Posted: 3/11/2012 12:42:56 AM EDT
|
Last months was one of our best, and it is going to be hard to keep that pace. This month I would like to approach things a bit differently, I have been thinking about what to talk about for this month and after a long week at work, and a long day making holsters in the basement I am back with, I believe something new and am on the couch with a nice whiskey and coke, and a big dip of my beloved Skoal (long cut wintergreen of course).
The get off the X thread posted by Hasbro got me thinking, and I rather enjoy a good discussion about the modern martial arts. In that thread obviously there are two points of view on a few things, Duane from Brownells makes some very good points as to why he does things and and I voiced my opinion as well. Is one way better than the other? Is that the important part of the discussion or is it rather two points of view from different people who can both articulate why they do what they do? This month I would like to talk about tactics, and the reason why we do specific things (or should be doing specific things). A good instructor will be able to not only demonstrate a technique, but be able to pass that on to the student. Something that I believe that often times gets left out of training is why do we do this technique to begin with. Training cycles over the years have gone through many changes, traditionally combat pistol was taught shooting one handed (extended away from the body). William Fairbairn came up with the method know as point shooting while working as a policeman in Shanghai China around the time of the first world war. At the time this was more of a combat crouch using the visual focus on the intended target while dressing your posture towards your threat. Over the years other people have advanced how we do things, Col. Jeff Cooper (known as the father of modern pistol craft) started using both hands to control the pistol. It is unknown exactly where the Isosceles method of shooting originated from (Isosceles shooting would be feet spread wide, chest facing target and arms stretched out in front). Later came Jack Weaver and the Weaver/modified Weaver shooting stance (best described as partial blade of the body as to make a smaller or more narrow target for your opponent to hit) and as it would be when I got into law enforcement the Weaver stance was the accepted method of shooting. As time passed on, and innovations in body armor were coming faster and faster things changed back to the isosceles shooting stance for various reasons.....and with the change in technology so must we change tactics to take advantage of it. Every now and then someone will come up with something new like point shooting.....which has actually been around since the invention of firearms, but was actually studied and organized prior to WW I by Fairbairn, and I am sure I will see the re-invention of some form of the Weaver Stance within my lifetime. In fact most of the things I have seen in training circles have come in large cycles, and most of the time is driven by either technology or someone re inventing the wheel. Getting away from technique, for a moment.....why do we train the way we do? Other than the obvious threats that are out there. I am referring to thought driven reasons. The OODA Loop was brought up earlier. Created by Col. John Boyd, who was a pilot in the Army Air Corps in WW II (also a graduate of the University of Iowa) and later served in the Air Force and was know as the father of the F16. The OODA Loop was John Boyd's concept of the decision cycle and he came up with this in the 1940s and was designed for air to air combat but has been later applied to everything from business management to sports, to combat. Observe - To collect data by means of your senses Orientation - Organization of the data received from your current mental perspective Decision - Determination of a course of action based on ones mental perspective Action - The physical playing out of decisions Earlier in the 1930s another tactician, Walter Shewhart came up with the Shewhart Cycle which basically says Plan, Do, Check, Act. PDCA focuses on an operational or tactical level. Plan - To Improve your operations by finding out what things are going wrong (identify the problems faced) and come up with ideas to fix them Do - Changes designed to solve the problems on a small or experimental scale first to minimize disruption to routine Check - whether the small scale experiment worked, keep checking for desired effect to ensure that you know the quality of output at all times and be able to identify new problems as they crop up. Act - Implementation of changes on a larger scale if the experiment was successful This will go all the way back to Sun Tzu. Most of the people mentioned above are still refereed to today because they came up with something new, or at the very least studied it and organized it enough to be passed on from instructor to student. Be it philosophy, technology, or some new threat.....these are really the only catalysts for new ways of doing things....and they always have been. I also brought up Force Science in the get off the X thread. This is something I believe to be entirely original. People have studied stress effect on the human body before, but to my knowledge no one else has really gone further to examine what is exactly going on with our mind and body during a use of force incident. Since going to this school I have changed the way I look at many things in regards to training because I can now understand some of the obstacles like the fact that it takes the human body at least that quarter of a second to realize they have a problem, go though fight or flight, pick a response if it is fight and and start to carry it out. I would be willing to bet that many people will say that this quarter second is meaningless when it comes to a fight. But please keep in mind that if you are attacked you are already behind the curve (unless you can see it coming) and then add this to your worst time drawing from concealment, while moving in the rain with crap lying on the ground around you and tell me how you feel about it. (yeah, I know....I added worst case scenario into this because this is when the crapola usually hits the rotary blades....not on a sunny day, after you have warmed up). R |
|
If you didn't see it coming, you aren't doing a very good job of observing... I think that's the only real way to coming close to mitigating the .25 second reaction time. Shouldn't Cooper's combat conditions come into play?
