Defensive Carry banner

201 - 220 of 340 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
19,639 Posts
I have been exposed to threat focused shooting, which is why I have come to my own conclusion.

I wonder who the threat focused shooting instructor was? His background? :scratchchin:
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
33,724 Posts
Dont see you on here much. Are you one of the Florida point shooters crew? Must be a special occasion for you to pop in here.

You don’t need to come off so angry. I was just asking a question, to which I have received one answer that makes sense. Oh, and I have been exposed to threat focused shooting, which is why I have come to my own conclusion.

What does threat focused shooting enable you to do ( assuming your vision is good) that the MT does not allow for?
It allows me to make sub-one-second hits from concealment.

Edit: I'm one of the Florida point-shooting crew, and you see me here all the time.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
19,639 Posts
I have been exposed to threat focused shooting, which is why I have come to my own conclusion.

I wonder who the threat focused shooting instructor was? His background? :scratchchin:
I ask simply because there was a supposed threat focused instructor in Fla several years ago putting on courses. Come to find out I had two of this guys students in one of my courses subsequently. At first break after two skills, both wanted to talk to me off to the side. They said they learned more in the last two hours than all day with this other supposed TF instructor and I didn't teach it the same way he did. They felt they got cheated, told them to take it up with that trainer.

I was just made aware there's another supposed TF instructor in Fla holding court fairly regularly. I checked his creds, no formal training courses himself. In fact he was teaching fsp for years before hanging his TF card on his schedule. Little more research and asking around, he played with it with the first supposed TF instructor the two students had experience with.

When I got home I did some research on the gent they mentioned. Army SF combat vet during VN, NO background or formal training in TF himself, let alone from a known TF instructor. The name of the instructor who exposed you to TF and their own professional training in TF is the question I have, based on the above.

BOT, balancing sufficient speed and sufficient accuracy will be most important in any future DGU I may be involved in. Each scenario will see more importance placed on one or the other, but ya gotta have the speed when it's called for starting behind the curve. Which goes back to another threat I started here:

https://www.defensivecarry.com/forum/defensive-carry-tactical-training/453916-some-thoughts-speed-presentation-old-masters.html

I like this one from Cooper written in April 1961--"All good combat shots are fast". In Coopers book "Principles of Personal Defense" he stated on page 26 relative speed of draw-----"Be quick, speed is your salvation" [ the word speed is italisized in trhe book as I posted it here ].

Cooper believed speed was one's salvation in a DGU. Not everyone will agree with that, but this coming from someone considered an emeritus in SD with a pistol.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,728 Posts
Well that is good place to start and a real time saver...But we aren't robots...Of course if you are spot on from a rest and you miss
out hunting no matter how you have to take the shot... it's is your fault...Sitting and shooting off a rest is not close to how you are gonna take that shot out hunting.
in most cases...Don't we make the argument on here that the real world is not sitting on a range and standing in one spot punching holes in paper.

Sighting in has nothing to do with practice or training?...So you just sight in your hunting rigs with a half box of shells off a bench
and say i am good...You throw a few arrows in your yard from the ground in your gym shorts and sleeveless shirt and call it good?
Did I say that? No, I said sight in. My last great hunting rifle, a Remington 742, I had so many rounds thru it I wore the action out. No, I shoot my guns. Where I live the average shot on a whitetail is 300 yards, you better be able to shoot your rifle.

My AR's, I sight from a bipod and I shoot 3 gun with, is that bench shooting? Your logic falls flat in the face of reality.

So let me guess, you sight your rifles in off hand?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,611 Posts
Did I say that? No, I said sight in. My last great hunting rifle, a Remington 742, I had so many rounds thru it I wore the action out. No, I shoot my guns. Where I live the average shot on a whitetail is 300 yards, you better be able to shoot your rifle.

My AR's, I sight from a bipod and I shoot 3 gun with, is that bench shooting? Your logic falls flat in the face of reality.

So let me guess, you sight your rifles in off hand?
I am ambidextrous
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
75 Posts
Dont see you on here much. Are you one of the Florida point shooters crew? Must be a special occasion for you to pop in here.

You don’t need to come off so angry. I was just asking a question, to which I have received one answer that makes sense. Oh, and I have been exposed to threat focused shooting, which is why I have come to my own conclusion.

What does threat focused shooting enable you to do ( assuming your vision is good) that the MT does not allow for?
Sir, I’m not angry at all.

