Defensive Carry banner

41 - 60 of 73 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
33,735 Posts

I do not see a valid comparison.
Lemme see if I have this straight... You linked one of Brownie's point-shooting videos?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
671 Posts
Lemme see if I have this straight... You linked one of Brownie's point-shooting videos?
Why not? This thread's OODA loop was interrupted some time ago. :rolleyes:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,153 Posts
I agree, and I don't mean to sound as if I'm implying that anyone should take what he and he alone has learned, make that their training doctrine and go forth in the world. However, 12,000 incidents distilled into their common traits is valuable information in my opinion, that's all. As well, 12,000 incidents worth of data (plus what Tom Givens has found: https://americanhandgunner.com/when-citizens-fight-back/) might be good enough to get a rough idea, if we're sticking with the 80/20 principle, of what that 80% tends to look like. That's not to say you shouldn't train for the other 20% at all.
Anytime anyone starts using stats and numbers to push there points I stop listening. Avg is not good enough. No one has the formula as to what is needed, or necessary to win all types of fights one might get into. When they start thinking they do, thats when folks should step back and evaluate the message being presented....It is at best a starting point...
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
33,735 Posts
Anytime anyone starts using stats and numbers to push there points I stop listening. Avg is not good enough. That being said, some of the info does make sense...
Same here with the stats and numbers...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,091 Posts
Anytime anyone starts using stats and numbers to push there points I stop listening. Avg is not good enough. No one has the formula as to what is needed, or necessary to win all types of fights one might get into. When they start thinking they do, thats when folks should step back and evaluate the message being presented....It is at best a starting point...
Those beginning the journey into defensive skills and associated tools need to start somewhere, so developing the skills needed to respond to the most common attacks is a reasonable starting point.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
347 Posts
Same here with the stats and numbers...
Anytime anyone starts using stats and numbers to push there points I stop listening. Avg is not good enough. No one has the formula as to what is needed, or necessary to win all types of fights one might get into. When they start thinking they do, thats when folks should step back and evaluate the message being presented....It is at best a starting point...
I'd never contend that the numbers tell the whole story, especially if you're dealing in averages, as it obviously takes a range of data points to arrive at a median. However, if your training isn't based, or doesn't at least have as part of its foundation some actual objective data, then I'm inclined to ask, "What is your training based on?"

Which I don't mean to say as if I'm questioning your methods, just speaking generally, as people who value the right of self-defense, who (I imagine) train with some regularity - "What do you base your training on?"
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,153 Posts
Those beginning the journey into defensive skills and associated tools need to start somewhere, so developing the skills needed to respond to the most common attacks is a reasonable starting point.
I disagree with your statement. Please do not take this the wrong way, but playing the averages is something I will not use, nor will I teach...It leads to a false sense of security in people...
 
  • Like
Reactions: OD* and AzQkr

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,153 Posts
I'd never contend that the numbers tell the whole story, especially if you're dealing in averages, as it obviously takes a range of data points to arrive at a median. However, if your training isn't based, or doesn't at least have as part of its foundation some actual objective data, then I'm inclined to ask, "What is your training based on?"

Which I don't mean to say as if I'm questioning your methods, just speaking generally, as people who value the right of self-defense, who (I imagine) train with some regularity - "What do you base your training on?"
This may sound like a simple answer, but context based training. People have different needs for different contexts. Some train for the situations in the article, others for mass shooter, others for a terrorist event. All of which have happened, and will happen again...We should not limit ourselves...
 
  • Like
Reactions: OD* and AzQkr

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
33,735 Posts
I'd never contend that the numbers tell the whole story, especially if you're dealing in averages, as it obviously takes a range of data points to arrive at a median. However, if your training isn't based, or doesn't at least have as part of its foundation some actual objective data, then I'm inclined to ask, "What is your training based on?"

Which I don't mean to say as if I'm questioning your methods, just speaking generally, as people who value the right of self-defense, who (I imagine) train with some regularity.
I train, practice and carry with the assumption that most anything can happen just about any time. If I have to make a contact shot from ambush, a fifty-yard head shot or anything in between, I train to at least have a decent chance of prevailing. For me, at least there is no median or average. There is also no time for worthless drills, rituals or kata that will not serve me during the real deal. That's why I sometimes seem to take extreme exception at certain practices which are generally advocated and accepted without question. Am I ever going to do a stationary, four-count draw to extension on a target six feet away, and then do a stationary check 360 over both shoulders with my gun out in front of me during the real thing? No, lest the question seem rhetorical...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
347 Posts
This may sound like a simple answer, but context based training. ... We should not limit ourselves...
Totally agree with the context aspect. There's a lot of training and techniques I put further down the totem pole based on their applicability to my daily life. However, I do think more was taken from the article than was actually said in the article. The author, for example, doesn't say only train in the 20% of things he's identified as being the most common contributors to successful outcomes and stop there. I would even go so far as to say that those things highlighted in the article would serve you well in almost any given context.

Empty handed skills - no argument from me on that one
Getting the First Hit Usually Wins - makes sense
Follow Up Shots Are Often Necessary - surely

As far as the, "Trained skills that are never used" section of the article, I'll take his word based on what he's seen in the videos - it's certainly a debatable list of things. Furthermore, some of those things I'll continue to train, mostly because, "why not?"

