Defensive Carry banner

Threat-Focused Shooting: "Quick Kill"

9K views 92 replies 25 participants last post by  QKShooter 
#1 · (Edited)
Edited

Hi folks - I've been lurking for a couple months but this is my first post here at CombatCarry. Looking forward to getting to know all of you.

I have an opportunity to get a guy named Robin Brown down to the Houston area to teach a two-day course in his Quick Kill (QK) system.

I'm interested if anyone has any experience with Threat-Focused shooting or if anyone would like to learn more about it. Post your questions or comments - the debate has already started :)


Stay safe -
David W.
 
#3 ·
Welcome aboard :smilez:

Sounds more than interesting but way beyond my AO - sounds like QKShooter might be interested tho - in principle :wink:
 
#4 ·
David

Well, I call them as I see them and your introductory post IS a sales pitch.:yup:

Normally, the forum moderators and the administrator would likely frown on a brand new member registering & making their very first forum post a sales pitch to offer an instruction course but, this absolutely would be "money well spent" for any forum member living in or around Houston that wants to glean/learn something of true value from Robin Brown.
 
#6 ·
Thanks for the "welcome aboard"

Yeah - sorry about that being my first post.
It kinda was a sales pitch, now that you mention it - but my point was that I'm not making any money off of the deal - I'm just trying to generate enough interest so I can get Brownie down here.

Either way - thanks for the warm welcome and I hope to learn some good stuff here.
 
#10 ·
Why do you say that?

"Avoid this system" is usually a statement made by those who have no idea what threat-focused shooting is really about.

I would submit that if you find yourself in civil court trying to defend your actions then you have bigger problems than the name of the system you learned - would you not agree?

If all you have to say is "for all that is good and holy, avoid Mr. Brown and Quick Kill" - then you're not really contributing. Would you care to explain your views?

If you don't agree with the system, then you don't agree with the system. But if you're going to try to talk it down then you should come prepared.
 
#12 ·
You guys gotta be kidding me.

You're wrapped up in the name because you're afraid of having to go to court? I think you've got your priorities mixed up. Although, I'm sure somewhere there's a study that shows that the course material improves dramatically once a course has a PC name.

I didn't realize that we had to tailor our training to appease the lawyers.

No sure if anyone notices the irony - but you all contribute to a forum called COMBAT carry.... what would the lawyers think of THAT????
 
#14 ·
Pickpocket said:
I would submit that if you find yourself in civil court trying to defend your actions then you have bigger problems than the name of the system you learned - would you not agree?

My point was simply this:

Reality check...

If, God forbid, you are involved in a shooting, and even if it is ruled justified (IE: Doesn't go to criminal court), you can count on, not "wonder if", but count on being the target of a civil suit.

When the attorney. "Saul Moneygrubowitz" is trying to portray you as some gun-toting whacko, having a record of attending a class called "Quick Kill" could sound pretty scary to lay-persons on the jury, yes?

.
 
#15 ·
Pickpocket said:
You guys gotta be kidding me.

You're wrapped up in the name because you're afraid of having to go to court? I think you've got your priorities mixed up. Although, I'm sure somewhere there's a study that shows that the course material improves dramatically once a course has a PC name.

I didn't realize that we had to tailor our training to appease the lawyers.

No sure if anyone notices the irony - but you all contribute to a forum called COMBAT carry.... what would the lawyers think of THAT????
Situational awareness goes beyond the tactical, my friend.

Depending on the jurisdiction one lives in, this sort of thing is a valid concern.

Matt
 
#17 ·
That's "a" point-shooting method, but no - that's not what we're teaching.

Congrats on recognizing a point-shooting method, though!
What you're describing is actually a method of "reflexive shooting" taught by the military. Weak hand on the handguards of your carbine, gripped so that your index finger points straight along the axis of the barrel.

What QK teaches is the use of a 'reference point' which is established by the visual relationship between your weapon and the threat - using your peripheral vision. Try this exercise:
Focus on something directly in front of you on the far side of the room. Choose an object in your peripheral vision at about 65-degrees either to the left or the right, and then point at it with your finger without shifting your focal point. Once you've pointed at your chosen object, move your head to see where your finger is pointed. Cool, huh?

And it only gets better from there.
 
#18 ·
Pickpocket said:
That's "a" point-shooting method, but no - that's not what we're teaching.
Are you an instructor? Why do you say "what we're teaching"?

Have I missed something here? Please explain yourself.
 
#19 ·
Weeg said:
My point was simply this:

Reality check...

