Combat Focus Training - Page 3

Matthew Temkin · March 23rd, 2008, 10:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blackhawk6

I do not know Rob Pincus. I have nothing against the man. I do not own any of his books or videos. My passing familiarity with the man is through a few of his magazine articles which I never found to be particularly insightful and, in one case, I found to be dead wrong.

Were I inclined to advocate his system of shooting, I think my time would be better spent discussing the merits of the system and how it differs from what is currently available rather than attempting to tell people what they will or won't be able to do.

I agree with the notion that in general, good hits now are better than perfect hits later. Of course, there are circumstances that require perfect, or near-perfect hits.

Given that I routinely achieve the "2 hits in 1 second that are 6 inches apart" standard while using my sights it would seem that sighted-fire is combat effective shooting. At least according to Mr. Pincus' definition...

I am assuming that when the reference is made to "the Modern Technique" we are talking about sighted fire. FWIW, the sighted fire I practice differs greatly from LTC Cooper's Modern Technique.

After tours in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere and having had the opportunity to serve a few high-risk warrants here in the U.S., I can tell you from experience that when I used my sights I got hits, when I did not use my sights I missed. My friends/collegues, whose experiences are similar to mine, report similar results.

A small sampling for sure, but an important one from my perspective.

Your assertion is nonsense. Do you swim? That would be a pre-programmed response that overcomes your primal instinct. (I would note that when a trained swimmer drowns, we do not consider the incident to be an indictment of the crawl stroke. Pity the shooting community can not adopt a similar attitude.)

As it relates to shooting, numerous people have successfully trained themselves to use their sights and have done so successfully in combat. Unfortunately, there are also those who were unsuccessful.

I have been on the business end of an AK at 10 yds (less actually). No change of underwear was required, my weapon never went to slidelock, the AK looked like an AK and I saw my sights.

Care to tell me about that "primal instinct vs. training-thing" again?

Your points are well taken and your experience is excellent but--have you ever had any formal training in threat focused shooting?

7677 · March 23rd, 2008, 10:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HadjiKlr74

I am not trying to say "It is something New"--I am simply stating it is something that works. The marketing hype you mention is used by anyone trying to make a living in the training arena, all trainers do it--you cannot fault a man for doing that--he wants to eat too.

I am sick of people arguing about sighted vs. unsighted and what is better, etc. Armchair warriors like to argue about such things. They can try to enamour people with their book knowledge, when the closest they came to combat was the airsoft match last week.

Come back to me after being on the business end of an AK at 10 yds and tell me what works--I guarantee you after you change your underwear and your gun is at slidelock, (because you thought you fired 3 rds and you really emptied your mag in 2 seconds) you will say that AK looked like a 105 howitzer and that is all you saw until it was over because primal instinct to survive over-rode your training to concentrate on the front sight. True Story.

Come on fellas--let's get real about training, otherwise we are ******* in the wind.

I do not get the arguing myself because both are necessary components of combat shooting.

As far as combat experience and AK-47s, the one I faced at that distance was dead before I got my sights to eye level.

With that said, I agree with Matt and Brownie that there is nothing "new" in the combat focus training he offers. Then again according to Pincus there are 12864 just like me so what do I know?

Blackhawk6 · March 23rd, 2008, 10:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matthew Temkin

Your points are well taken and your experience is excellent but--have you ever had any formal training in threat focused shooting?

Unfortunately, I have not. I would like to at some point, but it does not appear that my schedule will allow that to happen anytime in the immediate future.

Matthew Temkin · March 23rd, 2008, 10:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blackhawk6

Unfortunately, I have not. I would like to at some point, but it does not appear that my schedule will allow that to happen anytime in the immediate future.

OK..and you would always be welcome in classes with myself and my partner in "crime" 7677.
I must point out that if one has no training in point shooting and misses then that is not an indictment of point shooting.
In other words, a "sights only" shooter who fails to use his sights and misses is NOT point shooting--he is just plain missing.
There is no question that sighted fire works in combat.
But there are times when point shooting has it's place--especially when up close and in dim light.
It is IMHO--and a few others--that one should own both skills to be prepared for anything.

Blackhawk6 · March 23rd, 2008, 11:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matthew Temkin

OK..and you would always be welcome in classes with myself and my partner in "crime" 7677.