As far as the conclusions you’ve come to concerning threat focused shooting, what you’ve been “exposed to” must not be the same that we’ve been trained in.

Yes, I’m one of the Florida people. My family came here on a wagon train in 1831.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
33,724 Posts
Sir, I’m not angry at all.

As far as the conclusions you’ve come to concerning threat focused shooting, what you’ve been “exposed to” must not be the same that we’ve been trained in.

Yes, I’m one of the Florida people. My family came here on a wagon train in 1831.
And I drove down there to train with you in my Mitsubishi. As a result, we know what we know.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
75 Posts
And I drove down there to train with you in my Mitsubishi. As a result, we know what we know.
Indeed we do, and it sure gets tiresome hearing folks who don’t know what they don’t know making statements about the skills we have as if they don’t/can’t exist, because they “know better.” In fact, they just don’t know.

After my first TFP course (I had pneumonia, and my back was out during that one, so I remember it well), the owner of another gun forum asked me if I would come to their annual BBQ and demo the skills I’d just learned, as they were thinking about having Brownie develop a TFP course for mobility challenged individuals.

I went to the BBQ, and provided about a five minute demonstration.

I’ll never forget the first comments I got from a guy as I walked off the range. He asked; “did you really do what I just saw, or was it some kind of a Jedi mind trick?”

I told him that it was no trick, and after one weekend of training, he’d be able to do the same. He took that course, and it changed his life, as it has for many others. His own words.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,298 Posts
Discussion Starter #209
Sir, I’m not angry at all.

As far as the conclusions you’ve come to concerning threat focused shooting, what you’ve been “exposed to” must not be the same that we’ve been trained in.

Yes, I’m one of the Florida people. My family came here on a wagon train in 1831.
Possibly not. And that is why I am still waiting to see a benefit for me in that skill genre that MT does not give me.

Im also curious as to why the origin of the technique by Sykes and Fairbairn, then Applegate concluded that it was only good for very short distances with an emphasis on the crouched position and gun raised to eye level, but we see it promoted as everything from hip to distance shooting as a combat skill.
And of course, that raises the question of , if, the weapon is raised to line of sight or just an inch below, why not just use the sights?

And further, why was it abandoned and rendered obsolete, largely forsaken by basically every major school of thought and training, whether professional of arms or shooting schools?

If it was, as the originators suggested only good at very close distances, or were they wrong? And if they were right, then why is it promoted in the way it is today?

And of course, it begs the question, if the originators were right, and it is only relevant for very CQB, then why does it take special training to learn, that people who are already proficient in FSP are very capable of doing?

So yes, so many questions but so far, no answers, and no one that can really demonstrate any advantages for me, that compliment, or even enhance the skills I have already attained.

So, I know, I just don’t know what I don’t know:rolleyes:

But so far, I haven’t seen anything that makes me a believer, although I can see where it may have merit with those who cannot see their sights, or limited applications.

But I'm open and still waiting.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,100 Posts
Possibly not. And that is why I am still waiting to see a benefit for me in that skill genre that MT does not give me.

Im also curious as to why the origin of the technique by Sykes and Fairbairn, then Applegate concluded that it was only good for very short distances with an emphasis on the crouched position and gun raised to eye level, but we see it promoted as everything from hip to distance shooting as a combat skill.
And of course, that raises the question of , if, the weapon is raised to line of sight or just an inch below, why not just use the sights?

And further, why was it abandoned and rendered obsolete, largely forsaken by basically every major school of thought and training, whether professional of arms or shooting schools?

If it was, as the originators suggested only good at very close distances, or were they wrong? And if they were right, then why is it promoted in the way it is today?

And of course, it begs the question, if the originators were right, and it is only relevant for very CQB, then why does it take special training to learn, that people who are already proficient in FSP are very capable of doing?

So yes, so many questions but so far, no answers, and no one that can really demonstrate any advantages for me, that compliment, or even enhance the skills I have already attained.

So, I know, I just don’t know what I don’t know:rolleyes:

But so far, I haven’t seen anything that makes me a believer, although I can see where it may have merit with those who cannot see their sights, or limited applications.

But I'm open and still waiting.
In as much as it appears no amount of explanation has been able to sway your opinion and without intending to be a jerk or smart arse may I suggest taking the class and finding out?

Full disclosure:
I have not taken any classes of any kind from the instructors involved in this discussion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Marc_Brooks

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,298 Posts
Discussion Starter #214
In as much as it appears no amount of explanation has been able to sway your opinion and without intending to be a jerk or smart arse may I suggest taking the class and finding out?