If, God forbid, you are involved in a shooting, and even if it is ruled justified (IE: Doesn't go to criminal court), you can count on, not "wonder if", but count on being the target of a civil suit.
You're right - you can pretty much bet that you're going to be the target of a civil suit. You have that problem regardless of the name of the system that you learned. The same argument could be made of those who attend "Tactical" classes, or the combatives guys who train with edged weapons, or any number of other things.
Weeg said:
When the attorney. "Saul Moneygrubowitz" is trying to portray you as some gun-toting whacko, having a record of attending a class called "Quick Kill" could sound pretty scary to lay-persons on the jury, yes?
Reality check...
They're going to portray you that way no matter what. You're attempting to hang the entire outcome of a (hypothetical) civil suit resulting from a justified SD shooting on the name of the system being learned. It just doesn't wash.
What formal training have you had? Any chance that the names of the courses or the material taught within could perhaps be scary to the lay-persons on a jury?

MattLarson said:
Situational awareness goes beyond the tactical, my friend.

Depending on the jurisdiction one lives in, this sort of thing is a valid concern.
I understand situational awareness - I don't see where I gave the impression that I was not.
If you are overly concerned - for whatever reason - about the name of the course, then it's not for you, end of story. Mr. Larson - if you are in Florida then I highly doubt you have this problem.
I'm not going to get into a debate over the name of a system - it's absolutely ridiculous.
 
#20 ·
Rob72 - Check your messages

Rock and Glock said:
Are you an instructor? Why do you say "what we're teaching"?

Have I missed something here? Please explain yourself.
No, I'm not an instructor. I am, however, working towards becoming the licensed instructor for the Texas region. I won't be teaching this course, nor will I be profiting from it. Robin Brown will personally be instructing this particular course. Perhaps the "we" was misleading - sorry about that.
 
#23 ·
Pickpocket said:
That's "a" point-shooting method, but no - that's not what we're teaching.

Congrats on recognizing a point-shooting method, though!
What you're describing is actually a method of "reflexive shooting" taught by the military. Weak hand on the handguards of your carbine, gripped so that your index finger points straight along the axis of the barrel.

What QK teaches is the use of a 'reference point' which is established by the visual relationship between your weapon and the threat - using your peripheral vision. Try this exercise:
Focus on something directly in front of you on the far side of the room. Choose an object in your peripheral vision at about 65-degrees either to the left or the right, and then point at it with your finger without shifting your focal point. Once you've pointed at your chosen object, move your head to see where your finger is pointed. Cool, huh?

And it only gets better from there.
Pickpocket,
I don't doubt one can point shoot successfully. D.R. Middlebrooks won the 1999 IDPA Championship with his point shooting method. I've trained under D.R.

One concern I have is that point shooting can become such a distraction that sighted fire is all but abandoned. Then when the sights need to be used, that skill has perished because of the time spent point shooting. I know, we practice sighted fire too. I have to wonder where all the extra time comes from to practice two methods. OTOH, I devote all my time to sighted fire. Back some time ago when I had this exact discussion, I went to the range and point shot. I shot two COMs and one head shot every evolution. Keep in mind, I NEVER practice point shooting. I couldn't tell one bit of difference in speed or accuracy point shooting or using the sights. I posted my hits, scores, and times.

Another concern is in a stressful situation, how does one choose when to use this point shooting method or sights? Do we guess at the distance, respond instinctively? What if we guess wrong? What if it causes just enough hesitation....OTOH, I always sight shoot; there's never any question how I'm gonna shoot. I sight shoot from 2 feet to whatever. I may not be able to acquire my perfect stance, but I've proven over and over I don't have to be in a perfect stance to get good hits with my sights.

Granted there may be some instances where I can't extend and use the sights, but those are so close that I can shoot from a retention position as I'm makin' distance as fast as I can so I can extend and use my sights. You know, if you are so close that you can hit him, he can hit you.

Another concern is that this method does not lend itself well to shooting from concealment or cover. If one has to shoot from the "off" side from cover, the method may not hold up. Two handed sighted shooting works very well and you can utilize cover efectively. I realize for those times you can revert back to the sights, etc., but again, if you split practice time between point shooting and sighted shooting, are you half as good as you could have been?

Then, is there a real benefit to teaching people not to use the sights? Is that really a service? Does it interfere with sight shooting skills? It has yet to be shown that the Quick Kill method is any more accurate or faster than proper sighted fire. I know I and others have asked time and time and time again for some timed shooting numbers with hit scores, and the answer is always the same - "we" don't have a timer.

Plus, has this method been used by any LE agency? Does it have a successful track record in the street, or is it basically unproven?
 
#25 ·
Tangle said:
Pickpocket,
Plus, has this method been used by any LE agency? Does it have a successful track record in the street, or is it basically unproven?
I wouldn't begin to debate "point/sighted", but I would say that both have foundation and proof, on the street. Numerous studies show that within relatively close distance, few officers recall seeing more than BG, out a bit farther, you have the interesting effect of, "I saw the noteches on the front blade and the 2 holes in his third button...".

I don't know that any one "method" has the answer, but wiring in some degree of response(and preferrably more than one) is always better than finding out "if you can" when the feces hit the oscillator.