Thank you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matthew Temkin

I must point out that if one has no training in point shooting and misses then that is not an indictment of point shooting.
In other words, a "sights only" shooter who fails to use his sights and misses is NOT point shooting--he is just plain missing.

I agree. However, if one must be trained to point-shoot in order to be effective, that would bring us back to HadjiKlr74's assertion that one can not be trained to overcome primal instincts. After all a "sights only" shooter who fails to use his sights is relying on his primal instincts to orient his weapon, no?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matthew Temkin

There is no question that sighted fire works in combat.

Which was my only point. There were assertions made that directly contradicted my personal experience and that of several close friends.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matthew Temkin

But there are times when point shooting has it's place--especially when up close and in dim light.

I do not disagree. In fact, I do not use my sights at contact distance.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matthew Temkin

It is IMHO--and a few others--that one should own both skills to be prepared for anything.

Having debated this topic more than once I now view it in the same light as a "Which is better, Karate or Jujitsu?" debate. Undoubtedly, both approaches can be effective, but ultimately the effectiveness is going to be dictated to a much larger degree by the individual using the system rather than the system itself. A system that blends the two may be even more effective. But, again, ultimately the individual applying the system is going to influence the outcome to a much larger degree than the system itself.

Matthew Temkin · March 24th, 2008, 07:33 AM

I can't disagree with any of your points.
I will say that once you have some training in threat focused shooting you may be amazed at how much pinpoint accuracy can be obtained with blinding speed.
And the time required to learn this is minimal--anywhere from a few minutes a to a few hours.

Rob Pincus · March 30th, 2008, 08:48 AM

Hey guys...

Sorry, I've been out of the US for the last 4 weeks and internet time has been low.... I apologize for the delay, but I'm glad to see the this thread didn't turn completely into a cheerleading or badmouthing session.

I appreciate the continued professionalism of most of the posters....

The concern about whether or not CFS "re-invents" anything always seems completely beside the point to me. One of the marks of a good instructor is finding ways to articulate concepts that help his students learn. It seems that those who would say CFS is nothing new should then celebrate when someone who had been perceived as opposing its ideas are convinced by the new explanation!
Of course, at end of the day, it is not about what I say or someone else says, it is about what the students can do with the information. It is certainly not about my personality of personal experience, but the quality of the information and the training methodology that should be considered when someone looks at CFS.
As 7677 continues to bemoan, there are thousands of people who can claim LE, combat, security and other types of experience.... it doesn't make someone special. There is value in concepts that help people become safer. We should all stop worrying so much about the source.

Staring at an AK47 makes someone no more or less capable of articulating defensive concepts. Those of us with LE & investigative experience know that first hand testimony is one of the weakest and least accurate forms of evidence.
I am in favor or examining objective evidence, including the observations of others (many of the gurus of practical defensive shooting training are referenced, acknowledged and/or quoted in my book, for example.), but more importantly focusing on the wealth of information available from sources such as dash-cam videos and observation of students & other shooters under stress. It seems to me that when this path is taken, people looking at the same data (average people, average critical incidents, etc) and trying to solve the same problem will come to very similar conclusions.... only a very insecure person would feel the need to deny or criticize that reality.

When people are on that path in an objective way, I strongly suggest taking their training (as I suggested on another forum in regard to training with Matt & 7677 as being a good idea....). It is when people are teaching skills in isolation (ie- how to be the best shooter on a square range) that I start to question the value for people with limited time & budget (ie- everyone) looking for efficient defensive handgunning techniques.

CFS seeks simply to help people become more efficient shooters under critical incident stress. It is not simply sighted or unsighted shooting and wish we as a community could get beyond that antiquated and sophomoric argument. Take a listen to the podcast I posted months ago about the "Balance of Speed & Precision" concept (itunes or Switchpod) to understand the CFS position on the topic. Through realistic training a student should be able to start to understand under what circumstances they will need their sights or not and be able to shoot as efficiently as possible.

What I do think is "new" in CFS is the articulation of concepts, outlines of training methodologies and overall perspective emphasizing efficiency as opposed to only effectiveness. At least, those who have taken the courses overwhelmingly identify these as the most important "new" things...
For the deepest level of exposure to these concepts, consider attending the CFS Instructor Development Course.

Thanks again for the discussion!

-RJP

PS- Matt, I'm setting the dates for my time in NYC within the next week. I hope to see you in April.