Full disclosure:
I have not taken any classes of any kind from the instructors involved in this discussion.
I know you are not being a jerk, and didn’t take it that way.

The thing is, based on the opinions of at least two people I have spoken to that have attended the training, and they ARE high level FSP shooters, they felt that the training did not really allow them to make the hits any faster than they could with sighted fire.
I do place a weight on opinions of people that I know is a very good shooter, so, combined with my own experiences with respect to shooting for defense, and actually being in those situations where I was forced to draw, a life time of shooting both competitive and recreation, and all the other training I have received, have played a very large part of my overall assessment of this relatively unorthodox shooting method.

I believe there are a number of reasons why some feel it enhances their skill, and that’s fine. People are where they are.

But it at least at this point in my life, I feel that it would be a waste of my time and money.....for me, not necessarily for someone else, as certainly, by Graydude’s opinion, it works very good for him due to vision issues.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bikenut

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,192 Posts
I really enjoy reading these posts when @AzQkr & @glockman10mm get to defending something they are very passionate about tying to convince the other that there way is potentially the better way ...

I look at it like the very long battle of who is better , the boxer or the martial artist , things progress with time techniques get refined , streamlined , enter the new world of MMA the one dimensional fighter is no longer competitive...

Its the same with shooting or any sport for that matter , new techniques arise replacing those that are less refined ...

As I have posted before I've never payed $$ for any training, but I have trained ...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,088 Posts
To me it's not either or, it's a complementary skill set.

The skills I've developed over the years with MT, for what they are as I'm not a pro, still matter even with my vision concerns. Hitting at 10+ yards for me still takes application of the MT fundamentals because a red dot optic is not a magic accuracy device. I use the basic FSP techniques, but stay focused on the target and let the dot drift in.

Anything under 7 yards, though, I'm not bothering with the ideal two hand square to the target process. I'm focusing on the shirt button I want to hit, draw, point one handed, shoot. This is even more critical if my wife or kids are at my side. My off hand will either be shoving them away so they don't get hit by rounds inbound at me, or I'm dragging them behind me so I can shield them while firing or seeking cover. If alone I may be turning toward cover so I can bolt, but then if an opening to fire happens I may shoot one handed at a contorted angle. TFS opens a lot of flexibility up at these closer ranges.

If it's so easy why bother with an instructor? Well, just like any other physical process (golf, shooting hoops, bowling, etc) it helps to have someone watching to correct any form issues before they become a habit to unlearn.

Then there's the issue of having to unlearn some things we've all been told, such as how you must see the sights to make good hits. Up close that's not so, but for experienced shooters its difficult to mentally go against that gospel. But then you try it, get some body indexing feedback, and in no time are making hits you didn't have confidence in making before without seeing that front sight post.

If my eyes were magically better tomorrow I'd still use what I learned. And I'd still use MT at longer distances. And I'd probably hit better using either technique than I do now, but that's probably obvious.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,611 Posts
I really enjoy reading these posts when @AzQkr & @glockman10mm get to defending something they are very passionate about tying to convince the other that there way is potentially the better way ...

I look at it like the very long battle of who is better , the boxer or the martial artist , things progress with time techniques get refined , streamlined , enter the new world of MMA the one dimensional fighter is no longer competitive...

Its the same with shooting or any sport for that matter , new techniques arise replacing those that are less refined ...

As I have posted before I've never payed $$ for any training, but I have trained ...
Good point.....I guess it depends on what a person prefers and thinks benefits them the most.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,100 Posts
I know you are not being a jerk, and didn’t take it that way.
-snip-
I appreciate that you understood my intentions were not derogatory.

I guess (perhaps because of the lack of professional training) I've always looked at the no sights/sights as a progression. Up close and counting nose hairs as movement begins calls for point shooting (threat focused) and transitioning to bringing up the gun in order to use front sight press (flash sight picture) as distance and time begins to increase becoming full on sight picture if/when distance/time allows.

Perhaps it is my lack of formal training that causes me to think the above is just a simple built in instinctive way of defensive shooting. But I can say I figured that out on my own the first time I was at a range that allowed draw/fire/movement.

So, at least to me, all three methods are valid within their limits.

Now I will leave the discussion to the experts.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
19,639 Posts
Possibly not. And that is why I am still waiting to see a benefit for me in that skill genre that MT does not give me.