I've heard much about OODA loop. Coming from a martial arts mindset, both Bruce Lee and Miyamoto Musashi would tend to agree that the faster you see the faster you can act. But from reading their books they seem to advocate more of a instantaneously creative approach rather than a strict approach to combat. I guess you could call that the point of Zen thought processes but I'm no expert in either subject. This is just my personal interpretation of each subject and I'm likely only half right on either which only makes me a quarter right in my estimation of the subject. But you see this in both USPSA and IDPA, all of the greats tend to let the shooting happen, sometimes it happens according to plan some times that plan gets modified on the fly. Reference Brian Enos and his book Beyond Fundamentals. While not specifically talking about defensive shooting I think there is a lot to be said about how the mind can shoot (or execute combat) faster. Maybe I ran off on a tangent but I thought it had significance. |
|
Quoted:
If you didn't see it coming, you aren't doing a very good job of observing... I think that's the only real way to coming close to mitigating the .25 second reaction time. Shouldn't Cooper's combat conditions come into play? I've heard much about OODA loop. Coming from a martial arts mindset, both Bruce Lee and Miyamoto Musashi would tend to agree that the faster you see the faster you can act. But from reading their books they seem to advocate more of a instantaneously creative approach rather than a strict approach to combat. I guess you could call that the point of Zen thought processes but I'm no expert in either subject. This is just my personal interpretation of each subject and I'm likely only half right on either which only makes me a quarter right in my estimation of the subject. But you see this in both USPSA and IDPA, all of the greats tend to let the shooting happen, sometimes it happens according to plan some times that plan gets modified on the fly. Reference Brian Enos and his book Beyond Fundamentals. While not specifically talking about defensive shooting I think there is a lot to be said about how the mind can shoot (or execute combat) faster. Maybe I ran off on a tangent but I thought it had significance. Col. Cooper's color coded conditions of awaredness (wow, say that 4 times quickly) does come into play, to an extent. A few thoughts on that, the first being that one can not walk around in high alert 24/7 it would be mentally exhausting, and next when talking about what is going on inside of you prior to an attack does not really fit into being aware of your surroundings. I believe the OODA Loop does touch on it but still misses the human part of the equasion in that when something happens, ready or not you still may have to react to it and this reaction is still not going to happen instantaniously. You may see an attack coming, but by the time it gets to you things in the environment may have changed, and you may need to catch up. I never could get completely through Musahi's Book of the Five Rings, seemed good, just always picked it up when I was to busy. What I am trying to say is that like anything else we as practicioners of the modern martial arts need to keep this ever reaching effort to learn and grow. Coming from a martial arts background myself, I made my mind up about a few things when it comes to training and reaction. The first being that we can train to a standard that our side block and reverse punch combination are very fast, acurate, and the timeing is spot on. Or our round kick spin side kick are lightning fast and alway hit the mark. But the bottom line is that when we do these things we are warmed up, stretched out and in training mode.....so we already have taken the time needed for our brain to process what is going on and the time needed to select our response completely out of it. Even in competition you need to think about a few things, like we already know we are going to be in a fight.....and that it is probably not to the death. And yes, this changes things. You may not get the same adrenalin dump (unless you are seriously getting your but whooped on). I used to shoot competition, enjoyed getting out with friends and putting some rounds down range while moving. The thing about competition is that like any other form of training or games you already have a pre concieved notion of what is going on and why you are there.....you should have had a safety brief, should know the course of fire, and will more than probably have a range safety officer with you. The major difference here between this and a real deal fight to the death is that you do not know when, where, how, or who is coming. No range officer, no safety brief, and you are not prepped with all your gear, warmed up and stretched out, and all you have to defend yourself is what you have on your person, in your pockets and your training. And understanding how the human body works does help in not only the decision process but from my expierence the aftermanth. Knowing that the adrenalin dump is coming during a confrontation alllows you to potentially take advantage of it.....and afterwards knowing what has happened and what you need to do to take care of yourself can make or break your survival after the incident. My point here is that if you know and understand these things that you can add them into your training and better round out how you do things. R |
| The one thing that always bugs me is that no matter what, or how I train for any given type of conflict the big unknown for me is if I or one of my family gets hurt. I''m not talking about a bump or a bruise, but a real injury. How many of you have hit a part of your hand when swinging a hammer? Did you know how you were going to react to the pain? If you have done it multiple times throughout your life, did you react the same way each time? I know I could get into a long list of "what if's", but the main question I have is how do you train for that? Is it good to not only be aware of ones surrondings, but to know or attempt to understand how one might be affected when or if a severe injury were to occur? |
|
Romper when attending the force science school, was there any discussion of having too many options? By this I mean, training several different ways/methods... be it getting off the x in the manner discussed in the other thread or side stepping once or twice, how about different stance/ grip?
Can having too many training options in the "belt" be a bad thing when it comes time to make that split second decision? I like to spend a good amount of time on here reading and getting differing viewpoints, and really appreciate the discussions like the one that took place in the other thread... it gives alot to think about, and really helps everyone gain a better understanding. While I ramble on, allow me to side step and get your opinion on the CAR" shooting technique? I was reading a bit about it, ans where my first impressions s |
|
Sorry my phone was acting up, so im going to finish my post here....
First impressions of the CAR method were I thought it a bit silly, and frankly a bit unsafe... alot of this probably was influenced by dip shits on youtube doing it wrong and being inexperienced... I did find a few videos demonstrating the technique and talking a bit about the theory and it started seeming a little more practical... as another training method. There are certainly situations where it could come into play, but as a stand alone style im on the fence. That's why I had a question if over packing your mind with these techniques could be counter productive... if I train one way and really drill it in , if the time comes to act will I be better off? Or can I transfer and drill in multiple methods and not run into issues with my mind deciding which one to choose? If my posts seems a little rambly im at work on my phone, and have not proofread the posts 
|
|
The Force Science stuff, after action debriefings from the wealth of armed encounters we have in a military as well as CONUS context, and lessons learned in Force on Force training all point to similar findings WRT physiological response to life or death stress stimuli. The symptoms are all the same—either there, or mostly there…the problem is that it’s the severity and the degree to which we need to compensate that isn’t a constant, and thus the training doctrines that attempt to address these issues become divergent. This happens because either the sample size is limited…”I was in the gunfight at the Circle K, and this is what I experienced, so this is what I teach”, or it’s a statistical average, which is great for selling widgets or muzzle velocities, but doesn’t really address what’s going on.