Matthew Temkin · March 30th, 2008, 09:18 AM

Rob--Yes..let's do April.
I have a semi private range where we can use both Airsoft and live fire.
As well working on some H2H skills and how they blend with the shooting portion.
My amusement is not with you (we see eye to eye on many issues) but with the anti point shooters who still bash the old methods while embracing Combat Focus.
A prime example of this is Kevin Davis of the Akron, Ohio PD.
It is IMHO that they have been looking for a way to change their position and now have a face saving way to do so.
In any case I am delighted that others can now adopt point/target/combat/threat focused shooting and help bring it into the mainstream.
Where we will have to agree to disagree is importance of combat experience, since I believe that such experience is vital when evaluating what works and what does not.
Trying to do this on the square range, competition venue or even with FOF is asking for trouble.
While personal combat experience is not required to be a good instructor (for example I am a much better teacher than my dad, who was a WW2 Ranger for 2 years) I feel it is mandatory to teach either from one's own experience or from that of others.

Rob Pincus · March 30th, 2008, 02:09 PM

Matt,

In that case we don't disagree at all then in terms of instructor validity. Whether one is a court security guy in NYC, a rural cop from Nebraska or a Ranger at the the wrong place - wrong time with "combat experience" doesn't matter... it is the evaluation of the actual experiences that matters. I happen to stand pretty firm on the fact that "it happened to me" stories (or their retarded cousin "it happened to my friend/uncle/this guy on the internet") aren't nearly as insightful as actually watching a video of a real incident or reactions under high-level simulation.

One of the problems that the "it happened to me" crowd must face is that plenty of things "work" that we would not want to train, nor would anyone advocate them as the best solution. Just because someone once "survived" by swinging a gun wildly in the general direction of the bad guy while pulling the trigger doesn't mean we'd want to suddenly adopt the "eyes closed trigger yank" technique.... of course, people have survived using it, so simply worshipping at the alter of Elephant See'ers isn't enough for me......
Teaching from one's own experience when it is clouded by fear, tachy-psychia, ego, patriotism, administrative oversight and civil court can also be a recipe for trouble.

See you in April, most likely around the 21st....

-RJP

Matthew Temkin · March 30th, 2008, 03:12 PM

April 21 is good, but it will have to be in the early evening or so.
It so happens that I have to requal that day in Long Island.
If you could make it a few days earlier I'll have a guest over from London who is on an armed SWAT team with London Metro.
I am a firm believer in watching camcorder videos of actual combat.
Actually it amazes me as to just how right so many of the old school instructors had it way back when.

March 30th, 2008, 08:48 AM	#27
Rob Pincus Member Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: CO Posts: 57	Hey guys... Sorry, I've been out of the US for the last 4 weeks and internet time has been low.... I apologize for the delay, but I'm glad to see the this thread didn't turn completely into a cheerleading or badmouthing session. I appreciate the continued professionalism of most of the posters.... The concern about whether or not CFS "re-invents" anything always seems completely beside the point to me. One of the marks of a good instructor is finding ways to articulate concepts that help his students learn. It seems that those who would say CFS is nothing new should then celebrate when someone who had been perceived as opposing its ideas are convinced by the new explanation! Of course, at end of the day, it is not about what I say or someone else says, it is about what the students can do with the information. It is certainly not about my personality of personal experience, but the quality of the information and the training methodology that should be considered when someone looks at CFS. As 7677 continues to bemoan, there are thousands of people who can claim LE, combat, security and other types of experience.... it doesn't make someone special. There is value in concepts that help people become safer. We should all stop worrying so much about the source. Staring at an AK47 makes someone no more or less capable of articulating defensive concepts. Those of us with LE & investigative experience know that first hand testimony is one of the weakest and least accurate forms of evidence. I am in favor or examining objective evidence, including the observations of others (many of the gurus of practical defensive shooting training are referenced, acknowledged and/or quoted in my book, for example.), but more importantly focusing on the wealth of information available from sources such as dash-cam videos and observation of students & other shooters under stress. It seems to me that when this path is taken, people looking at the same data (average people, average critical incidents, etc) and trying to solve the same problem will come to very similar conclusions.... only a very insecure person would feel the need to deny or criticize that reality. When people are on that path in an objective way, I strongly suggest taking their training (as I suggested on another forum in regard to training with Matt & 7677 as being a good idea....). It is when people are teaching skills in isolation (ie- how to be the best shooter on a square range) that I start to question the value for people with limited time & budget (ie- everyone) looking for efficient defensive handgunning techniques. CFS seeks simply to help people become more efficient shooters under critical incident stress. It is not simply sighted or unsighted shooting and wish we as a community could get beyond that antiquated and sophomoric argument. Take a listen to the podcast I posted months ago about the "Balance of Speed & Precision" concept (itunes or Switchpod) to understand the CFS position on the topic. Through realistic training a student should be able to start to understand under what circumstances they will need their sights or not and be able to shoot as efficiently as possible. What I do think is "new" in CFS is the articulation of concepts, outlines of training methodologies and overall perspective emphasizing efficiency as opposed to only effectiveness. At least, those who have taken the courses overwhelmingly identify these as the most important "new" things... For the deepest level of exposure to these concepts, consider attending the CFS Instructor Development Course. Thanks again for the discussion! -RJP PS- Matt, I'm setting the dates for my time in NYC within the next week. I hope to see you in April. __________________ Combat Focus Shooting Book & DVD Combat Focus Podcast! I.C.E. Training Company.

