Defensive Carry banner

Grip angle.....smrip angle!

4K views 53 replies 13 participants last post by  gunthorp 
#1 ·
I shoot Glocks and S&W revolvers 99.9999% of the time. I had a student beg me to shoot his XD's. Not really caring, I just picked it up and began running it through the movement matrix.

It shot just fine...did everything that I expected it to do. Good example of why I recommend XD's right along with Glocks.

I did not use the sights once and did not even consider the difference in the grip angle. I just simply picked the gun up and shot it fast and accurately.

I have zero idea what people are talking about when they talk about being a slave to a grip angle.

Some of the things that I have accomplished over the years is to get people to look at the common sense of things, to break away from the status quo, and to get people to realize that fluidity is much better than dogma. That has made me some enemies, but has also made me many loyal friends and students.

Now days I tend to poke fun at things that make no sense to me.

I've veiwed thousands of gunfight video clips and one thing I see over and over again in reactive gunfights is "line of sight" trained shooters shooting "below line of sight" when their lives are on the line. FOF has shown me the exact same things. There is something about the brain starving for visual input of the entirety of the encounter in a life threatening situation.

Some may ask what does this have to do with grip angle.

It is as simple as this. If you do not use your wrist articulations to appropriately index your gun onto the targeted area dependent on the grip angle of the weapon, you will not be able to articualte your wrists when your brain is screaming at you to shoot below line of sight.

Inability to adapt to a grip angle on a specific weapon means that you have an inability to index onto a targeted area below line of sight or while working inside of the retention concept.

I knew some people would take offense to the term "being a slave to a grip angle." But it is intentionlly done to make people realize that they are allowing the wrist position to dictate them, instead of being the one that dictates the wrist position. To be a versatile and well rounded shooter we must use our wrists in a "fluid tension" manner. The wrist does not need to be locked into one shooting position.

Sure, there is the one optimal locked wrist positon at line of sight. But as soon as we drop below line of sight or work any where in the retention concept, that wrist must unlock and adapt to the new positional angle.

So, grip angle is not just about your choosen weapon system. It is also about the necessary height of the gun (see what you need to see inside of the fight) and the necessary extension of the gun (only extend out far enough to guarantee the hits at the same time protecting the gun and gun hand from an attack).....dictated by the situation.

The situation is the dictating factor, not your locked wrist angle.

Do not allow yourself to be a slave to a grip angle. Free your mind and your rear end will follow.

As soon as you have the skill sets to index your gun right to the desired targeted area, at any height, and at any level of extension, the grip angle on a specifice weapon should mean nothing.

There is a Wrist in Shooting

Inside of fast and accurate "shooting to live" we have optimal shooting positions and we have suboptimal shooting positions. Optimal is full extension, at line of sight, inside of a proactive situation with locked wrists/elbows, and hopefully acquiring a perfect hard focus sight picture

The locked wrist and elbows gives use "structure." This structure allows for the facilitation of excellent "point" characteristics. One of the most obvious of those is the ability to align the gun up with and point with the forearm. Since we are pointing with the forearm there is significant structure behind the gun to manage recoil so the gun cycles correctly.

"Get behind your gun!" is a phrase that I picked up from a serious guy that goes by Ranger5. It means get some rear end behind the gun (structure) so that it works as it was designed to work. The aligned forearm gives you outstanding structure.

Too bad most gun fights do not come down under optimal circumstances.....unless you are on the offensive side of an ambush.

When we look at the reality of the fight "suboptimal" is where we are most likely going to be working from. This is what Suarez International gives its students. We give the optimal, but we also teach you how to excel in the suboptimal.

There are a few basic guidelines that we need to look at to help all of this come together.

The higher the gun is to line of sight the more accurate you are going to be, but the less that you will see inside of the entirety of the confrontation.

The further out the gun is extended the more accurate you will be, but also the slower you will be and the more open for a retention problem you are going to be.

When we look at “the perfect balance of speed and accuracy” we must also take in consideration the necessary visual input of the entirety of the confrontation and the necessary extension of the gun inside of the retention concept.