The issue is that it is a continuum, and there are a lot of variables. Proximity to the threat, perceived danger of the threat, mental awareness of and preparedness for the situation prior to being presented with the threat (surprise), experience of similar situations in life or training, degree of stress “inoculation”, perception of time pressure, where we are WRT initiative, etc., etc., all play into the severity of the response symptoms, and many of the variables are highly personal and not something we can quantify or categorize….you can’t say “If I’m within 5 yards, I will point shoot, and if I’m within 10 yards, I will use a blurry front sight reference, but at 11 yards, I know I need to be hard focused on my front sight, and I will do it all from a perfect isosceles indexed to the threat.” What we do know is this…when stress is high enough, we will look at the threat. I know, I know…”so and so remembers seeing a clear front sight during ‘X’ fight and could count the serrations on his blade…..” Got it. I’ve cleared leather, or rather kydex abroad a bunch of times and had my focus sharpen on that front sight. It never worked that way when someone was in my face or as you clear a corner and a muzzle is coming up at conversational distance, and I don’t think you’ll find a whole lot of folks that will tell you different. The other thing we want to do instinctively is to not obstruct our vision…by doing things like putting a handgun in front of our face…so we tend to want to shoot from below line of sight (check out dash cam video footage if you don’t believe this). Things we also tend to do reflexively in encounters at this level on the stress response is assume an althletic stance with our lower bodies and square our upper torso to some extent. And, we want to move, or if the stress reaches a certain point, some may freeze up (muy malo!). This is where Applegate was coming from, and exactly the realm of combat that he was training folks for with his techniques. Color code…so, we’re staying in yellow, and we’ll never be surprised because we’re always on, right? Ain’t happenin’. You can say what you want, and yes…situational awareness can help us to be prepared to respond to, respond to, and especially, avoid many confrontations. It’s critical, but no one is “on” 100% of the time, even when out and about. Yep…we can do our best, and come close, but coming out of the mall with the wife complaining about how she never gets to buy anything nice, the kids crying that they’re hungry, and it’s raining…you always, always, always gonna be “on”? Not being prepared to function from a starting point of surprise because you are “never” out of yellow is like not having fire insurance because you “never” let your house catch on fire. So, we are at “point shooting”. We need to define this term, as Applegate used it, and as I and others feel it’s at its best. It seems popular these days to teach a “body index” form of point shooting, which is not where you want to be. You cannot count on a perfect isosceles stance in a fight, and if you rely on it to make hits, you are setting yourself up for failure. What you can count on is your Mk1 Mod0 eyeballs, hand eye coordination, and a few things like our ability to find parallel with the ground subconsciously, and natural pointing physiology. We can point things. It’s one of the things our brain allows us to do very well, with the whole feedback loop between our eyes and our hands. We point by peripheral vision input based on where we are looking, and we can index anything of a planar nature. Do this: look at something small, like 6” in diameter, 20-50 feet away, and point at it with an extended index finger. Don’t bring your finger up to eye level—keep it no higher than your neck. Now, lower your head to sight along your extended finger and see how close you were to aligning your finger exactly with that object. We can do the same thing with a pistol slide. One other thing…now open your hand and look at the angle your palm is at. Is it vertical? Hmm…no? Slanted somewhere between vertical and 45 degrees, isn’t it? So it appears we point with our hand canted. Kind of “gangster”, but not quite full on there, yes? This is how our hand wants to point WHEN UNSUPPORTED, and this helps us get the gun on target whether using sights or not. We can visually reference the sights or the corner of the slide, consciously or unconsciously. Straight sideways is just silly, but purely vertical isn’t the answer, either. There are also some physiology benefits to recoil recovery here, but I’ll save that for another time. When point shooting with BOTH hands, we want that good, wraparound, pinching grip that gives us a vertical, repeatable track under recoil, and we can still point the slide/sights, even more so. Our subconscious mind is WAY faster at figuring out alignment than our conscious mind, so we are ready to press the trigger sooner when we are aligning the sights/slide/barrel this way. There’s a lot more to it, and it’s a lot easier to show it than write it out, but that’s the idea. This brings us to movement. Why do we move, when do we move? If we have the initiative, or are ahead situationally, e.g., law enforcement officer with a single suspect at gunpoint and the suspect reaches for it, robbery at the 7-11 and the BG doesn’t see us picking out or favorite lickies and chewies in the snack isle, we have good cover, etc., we don’t necessarily NEED to move. There are times that it helps, a lot, though, and there are several reasons why we might want to move. Romp hit on the first…OODA loop reset. If we are behind the initiative curve, and we are reacting to an action, the best way to buy us more time is to make our adversary evaluate what he is doing by changing the situation. Those .25 second time slices add up. As a Hornet guy, we spent a decent amount of time talking about the Boyd cycle, and how to destroy opponent gameplan by continuously changing what he was responding to. Same thing applies here, just less metal and the bullets don’t steer to the target for you. Is this the end all, be all that will save us? Not necessarily, and you can’t bank on it as a panacea. I cover this at length in our training, but OODA loop disruption is just one piece of responding to a reactive situation. The other thing movement buys us is complicating the adversary’s targeting solution. Lateral displacement makes him chase us with the muzzle. The closer we are, the more bang we get for our displacement buck. The further out we are, the less angular difference we make with each step, so movement becomes less effective by itself at range. Where is the magic range? Can’t answer that for you…You have to balance how well you can hit, while moving at what pace, vs how much harder you are making it for the adversary, and that takes some practice. I can tell you that 7-10 yards and in, moving generally works WELL. The Teuller Drill while using constant movement by the