Point and sighting both have a place. Trying various trainers allows you to get the most from each, without becoming an "exclusivist disciple."
 
#26 ·
Tangle -
Thanks for the response and the outstanding questions. I can see you've put some thought into this subject.

QK isn't something that you need to practice every day. Truth be told, many people are going to have a difficult time finding a range that will allow them to practice QK techniques - especially since they involve dynamic shooting and even running. However, I think that you will find that QK skills do not need to be practiced religiously.

We've had several discussions around the "why learn two methods" argument. Certainly there is the risk of a person becoming so distracted with QK that they allow they're other skills to degrade - however, that is a risk inherrent with ALL training. If one goes to a course by Blackhawk and then attends a C.A.R. course by Paul Castle, it is up to the individual to take elements of each system that work for them and create their own personal style. People have said - and many of them well-known and respected - that you should find one system that does everything and that there's no sense in learning two systems because your mind isn't going to know when to transition. However, no system exists that will fit every situation - so it is up to us to learn what we can from what is available and mold the techniques and skills to our natural abilities. Thereby creating the elusive "single-system" for ourselves based on our own experiences.

Point-shooting is not rocket science - but I will say that you will not realize the increases in speed and accuracy that you should with the QK method unless you have an instructor there to help you tailor the method to your body and walk you through the confidence building that is essential to learning QK. This is not to say that you are lacking in that area, but there is something to be said of thinking that you can hit 2.5" disks out of the air without ever looking at your sights and believeing it.

How will you know when to use which skill?
This is something I've dealt with for years. This is wholly dependent upon how you train and how serious you take your training. QK is indeed instinctive - point being that if you need it then by the time you have to think about it it's already done. Brownie can teach you to put 3 hits COM before the guy next to you ever finds his front sight - consistently.
I trained point-shooting concepts to my Marines for years, I also taught reflexive shooting, front-sight press, and sighted fire. Why did I teach so many different methods? Because I'm a believer in the thought that a person should have as many tools in their toolbox as possible. If you take them out of the toolbox and polish them up regularly, then they're not going to fail you when you need them.
If you practice efficiently - then you're not going to hesitate. Your body is doing to decide for you - that's the true value in the concept of "muscle memory".
I have watched men I've trained transition effortlessly between sighted, semi-sighted, and threat-focused shooting. I know it can be done - it has been tested in situations far worse than we are likely to encounter on the way to the corner store.
Distance is a factor, but not the distances you're thinking. 30ft is about the furthest you would want to depend on QK, but I've seen people make hits further than that.
How will you know when to use one skill or another? How can you expect your mind to say "that's 30ft and now you should switch to sighted-fire"? I'll answer that this way - how do you know when someone is too close to you? How do you know when someone is staring at you from across the room? How do you know when you need to start applying the brakes on your car if you want to come to a complete stop at a certain point?

Keep in mind that your expectations of "accuracy" must adapt to the situation - you're not going to expect dime-sized groups at 10 yards when you're in fear for your life...so why shoult those dime-sized groups be a measure of one's ability to shoot under stress? Unless you are a competition shooter, of course. However, QK is not about competition - it's about survival. Someone instructed in QK can empty a magazine into a 8" group at 15ft. without ever looking at their sights. 8 inches may sound like a lot if you're thinking about target shooting - but an 8-inch group on the chest of someone trying to kill you will work out just fine. QK makes no attempt to replace any other system, or to imply that it's more accurate than any other system. We're simply asking people to re-evaluate what they're really training for and what they really expect to be able to accomplish when their life is on the line and you only have miliseconds to react.

About cover/concealment - you're right. QK does not lend itself to shooting from behind cover/concealment. This is why you can't just pick one system and live or die by it. Truth be told, the classic Weaver or Isosceles don't lend themselves to shooting from behind cover. You have to "modify" them just a tad to get them to work, right?
Situation will always dictate, and if you've got cover then it only makes senst to try to pull a different set of tools out of your toolbox.

You ask the question that if you spend time learning two systems are you only half as good as you could have been? I'm going to respond by asking the question: if you only practice one system and it doesn't allow you to fluidly respond to the situation you're in and you die, are you only half as dead?

As for speed - like I said, a QK student can have 3 hits COM before most people even find their front sight. Don't need a timer for that. A QK students can put a full magazine into a 10" group at a sprint - don't need a timer to tell you that there's no way you're doing that with sighted fire. We're not talking about timing splits here - this is about something entirely different. At the end of the day, it's another tool in the toolbox that you might one day need.

Another thing to consider when talking aimed fire vs. threat-focused is where you are in the reactionary curve. You may very well have time to find your sights if you're ahead of the reactionary curve - but can you depend on that ability if you're even with or behind the curve? In my experience that has not been the case. And how often can we expect to be ahead of the reactionary curve, situational awareness aside?
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top