The reality of these guidelines prove that there are many situations that will require suboptimal positions of the gun. If we accept the retention concept and the physiological desire to get the gun out of our face so that we can take in visual input of the entirety of a reactive encounter, it is plan to see that we will need to learn how to shoot within suboptimal positions. These positions my not allow for pointing with the forearm, your favorite locked wrist position, or locking of the elbows. It is clear that we need to learn how to “get behind the gun” when our structure has been compromised and the wrist and elbows have been broken from their optimal locked positions. It is also clear that we need to develop a “fluid tension” concept when it comes to our wrists and elbows so that we know how to get/stay indexed onto the targeted area of the threat no matter what situation arises. This is where the whole concept of the grip angle must be addressed.

When we look at “below line of sight” shooting, on the most part the wrists and the elbows need to work in conjunction with each other. When the angle changes at the shoulder (like Gabe Suarez's contact ready) if you want to stay index right on your primary targeted area you must make adjustments at the elbows and/or the wrists to compensate for that angle change at the shoulder. Where you make your angle adjustment may not be the same place that I make my angle adjustment. I tend to articulate both the wrist and the elbows simultaneously. I see the elbow articulation as a gross adjustment and the wrist articulation as a fine adjustment. Basic geometry principles explain the difference between the two. To use my elbows for fine adjustments is just not the way to go in my eyes…..so, in comes the wrists.

When we look at shooting inside of the retention concept the wrist take on a much larger job that just vertical articulation. This brings in a third basic guideline.

The more that you are able to keep the gun on your visual centerline the more accurate you are going to be, but the more that you will have to break your wrist and compromise your structure. So it is plain to see that the whole optimal “point the forearm” does not cover the retention concept very well at all.

When we begin to compress dramatically such as the compressed ready, count three, or half hip the wrist must begin to compensate horizontal angles along with the vertical angle compensations. When we are compressed the shooting side forearm angles toward the centerline to achieve the visual centerline. This dramatic angle must be compensated for in the wrist. So, now we have a sharply bent elbow and a sharply bent wrist. The structure has completely broken down. Yet we still need to “get behind that gun” so that it operates correctly. This is where the whole “Grip and Trigger Continuum” come into play. What we lose in skeletal support we can make up with “fluid tension.” Convulsive grip, tensed wrist, flexed forearm, tensed elbow, flexed upper arm, tensed shoulders, tension across the back, chest, and the lats, and an aggressive forward lean. The near entirety of the body gives you the structure that you will need to work that trigger as fast as you can, keep all of the shots inside of a fist size group, and allow for the gun to cycle correctly.

I have smallish hands, wrists, and forearms if I can make this work (and I do) with a .40 almost anyone should be able to make it work with a 9mm.

There is a wrist in self defense shooting. Break away from thinking that there is only one locked wrist position…..that is entry level stuff. Learn the reality of the dynamics of a fight and accept the fact that you may very well need to rely on the suboptimal to win. Learn to index that gun right where you want the bullets to go…..no matter what the situation is. Learn to “get behind the gun” to insure that you have the tools that you need and are both efficient and effective inside of the correct context of the fight.

Situations dictate……….....:yup:
 
See less See more
#5 · (Edited)
If I prefer one grip angle over another I will enjoy my training sessions more, and thus be more effective because I will train more than if I dislike it.

if you like Glocks, that's fine. Not for me though. I don't care to "make do" when I can shoot what I prefer.
 
#6 ·
I have a hard time buying into the shooting theory put forth here... First, when I am changing the angle of my shot, whether it be lower, higher, left or right, it is my shoulder that move the weapon, not my elbows or wrists generally speaking.

Second, the "point shooting" that I do uses the lines my locked arms create, and that my muscle memory has adapted to to get hits on target in high stress shooting situations. moving at the wrist would require an entirely new set of eye/gun muscle memory links that just aren't worth developing based on their questionable utility.