good guy just makes the knife guy look silly. The other thing is that moving and stopping creates one change which then stabilizes again. Staying moving, especially in an ellipse, creates constant change in angle, distance, and track crossing rate…and requires the most adversary processing power. Does any of this do you any good if you can’t hit the target? NO! This is also where most people fall down on the movement thing. Shooting and moving is also often taught as straight into or straight back from the target. This is a direct action mindset, and has applications and reasons behind it for 16 guys kicking in doors, but FAILS in most other contexts. This presents our adversary with a constant bearing, decreasing/increasing range target…which means he still can just point CM and hit. As Sonny P. says…this just increases or decreases the flight time of the bad guy’s bullets by a millisecond or so. When we use a traditional sight picture while moving, we have to line up our: eye, rear sight, front sight, target. That’s a lot to do from a shifting platform. With “point shooting”, we lock our eyes on the target, and then there are a lot of different solutions that put our barrel pointed at the precise point we are looking at—and our brain recognizes these. It’s just like flash sight pictures—indeed you may have the sights in the visual reference, and many times I do—you come up on target and the front blade is to the left side of the rear notch, but you’re on the right 1/3 of the target at 7 yards…so you recognize this as good to go, and press. We can do this just like pointing our finger works, and it takes less time to catch on to than you think. I like to build the “database” of sight/slide alignment references in a student’s mind before I teach point shooting, so I start with the normal fundamentals, but you don’t have to. I just think it picks up the learning curve, although sometimes, it’s too much of a firehose if they don’t have some time on sights before hand. So if we’ve got initiative, or time, or distance, and the stress response doesn’t trash our ability to focus up close, we can get on those sights, and SHOULD. Even if dilation has trashed our near focus, we can still align those fuzzy blobs. Does this mean we have to switch gears from “point shooting”? Heck no! We are pointing the gun, even when we use sighted fire…the only difference is that we confirm alignment with the sights when using sighted fire. It’s a simple matter of continuing on to the sights when we recognize that we need to or that we have the time or opportunity to do so. It’s not a change…it’s seamless…a continuum. Sighted fire is just as valid, and in some situations, more so than point shooting. It’s just situational! On squaring to the target: This does make sense to a degree in an LE or Mil paradigm with backup present. I don’t like it for a lot of reasons. Yes, when standing still, we tend to do this as part of the stress response, so OK...we’re probably stuck with it, and that’s fine…we should be in a proactive mode if we’re not moving. Relying on the armor and static defense as the answer, though, has two issues in my mind, and if anyone disagrees, I’d love to hear another perspective. Getting shot in the armor hurts, or so I’ve been told. The physics of it equate it to being struck with a well swung ball peen hammer. This will buy a reaction from you, for sure. Destroying your aiming solution, maybe stunning you long enough for him to put a few more on board or get one onto the head/neck, etc. I’d rather not get hit, provide a harder targeting problem, and allow the armor to work if I do happen to get hit where it is, while putting rounds on board, fast, to stop the BG from shooting in the first place. Unless I’ve got a lot of friends with me, I don’t want to be in a position to provide the BG with the largest possible stable target and hope I am not incapacitated if he throws one quickly and connects. I also don’t wear armor much anymore, nor do most non-LEOs and I don’t know a lot of LEOs who bother off-duty, either. Doesn’t mean they’re not out there…just that I don’t know many. So how does this ridiculously long diatribe connect to the topic of discussion….why we do what we do? There are certain things that we are likely to do in various points along the stress continuum, along with the rest of the physiological responses like auditory exclusion, tunnel vision, heart rate about 120 and up almost instantly, loss of some fine motor skills, etc., and we know that the severity of these symptoms and the primal mandates to do certain actions are both highly variable. We are less able to function at a higher cognitive level the more we are affected by these symptoms. So, we need to figure out what we called “immediate action” items in the aviation community as well as the SOCOM side…Simple responses that we can pull up with minimal processing that address the problem at hand while working with the shortcomings that we may face when running on brain stem power. These start working for us when we are behind timeline, reactive, and/or surprised. Point shooting, non-diagnostic malfunction clearing, etc. Then there is a graduated, sliding scale of responses…through Rogers-style reactive shooting to Modern Technique hard front sight focus…that get applied as we need to, and as we have room for the mid-brain and conscious input into the process where the stress response is less of a factor, for whatever reason. We have to learn the parts, then put them together, and that’s what we can do with good instruction. Figuring out when to apply them is something we pick up intuitively with exposure, and surprisingly quickly when you have all the tools to start with. But…you have to learn them all, you have to start somewhere, and you have to train to it. It’s really not as much as it might seem, but it’s not taking one class and then going to the range once a year, either. This is an over-simplification, but the best I can do without getting ridiculously long-winded…although I think I passed that threshold a while back. My .02. |
|
Hey all, sorry....I have worked double shifts the last few days. Right now my brain is like chewed bubble gum. I will get back to this after a good nights sleep.
Reference the Center Axis Relock, I honestly haven't ever done this type of thing.....but after looking at it I would call it in the widget catigory as Duane put it. R More later after sleep. |
| I think all of these methods have merit. In my opinion it's about having options. Romp as a martial artist, I'm sure you can attest that you aren't taught one way to kick, or one way to punch. That's why many arts/programs are a union of several styles. I think the same applies to training methods. With that mind set I approach every training class as another tool in the toolbox of options I have. |
|
Ok, back and winding down on daddy/daughter night, the little one is down for the count and I can take some time here.