March 30th, 2008, 02:09 PM	#29
Rob Pincus Member Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: CO Posts: 57	Matt, In that case we don't disagree at all then in terms of instructor validity. Whether one is a court security guy in NYC, a rural cop from Nebraska or a Ranger at the the wrong place - wrong time with "combat experience" doesn't matter... it is the evaluation of the actual experiences that matters. I happen to stand pretty firm on the fact that "it happened to me" stories (or their retarded cousin "it happened to my friend/uncle/this guy on the internet") aren't nearly as insightful as actually watching a video of a real incident or reactions under high-level simulation. One of the problems that the "it happened to me" crowd must face is that plenty of things "work" that we would not want to train, nor would anyone advocate them as the best solution. Just because someone once "survived" by swinging a gun wildly in the general direction of the bad guy while pulling the trigger doesn't mean we'd want to suddenly adopt the "eyes closed trigger yank" technique.... of course, people have survived using it, so simply worshipping at the alter of Elephant See'ers isn't enough for me...... Teaching from one's own experience when it is clouded by fear, tachy-psychia, ego, patriotism, administrative oversight and civil court can also be a recipe for trouble. See you in April, most likely around the 21st.... -RJP __________________ Combat Focus Shooting Book & DVD Combat Focus Podcast! I.C.E. Training Company.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

March 24th, 2008, 07:33 AM	#26
Matthew Temkin Member Join Date: May 2006 Location: nyc Posts: 177	I can't disagree with any of your points. I will say that once you have some training in threat focused shooting you may be amazed at how much pinpoint accuracy can be obtained with blinding speed. And the time required to learn this is minimal--anywhere from a few minutes a to a few hours.

March 30th, 2008, 09:18 AM	#28
Matthew Temkin Member Join Date: May 2006 Location: nyc Posts: 177	Rob--Yes..let's do April. I have a semi private range where we can use both Airsoft and live fire. As well working on some H2H skills and how they blend with the shooting portion. My amusement is not with you (we see eye to eye on many issues) but with the anti point shooters who still bash the old methods while embracing Combat Focus. A prime example of this is Kevin Davis of the Akron, Ohio PD. It is IMHO that they have been looking for a way to change their position and now have a face saving way to do so. In any case I am delighted that others can now adopt point/target/combat/threat focused shooting and help bring it into the mainstream. Where we will have to agree to disagree is importance of combat experience, since I believe that such experience is vital when evaluating what works and what does not. Trying to do this on the square range, competition venue or even with FOF is asking for trouble. While personal combat experience is not required to be a good instructor (for example I am a much better teacher than my dad, who was a WW2 Ranger for 2 years) I feel it is mandatory to teach either from one's own experience or from that of others.

March 30th, 2008, 03:12 PM	#30
Matthew Temkin Member Join Date: May 2006 Location: nyc Posts: 177	April 21 is good, but it will have to be in the early evening or so. It so happens that I have to requal that day in Long Island. If you could make it a few days earlier I'll have a guest over from London who is on an armed SWAT team with London Metro. I am a firm believer in watching camcorder videos of actual combat. Actually it amazes me as to just how right so many of the old school instructors had it way back when.