Third there is only one variable in the angle between where your shoulders, eyes and hands - that is your hands. Your eyes and shoulder (fulcrum for your arms) are always going to be at a similar distance, this creates a databank of muscle memory for positioning your outstretched hand between you and a target down range - moving the way your weapon points at that target seems to be counter intuitive in this case.

My experience switching between my XDm, SIG p229, 1911's and S&W MP40 is that I can point shoot each fairly accurately and quickly without transition practice - but switching to a Glock I have to really pay attention to where the gun is pointing for the first 2 or 3 drills.

Thats all I really have to say about that.
 
#7 ·
moving at the wrist would require an entirely new set of eye/gun muscle memory links that just aren't worth developing based on their questionable utility.
The Fallacy of the “Retention Position”

The retention position is another “Sacred Cow” that simply does not stand up under critical thinking or inside “force on force” (FOF) training. The idea that you have only one position that will take care of the full spectrum of retention problems, that you may come across, is simply ridiculous. If you adopt and train in only one retention position, then you are forcing a suboptimal “niche” technique into a concept driven, continuum based skill set. This “force fitting” of techniques to replace fluid concepts is the undoing of the “technique driven” training of the recent past.

As in almost anything that we do in regards to self defense, there is a continuum in regards to retention. This continuum is once again based on the distance of the threat and the dynamics of the encounter. The distance aspect of this equation speaks for itself. The main goal is to protect your gun, gun hand, and gun arm by “extending out” only as far as is needed, dictated by the difficulty of the shot. This concept is very cut and dry….at least until we add in the variables of the dynamics of the encounter. It is the “dynamics” that much of the training of the recent past has completely ignored. The context of the fight dictates the amount of extension of the gun that is allowable and necessary. The weapon and the forward drive of adversary are additional factors that must be considered. Your movement response to these factors also must be taken into consideration.

As we recognize, once again, that this is not a “one size fits all” world and that the situation is the dictating factor it is plain to see that having only one retention position ties our hands is so many ways. Retention is a concept…..not a position. It is a fluid skill set….not a locked in positional technique. The retention positions that I have been taught in the past were geared towards very limited situations. On the most part they were stand and deliver techniques that were only good at “hands on” bad breath distances. Now this may be good for “one foot” but what about one yard, two yards, three yards, four yards, against a knife, against an impact weapon, with dynamic movement, and after you have gone “hands on” and created some distance?

From my experience with FOF, I feel that we all need to start considering retention at about the four yard mark. The reason for this is simple. Remember the retention main goal;

“The main goal is to protect your gun, gun hand, and gun arm by “extending out” only as far as is needed, dictated by the difficulty of the shot.”

Four yards with two men extended towards each other is really only a two yard gap. A two yard gap can be close by a stationary adversary in around .5 of a second. Contact at .5 of a second….and that is without a weapon that extends the adversaries reach. Factor in an adversaries forward drive and the time is considerably less. To come out to full extension on an adversary within four yards is just daring for a gun grab attempt or an attack on the gun hand and arm. By compressing the gun inward you accomplish two very distinct things, you take the gun further out of reach and you let the adversary know that you are not an idiot. Projecting the gun is a fool’s mistake. By compressing the gun you are limiting the adversary’s choices and possibly taking away his best choice.

If we accept that compressing the gun is a good tactic at four yards, well then it is obvious that compressing it even more so, is a good tactic, as the distance decreases. If all of this sounds familiar, it is because this concept has been around since the 1930’s. Fairbairn and Sykes understood the need for a fluid retention concept. Quarter hip, half hip, and three quarter hip were designed, in part, with the main goal in mind. One thing that we need to keep in mind is that these “hip” positions are just points that you can flow to and through. They are not “set” positions….. they are fluid points that had to be given names so that they could be discussed. Work the concept not the technique!

This concept of retention is so far superior to a retention position. It takes in the reality of a violent encounter…..which is all based on distance. The fluid use of kicks, punches, strikes, the use of a knife, a sword, etc, etc are all based on distance. To have only two shooting positions make as much sense as having only two ways to strike.