Mirage, in my opinion I agree. Most martial arts have been around for well over 100 years and most of the techniques practiced today are either the evolution of what things started as or have proven to be the survival of the fittest of techniques.....or rather what didn't work as well has fallen off. Sometimes simplest is the best. Another question was asked reference if you are practicing more techniques is it going to slow down your response. I would say that it entirely depends on the individual. Some people simply refuse to accept the responsibility of the situation (IMHO) and will freeze up, others will rise to the occasion. I used to tell my students (when teaching martial arts) that I can tell how badly they wanted something just by watching them in class....they just had that predatory and not prey look about them. Some folks carry this naturally, for others it can be taught, yet in others it can come on like a light switch. In my opinion it is a personal choice, one has to accept personal responsibility for their own well being and that of the ones they hold dear. I have never been big on waiting for someone else to pull my weight. I brought up Force Science because it is pertinent to the topic of training involving use of force,and definitely important in the topic of this months discussion (why do we do specific things in training).....we can agree to disagree on relevance. It, like many other schools of thought (worth their weight anyway) will study past events, as well as current events instead only studying any one event to gain information and actually do something with it. As well as adding information as it comes along, any changes or major events (Miami 1986 shootout involving FBI agents and 2 suspects wanted in connection with Bank Robberies for instance), this is the type of event that can change current practices as long as we (the students of modern martial arts are paying attention, as well as law enforcement). I know that on the LEO side this did in fact send ripples across the country in current practices. As much as the Columbine School Massacre, or the Virginia Tech School Massacre did with response to active shooting situations. Pretty much everything can be looked upon as a continuum. We approach the same job regardless what it is from different angles so to speak depending on variables of what is going on. When we have a flat tire if possible we will get off the roadway and fix it without worry from passing traffic....if we are unable to get off the roadway we do something else like pull way off the roadway or ask a passenger to watch as we change the tire to give us reaction time so we do not get squished. Color code conditioning, I will say that like I already said that I strongly agree with Duane....no one can stay that focused 100% of the time, and even it they did they would probably be so mentally worn out they it would effect their reaction. Although I understand the point shooting methodology and do practice a version of it I do not choose to practice this any more or less than anything else I do. The pointing at a target at distance is interesting (natural human reaction to pointing an unsupported hand at 45 degree angle). I am not a big fan of unsupported fire, I do practice it, and understand that they more "blanks" that I fill in in my own training the less vulnerable I feel that I am. No one wants to try a new way of doing things for the first few times when you have rounds coming back at you. The point shooting that I favor does involve body index, for the simple reason that this takes a few steps out of things for me and allows me more visual focus on my threat or threats. I know, because I train this way that I can move laterally, and at angles but choose forward movement whenever possible because I can see where I am going, and what cover is available to me there. Alignment of the sights while on the move, is not an easy thing.....I will give you this, along with the added stress and things going on with your body (basically the entire reason for this months discussion....learning how things work and NOT having it be a surprise during the confrontation) or the aftermath of an "incident" for that matter greater improves the survivability of the person who has defended themselves. I have seen officers virtually destroyed after surviving an armed encounter, who did nothing wrong (tactically/legally/morally) but did not get the support they needed or someone to explain simple things like you should only drink water after an incident instead of caffeine (a stimulant) or well after alcohol (a depressant) because of the left over adrenalin in the system, and potential for self doubt and regret over being a survivor. Just like anything else we all tend to fall into how we have been trained. I can tell from Duane's language the "firing solution" is from his days as a decorated Marine pilot. I am not positive of this yet either without sitting down with Duane but it sounds like he has done some training with Sunny Puzakis (I am jealous), he is on my list of people to train with someday. Air to air, hand to hand, edged weapons, firearms, or sticks and clubs, (although I have never trained in air to air fighting  ) I will go ahead and assume that it, like any other method of interpersonal conflict resolution revolves around the person who is fighting and not the equipment they are using. I have always been a proponent of being better trained and saving money on equipment that will do.....I think I have even brought this up in other topics of discussion.
I think I have gone just about to the limit of everyone attention span as well. There was one more thing that I wanted to address from Duane's post, and that was squaring to the target. You can be square to the threat while moving laterally, or at a 45 degree angle forward....you do not have to stand still while doing this. I only bring this up because I think I was misunderstood. This and the point on body armor....I have not been hit in the armor either ( I have been told it does hurt like a son of a gun) but if I was to have to take a round I would much rather it hurt like hell than kill me). Pain, just like anything else is one of the things that adrenalin can mask (simplest terms without pulling out some old text books for technical terms).....between that and the raw will to survive. R |
|
I have wanted to touch on some things with training and mindset that most instructors either will not touch or haven't grasped yet. I have always been interested in things beyond techniques.....I think this may come from my days in the martial arts. I was lucky enough to attend the Force Science school a few years back....right before I became involved with CCA in fact and it kind of rekindled my interest.
And as timing would have it I was talking with some friends about roughly the same subjects as we have been talking about here a short time ago when the get off the X thread came up. I have respect for Duane, but we obviously have different opinions on a few things and that is cool. Obviously he can articulate his point of view and I think I can do the same. Sometimes looking at things from a totally different perspectives can help you develop your own ideas and theories on the different dynamics involved in an armed confrontation. My bottom line here is to put the idea that there are reasons other than "well this is how we do it" when it comes to teaching skill at arms. R |
|
In an attempt to kick start this again, my thoughts training are basically that the human body has some minor issues that we all need to take into account when evaluating techniques that we plan to use in our own defense.