Im also curious as to why the origin of the technique by Sykes and Fairbairn, then Applegate concluded that it was only good for very short distances with an emphasis on the crouched position and gun raised to eye level, but we see it promoted as everything from hip to distance shooting as a combat skill.

F/S and the 3 techniques they imparted to others [ 1/2 hip; 3/4 hip and point shoulder ] covered from near contact 5 yrds. In neither of those 3 is the gun raised to eye level, you're mistaken. Col. Cooper wrote in 1965 the following "From 3 to 7 yards, for want of a better name, let's call it the gun throwing method", he was describing 1/2 hip. He goes on to write 3/4 hip [ he describes it as "bent arm, pistol at diaphram level" ] is good for kill zone of a man at 10 yrds.

And of course, that raises the question of , if, the weapon is raised to line of sight or just an inch below, why not just use the sights?

And further, why was it abandoned and rendered obsolete, largely forsaken by basically every major school of thought and training, whether professional of arms or shooting schools?

Marketing based on competition. https://www.defensivecarry.com/forum/defensive-carry-tactical-training/43900-history-modern-technique.html

If it was, as the originators suggested only good at very close distances, or were they wrong? And if they were right, then why is it promoted in the way it is today?

See above, the 3 FSA skills are taught the exact same way FSA taught them, exactly the same way, below eye level.

And of course, it begs the question, if the originators were right, and it is only relevant for very CQB, then why does it take special training to learn, that people who are already proficient in FSP are very capable of doing?

So yes, so many questions but so far, no answers, and no one that can really demonstrate any advantages for me, that compliment, or even enhance the skills I have already attained.

So, I know, I just don’t know what I don’t know:rolleyes:

True.

But so far, I haven’t seen anything that makes me a believer, although I can see where it may have merit with those who cannot see their sights, or limited applications.

But I'm open and still waiting.
Nor will you, we've determined you have a closed mind on the subject. Even after numerous fsp trained students post to the contrary reporting yes, the skills enhanced their shooting ability. The question that really needs begging seems to be how you could be so mistaken in your statement the FSA skills are eye level skills and be considered nothing more than an uneducated opinion on any other aspect of threat focused discussion.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
19,639 Posts
I know you are not being a jerk, and didn’t take it that way.

The thing is, based on the opinions of at least two people I have spoken to that have attended the training, and they ARE high level FSP shooters, they felt that the training did not really allow them to make the hits any faster than they could with sighted fire.

That wouldn't be unexpected

I do place a weight on opinions of people that I know is a very good shooter, so, combined with my own experiences with respect to shooting for defense, and actually being in those situations where I was forced to draw, a life time of shooting both competitive and recreation, and all the other training I have received, have played a very large part of my overall assessment of this relatively unorthodox shooting method.

And weight must be given to all the students opinions after taking the training. Again, I wouldn't expect a 100% rate of increasing someone's speed. You prefer to give weight to one or two people's opinions as opposed to the hundreds who have reported becoming faster on threat. Why is it you dismiss the hundreds of AAR's that have been posted here.

I believe there are a number of reasons why some feel it enhances their skill, and that’s fine. People are where they are.

Correct, people are where they are when they arrive, all fsp shooters, many having shot for decades. Their fsp skills range from novice shooter to highly trained spec ops like the USAFPJ's, a member of 5th group; numerous former and present USArmy rangers. The PJ's had me back 3 years in a row for more training. If they didn't feel there was value in the skills, I'd have not been back. Those gents are some of the best trained fsp shooters in the world outside competition.

But it at least at this point in my life, I feel that it would be a waste of my time and money.....for me, not necessarily for someone else, as certainly, by Graydude’s opinion, it works very good for him due to vision issues.
Well there you have it, others have found it not a waste of time, just the opposite, and reiterated by 3 members who've taken the training right here again in this thread. If students find value in the training based on having taken the training, there's no further reason to denigrate the skills as being a waste of time, IYO, because to continue to do so is claiming their thoughts are irrelevant to yours who's not actually taken the training. .

Earlier you stated "I have been exposed to threat focused shooting, which is why I have come to my own conclusion." Name of the threat focused instructor and year you were "exposed" to it? Was the instructor who "exposed" you to point shooting a point shooting/threat focused instructor?

BOT, balancing sufficient speed and sufficient accuracy will be most important in any future DGU I may be involved in. Each scenario will see more importance placed on one or the other, but ya gotta have the speed when it's called for starting behind the curve.
 
201 - 220 of 340 Posts
Top