As we look to the dynamic movement skill set, it is very important to consider retention as we work the oblique angles or parallel tracking. At certain distances, with certain movement we actually close the distance. This fact must be kept in mind. Do not project the gun and open yourself to an attack on the gun, the gun hand, or the gun arm.

If we look at retention from an open minded point of view, it becomes very apparent that any retention training that does not incorporate quality, fluid, combat proven point shooting skill sets is simply training to be ineffectual.
 
#9 ·
The retention position is another “Sacred Cow” that simply does not stand up under critical thinking or inside “force on force” (FOF) training. The idea that you have only one position that will take care of the full spectrum of retention problems, that you may come across, is simply ridiculous. If you adopt and train in only one retention position, then you are forcing a suboptimal “niche” technique into a concept driven, continuum based skill set. This “force fitting” of techniques to replace fluid concepts is the undoing of the “technique driven” training of the recent past.
So once we get past all the fancy words there again seems to be little true utility. As I under stand it the proposition is that in between the full draw/guard position and the weapons retention shooting position there needs to be a whole series of fluid shooting "mini positions" based on being able to manipulate the gun with the wrists - based on the threat being able to close distance rapidly. My answer to that is that if they are armed and within 20 feet (much further than the 4 feet put forth earlier) they are getting shot until they stop, if they are unarmed and closing in either A) i feel that they are NOT a threat to my life and that other means can be employed or B) they ARE a threat to my life and they get shot.

I feel I can shoot well enough from the maligned "retention position" to get some one who is close enough to grab my weapon, otherwise why sacrifice accuracy and control to do some fancy "Benicio Del Toro" shooting?
 
#8 ·
if you like Glocks, that's fine. Not for me though. I don't care to "make do" when I can shoot what I prefer.
This is not about which gun you shoot. It is about the bizzare misconception that you can only shoot one grip angle.
 
#11 ·
This is also a misconception. I can shoot many different grip angles with practice, but i prefer to be proficient with one certain style and buy guns accordingly. Anybody can get it down after practicing and making adjustments. Grip angle DOES have a lot to do with things.
 
#10 ·
So I went to the website and watched the video. I see what you mean, and have had roughly the right idea about what you were refering too. My opinion is that you may have taken (I am assuming that it is you in the video?) the "fluid" idea a step to far. I agree with the idea of being able to shoot from different angles, running away/towards etc. However I noticed several times in the video where the shooter was firing with one hand when two would have been just as easy, and would have given far better control of the gun, both from a retention and recoil manangement standpoint. I like the obvious "stitching" firing technique, and the movement - and I find this to be generally in line with the shooting we are teaching at our academy.
 
#15 ·
I agree with the fluidity (is that a word?) of movement when it comes to self-defense (i took Hapkido for awhile), but rigid Kata's are also important for reflexive movements without having to think much of what you're doing. The same holds true to guns, the more you practice with a certain movement the more it becomes instincual especially in a SHTF situation. Shooting handguns is not a fluid movement, however diversion and bodily movements should be.
 
#16 ·
but I also believe the is little reason not to find a natural fit either.
Natural fit is a great place to start. But you do not have to be stuck with one angle. It is very easy to learn a different angle. The XD in the OP took me about a millisecond to learn.
 
#18 ·
Shooting handguns is not a fluid movement, however diversion and bodily movements should be.
Shooting a handgun is nothing more than body mechanics. Fluidity in body mechanics is simple, even with a gun in your hand.
 
#26 ·
sgb + 1
"My students and I are a capable of making the hits at any distance, from any position, from any angle, through our completely versatile drawstroke, one handed and two, with whatever movement is necessary."

I find this a little hard to believe, so you are telling me that every single one of your rounds hits the target while running away one handed? at 15 yards? 25 yards?

I would imagine that if there was a school putting out this kind of product that EVERY SWAT team, police instructor and Military trainer would be required to attend - but it isn't so.

I have already stated my case, and what you call "fluid blah blah blah" I was refering to as mini postions - I under stand what you are peddling and I think I see it as what it is, free advertising for the newest, high speed zen shooting school.