Physiological, mental, physical, and environmental. I will start with physical, probably the easiest thing to change. This can be as simple as keeping ourselves in good physical condition.....I really liked a t-shirt I saw the other day by one of the crossfit people on their website that simply said "Strong people are harder to kill". Kind of sums it up nicely, and ties into the positives that are also gained in mental attitude when you are in good shape. Am I saying that you need to be in world class shape to be able to defend yourself.....no. But I am saying that when you are in better shape your reaction times are quicker, need less rest, and can do an activity longer (all things that are good when in a fight). Mental attitude is another thing that most people (IMHO) seem to over look. When doing women's self defense classes I talk about this. Knowing that there is a potential for a problem and doing something about it is, or should be human nature. Kind of ties into one of the tacticians I mentioned above, Shewart talks about this in his decision cycle of Plan, Do, Check, Act. Instead of using this in a you against the world turn it inward and how do I change things I want to change about myself. Environmental, or our surroundings. It is normal human nature to change our posture, outlook and demeanor depending on the world around us. Obviously when in a war zone during conflict we will be paying attention to the things around us. How about when we venture into a less than desirable part of town? For that matter are some places not so bad at certain times and then they change? Do we pay attention to this? This is a hard one, as sometimes we can change our plans to avoid problem areas......other times we can not. One of the things with my job off and on over the years has been to either be seen or not be seen and be in areas that I would not normally be at, during times when bad things can happen. You start to notice things about people when watching. You see that sometimes bad people will watch others looking for prey. Honestly at times it reminds me of the Wild Kingdom and I find myself waiting for Marlin Perkins and Jim to walk out. I have come to notice that if you look like food you will probably be eaten. When I say this I am talking about not making eye contact, watching the sidewalk instead of being aware of who is around you, where you are, and what is going on around you. Another easy thing to observe is how being in a group effects a person. I am sure you have all heard of the "mob mentality" and there is a lot of truth to this. People simply do not act the same when they have a group with them. The last thing would be physiological, and this is what I have been working with on the majority of this months topic. To put it simply, there are some things we can change.....and others we can not. Learning how the human body works, things we can change and things we will have to work around is my point of this months discussion. R |
|
Getting back to how to tie the mental/physical/physiological together in regards to how we train and why we do, or should be doing certain things in training.
Action is always faster than reaction, this is a simple principal and is usually overlooked in that there is not an instantaneous response to the initial action that caused the need for a reaction. Basically we do have some lag time in there where our mind processes what is going on, and the environment we are in. Several other things are also going on that many of us do not realize or quite understand. Our instinct to run or deal with it (fight or flight) may kick in, this coming from the most basic of all brain functions (right above breathing and organ function). Some of this may be changed by training, or can at least be helped by understanding how these things work and why we sometimes do things unconsciously.....it is our own survival mode. Other things that are going on are, once the decision is made to deal with what is going on is to select a response from the long list of things we know how to do in our own defense and to select that response as well as formulate a plan, and then initiate the reaction to whatever started the process. Keep in mind that I brought up earlier our worst draw time, from cover, while not warmed up or being in "the training zone". And all this will most probably happen when the weather is cold, rainy, and just generally crappy. All of this while already behind the curve, attempting to play catch up with whatever is already happening to us. I firmly believe that this generally causes the most damage to survivors of violent attack (other than the physical damage) because we may feel guilty for allowing this to happen, even though we were already at a major disadvantage to begin with and could only attempt to catch up. Getting off the X is one of my favorite drills, but to properly understand it you must think about everything that has already been said is going on with yourself. Then turn the tables and force your opponent to react to your action. This starts the same process with them.....they may have had a pre planned attack set up for you, you have done something as simple as lateral movement and that may be enough to cause them to adjust to you. This forces your attacker to adjust their attack and go through the mental list of what to do next and then put the new plan into action. Something as simple as the lateral movement may have bought you enough time to go through your checklist, select your response and put it into action. Kind of taking the thunder out of your attacker's plans for you and putting you back on a more even playing field in regards to the fight. This is basically where each of the .25 seconds will start to either help you or hurt you. And yes, the single quarter of a second doesn't seem like much but they will eventually add up and can cause you great harm or even help you. Understanding how these things work can make the process less scary at the worst possible moments in our lives. I also touched on what happens after......I bring this up because most of the folks I have talked to in our circles seem to take their safety and protection quite seriously, and any good plan to protect yourself should cover all the angles you can. Call it insurance if you will, or like Col. Cooper once said having a gun and knowing how to use it is like having a life preserver.......I would much rather have it and not need it than need it and not have it. I will take it a step further and add that having the hardware, training, and a plan is a complete package (or better coverage) on the insurance idea. R |
|
Do you start your reaction to a potential threat on Cooper's Orange or Red? Here is what I do and my theory on it. No it's not battle tested, but I don't really see a down side to doing it this way.