I thought it was a decent article taken for what it is, one man's opinion (or more accurately, one man's recounting of another man's opinion) based on watching lots of tape - it's certainly food for thought, and might steer someone toward establishing a good baseline level of useable, and more importantly, on demand skills that would serve them well in just about any violent encounter.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
19,639 Posts
He mentions the 80/20. In which he states that only 20 percent of skills taught were used. For me, I am not planning on a typical fight. That is why I made the statement I made in my prior post. Not every fight will be the same, or typical. He would know this if he had been in a fight. IMO it leads the reader into a false sense of security. I am not saying this article doesnt help, but there is much more to it....
And there it is, in all it's glory. I hesitated to mention it, but there it is. The truth shall set you free
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
33,735 Posts
Totally agree with the context aspect. There's a lot of training and techniques I put further down the totem pole based on their applicability to my daily life. However, I do think more was taken from the article than was actually said in the article. The author, for example, doesn't say only train in the 20% of things he's identified as being the most common contributors to successful outcomes and stop there. I would even go so far as to say that those things highlighted in the article would serve you well in almost any given context.

Empty handed skills - no argument from me on that one
Getting the First Hit Usually Wins - makes sense
Follow Up Shots Are Often Necessary - surely

As far as the, "Trained skills that are never used" section of the article, I'll take his word based on what he's seen in the videos - it's certainly a debatable list of things. Furthermore, some of those things I'll continue to train, mostly because, "why not?"

I thought it was a decent article taken for what it is, one man's opinion (or more accurately, one man's recounting of another man's opinion) based on watching lots of tape - it's certainly food for thought, and might steer someone toward establishing a good baseline level of useable, and more importantly, on demand skills that would serve them well in just about any violent encounter.
I'm not arguing, simply giving you something to ponder perhaps a bit more deeply--

Rhetorical, perhaps, but out of all those 12,000 videos he watched, how many do you suppose featured a stationary, perfect isosceles/whatever stance with a four-count drawstroke to extension as taught by most of the major schools, on a target a few feet away? With that said, why was no mention of that number made in his statistical breakdown?
 
  • Like
Reactions: AzQkr

·
Registered
Joined
·
671 Posts
I'm not arguing, simply giving you something to ponder perhaps a bit more deeply--

Rhetorical, perhaps, but out of all those 12,000 videos he watched, how many do you suppose featured a stationary, perfect isosceles/whatever stance ...
Actually, the link provided in the second post in this thread contains Correia's own summary of his observations.

Regarding your question above, he states:

"6. You simply WILL NOT stand still while someone wants to kill you. Unless you’re counter-ambushing, when the gun comes out you will move. So training students to move with purpose while #3 and 4 are going on is also a critical skill. They’re going to do it, so teach them to use it."

Point #3 pertains to being the first to get shots on target, and #4 pertains to rapid follow up shots.

Here's the link again, for those who would care to read Correia's commentary, beginning page 3.

http://rangemaster.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/2017-02_RFTS-Newsletter.pdf
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
33,735 Posts
Actually, the link provided in the second post in this thread contains Correia's own summary of his observations.

Regarding your question above, he states:

"6. You simply WILL NOT stand still while someone wants to kill you. Unless you’re counter-ambushing, when the gun comes out you will move. So training students to move with purpose while #3 and 4 are going on is also a critical skill. They’re going to do it, so teach them to use it."

Point #3 pertains to being the first to get shots on target, and #4 pertains to rapid follow up shots.

Here's the link again, for those who would care to read Correia's commentary, beginning page 3.

http://rangemaster.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/2017-02_RFTS-Newsletter.pdf
And yet, the school his observations were presented to says subscribes to the following, linked in their article:

"At KR Training, one of our ongoing efforts is to identify acceptable minimum standards for defensive handgun skills. Gunsite instructor Ed Head posted a drill he recommends as a good standard for any person carrying concealed, so John and I went to the range and shot the drill to give it a try.

The drill is simple:

3 yards, draw from concealment. Two rounds center mass, 2 seconds, strong hand only.
3 yards, draw from concealment. Two rounds center mass, 2 seconds, strong hand only.
3 yards, draw from concealment. Two rounds center mass, one round to the head, 3 seconds, two handed.
3 yards, draw from concealment. Two rounds center mass, one round to the head, 3 seconds, two handed.
5 yards, draw from concealment. Two rounds center mass on two separate targets. 4 seconds, two handed.
10 yards, low ready position. Two rounds center mass, one target. 4 seconds, two handed.
10 yards, low ready position, Two rounds center mass on two separate targets, 5 seconds, two handed."
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
19,639 Posts
And yet, the school his observations were presented to says subscribes to the following, linked in their article:

"At KR Training, one of our ongoing efforts is to identify acceptable minimum standards for defensive handgun skills. Gunsite instructor Ed Head posted a drill he recommends as a good standard for any person carrying concealed, so John and I went to the range and shot the drill to give it a try.

The drill is simple:

3 yards, draw from concealment. Two rounds center mass, 2 seconds, strong hand only.
3 yards, draw from concealment. Two rounds center mass, 2 seconds, strong hand only.
3 yards, draw from concealment. Two rounds center mass, one round to the head, 3 seconds, two handed.
3 yards, draw from concealment. Two rounds center mass, one round to the head, 3 seconds, two handed.
5 yards, draw from concealment. Two rounds center mass on two separate targets. 4 seconds, two handed.
10 yards, low ready position. Two rounds center mass, one target. 4 seconds, two handed.
10 yards, low ready position, Two rounds center mass on two separate targets, 5 seconds, two handed."
"acceptable minimum standards", = "a good standard"

Key words Mike. I'd guess there's many here who couldn't duplicate the above drills without struggling. Far too many have a 1.5-2.0+ draw stroke from concealed.

Still waiting for the description of what the OODA of this thread was. :wink:
 
41 - 60 of 73 Posts
Top