Like i stated prior, almost every kind of shooting you are doing in the video I have also done, its called getting off the "X". I strongly agree with that idea. What I disagree with you on here is this belief that flinging the gun around wily nilly is as accurate or will keep you safer than the traditional guard and retention shooting positions.

I also take exception to you stating saying in your round about way that no one here is a decent defensive shooter until they have been to your school. Come to the range with me some time and we can see how that little theory holds up. Maybe you will learn a thing or two.

Semper Fi.
 
#27 ·
Col Applegate himself----(http://www.amazon.com/Kill-Get-Kill...?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1262091411&sr=1-1)----no newbie when it came to point shooting--talked a lot about grip angle and how a certain angle enhanced a handguns ability to point.
Two of the Col's favorite "angle guns" were the Luger and Whitney Wolverine.
Naturally very few people will choose such weapons so a method of teaching point shooting with guns of less than perfect grip angles had to be figured out.
Which is why Applegate taught from the low ready/vertical lift position--something which I, BTW, find unnecessary for good point shooting accuracy.
(But it will compensate for a poor grip angle for a student with limited experience/limited training time as was common during WW2.)
I have point shot many guns with many angles and have yet to find one which required a change in my grip to use for either aimed or point shooting.
Nor have I had to alter my shooting platform, which is pretty much one and two handed M.I. combined with driving the gun as opposed to a vertical lift.
A very simple concept which does not have to be made overly complicated or overly explained.
 
#30 ·
Sorry guys, at least i tried to be respectful and understanding. Anyways, lets keep things on point. I myself think a good ole' 1911 feels the most natural in my hands and brings up to the target real nice. One of these days i'll be able to afford one....
 
#31 ·
The Grip/Trigger Continuum

From my experience the grip/trigger continuum varies seamlessly from my long range precision grip, to my mid range standard marksmanship grip, to my "behind in the reactionary curve" combat shooting convulsive grip, to my "OH NO!" death grip.

Each section of the continuum has its perfect grip that gives you the very best accuracy, with the very best speed on the trigger (recoil control.) That is in line with the physiological response dictated by the urgency and distance of the encounter.

What is nice is that when I have time the body knows it and gives me a marksmanship grip. When I do not have time the body knows it and gives me a combat grip.......and it is a seamless continuum.

The very best way to look at the grip/trigger continuum is from the typical physiological effects of a life threatening encounter. Distance equals time....time equals urgency.....urgency equals the level of activation of the Sympathetic Nervous System (SNS) of the fight or flight response.

It is the SNS that will dictate how tightly you will grip the gun and how hard and fast you will work the trigger.

What is very cool is how well these varying physiological effects work with what is the very best solution to the problem. We are talking about a very natural, instinctive, and reflexive "sliding scale" approach here.

If the urgency is very high (due to distance and time,) the more we are physiologically likely to crush the gun and work the trigger hard and fast. This in perfectly in line with the combat proven "convulsive grip" and perfectly in line with the balance of speed and accuracy that is necessary for the specifics of the encounter.

As we gain distance and time incrementally, we lose urgency incrementally. We lose the physiological desire to crush the gun and work the trigger fast and hard incrementally. We begin to shift "the balance of speed and accuracy" more towards the accuracy portion of the equation incrementally. The grip lightens and the trigger is worked with more finesse incrementally.

This is a seamless "sliding scale" approach that allows us to be the very best that we can be from one inch to two hundred yards.

And it fits perfectly into what is natural, instinctive, and reflexive.

To me the grip is all about the speed on the trigger. When we connect the "distance" to the "urgency" it is clear that the closer you are the faster you are going to want to be on the trigger. The faster you are going to want to be on the trigger, the more recoil control you are going to need.

For a precision shot at distance all I want is that "one perfect shot." Now I may string a few of "the one perfect shot" together, but it is not about being fast and accurate. It is all about being accurate. Recoil control is low priority compared to trigger control. Relax, focus on the front sight, and prrrreeesss.