I do this all the time when I'm out and about. If something has been flagged as orange, I'm already moving off the X to see what they will do. Not speedy (if they hit a trigger then it's time for speedy), but enough (hopefully) to make their reaction to my off the X tell their intent. A smart criminal would recognise that I'm not worth it and move on, a law abiding individual would just wonder why I'm acting like we are playing tag, and a dumb criminal gets sucked in without knowing that I'm on to them. I understand there are situations in which you may not see it coming and have jump straight from yellow to orange, but that's still no excuse not to do something in the orange state. I've not read a lot of Cooper but from the Wikipedia I got the impression that orange is mostly considered a passive state, and I'm dead set against that... |
|
Hey Jesse,
The problem with trying to compare theories against each other is that sometimes they can be similar but not completely compatible. As yellow is the state Col. Cooper refereed to as relaxed but aware of your surroundings. Orange would be the plus one, there may be a specific threat and you believe that you have identified it. Basically the mind is processing what is going on and (depending on the individuals skills/training/background) can start the process of selection of responses somewhat. I would go one step further and say that with only limited information your responses would be limited to locations of cover, escape routes, and possible looking for secondary threats or allies. I would not say that orange is a completely passive state.....more that with limited information that you can not completely make a decision or selection of how/what you are going to do with what you know at this point. Keep in mind that you can not completely target your attacker yet. The courts tend to frown on retroactive self defense. There are the obvious exemptions to this rule, like weapons on the attacker but we could "what if" that to death. You also have to remember that even if acting in good faith to protect yourself that your actions will be judged by a jury of your peers. Everything you did will be dissected and studied, and decisions you made in a few seconds will be gone over for weeks and months. Not to be a doom sayer, but just so we are all honest here. So we get an exact idea where these quarter seconds of processing and decision come into play in regards to Col. Coopers Color Codes, we have only so much information to process from orange. As we have identified our potential attacker we still do not know how they intend to harm us (sticks, knives, guns, ICBMs) or how they are coming at us, could be head to head, circle, ambush (yes, you can be ambushed while still focused in on someone) at the moment of attack is when you will start the process. As Col. Cooper refers to this as Code Red, or in battle. Another variation on Coopers Color Codes I have heard had a fourth color, Black. Col. Cooper refereed to this as refusal to accept the situation for what it is.....you are getting your ass kicked or worse and you simply fail to come to the rationalization that YOU can save your own butt. Things that I have heard from victims in person and in court often say the same things like that they froze and could not make a sound, others say they have either limited or no memory of the situation. Basically the mind, like the body will shut down to protect itself. Like when you receive a serious wound and the body attempts to keep as much blood in your trunk and chest as opposed to your extremities to keep your organs going. The mind will do the same thing to keep itself intact. I like that you have a plan, and I am sure you probably do same mental training (what if, then I will ________) that I do. It is always good to run these types of scenarios in your head as it puts you in the correct mental state for survival of these types of situations. Just remember that getting off the X, prior to an assault may make said potential attacker change their mind or it may just be dancing with a stranger who has no idea what the hell you are doing. (Make sure your potential threat is indeed a potential threat) Some of the folks we run into in public may be so wound up in their personal stuff that they invade your space without intention of causing you harm, or are just oblivious to the fact that they have set off you early warning system. A significant number of folks out there have no idea that there are other folks around them at any given time....let alone what is going on around them or better yet, what is going on with the people around them. R |
|
Quoted:
The one thing that always bugs me is that no matter what, or how I train for any given type of conflict the big unknown for me is if I or one of my family gets hurt. I''m not talking about a bump or a bruise, but a real injury. How many of you have hit a part of your hand when swinging a hammer? Did you know how you were going to react to the pain? If you have done it multiple times throughout your life, did you react the same way each time? I know I could get into a long list of "what if's", but the main question I have is how do you train for that? Is it good to not only be aware of ones surrondings, but to know or attempt to understand how one might be affected when or if a severe injury were to occur? About your example of smashing one's hand with a hammer..... When I was younger, I would've cried put in pain, so forth & so on. But these days when something like that happens, I just get instantly pissed, no quarter second delay or anything. Now I imagine that if somebody tried causing harm to myself or a loved one, I would have a similar reaction. The question is, could I focus that anger effectively? I don't know. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
The one thing that always bugs me is that no matter what, or how I train for any given type of conflict the big unknown for me is if I or one of my family gets hurt. I''m not talking about a bump or a bruise, but a real injury. How many of you have hit a part of your hand when swinging a hammer? Did you know how you were going to react to the pain? If you have done it multiple times throughout your life, did you react the same way each time? I know I could get into a long list of "what if's", but the main question I have is how do you train for that? Is it good to not only be aware of ones surrondings, but to know or attempt to understand how one might be affected when or if a severe injury were to occur? About your example of smashing one's hand with a hammer..... When I was younger, I would've cried put in pain, so forth & so on. But these days when something like that happens, I just get instantly pissed, no quarter second delay or anything.Now I imagine that if somebody tried causing harm to myself or a loved one, I would have a similar reaction. The question is, could I focus that anger effectively? I don't know. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile 1) You may get pissed instantly, but then what happens? Letting emotion run things rarely is the best answer in many choices we face in life.....how many times have you done something and later wished you had taken a few moments to think about your reaction afterwards? 2) That is the point of this months topic, thought driven training.....end result more effective response when needed. Several other things have been addressed this month but bottom line is becoming more effective when the time comes. Likening this to owning a firearm and being effective are two entirely different things.....one is good, the other is much, much better. R |
|
I was at the range this past Monday night working with a group a reserve Deputies and have started to implement a few of the ideas we have been talking about here into training. A few things came up and seemed to fit right into each other....basically some of the same comments made here.
