is actually true for most firearms training. Yes, there are some elements that are similar, but again, there are significant differences. I do not agree with the fact that civilian, LE, or military interpersonal combatives are the same. Again, because of the resources available to LE and military in many situations that is not available in civilian conflicts.
I agree Roger there are some similar aspects of the fight that we can learn from. Now, regarding a surprise attack, how many officers actually have GOOD unarmed combative skills? Therefore, their responses are going to be similar to those of an untrained civilian in unarmed combatives. Does that mean they are good responses? Absolutely not! Not forgetting that going straight for your gun is NOT the answer in LE encounters and civilian encounters. But, much of the time that is what people do (LEO or civilian) when they should be doing something else.
Of course we are behind the curve as LEO’s are. That is why natural reactions and even some “learned” reactions are not necessarily good responses. Natural responses and some learned responses can place you in great danger. However, if you train, train, train, then your response is going to be far different than what the “average persons” is going to be! I think that a lot of police footage shows that even those who have received training but not continued to train on a regular basis resort to “survival” mode which is not good! Why do they do this… because they are not confident in their skills so their body overrides their brain and does what it naturally does.
My “natural” response after many years of training is much different than any footage I have seen by LE or most civilians. Before my years of training, my response would have been the same as what most people would be. It all goes back to training and how the tactics are developed… and that is, from an unarmed combative perspective or a “gun is the solution” perspective.
Brian, earlier you said:
With a few thousand hours of force on force training (in military, law enforcement and civilian formats) and having had the opprtunity to put much of the training I have received to use in the real world, I have yet to see a viable method of successfully employing a firearm for the military or law enforcment that would result in a civilian being seriously injured or killed. Those techniques that fell apart were bad techniques and were not applicable to anyone.
To address your points:
As I already stated, all of the firearms training I have received focused on me eliminating the threat unilaterally. Does the military train collectively? Sure, once individuals demonstrate proficiency at the individual level.First of all, soldiers walk around with a long gun and normally in numbers with others who are trained. How many soldiers are walking around Iraq by themselves? More than likely their weapon is in their hands and ready to respond and again, in numbers. Two soldiers responding to a situation is better than one!
With regard to long guns. Certainly, a disproportionate amount of military firearms training focuses on employing the long gun vs. the handgun. Long guns are the primary weapon system of the military. Having a long gun in both hands is preferrable if one anticipates having to use it. I suspect the civilian who retrieves a long gun to investigate a "bump in the night" will be carrying it in both hands just as the police officer does when he retrieves his shotgun from the patrol car.
I have never participated in nor conducted a training exercise where individuals were allowed "prepare" to draw their weapon by placing their hand on their holstered weapon. I have never heard of it, though I suspect someone, somewhere is doing it. But that would be the exception rather than the rule.Much of the time LEO’s approach situations with their hands on their gun which gives them an advantage and they don’t have to clear and draw. This alone can cut possibly ½ second off the draw time.
Is placing your hand on your weapon in anticipation of a potential conflict practiced in the real world? Sure, it is a valid technique. But it is not one limited to law enforcement. A number of civilians who carry in their pocket like to do so, at east in part, because it innocuously allows them to place their hand on their weapon.
Both the Weaver and Isosceles are valid methods for engaging a threat when time and circumstances allow you to get two hands on your weapon. I am not sure if you are sugesting that their validity is tied to body armor but both stances pre-date the wide spread adoption of body armor by law enforcement and the Military.And again, much of the time soldiers and LEO’s are wearing body armor. So, using the Weaver or Isosceles stance to utilize the body armor is a wise idea.
I am not sure that it is completely wrong for a firearms training course to focus on employing the firearm. But the vast majority of the training programs I have attended always addressed at least some method of incorporating unarmed techniques. Those that did not specifically focused on improving individual speed and accuracy with a firearm and represented themselves as such.Most of the tactics used by military and LE are not based upon unarmed combatives but rather the gun is the solution.
I would add that I do a lot more unarmed combatives training in the military than I do firearms training.
I am not sure what additional resources you are referring to. Perhaps you will be good enough to enlighten me as to the different resources I would successfully employ as a Soldier were I forced to engage a threat with my holstered handgun at a distance of five feet and contrast that with an LEO and a civilian under the same conditions. I contend the skill sets required and their application does not differ.I do not agree with the fact that civilian, LE, or military interpersonal combatives are the same. Again, because of the resources available to LE and military in many situations that is not available in civilian conflicts.
My vision is usually a little blurry anyway at distances, so I focus on the front sight for the most part.