At mid range we are looking for that perfect balance of speed and accuracy. We are looking to get back on the sights as quickly as we can, as we recover from recoil. The grip tension is what gives us our quick “sighted shooting” follow through.

When behind in the reactionary curve and the activation of the Sympathetic Nervous System, the physiological response is to squeeze the gun tighter (convulsive grip) than we do on the range. This is perfect because we need excellent recoil control and the extremely quick point shooters follow through due to the higher urgency.

Way behind in the reactionary curve with extreme activation of the Sympathetic Nervous System. Death grip on the gun....working the trigger as fast as you can.....making the gun “sound like a machine gun.” The recoil control and the point shooters follow through comes out of the death grip.
 
#32 ·
Look, all due respect to your rocket science explanations about grip continuums and the such, but when we are talking about fractions of seconds to "act" on a threat, this kind of stuff just clouds the mind. I believe in finding a quality firearm that feels natural in the hand and while aquiring a target, and practice with that gun until it is almost like breathing. All of this others stuff is just fluff.
 
#33 ·
Yes, I agree, with all due respect. Let's see if we can turn this around to a constructive conversation.

I teach natural, instinctive, and reflexive material. Everything that I teach is to make you better at the subconscious level. Better understanding allows you to reach higher skill levels more quickly.

If I can not convince you to read what the students are saying about my courses, then this conversation is not going to improve. I will just be telling you the truth and you will think I'm making stuff up or exaggerating. As long as you have no idea who my regular students are and what they are saying about my courses, then you really have no idea what I'm talking about.

Everything that I teach comes out of combat proven skill sets that have been around for many decades and have been proven against live thinking resisting adversary's in combat or Force on force.

Keep it Simple Stupid

We have all heard this over and over again, but what does it actually mean? Many believe that it means “keep it simple or you are stupid.” The true meaning is “keep it as simple as it needs to be, but no simpler.”

In the world of the gun its true meaning has been contorted by those that teach a certain system or methodology. These instructors taught a “one size fits all” methodology that is geared to a “lowest common denominator” mindset, inside of a “square range” mentality. They taught one stance, one grip, one means of sighting the gun, one draw stroke, and one form of retention shooting.

Back in 2000, instructors were beginning to step outside of this tight little box. There began an age of enlightenment. Terms such as “integration” “continuum” “matrix” and “progression” would send all of the old guard guru worshipers into a frenzied state, throwing KISS rule haymakers at every new concept that they did not understand. It is this lack of understanding that is the crux of the problem…..not the fluid concepts.

This new breed of instructors were taking what they knew and testing it in force on force (FOF.) To many of these instructors, the limitations of their past training became very apparent. It became very obvious that the past training had kept things much too simple. It was so simple, that it did not work against a thinking, breathing, resisting, and aggressive adversary. Remember, “keep it as simple as it needs to be, but no simpler.” If the past KISS training failed miserably inside of properly structured FOF, it is very apparent that this contorted KISS ideology was the main factor in this failure.

“The More You Sweat in Training, the Less You Bleed in Combat”

Simply said, “Put in the work!”

So, what is the work that we need to put in? Go out and learn the fundamentals. As soon as you have safety down, the draw stroke down, and you can keep the gun running and hitting……you need to take these basics into professionally structured FOF. Here is where you find out that the fundamentals are nowhere near good enough. Here is where you find out that you need to sweat a hell of a lot more, so that you do not bleed so much. Here is where you find out that you need to be more “well rounded” and versatile. Here is where you find out that you need to be able to work at the subconscious level…..because that conscious level KISS training fell flat on it face.

The epiphany is complete. You now understand that keeping it simple in training does not equate to doing well in a confrontation. “Gun fighting is a thinking mans game.” The only way for you to keep it simple inside of a confrontation is by putting in the work while training. You need to work with solid natural/instinctive concepts…..ones that can be accessed by the caveman brain at the subconscious level. This breaks us away from that “one size fits all” technique based training and leads us into much more natural and fluid concepts. These fluid concepts begin to cover a much larger portion of the fight continuum. Even though they cover much more ground that are actually simpler to access and perform while under pressure. They are simpler due to the fact that they are more natural and instinctive. You have also put in the work in training, so that you have an understanding and comfort level that leads to a “just do it” state of mind.