First of all on reaction times, when one already has a pre conceived idea of a problem then they will (or at least should) have a heightened sense of awareness of what is going on around them. This may be anything from a traffic stop to a call for service. Simple things that seem out of the ordinary to the responding officer, all the way up to past history with the car or person involved. This would start the process of simply paying more attention to what is going on. The question asked was , since I already know there may be a problem and I am now in the proper state of mind to deal with it shouldn't this speed up my ability to deal with it? The answer is yes.....to an extent. What I am saying on this is that since you now have the heightened sense of awareness and believe that you may have trouble but you still do not know a few important things like how, when, or where things will go south. THIS is the point of the delay in reaction times. You can potentially speed up your response by training, and being in the correct mental state for the situation but no one is able to instantly react. The next thing that came up was dealing with the draw stroke and presentation of your sidearm. And probably the best way to explain this is to talk you through it. I would like you to try both of these examples and being honest with yourself tell me what you come up with. With an unloaded weapon, ammunition in another area, and no magazine in the weapon (if using a revolver double check the cylinder). 1) From the holster, quickly and smoothly draw your weapon, while focusing on a target, with no pause from the time you clear your holster to the point of presentation. Remember bringing your weapon into your line of sight and not your head down to the weapon. Also not taking your visual focus off your target during the draw stroke. 2) Same drill, from the holster with the same visual focus on your target. This time during your draw stroke try to quickly come out of the holster, from the draw to the point where your pistol in both hands in front of your chest (weapon level with the muzzle pointed at your target and your chest indexed to the target) and then slow the presentation (or point where you press the weapon out at your target) still bringing your weapon into your line of sight instead of your head down to the weapon. Tell me how long it takes to pick up your sights for each. The tough part of this drill is not to take your visual focus off the target/threat. The hint is this....in the first drill your eyes are locked on your target and you have now quickly introduced something else into your focal plain. In the second drill you are still bringing something into your focal plain, but allowing your eyes time to adjust to something else. The kicker of this drill is that with your body indexed to your target/threat as soon as you clear holster and have the weapon level at your chest (with your visual focus still on your threat) you can still effectively engage your threat at reasonable distances is needed anywhere from this ready position all the way out to full presentation. Now, with the weather staying warmer and folks getting out to their respective ranges on a regular basis try this at home and tell me how it worked out for you. If you are feeling really adventurous, put yourself under the clock....time your responses and scores. Call it homework if you will, and please let me know how things turn out. R |
|
That reminds me of something I used to do when I lived in Minnesota.
I would take my 1911, load up a magazine with snap caps, chamber one of them, & holster the weapon. Then I would pick something in the room, stare it down, draw, and pull the trigger. And since I had the mag loaded with snap caps, I would also take the opportunity to practice the "tap-rack-bang" drill. Then I would re cock the 1911, re-holster it & repeat the process until I was out of snap caps. And sometimes I would split up the snap caps into 2 mags so I could practice reloading under stress too, or at least as stressful as my imagination would allow. I didn't time any of my draws, but I instead simply concentrated on making my draw as smooth & fluid as possible. I haven't really had the chance to practice this since I moved back, but I do need to start again. |
|
Ok, kind of been some crappy weather lately (for getting out to the range anyway) but I am wondering if anyone has tried this and what your thoughts are on this drill, notice any difference? Better yet has anyone notice a change in times?
Next level of thought driven training that I have found referees to the startle reaction. If not familiar with the startle reaction, this would refer to the natural human response to being surprised. In short we pull our arms/legs back towards our body and contract our torso generally away from whatever has caused the noise/action/whatever. Imagine a human turtle. If anyone is not familiar with Tony Blauer, he is a defensive tactics instructor who has incorporated this into the techniques that he teaches. What Tony has done is basically taken centuries old martial arts techniques and basically incorporated them into the startle cycle of when we pull back into ourselves. Predominantly a technique called the spear. The spear technique is pulling both arms up to the face (your own) using the under portion of the forearms to block your opponents attacks to your head and neck. Basically when you pull your arms up you create what looks like a spear with your open palms facing out toward the attacker, your forearms and hands are used for wide blocks and your elbows bent to draw your blocking portion in to protect your head. I strongly agree with his thoughts of incorporating natural human reaction into practical technique, sort of a way of using something that we can not control into something practical and focused into something useful. Possibly allowing us time to process what is going on, at the same time providing protection. My end goal of this months topic is looking to incorporate this into something that can apply to carrying a sidearm or long gun and deployment of these tools when needed for our self defense. The concept of the startle response is interesting because, as I earlier brought up the natural human reaction to being surprised is to pull back into ourselves to protect the head and body. We have all seen this when we scared someone. Since Mr. Blauer has been able to incorporate a defensive move (blocking) into this, I am looking to start to incorporate something along these lines for our gun carrying students so they can adapt to this as well, along the lines of the draw stroke. At the very least the clearance of whatever clothing (coat, shirt, etc.) and acquisition of your sidearm (hand locating your holstered pistol or revolver). How does this play into those quarter and half seconds we have been talking about earlier? Well, remember these are things we have little if any control over, but they can and will add up, and if not kept to a minimum can and will most probably bite us in the butt. We also have little if any control over our attacker up until the moment of truth (the attack). All this, dealing with a serious adrenalin dump and any environmental obstacles can put the serious hurt on our ability to defend ourselves. What we do have control over is understanding how our bodies naturally react under stress, how our brains processes information, and how to either make these things work for us or incorporate our natural reactions into things like the draw stroke. We are quite a bit beyond talking about normal techniques, and in my opinion starting to get to the bottom of why we do things a certain way. Another way of looking at this is that the more we understand how this all works makes it not so terrifying when we experience it in real life. Anyway, thanks for letting me go on. At times I like to get a bit deeper than getting off the X, or fade away drawing techniques. I hope this has helped explain the way I view some things about training and my position on why we do or at least should be doing things a certain way. R |
|
What about adding the step off the X from Marc Denny's "die less often"?
It's my goto GOTX move. Combine that with your spear and then you can either draw or address a physical threat if it's already broken your 21' sphere, or just go back on your marry way with people thinking you have turrets 
Disclaimer: I'm no expert. Jack of all, Ace of none is my motto. |
|
Quoted:
What about adding the step off the X from Marc Denny's "die less often"? It's my goto GOTX move. Combine that with your spear and then you can either draw or address a physical threat if it's already broken your 21' sphere, or just go back on your marry way with people thinking you have turrets
Disclaimer: I'm no expert. Jack of all, Ace of none is my motto. Hey Jesse, I am probably not doing the best at explaining it, but yes......that is what I am getting at. When we do the natrual human reaction to being startled, we tend to pull our hands and arms back in protection mode, kind of the set up to the draw stroke. And GOTX plays well into this. R |