It is this “just do it” state of mind that is the true meaning of KISS!

The recently contorted KISS concept is for the lowest common denominator. This is for those that do not learn, do not train, and do not practice. Every top athlete that I have ever seen has a vast number of skills, techniques, and tactics ingrained at a subconscious level. They can access these ingrained responses easily....at top speed, with zero conscious thought. They can also transition from one, to another, to another seamlessly. This is what all students of the art, that are serious about their training, should be striving for…..fluidity!

“Be like water” Bruce Lee
 
#34 ·
I can say from my personal experience in the military that a lot of what Sweatn is saying is true. You have to be able to smoothly transition from marksmanship to combat tactics and from one position to another to be truly proficient. And a lot of SWAT, LE, and military folks ARE seeking out Suarez training for this reason. I know the Marine Corps has really upgraded our training during the past 8 years with an emphasis on transitioning between shooting positions, shooting on the move and integrating the fundamentals of long-range marksmanship with CQB and middle-distance shooting such as in an urban environment.

I can't tell you how many times in my MOUT training (Military Operations on Urban Terrain) we were told, "Urban warfare is three-dimensional!" It's become a mantra amongst us. We also talk about the three-block war: i.e. civilians on one block (humanitarian), patrolling on another (peace-keeping), and a firefight on another (direct combat). Our goal is Absolute Operational Agility. The three-block war concept can often become tactically condensed when operating in confined spaces, such as a single house or building complex. The three elements are still there, but in a much smaller place. Adaptability, judgment and corresponding physical responses become even more critical.

This applies to the individual concerned with self-defense as well as to the modern warrior, as a self-defense scenario involving deadly force is a microcosm of combat.

We train constantly on transitioning from fine-motor skills to gross-motor skills techniques, based on the amount of time we have to address the threat. Like the Force Continuum which is fluid, this is a technical continuum. This is evident more than anywhere in our Combat Marksmanship Table of shooting. Some shots in the same volley will be taken using the sights and a slow-steady squeeze from a familiar and stable position, while others will be taken using point-shooting, rapid-fire from a less-than-ideal position- all in a matter of seconds. Your grip and hold on the rifle changes significantly but through successful training evolutions, you're putting rounds in the black. Add in all of our modern body armor and high-speed gear and the adaptability of the shooter becomes profoundly important.

With a little bit of learning to stretch our mind outside of the rote range methods and target drills, we become more complete warriors, able to protect our own life and the lives of those around us. The biggest struggle we face in training our young Marines in Combat Marksmanship is to "get out of the box"- they're still thinking like they're on the KD range.

It may sound like some hoodoo-voodoo mystical zen to some, but the fact is it is a big-picture integrated system that produces more proficient, efficient, confident and competent warriors. The Marines are doing this. I'm glad to see that Suarez and Co are offering it to folks who don't wear the uniform, but who nevertheless bear the responsibilities of protecting themselves and those with whom they live, laugh and love.

Semper Fi
 
#39 ·
I am one who has been to one of Sweatnbullets Point shooting classes. With in just a few hours he had the class doing thing that I for one thought I could never do before going.

Do and see what you have to to make the shot: speed of need to act, movement and distants all plays a part. While doing dynamic movement one handed shooting you will find has less movement of the gun than 2 handed. Therefore better control over shot placement. Out to 7-10 yrds there is no need for sight picture to make combat hit on targets. the need for indexing may increase but no need for perfect sight picture. As you increase distance the need for a more perfect sight picture increase and the speed on the trigger will need to slow down to make the hits.

It is not BULL **** nor is it BLOWING SMOKE when the man can do what he says he can do. So if what you are reading from Roger make sense or sounds like something you would like to be able to do take note it can be done and he can show you how.

Hope this make sense as I am in a hurry and I usally think faster than I can type.

Just my experience Suarez and Roger's training
 
#40 ·
Matthew-
We don't really refer to it as "point shooting", though essentially that's what it is. Very few Marines have just a pistol as their primary weapon in combat theater. Most officers and SNCOs will also opt to carry at least an M-4.

With regards to the rifle, it is simply close-quarters point and shoot techniques, looking over the top of the rifle, with both eyes open and roughly lining up the barrel and front sight assembly on your target. At 25 yards, you should be putting rounds on target. It essentially comes down to muscle memory and familiarity with the weapon.

It's mostly based off of the experience of our operating forces in the current conflicts bringing home lessons learned and incorporating them formally into our training procedures. It's less "technical" than it is practical. They're saying, "This is what we learned in such-and-such an engagement. Here's what worked, here's what didn't. Here's how we can pass the knowledge on to the next bunch of kids that have to go over and do what we did, and maybe save some lives."

Our CMIs (Combaty Marksmanship Instructors) don't tend to look at it inside of a "warrior ethos" philosophy, but rather as a matter of "stop thinking like a recruit, start being a professional. Do this and you'll be a better killer."

MAIs (Martial Arts Instructors) tend to get a bit more into the development of the whole warrior concept. Our motto is "One mind, any weapon". We focus on hoplology, warrior studies, warrior culture studies, and developing not just hand-to-hand techniques, but building on Mental, Moral and Physical strength. A triangle is the strongest linear shape. If you take away any of those three attributes, it collapses in on itself. Anyone can learn techniques, anyone can learn philosophy/hoplology/military history, anyone can follow certain rules or right/wrong. But it takes a full-time 24/7 commitment to develop a fully integrated professional warrior exhibits moral courage and mental discipline as well as technical and tactical proficiency.

Semper Fi
 
#45 ·
Thanks.
What you are describing is reflexive fire/front sight index fire/point shoulder fire, which has been around for decades.
In fact 7677 was teaching this in his army days nearly two decades ago.
No doubt troops under fire today are very adapt at figuring these things out for themselves.
Good job.
 
#42 · (Edited)
The premise of this whole thread... could be summed up with the following: if the person develops the proper eye/hand coordination then the angle of the grip on any particular handgun does not play as big of a role as certain people claim it does. Eye/hand coordination is what makes this possible!

Back in 2000, instructors were beginning to step outside of this tight little box. There began an age of enlightenment. Terms such as “integration” “continuum” “matrix” and “progression” would send all of the old guard guru worshipers into a frenzied state, throwing KISS rule haymakers at every new concept that they did not understand. It is this lack of understanding that is the crux of the problem…..not the fluid concepts.

This new breed of instructors were taking what they knew and testing it in force on force (FOF.) To many of these instructors, the limitations of their past training became very apparent. It became very obvious that the past training had kept things much too simple. It was so simple, that it did not work against a thinking, breathing, resisting, and aggressive adversary. Remember, “keep it as simple as it needs to be, but no simpler.” If the past KISS training failed miserably inside of properly structured FOF, it is very apparent that this contorted KISS ideology was the main factor in this failure.
Roger is correct about this but 99% of the posts he has made in this thread is material he has learned from this new breed of instructors not concepts he discovered on his own. With that said, my comments are not to take away from his teaching ability nor cast any shadows on the core concepts but to point out that most of this material is not new and Soldiers and Marines have been using this stuff for generations regardless of the new and improved name or brand.

Being one of these so called new breed of instructors, I used FOF as a tool to show the so called "old guard guru worshipers" the flaws in certain techniques they advocated. As a matter of fact, one of these gentlemen was Suarez himself. It is pretty amazing to see his progression since then and to respond to a phrase he once told Matt Temkin and I...I guess the proof was really in the pudding wasn't it?

I honestly believe the so called "old guard guru worshipers'" downfall with their brand of gun fighting was they based too much of their material around the gun itself and not enough around the fight!
 
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